The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944 (The Liberation Trilogy, 2)

Mr. Atkinson's latest book picks up where An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943, Volume One of the Liberation Trilogy (The Liberation Trilogy) (Mr. Atkinson's book on the US entry into the war in Europe) left off. As with An Army at Dawn, this is study at all levels of American (and British) operations in 1943 and early 1944. I say at all levels because Mr. Atkinson tells us about the political and strategic fight between the western allies (Russia is discussed, but only from the sense of Winston Churchill thinking about his discussions with Stalin), the operational planning that goes into the invasions (Sicily, Operation Baytown, Salerno, and Anzio) , the major battles, and the efforts of some of the warriors in the field. Together this makes an excellent blend to describe the Grand Tactical situation the allies faced in Italy and Sicily. Captivating parts include the descriptions of the different generals (allied and German), how they reacted to the situation, and different key warriors (I do wish though that he'd given us more on Frederick, leader of the 1st Special Service Force [the "Devils Brigade"]). Rating wise this is a solid 4.5 star book. As with An Army at Dawn, Mr. Atkinson has presented an excellent overview of the allied operations in the Mediterranean (Sicily and Italy) in 1943 and 1944. Despite this, I have to round down to a 4 star book. Why, for openers I'd love to see more maps! Every time we have an operation/battle there should be a map that lets us see the lay of the battlefield and what the forces are attempting to do/did. Second, I feel Mr. Atkinson failed to provide a good description of operations in Sicily. He discussed the airborne portion (fair details), the landings, and some of the initial components of operations on the island. However he was weak in presenting the allied operations after the initial landings and inland strikes and totally failed to present the German withdrawal and their operations to delay the allies. My third dislike in the book were the periodic sidebar issues (two examples are the Jews in Italy and the preparations for Mark Clarks birthday [critical I guess from the point of showing us that Mark Clark also was a prim Dona, worthy is a different question though]). The last part that weakened the book for me was his failure to summarize the different generals and to provide us more from ranks. While the descriptions of many of the participants were excellent, some generals received very mixed reviews (Alexander and Clark are the best examples). Was this because of mixed performances by the generals, or because Mr. Atkinson wasn't sure how to summarize these men? Also I missed some of the narrative Mr. Atkinson provided us on future war leaders in An Army at Dawn. Despite these "weaknesses", The Day of Battle is excellent and well deserving of 4 stars (really 4.5). If you've read An Army at Dawn, this is a must read!

Rick Atkinson's "The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944" is a masterpiece of military history that should be read by anyone with any interest in World War II or American military history. Following on the heels of his Pulitzer Prize-winning "An Army at Dawn," this is the second work in Atkinson's "Liberation Trilogy" and deserving of yet another Pulitzer Prize. This book is awash in details about the difficult - and often forgotten - fighting in the Mediterranean Theater, but it also clearly and effectively describes the bigger picture of the war in Sicily and Italy. Two things will immediately strike the reader about this book: the detail with which Atkinson describes the fighting, and the dazzling prose that he uses to tell this story. Atkinson describes the personalities and details of the main characters in the story - the leaders, from Eisenhower to Kesselring to Patton to Mark Clark to - and also gives telling glimpses of the personal lives of the "grunts" who did the fighting on the ground. His emphasis on detail knows no bounds, as he describes Churchill's meals, the furnishings in Mark Clark's office, and the "Anzio Ritz" - the underground cinema at the Anzio beachhead that showed movies to the soldier's at the world's largest self-sufficient POW camp. For many authors, these details would detract from the story, but through Atkinson's incredible writing, these details instead add life, character, and flavor to this story. He captures the frustrations and difficulties of preparing and leading these forces, such as when he says that "for reasons known only at echelons above reason" a typical convoy required more than six thousand pages of names. My only complaint or criticism is that, in his effort to weave a seamless narrative, some of the militarily-significant details - the exact unit's designation, the exact date and time, the number of casualties - are omitted. That prevents this book from being a definitive source on the fighting in Sicily and Italy and means that anyone trying to do research on these campaigns needs to look elsewhere. But despite that extremely minor criticism, this book stands head and shoulders above most other military histories. I've waited for this book for over three years, since reading "An Army at Dawn," and it was well worth the wait. I am already anxiously awaiting Rick Atkinson's concluding work in the "Liberation Trilogy."

