At the beginning of April 1941 Rommel crossed the border from Tripolitania into Cyrenaica both provinces of Libya , and not, of course, the Egyptian border page 105. He was very lucky in his youth to have made smart decisions and was seen by his peers as a fighting officer. Thousands of men died more than once to send the right message. Following him later to Europe. To sum up my impression, the three generals had egos too big for one world, and this fault was also the characteristic that brought them their military success.
The author creates a sense that these are three very special generals. All seem to have had excellent military minds. Crazy, egotistical, selfish, which often overshadowed his clear view of the larger strategic picture. But the centerpiece is the interactions among them in the Second World War. Theirs was a very personal contest: the clash of mighty armies perceived as a bout between three men. The book traces the backgrounds of each of the three generals, including their experience during World War I and in the inter-war period.
The author uses a parallel narrative starting from their childhood and builds it up. The book could have been about the struggle between the British and American leadership and it would have been complete. Rommel, a genius who fought gallantly with the little support but his loyalty to Hitler will always give me black marks in history. Here are some of the lessons that I learned from each: Patton: There are times when leadership demands great exertion and assertiveness that will demand much of ourselves and our team members. It's most brutal toward Montgomery, and most forgiving of Patton. On the positive side, the book is well written, moves along albeit in grinding detail, and provides the reader with a good understanding of the military challenges, interpersonal relationships, leadership sty This is one of those books that you read because it's good information and makes you a more well rounded person like brain medicine. Masters Of Battle presents the Second World War as it was experienced by its three most flamboyant, controversial and influential commanders.
This book addresses those questions, but does not answer them completely. I do not know much about the three subjects of the book, other then what I know from watching Patton, so the book was quite interesting, however I do have a concern regarding it. This vivid and extraordinarily detailed account of the charge and the bloody m l e that followed,. He would ignore orders when he deemed it necessary to get the job done, to hell with the politics. All three were arrogant publicity seeking and personally flawed, yet with a genius for the command of men and an unrivalled enthusiasm for combat. Lieutenant General Patton a profane, intelligent, and audacious soldier.
Each man had tremendous will power, charisma and carried a particular mystique. Montgomery, especially, seemed to think of Monty first everytime. All seemed to be self-absorbed, to verying degrees. He pissed off many of his fellow 'allies' so much that they went on to sue him. Was Monty's dogged publicity-seeking driven by his own need for recognition or by his desire to claim for Britain a leadership role in postwar global order? All three were arrogant publicity seeking and personally flawed, yet with a genius for the command of men and an unrivalled enthusiasm for combat.
For many years Terry Brighton has sourced and worked with unique survivor's accounts of this battle. The person was correct - I learned a lot. I was involved in anti-Vietnam War protests and as God was with the radicals back then, I studied theology at Birmingham University and was ordained an Anglican priest. This book talked about how the assassination attempt against Hitler was planned by generals like Erwin Rommel, even though they were under Hitler's command. As human beings, they failed miserably.
More interesting--the jousting is also within an alliance, with Montgomery and Patton not on the best of terms. But the explosive passions of their relationships with each other and with their political masters rivalled the yrotechnics of their tank battles in determining the conduct and outcome of the war. That sort of statement made me question the veracity of some other areas he describes that I had less background reading to validate against. Through the mutual respect of the arch-enemies Monty and Rommel, and the mutual animosity of the allies Monty and Patton, Masters of Battle presents the Second World War as it was experienced by its three most flamboyant, controversial and influential commanders. There is very little in the way of battle tactics, deployment of forces, etc. Todos os produtos estão sujeitos a alteração de preço sem prévia comunicação.
What made them stand apart from their contemporaries? E A comparative biography of Rommel, Montgomery, and Patton, although it might have been better titled Montgomery and two other guys, since Montgomery, by far gets the most coverage. All three were ruthless in sending men to their deaths; sometimes Monty did this for the weird reason to prove his argument right or to prevent Patton from achieving a certain victory. . In the end, Monty comes off as the least likable, but then both Rommel and Patton died much earlier -- Rommel during the war and Patton during post-war cleanup. As a personal figure, I found very little to admire about him. The book has many sliding door moments.