Do You like book How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: The Fatal Errors That Led To Nazi Defeat (2001)?
Overall, this wasn't a bad read, but it was titled incorrectly. Yes, Egypt was open for the taking in the early stages of 1942 and possibly 43, but with Hitler not committing enough troops to take Egypt, the Middle East would just be a pipe-dream. If Hitler would have thrown enough troops for Rommel to capture the oilfields of the Iran and Iraq, they would still have to hold them. To think England would wither and die without those countries is hardly feasible. The British Fleet would pull out and become a very formidable force in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans instead of being dispersed everywhere. In fact, that is one area Mr. Alexander keeps referring to through the book as the downfall of Hitler in spreading his forces thin. Hitler was going to invade Russia no matter what other countries he conquered. That was his main goal the whole time. He never forgave the communists he battled in the streets of Germany for control of the country. To think he had any other aims is not to know "his" history and beliefs. If Hitler would have made one concentrated strike at Moscow, Leningrad or the Ukraine, he would have still been required to consolidate the gains. That would prove impossible with his missions of destroying every living Russian. Seriously, the partisan bans that lived in the Pripet Marshes numbered over 100,000 and with the SS continuing with the policy of killing all "sub-humans" the populace would never succumb to Hitler or Nazi Germany. If a central thrust would have been set upon, the flanks would have been long and vulnerable to harrying attacks at any point.One reviewer talked about factual errors. I concur. One that jumped out wi Tigers were not equipped with a machine gun which killed the northern pincer attack during the Battle of Kursk. It was the Ferdinand or as others called it the Elephant that was not equipped with a machine gun making it very vulnerable to infantry attacks. Many were knocked out by infantry and anti-tank guns as the monsters passed-by with no accompanying infantry support. This would be a fair book to provide novice readers and be introduced to WWII in Europe.
—Jeff Dawson
Warning: If you read a lot of WW2 history be prepared to be annoyed by this book. While what ifs are fun to talk about among friends this book goes to show that they do not translate into strong, or even interesting historical work. Not that I totally hated this book but the author talks so authoritatively about what would have happened if blank, as if events are so linear that it could be that clear what the outcome of any of these changes would have been. Most what if scenarios and alternate histories have this problem where the event they are talking about begins as something very complex, but all of the hypotheticals that follow are presented in a vacuum. Most of his convincing contentions were the totally obvious ones like Hitler shouldn't have attacked Russia, duh. I was pretty excited to read this guys book about Robert E. Lee but now I am less so. His arguments in this are not all that convincing or deeply thought out and sometimes his analysis borders on bad. The best thing I gained out of it was being able to sit back and tear the hell out of his conclusions with my own what ifs. I don't want to blame him too much, suffice to say that writing about what ifs does not make a strong book, ask harry turtledove who has written dozens of terrible novels with similar problems.
—Dr.
I know. The title has raised a few eyebrows. Alexander is not pro-Nazi. His book is a well-written, easy-to-follow history of the war between the allied and axis powers with expert commentary by a military analyst. Bevin Alexander points out the errors made by both sides during the war in addition to the fascinating examination of the strategical flaws in Hitler's battle plan. So many times, the German generals were poised to take the army to total victory but then the Austrian corporal would change the battle plan. And a good thing he did, for the free world of today wouldn't exist if he hadn't proven to be a ruthless, fanatical, and irrational dictator.
—Les Wolf
