New Release Books on WW2 Showing 1,151-1,200 of 3,289

[carl]

You forgot Lafayette.

[Mikey B.]

Another interesting book on the conquest of France in 1940 is Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France. The author says it is historical revisionism that France was "expected" to lose against Germany. In fact, prior to the invasion, most thought that France, would win this confrontation. It seems a similar theme to the Philip Nord book.

[Manray9]

Jerome wrote: "An April 2015 release:

by Philip Nord
Description:
In this revisionist account of France’s crushing defeat in 1940, a worl..."

Much of what I have read, both academic history and journalism, from the period of 1938-1940 indicated a wide spread belief in the might and effectiveness of the French army. In many quarters, it was considered the premier military power on earth. That's why the international political and military aftershocks of Hitler's campaign ran so deep and so wide. Differing explanations exist: political and military leadership failures, morale shortcomings, a defensive mindset, outdated equipment & tactics, Communist subversion, and so on. I'm not certain of what comprises the revisionist view? Revisionist with respect to what -- the conventional wisdom in '38-'40 or a fifties/sixties viewpoint?

[Mikey B.]

Revisionism with respect to fifties/sixties viewpoint. It came to be believed after 1950 that France was pre-destined to lose against Nazi Germany. As you say it was not the case in the late 1930's, in fact it was the opposite.

Many books and documentaries up to this day say that France did not stand a chance against the invaders. It was not viewed that way in April 1940.

In Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France the author discusses this - hence the title.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Manray9 wrote: "Jerome wrote: "An April 2015 release:

by Philip Nord
Description:
In this revisionist account of France’s crushing defeat ..."

I think one aspect that surprised people was the collapse of an army that fought so tenaciously in WWI and so the later view was poor performance by the French armed forces. I'm of the view that French and German communications, tactics, ORBATs and types of weapons systems all helped create the circumstances of defeat. Aspects like the Maginot line (planned use of and impact on morale) played a part in the French defeat;

What I don't think is in doubt though is that where they engaged the Germans the French troops did show courage and suffered considerable loss of life.

[Ugo]

Agreed that France was widely perceived as the preeminent military power before 1940 and that's why it was such a shock to see France so utterly defeated in so short a time. This was such a momentous event that I find plausible that if it hadn't been for Churchill's obdurate character, there is a fair chance that UK would have entered in some kind of negociations with Hitler.

[Colin]

Actually the kill ratio for US forces in Vietnam was much higher in open combat, and unlike the French, the US never lost a major battle, neither did the Aussies. The major difference in approaches was the French were trying to keep Indochina within their crumbling empire, while the US just fought to keep the Communists out of the south.

Regarding the French, their lackluster and tepid approach to anything resembling honorable combat is painly due to their shell shock from WW I, their collaboration with Hitler in WW II, and their inability to come to terms with the real world.

It also helps when French companies continued doing business with Iraq and other nations, despite sitting on the UN Security Council and voting for the very sanctions they were violating.

France is also paranoid due to the large numbers of Muslims living in the country, due to their free and open door immigration policy. I guess Lifeboat logic(when you have a max capacity until tipover) never occurred to them.

[Ugo]

Colin wrote: "Actually the kill ratio for US forces in Vietnam was much higher in open combat, and unlike the French, the US never lost a major battle, neither did the Aussies. The major difference in approaches..."

The Americans never lost a battle from a tactical standpoint in Vietnam, that's true. But a lot of that had to do with the vast technical superiority and firepower advantage the U.S. forces had over the Vietcong - I'm not diminishing the American soldier valour and courage here, I'm just observing a fact. The technical/firepower gap in favour of the French was not as high.

I know it's consoling to think that U.S. forces had a very high kill ratio and did not lose a single military engagement on the ground, but ultimately it becomes a footnote in history since what really count is winning the war. What good does it do to win all battles when you finally end up losing the war?

I totally disagree with your statement about the "French lackluster and tepid approach to anything resembling honorable combat". That is more akin to a blanket statement not backed by facts. The reality is that most of the French professionals soldiers in Indochina were from the French Foreign Legion and colonials, highly motivated and courageous. The use of metropolitan troops was actually forbidden by the French government to prevent the war from becoming even more unpopular at home (isn't that eerily reminiscent to what happened a decade later with the U.S. domestic situation and hostility against Vietnam?). In the final stages of the Dien Bien Phu battle, there were quite a number of French soldiers who actually volunteered to go in the cauldron, fully knowing this might be ending badly. This isn't what I would call lackluster or tepid.

[Manray9]

Ugo wrote: "Colin wrote: "Actually the kill ratio for US forces in Vietnam was much higher in open combat, and unlike the French, the US never lost a major battle, neither did the Aussies. The major difference..."

If you accept the old saw that war is simply politics by other means, then the U.S. won the "war" in Viet Nam and lost the "politics."

