Amos de la guerra/ Masters of the war: El Corazon Del Conflicto, 1939-1945

by Victor Aldea (Translator), Simon Berthon, Joanna Potts

Mientras Alemania, la Unión Soviética, el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos sostenían la mayor contienda armada de la historia, sus respectivos líderes políticos se entregaron también a un intenso duelo mental. Las raíces de casi todo lo que determina la configuración del mundo actual se hallan en la partida de ajedrez que disputaron entonces Hitler, Stalin, Churchill y Roosevelt. Mediante una técnica narrativa vibrante, que yuxtapone a la perfección las cuatro líneas de acción básicas, Amos de la guerra cuenta la historia de esta guerra privada, una sucesión de pugnas personales, a menudo tácitas, en las que la victoria se alcanzó mediante el engaño, la fascinación, la lisonja y la mentira.A partir de las palabras de los cuatro protagonistas y los testimonios de quienes los rodearon y observaron durante esos años, Berthon y Potts desentrañan la psicología y las tácticas de los cuatro grandes amos de la guerra del siglo XX, cuyas razones políticas se basaron siempre en el interés propio, y describen unos temperamentos que oscilaron, sin excepción, de lo tormentoso y egotista a lo que sólo puede calificarse como monstruoso.

Genres: History, Biography, War, World War II, France

487 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2001

Reviews

[Florentin Cosmin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many years after WW2 ended, a lot of documents were declassified revealing the true games of power and the issues that existed between some of the most important victorious leaders. The difference between how things really were and how they were presented to the public is sometimes pretty huge.

We all learn about the big battles and the most important leaders, but this book presents also many of the lesser known conflicts, heroes and villains, and it gives us a glance in the complexity of the situation the Western Front was in.

This book provides a clear representation of the situation of France, who was represented by two governments and multiple leaders, each with their own agenda and aspirations, and the horror and indecision of the french soldiers who were forced to fight between them.

The main focus however is directed to the personal relationships between the three leaders, unraveling a tale of both friendship and treason, admiration and disrespect. We learn more about Roosevelt and Churchill, their interesting positions, personalities and aspirations, and their plans for the future of the world. But by far the most interesting character in my opinion is Charles de Gaulle, with his unique sense of duty that sometimes went near madness, and his incredible french pride that pushed him to make very dangerous decisions even though France was badly beaten.

A good read for every history fan, although sometimes it gets a bit boring due to the raw nature of the writing.

[Razvan Zamfirescu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spicuiri din recenzia finala care se gaseste pe blogul meu




......................................

Pe scurt, cam asta ar fi relația dintre cei trei, relație pe care Berthon o dezvoltă pe parcursul lucrării de faţă. O mare calitate a autorului este că reușește să-și construiască textul astfel încât cititorul să nu simtă povara unei lecturi de specialitate. Volumul este un deliciu, o delectare a minții, un exercițiu extrem de plăcut care te va face să cotrobăiești prin cotloanele memoriei și prin bibliotecă după date, evenimente, documente ca să poți înțelege mai bine ceea ce citești.

Din punctul meu de vedere Berthon reușește să formeze cu fiecare pagină chipul și felul de a fi ale liderilor, personalitatea și modul acestora de a gândi într-un fel în care nici măcar unii biografi nu reușesc. Berthon nu autopsiază caracterele celor trei, ci le reface bucată cu bucată pentru a oferi o înțelegere cât mai bună. E un fel de genial doctor Frankenstein care reînvie în paginile lucrării sale trei personalități puternice și greu de perceput atât pentru cei care i-au cunoscut cât mai ales pentru cei care nu i-au cunoscut decât din cărți.

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Allies at War is aptly titled, given the personal war that seemed to exist between Churchill, Roosevelt and De Gaulle. It documents the pains with which Roosevelt went to keep Allied plans a secret from the French, and the near disgust with which Churchill viewed his counterparts. An interesting but ultimately somewhat dry read.

NC

[Dan Short · Rating 4 out of 5]

Found this very interesting, and the two-faced approach of de Gaulle is copied time and again in the business and political worlds to this day.

