|
There was an air attack, but Patton never ran out and shot at the planes, as depicted in the movie, and now written as fact in this book. For verification of my point, I reference Chet Hanson, aide to General Omar Bradley, who clearly debunks this scene as something that never happened. The MOVIE depicts Patton running out of his office and firing his pistol at the strafing German planes. This is the crux of my reservation about this frequently lauded book: If this glaring inaccuracy is portrayed as fact, then it calls into question the accuracy of the work in general. However, it is unreferenced (because it did not happen that way). Atkinson certainly has a strong command of the language, and he paints a complex picture.
The scene, depicted in the movie, has Patton's meeting with Sir Arthur Coningham marred by the attack of German planes. He clearly states this in the documentary "History Through The Lens: Patton-A Rebel Revisited." I take General Bradley's aide as a credible reference on this matter, since he was present when the incident is alleged to have occurred. However, there is a factual inaccuracy in this book that I find unacceptable, and frankly, troubling. "An Army at Dawn" even includes movie dialogue as if it really occurred. That is especially important to consider since this book clearly advances a particular viewpoint that one might describe as "unflattering" toward long-respected American generals. On page 460 at the bottom of the third paragraph, he describes what was a fictional scene written for the movie "Patton" as if it really happened.
Atkinson describes this scene in his book as fact.
As an example, consider General Eisenhower. The author covers Torch, the campaign to liberate North Africa, with much detail. Little is said about the actual intelligence picture the US had of the Axis. There is much detail that is interesting and it is possible to recommend the book as a supplement to a more comprehensive account.
Considering the size of that accomplishment and the nature of the charges the author makes about Eisenhower, a somewhat fuller analysis would be fairer. It is much the same for many of the other players (most readers will probably be less familiar with these).Naturally, it is also important to note that the style is fairly fast paced. The text does note Roosevelt's question to Eisenhower about when he will finish and at the end does admit that the mission is accomplished by the date Eisenhower estimated. Toward the end there is a bit of reflection that is slightly more positive, but isn't it more honest to either omit sordid accusations or present some authoritative resolution of all of them.
Until near the end only the most fragmentary treatment of the air picture is given. The impression given is of a person with great weaknesses, but without very much that would suggest that he might actually be a successful commander. The choice of detail is selective. One hears much about his misgivings, his doubts, his lack of forcefulness and even about his relations with his secretary.
One hardly sees any of them in a fair context. Little is given about the related problems faced by the Navy in supporting the operation (of particular note is exposure of the surface fleet to submarines, without really any discussion of ASW). A broad picture of the general goals of Torch and the plan for their accomplishment is absent near the beginning (i.e., it is not clear from the text how far Torch was a mere hunch and how far it was planned).Much of the text concentrates on personalities, rivalries and it succeeds fairly well in diminishing the reputations of many.
I found that it was truly necessary to look up these words in order to appreciate the nuances he was trying to articulate. I need not mention all of the other accolades already applied by so many others. As I got into this book and continued into the second book of the trilogy I was forced to purchase a newer 500,000 word dictionary. The big "BUT" however, is the author's inclination to flaunt his overwhelming command of the English language.
I purchased this book after reading a considerable spectrum of the reviews. Obviously, the variable interruptions seriously disrupted the flow of many an exciting passage. I found his overuse of archaic words a major distraction for me. I really liked this book because Atkinson includes instructive, and sometimes amusing, details, minutiae, and facts.
Before reading this book I used a 300,000 word electronic dictionary to supplement my limited vocabulary. By the way, he did manage, on one occasion, to stump my new dictionary. After all is presented, often he intermingles his impressions and interpretations of what was "probably" the truth. Suffice it to say that I agree with them.
Basically all I can remember is the vast ineptitude on all sides and the horrific deaths of the soldiers who were innocent of the politics that put them directly in harm's way.Logistics played an important role. Subtitled "The War in North Africa, 1942-1943, this book chronicles those awful days, when the a rush of draftees after Pearl Harbor were sent to their first battles in this far off place. This book won a 2003 Pulitzer Prize and I can well understand why.
It enriched my understanding of a time and a place and a long ago war. Bravo to the author for making it all so real. Also, I got a sense of the generals and leaders whose names are fading from public knowledge but are familiar to students of history.This is a fine book. The research by the author was fantastic and new material was brought to light which could never have been mentioned years ago.
It was a hard book to read and it took me more than six months to finish it, sometimes reading no more than a paragraph or two at a time. North Africa was a training ground for allied troops and it wound up in a victory but at a very high cost. It was a time when the Vichy French were fighting on the Nazi's side, a time when General Eisenhower was yet to be tested and a time when the Americans and the British seemed like competitors rather than allies. I had never thought about it before, but it takes a lot of work to transport thousands of troops as well as food, guns, planes and all the accouterments necessary for a war.
And it gave me an understanding of war that I never had before. It's comprehensive, it's dense, and it's very real, pulling no punches about the mistakes and petty rivalry that needlessly cost thousands of lives. It's not pretty; but it's real.
I would probably buy whatever book either Atkinson or Shaara come up with next. I admit that anyone who reads both books may be a little strange, but with Rommel, Patton and MOntgomery all together on one stage, the play is interesting. Rick Atkinson's book is different from Jeff Shaara's version of the North Africa story in that Atkinson's book uses a broader range of characters than Shaara's.But hasving reaad Shaara's first, I find it prepared me well for a story that was a little broader.Candidly, both books paid too much attention to the rotten French leadership in North africa at the time. Their dithering generated much more heat than light.
|