Atkinson is a good writer and he tries to accomplish much here in 600 pages. He is trying to describe in good authoritative narrative style the causes, courses and consequences of the Italian campaign. It is a worthy ideal, but, given the nature and scope of the campaign, almost doomed before from the start. But Atkinson does write well enough and on engendering sheer excitement he passes very admirably. What this book is about: This is primarily an American description of the campaign in Italy. He does an great job of rendering the reality of some of these men who are larger than life and (much to Atkinson's credit) all flawed. From the odious Patton to aloof Alexander, British and American, NewZealander, Canadian and French Commanders all come up for their very necessary critical analysis. I liked this very much. Atkinson destroyed a few of my heroes (Terry Alan, General Alexander), chipped a few down a block (Churchill and Eisenhower). And shreds a few all to pieces -- Patton, Dawley. Some are flawed but tragic, Lucas (Anzio beachhead commander) and Walker (Texas Div Commander), and Freyberg, the crusty and incorrigable New Zealand Commander. For better or worse there are almost no military commanders who survive being anything else than tragic -- in that sense they are complete mirrors of this campaign. Atkinson also describes the folley of waging war without specific objectives. It is clear that at almost any part of the campaign, there were no solid objectives: the first objective was to be Sicily, if that went well, according to the judgement of the theatre commander, they were to have a go at the boot of Italy. Then Salerno and then Anzio and the creep up and battle at the Gustav Line. Plans were haphazard at best. At no point was any commander endeared with forsight,tactical or strategic genius. When resistance was encountered, it was addressed with frontal assault and heavy artillery in much the same way as WWI. And the Allied grunts and many Italians sufferred. What the book is not about: Atkinson has an American feel to his writing and is best at home when he describes American unit action (in which he weighs the narrative). It is clear that the British Commonwealth regimental sctructure is not his forte. He refers to British regiments in ways that are not normally used and he he rarely uses the British shorthand terms. While he refers to Americans and there hometowns by state, Brits are just Brits. Indian division officers are quoted -- they are not however Indians, they are British officers attached to the Indian Divisions. How were these divisions structured? What makes the fact a person is attached to the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada is part of a regiment and not a division that defines him? What and how were the Poles integrated into the British Commonwealth Armies? All of this is a rich narrative that most Americans find confusing and have traditionally little understood. It does however go to the heart of the British way of war. Having said this he almost pulls off a good overview of both sides in a balanced fashion at times. But while there is good description of the American Battle at Triona in Sicily, there is virtually nothing about the British battle at Catania -- which consumed many more troops and casualties. Nothing of the War north of Rome. This is the nub of the matter. In overall terms of troops deployed and casualities taken, the Commonwealth forces contributed more men and took more casualties than their American cousins. This should not detract from this book as a great read. It should encourage American readers to move beyond their often rather narrow interpretation of WWII. I should note in tribute to Atkinson, that he does included a 10 page segment -- and even an map!! -- on the pointless and particularly brutal battle of the Canadians at Ortona. There are other things that should be included: there is nothing on the use of airpower or history of the Air Forces in this sector (ditto for the Navy). There is also an annoying use of contemporary terms such as "parse" which Atkinson seems to use to mean everything from "to sort" or "arrange" to also mean "separate." Also using the contemporary term "tube" to describe any artillery piece does little for understanding the discrepancy between allied and German artillery power and usage. As mentioned by another review Nebelwerfers were rocket launchers, not mortars. The book does give and excellent idea of the tragedy of this campaign, the personalities and the parts they played. The tragedy comes from the fact that not only do we know ex post facto that these men will be thrown into many hopeless battles, but that their commanders on the ground at the time also knew. A magnificent book that pleases warts and all... maybe being flawed is an essential element to great narrative.