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

The overall context is that France was well defeated (and was of course looking to some extent to disengage from Indo-China) but it cannot be suggested that French troops were not honourable in action. There are many examples of their courage and the - in many cases grievous - losses by their units is a mix of strong enemy action but also French soldiers' gallantry and sacrifice for comrades and a willingness to fight hard.

It should also be noted that some of these Frenchmen who didn't give "honorable combat" served the US as advisors in Vietnam; some of whom had been involved with SOE and Jedburgh in WWII.

A colonial power dying on the field of battle yes but not through cowardly or dishonourable troops.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Good points and posts by all, makes very interesting reading and I can't argue with your logic Ugo. Thanks Manray9, Geevee and Colin for your responses.

[Colin]

Ugo wrote: "Colin wrote: "Actually the kill ratio for US forces in Vietnam was much higher in open combat, and unlike the French, the US never lost a major battle, neither did the Aussies. The major difference..."

My comments regarding the French reluctance to fight was related to the government's approach, not the average soldier. Remember the key component in French Froeign Legion is "Foreign", and I trained with them and also served in Africa alongside a few. Great soldiers nideed, but France has a history of making bad tactical decisions for political expediency. Look at the location of Dien Bien Phu, a glaring terrain appreciation that the Viet Minh exploited to the fullest, and deCastries should have known better.

[Manray9]

Colin wrote: "Ugo wrote: "Colin wrote: "Actually the kill ratio for US forces in Vietnam was much higher in open combat, and unlike the French, the US never lost a major battle, neither did the Aussies. The majo..."

I agree Operation Castor was a bad tactical decision, but not one of "political expediency." French politicians wanted a victory in Indochina in 1953-54 as much as LBJ wanted one at Khe Sanh in 1968, but it was the limited success in attrition of Viet Minh forces at the Na San "hedgehog" which pushed French military commanders into faulty decision-making. They made a mistake fatal to many throughout history by underestimating their enemy. French generals believed their firepower, air support, and professional soldiery would allow them to annihilate the Viet Minh in open combat. They were wrong. Vo Nguyen Giap displayed the strategic vision, logistical flexibility, and the tactical determination to turn the tables and instead destroy the French forces. Defeat is defeat, but the tactical decision to fight at Dien Bien Phu wasn't political, it was military.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Good points gents especially having cleared up the point of French troops - the comment had surprised me somewhat as I was pretty sure you'd done some time with the FFL Colin.

The underestimating of enemies has undone many in history as you say Manray9 - including old colonial powers and indeed modern super powers and their allies.

[Manray9]

Geevee wrote: "Good points gents especially having cleared up the point of French troops - the comment had surprised me somewhat as I was pretty sure you'd done some time with the FFL Colin.

The underestimating ..."

No matter how brave, resourceful and tenacious your side is, in most (not all) cases the other side is too.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Good points all, thanks for your comments/posts.

[Colin]

I was with the FFL 2nd BEP and 10th Pioneers, two separate occasions, and trained at the school at Castelnautary. Tough guys, love to fight, and very loyal to each other. had a good time.

[carl]

Sounds fun Colin!

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

What a great experience that would have been!

[Jerry]

I doubt a Jack Churchill would be welcome in today's politically correct military with its sclerotic bureaucratic culture.


From the London Daily Telegraph:

Lieutenant-Colonel Jack Churchill, who has died aged 89, was probably the most dramatically impressive Commando leader of the Second World War.
His exploits - charging up beaches dressed only in a kilt and brandishing a dirk, killing with a bow and arrow, playing the bagpipes at moments of extreme peril - and his legendary escapes won him the admiration and devotion of those under his command, who nicknamed him "Mad Jack".
Churchill believed an assault leader should have a reputation which would at once demoralise the enemy and convince his own men that nothing was impossible. He was awarded two DSOs and an MC, and mentioned in despatches.
Romantic and sensitive, he was an avid reader of history and poetry, knowledgeable about castles and trees, and compassionate to animals, even to insects.
John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming Churchill was born in Surrey on Sept 16 1906. His father, Alex Churchill, was on leave from the Far East, where he was Director of Public Works in Hong Kong and Ceylon.
After education at the Dragon School, Oxford, King William's College, Isle of Man, and Sandhurst, Churchill was commissioned in 1926 into the Manchester Regiment and gazetted to the 2nd Battalion, which he joined in Rangoon.
Returning from a signals course at Poona, he rode a Zenith motor-cycle 1,500 miles across India, at one point crashing into a water buffalo. In Burma, he took the Zenith over railway bridges by stepping on the sleepers (there was nothing in between them) and pushing the bike along the rails.
Churchill moved from Rangoon to Maymyo where he was engaged in "flag marches", which meant moving up and down the Irrawaddy by boat, visiting the villages and deterring those who might be contemplating robbery, murder or dacoity.
At Maymyo he learned to play the bagpipes, tutored by the Pipe Major of the Cameron Highlanders, and became an oustanding performer. But when the regiment returned to Britain in 1936, he became bored with military life at the depot at Ashton-under-Lyne and retired after only 10 years in the Army.
Churchill went on a grand tour of Europe, accompanied by his great friend Rex King-Clark; took minor parts as an archer in films; played the bagpipes as an entertainer; and represented Great Britain at archery in the 1939 World Championships.
On the outbreak of war in 1939, he was recalled to the Colours and went to France, taking with him his bow and arrows which he used on patrols against the Germans in front of the Maginot Line. The weapon was silent, accurate to 200 yards and lethal.
After the Germans attacked in France, Churchill was awarded the MC in the retreat at the Battle of l'Epinette (near Bethune) where his company was trapped by German forces.
Churchill fought back with two machine guns (and his bow) until ammunition was exhausted, then extricated the remains of the company through the German lines at night and reported back to Brigade HQ. Later he was wounded and carried a bullet in his shoulder all his life.
After returning to England, he joined the Commandos and in 1941 was second-in-command of a mixed force from 2 and 3 Commandos which raided Vaagso, in Norway. The aim was to blow up local fish oil factories, sink shipping, gather intelligence, eliminate the garrison and bring home volunteers for the Free Norwegian Forces.
Before landing, Churchill decided to look the part. He wore silver buttons he had acquired in France; carried his bow and arrows and armed himself with a broad-hilted claymore; and led the landing force ashore with his bagpipes. Although he was again wounded, the operation forced the Germans to concentrate large forces in the area.
After recovering, Churchill was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel commanding No 2 Commando which he took through Sicily (leading with his bagpipes to Messina) and then to the landings at Salerno.

