The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War [Paperback]

An excellent, well balanced history of the Second World War. Roberts writes extremely well and has a gift for expressing himself concisely, which is just as well considering the scale of his subject. It's not a `new' history in the sense of making any fresh revelations, the few paragraphs drawn from previously unpublished material are interesting but mostly not of great significance, confirming what has been appearing in other recent work. The book is, rather, a welcome new history of the war written in light of the excellent scholarship that has been carried out in recent years. Roberts is much more comfortable with the major issues than with the minor details of how the war was fought, and it is a pity that the publishers did not include a military specialist amongst those checking the drafts. That would have saved Roberts from some pretty basic errors. `Hull-down' does not mean that a tank has its hull pointing down (why would you do that??) it means that the hull is hidden by the terrain or by some other protection while the turret is exposed. The western allies were not so much short of the small landing craft that Roberts describes but of the larger craft - Landing Ship Tanks (LSTs) particularly. The Panzerfaust was not "an anti-tank gun very accurate at short range" but an early RPG.
Does this sort of thing matter? Well, yes, in that if you don't know what you're talking about it is better to either write nothing or to check, which in these instances could easily have been done without going further than Wikipedia. The Panzerfaust was so devastating precisely because it was not a `gun' - that's why it could be mass-produced cheaply and in vast quantities to be effectively used by personnel with little training. It wasn't accurate at all - but at the range at which it was effective the target would have loomed so large that accuracy was not needed. Correctness in detail of this kind matters too in that if you know a little bit about the subject and discover obvious errors as you read, you naturally wonder about the reliability of research that has led to conclusions in the wider, more important areas that you perhaps do not know about. You lose some trust in the writer.
I feel mean in citing these small errors in what overall is a fine book, but there were other mistakes indicating a less than full mastery of his subject at this level of detail. It's worth noting that Max Hastings and Antony Beevor don't make mistakes like this. I would therefore argue with The Economist's view that Roberts is 'Britain's finest military historian', but not with the fact that he's damned good.

I'm not a great fan of the author's political views, and I approached this with a degree of scepticism, but I was quickly won over by an engaging writing style allied to a keen eye for detail.It is a great 'refresher' book, reminding me of details once read but then forgotten, and is a festschrift in combining information from a number of reputable source authors. Where it scores is in producing the occasional juicy nuggets that are new to me and which have habitually slipped under the radar, such as the response of the French to German occupation, the levels of accomodation with and opposition to the invader, and the paying of rescuing mariners for their services at Dunkirk. He comments wryly on the absence of the great bulk of the Rye fishing fleet during the Dunkirk evacuation, for example. He also shoots down some old canards, such as the supposed attack of Polish lancers against German tanks, as the product of propaganda. While much is familiar (inevitably, given the existing volume of writing on the subject) there is sufficient new material to justify the title of the book as being a new history, and not simply a rehash.As a work it earns its place on the shelf amongst the better accounts of this terrible period.
The book would appeal to more general readers with an interest in the period, as his style is to approach the unravelling tale of the war in the manner of a thriller writer; he returns regularly to the unpredictability of some of the outcomes at given points of the conflict, and raises some interesting 'what if' scenarios that help to keep it fresh. While I would still take issue with his take on certain events and key players in the war, I would have no hesitation in recommending this book. It is a rattling good read!

I entirely agree with the 'expected better' review. I am a fan of Andrew Roberts and came to this having just read the more impressive 'Masters and Commanders' - notable for a portrayal of Marshall in some detail, not often found in British books. The elementary error with the Manchester is only one of several similar errors and pieces of irrelevant information that irritate. In a one volume general history, does the P-51H's maximum speed matter? No - not least because it wasn't flown in anger in the war. What are the mysterious "Northrops and Curtiss-Wrights" whose deliveries were diverted to Britain? The closest are Douglas DB-7s (Bostons and Havocs to us) and P-36s, which the RAF never used in the front line anyway (and so were of no significance). And no-one with Stephen Bungay in his biography should be alleging that the Spitfire was less sturdy than the Hurricane. P-39s playing a leading role in defending Moscow? Hardly. If you want the best single-volume history of WW2, then even 35 years on you must still head for Calvocoressi, Wint and Pritchard. This one is in the chasing pack and doesn't distinguish itself from the competition.