i had little hope for this as I could not imagine anyone with a pedigree including the Washington Post writing anything objective but Mr. Atkinson did. This is a truly monumental effort. I've read quite a # of WWII books and they all have something to offer, and many are far superior to this as far as their story but to write a massive missive like this, well documented, with one hell of a vocabulary as well (polders?)....well, kudos to Mr. Atkinson and a moment of reverent silence to the millions of military and civilian dead who went into its writing. A few minor quibbles; there's almost nothing in there at all about Norway, nothing about the eastern front, and little about things like the Jedburgh's, but those can be filled in by other books, and for anyone wanting a comprehensive look at the war 50 years later, this is as good as I can imagine. I got a little annoyed with his treatment of patton early on, but the more I read it the more I realize it was probably pretty balanced and Patton was truly a bizarre hero. He tended to buff Mark Clark a bit, who by many other accounts was an absolutely inept soldier, and I truly enjoyed the way he introduced little known other generals - Devers, Buckner, Slim - to the reader. Also, without knowing which side of the coin he was on, he managed to get across that Montgomery was a blithering foppish fool, and that DeGaulle was perhaps the most nauseating leader in the entire morass with his timely return and idiotic and unsubstantiated demands. My own take was that Roosevelt and Eisenhower were not quite the geniuses we've been lead to believe they are, especially with some of the events that occurred in the east toward the end of the war with British and US prisoners being basically sold out to the Russians, but I was also disappointed to realize that my hero Churchill was a great leader, and a great soldier, but a bit more of a military klutz than I'd ever realized - a great leader of his nation but a meddler and perhaps the Dardanelles wasn't entirely a one off mistake on his part; he had great missteps in Italy and Western Europe as well. What came across was the gallantry and the fallibility of all of these men in various ways. But it is all in the books, and they are superbly written, with excellent gripping syntax, just enough varied style to keep you riveted, and a great balance between the battles, the logistics, the great men, and the little people who make up war history. Some of the personal recollections and personal histories were the most moving in the entire series.

A well researched and written history of the Italian campaign of WWII . Providing insights from the American generals, British generals and their blunders and wins as well as the enlisted men who fought and died in Italy. The author also intertwined the German generals and their plans to stop American and British advances in Italy. Well Done .

When you look at the thickness of this book, it can be a little intimidating. However, 1/4 of it is endnotes and the other 3/4 goes by very quickly due to the excellent stories and details provided by the author. This book was such an interesting read that it was, at times, hard to put down. Kudos to the author for the research and information provided on the phase of the war that did not get too much attention. Prior to reading the first two books, there was an aura or mythology about General Patton, Eisenhower, and Montgomery. But after reading the first two books, it was very disappointing how these generals handled themselves during the war. Tactically, all three had to be the most incapable leaders of adapting and changing strategy on the enemy. As a former military officer, it was always engrained in our head to make sure we took care of the troops and looked out for their well being. But one thing is for sure, these 3 would be the poster child for what not to do as military generals. For example, the landings in North Africa were such a fiasco that it was an embarrassment to the Army. You would think that Patton's after action reporting would provide him with the knowledge necessary to make strategic adjustments on the landing in Sicily. But he was so hard headed that he failed to "look out for the troops" and made the same mistakes on the Sicily landings. Overall, the generals were like a bunch of divas. They did not care how many men died fighting, but more about getting from point A to point B first and take all the glory. The infighting to with the Americans and the British caused more people to lose their lives than necessary. The cherry on top of the cake was how Patton was given the privilege of assisting with the landing in Normandy. Eisenhower was notorious for being a better politician and getting people to follow rather than a general who was strong on tactics and making the right adjustments on the battlefield The General Clark fiasco was another example of the hypocrisy that occurs in the upper ranks. If a LT or Capt. disobeyed a lawful order, they would be relieved and most likely subject to UCMJ articles. Gen Clark blatantly disobeyed an order from the Allied commander because he wanted the glory of the first general to make it to Rome before the British did. He did not suffer any consequences and went down in history as one of the most controversial fighting generals in history. General Clark should thank the French general (Juin) for saving his butt. If it was not for the French and their colonial fighters, the Allies would never have broken the German lines and made it to Rome. But Juin found a way to screw it up by allowing his troops to commit rapes and murders on the Italian women without repercussions. He actually enabled it and had a laissez faire attitude. Once again, great book just like the first volume. Highly recommend to those who would like the details as to what happened in Italy during WWII.