[Emiliano Dolinski · Rating 4 out of 5]

El libro nos transporta a uno de los momentos más críticos de la historia: la Segunda Guerra Mundial, narrada desde las perspectivas de cuatro de sus protagonistas principales (Roosvelt, Churchill, Stalin y Hitler). A través de los ojos de líderes clave en el conflicto, el libro ofrece una visión de 360 grados que permite entender los engranajes detrás de las decisiones que marcaron el curso de la humanidad. Cada capítulo se sumerge en las estrategias, ideologías y dilemas que enfrentaron estas figuras, lo que otorga al lector una comprensión más profunda de las motivaciones y los errores de cada bando. Esta estructura es especialmente valiosa, ya que equilibra las voces de todos los protagonistas y evita caer en simplificaciones o en un enfoque unidimensional.

No es un libro que se pueda leer con prisa. Su riqueza radica en los detalles, en la densidad de la información y en la manera en que contextualiza los eventos históricos. Para aprovechar plenamente lo que ofrece, es fundamental leerlo pausadamente, reflexionando sobre cada pasaje.

A medida que avanzas, te invita a cuestionar no solo las decisiones de los líderes, sino también los costos humanos y éticos de la guerra. Es una obra que exige y recompensa la paciencia del lector, dejando una huella imborrable tanto en términos de conocimiento histórico como de reflexión personal.

[JerryDeanHalleck · Rating 2 out of 5]

Popular history. British-Centric. Lots of "Background" and Narrative of well-known events. The actual text is 320 pages, and it takes 200 pages to get November 8th, 1942, and we then spend another 40 pages on the "Darlan Deal" and the De Gaulle/churchill/FDR meeting at Casablanca in Jan 1943. The remaining 2.5 years of the war in Europe is overed in 80 pages. Annoying use of the word "Nazi" to describe all Germans. As in "The Nazi air force" and "The Nazi Army invaded Tunisia".

Not a bad "starter book" but worthless for the serious student. Best thing? Willingness to quote contempories criticizing FDR and Churchill.

[laurentiu]

0

[francisca · Rating 4 out of 5]

everything in this book is amazing

[Stuart Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

An amazing tale of the clash of personalities between and among de Gaulle, Roosevelt and Churchill during WWII. For any WWII aficionado.

[Ankshita · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book tries to be objective and fair but does not always succeed. The author admits that Churchill’s and Roosevelt’s attitude towards De Gaulle sometimes bordered on being a reflection of just unworthy personal animosity and vindictiveness as evident by the tone of their letters. Yet, we are told that however appalling this appears, it is ‘reasonable’ given the arrogant, inflexible attitude that De Gaulle showed to them. At no point in the book are we allowed to ponder upon WHY exactly De Gaulle showed unflinching intransigence towards his allies. The simple answer being- he hadn’t come to London at the risk of his life, gathered men who were to risk their life, sounded a call to a bloody battle in the Empire, invited men to throw themselves in gory horror of an underground struggle in Occupied France to be an amicable socialite trotting about the world building good PR with global leaders. He was there to save the honour, the rights, the future of France- the whole Free French movement existed only to achieve this goal. And how could anyone who infringed upon it ( the Allies did it multiple times) be his friend? The Allies constantly tried to look for other expedient solutions to usurp him, to raise as many obstacles as possible on his path, so much so that it came to the possibility of America being a ‘Occupying authority’ in liberated France- and yet De Gaulle was supposed to be a smiling, polite interlocutor and not the wary, distrustful one?
Would France have been one of the signatories at the German surrender, would France have restored French administration in its liberated territories, would France have retained Alsace, would it have avoided civil war, communist infiltration and a complete obliteration of its existence as a great nation if De Gaulle had been anything other than what he was?

What is worse is that right from the Foreword the author makes it look like France’s post war policies under De Gaulle’s presidency were driven by a ‘revenge-policy’ for the humiliation he had suffered at the hands of British and American leaders. Really? De Gaulle, for all his faults, undoubtedly appears to be driven by only one constant passion across times: to defend the interests of his country- however misguided or erroneous his conception of them could be at times. Could he be capable of mortgaging the destiny of his nation just because twenty years ago Churchill and Roosevelt had been uncharitable towards him?
It is evident that the pettiness that these leaders showed during the understandably stressful times of war has percolated down into minds that years later try and make sense of this epoch and also that the author is as clueless as the two leaders about France’s stakes at war-the profound meaning of their struggle against Germans, Vichy and unfortunately the Allies.

[Summer Meyers]

I give up. I've picked this over a dozen times for over a year.