The Battle for the Rhine

The Battle of the Bulge and the Ardennes Campaign, 1944

By: Robin Neillands

Narrated by: James Adams

The post-Normandy battles that the Allies fought as they struggled for seven months to advance from the Seine to the Rhine were complex and controversial. Even after 60 years, the questions remain of who was responsible for the failure at Nijmegen, the destruction of the British First Airborne Division at Arnhem, and the failure of Operation Market Garden. Could the war in Europe have been won in 1944 with better strategies?

Historian Robin Neillands gets to the truth of what really happened. He examines the often difficult relationships between the Allied generals and the nature of Eisenhower's exercise of his role as Supreme Commander. With superb battle narratives throughout and clear analysis of success and failure at every point, the author casts a new and informed light on the long-drawn-out and costly struggle for the Rhine.

©2005 Robin Neillands (P)2005 Blackstone Audio, Inc.

Critic reviews

"Thoroughly researched...Neillands's volume has a place in any collection serving World War II history students and buffs." ( Booklist)

Allies Lost WWII

This book wasn’t for you, but who do you think might enjoy it more?

According to the author the Brits save the day for the Allies or they should have!

Would you ever listen to anything by Robin Neillands again?

The narrator did a find job one of the few English spoke narrators who was ease to listen to.

Have you listened to any of James Adams’s other performances before? How does this one compare?

no

You didn’t love this book... but did it have any redeeming qualities?

Did presented critical of American Army actions with much true. ie Pattons disasterous attempt to rescue his POW son in law. But the way the arguement was woven reminds of lawyers defense arguments. Took a lot to sit throught the "stoey telling"

Detailed Bias

Having read many historical books about wars (Tuchman, Ambrose, Davies, to name a few authors) I have to comment that while the details of offensives were quite enjoyable, I found the haranging and complaining throughout to be tiresome and weary.

The author has chosen this book to defend Montgomery, attack Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley and to explain multiple times that the US was not the only army that fought on the Allied side in WWII. His tone is whiny and grating.

I did enjoy the detailed insight into the Market Garden, Antwerp and Scheldt offenses and the forest east of Achen quite interesting.

I love military history without all the undertones of bitterness.

Hyper-critical for what?

It is really difficult to condemn the actions that lead to victory, but this author does nothing but in this disappointing book. While he grudgingly admits that dear "Monty" was difficult to get along with, the author is certain, like many other armchair generals in Great Britain that he should have been given command of the European Theatre in WWII. How do you spell Market Garden -- the mistaken strategy that wasted precious lives and time? His extensive criticism of Eisenhower, who held it all together and made it work in the ETO is tiresome and his research work was hardly extensive. He took bit after bit out of context to make his point from a limited number of authors. The fact remains unassailable that American generals won the war that the British could not even fight alone. Spotty research and bizarre chauvinism make this book far less about the Battle of the Bulge than a pro-Montgomery diatribe.

How the Brit’s won WWII singlehanded.

This work tells how the Americans nearly cost the victory over Germany and the Brits could have won faster and better all alone. Perhaps if Neillands had spent a few years speaking German after losing the war he would have a different attitude.

A blatantly biased viewpoint

While I agree that many books about World War 2 written from an American viewpoint are biased, this one takes the cake on the British side. Field Marshal Montgomery certainly was one of the great leaders of the war, but this book goes out of its way to defend him and belittle the Americans. In the main, it's an enjoyable listen. But when the author launches into one of his defensive rants, then I just had to tune out. Monty needs no defense, and Eisenhower and the other American commanders certainly are undeserving of the harsh criticism leveled by the author.

Interesting perspective

Though I did get tired of hearing the slanted view of events from the British perspective, the book was an excellent review of the events from the break out of Normandy through to the allies crossing the Rhine. The book goes into great detail the leadership decisions made by the allied generals and the bitterness between Montgomery and some of the American generals.

Pro-British view of WWII

Is American history of WWII so pro-USA? I found it rather annoying, but I suppose it goes both ways. I can't say it was refreshing, but it was enlightening.

The Battle for the Whine

The author makes the case that, if everyone just listen to Montgomery, the war would have been won much sooner. Not! The tone of the entire book is a whine. I found no new facts only subjective sneers to Eisenhower, Bradly, Patton and on and on. Yawn; very snoring.

A Decent alternative

Where does The Battle for the Rhine rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

At the top

What did you like best about this story?

An alternative to what we've heard do far about this event. The An alternative to what we've heard do far about this event. The

What about James Adams’s performance did you like?

Understandable.and easy to listen to.

A Load of Rubbish

Would you ever listen to anything by Robin Neillands again?

No

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

Disgust

Any additional comments?

At least I now know that operation Market Garden failed because of the Americans and yet poor Monty got all the blame. This is a terrible accounting that ignores or distorts many documented facts.