Long and drawn out but very detailed account of the battle for Italy, gruesome and stirring about a desperate slugging match between German and Allies in WW II

This is volume two of Atkinson's fine history of World War Two. Like the first volume, it is very well written with a sharp eye for detail. An immense amount of research is presented in excellent prose with an artistic flair for the human story. The Italian campaign is rather depressing and one wonders if it was necessary although, as Atkinson points out, the Allies could not have spent the ten months between the victory in Sicily and Overlord resting. Stalin would not have tolerated this interlude and Hitler would have benefited, although perhaps not as much as the Allies believed. General Mark Clark was one of Marshall's two favorite subordinates, along with Eisenhower. He completely skipped the rank of colonel and was one of the youngest three star generals in the history of the army. Clark succeed to command when Eisenhower and Montgomery left for England to plan the Normandy invasion. This book shows his weaknesses as a commander. He hated the British and constantly resented the role of Alexander, the commander in chief for the Mediterranean Theater. The campaign involved two amphibious landings, Salerno and Anzio. The lessons learned may have been the best reason for the invasion of Italy. The campaign was always underpowered in men and ships. The Allies dominated in the air but the weather was terrible most of the time. Kesselring, the German commander, made the most of terrain best suited for defense. Churchill's enthusiasm for the "soft underbelly" of Europe was especially misplaced in Italy. The only soft underbelly was in France, the site of Anvil, an operation Churchill determinedly opposed. Atlkinson uses men's diaries and personal stories to advance his narrative. Some of it is heartbreaking when the diarists and letter writers do not survive. It is the most personal and revealing war history I have read and is similar to some of the best writing about the US Civil War. It is not really a story of triumph and more of survival. The campaign was conducted through a wet and cold Italian winter. The capture of Rome, at last, occurred the day before the Normandy invasion so Clark was denied the great publicity he sought. The book is a well written and very well researched story of a dreary and depressing campaign. All in all, it is well worth reading for those who want to know about the Italian campaign, which is a far less common topic for World War II history.

E' un libro semplicemente magnifico.

An excellent read of the lesser known theatre in WW2. Rick Atkinson brings to life the hardships suffered by both sides in the Sicilian and Italian campaigns. His skill is to provide wonderful narrative which encapsulates both the strategic essence of the campaigns as well as the humanity found in the individual soldier from general to private. Highly recommended!

Having read the first in the author’s trilogy I was really looking forward to this second book. I was certainly not disappointed. The reader is presented with a detailed account covering all aspects of the campaigns in Sicily and Italy, from the experiences of the front line participants to the political and nationalist machinations of the senior commanders and their political masters. The detailed accounts of combat operations are both riveting and at the same time harrowing. We are introduced to participants and come to know them as they cope with the hell that was thrust upon them and for my part there was genuine shock and sadness when individuals made the ultimate sacrifice. This is a well written and engrossing story highly recommended for the general reader and those with an interest in the Second World War. It stands as a fitting tribute to all those who fought for the cause of freedom.

Very nicely packed book with no pages bending! impressive.

Brilliant incisive writing and a long sense of history. The best war book I ever read. A must for WWII buffs.