They captured the village of Pigoletti and its garrison of 42 men as well as an 81 mm mortar and its crew. In further fighting along the Pigoletti Ridge, he was recommended for the VC but eventually received the DSO. His action had saved the Salerno beachhead at a critical time.

Churchill's next assignment was in the Adriatic, where he was appointed to command a force comprising No 43 Royal Marine Commando plus one company from the Highland Light Infantry and eight 25 lb guns.

They landed on the island of Brac, then attacked and captured the Vidova Gora (2,500 ft high), the approaches of which were heavily mined. Playing his pipes, Churchill led No 40 Commando in a night attack which reached the top of the objective where he was wounded and captured.

"You have treated us well," he wrote to the German commander after only 48 hours in captivity. "If, after the war, you are ever in England and Scotland, come and have dinner with my wife and myself"; he added his telephone number. The German was one Captain Hans Thornerr and later that note saved Thornerr's life when the Yugoslavs wanted to have him shot as a war criminal.

The Germans thought, wrongly, that Churchill must be a relation of the Prime Minister. Eventually he was imprisoned in Sachsenhausen Camp, near Berlin, where he was chained to the floor for the first month and found himself in company with such VIPs as Kurt von Schusnigg, the former Chancellor of Austria, von Thyssen, and Schacht, the former German Economics Minister.

Churchill tunnelled out of the camp with an RAF officer, but was recaptured and transferred to a PoW camp in Austria. When the floodlights failed one night he escaped and, living on stolen vegetables, walked across the Alps near the Brenner Pass. He then made contact with an American reconnaissance column in the Po Valley.

Churchill was appointed second-in-command of No 3 Commando Brigade, which was in India preparing for the invasion of Japan, but the war ended - much to his regret, as he wanted to be killed in battle and buried in the Union flag.

He took a parachute course, making his first jump on his 40th birthday, and commanded 5th (Scottish) Parachute Battalion, thus becoming the only officer to command both a Commando and a Parachute battalion.

Churchill had always wanted to serve with a Scottish regiment, and so transferred to the Seaforth Highlanders, becoming a company commander.

In 1948 he was appointed second-in-command of the Highland Light Infantry, then serving in Jerusalem. Terrorism was widespread and on April 13 1948, Arabs ambushed a Jewish convoy of doctors en route for the Hadassah Hospital, near Jerusalem.

Churchill, having ordered reinforcements for his small force, walked alone towards the ambush, smiling and carrying a blackthorn stick. "People are less likely to shoot you if you smile at them," he said. So it proved.

He then managed to evacuate some of the Jews but they thought that Haganah (the Jewish army) would save them and did not require his services. As one of the HLI had now been killed by Arab fire, he withdrew; 77 Jews were then slaughtered. Later Churchill assisted in the evacuation of 500 patients and staff from the hospital.

Back in Britain, he was for two years second-in-command of the Army Apprentices School at Chepstow before serving a two-year stint as Chief Instructor, Land/Air Warfare School in Australia.

In 1954, Churchill joined the War Office Selection Board at Barton Stacey. During this period he rode a surf board a mile and a half up river on the Severn bore.

His last post was as First Commandant of the Outward Bound School.

After retirement, Churchill devoted himself to his hobby of buying and refurbishing steamboats on the Thames; he acquired 11, which made journeys from Richmond to Oxford. He was also a keen maker of radio-controlled model boats, which he sold at a profit. He also took part in motor-cycling speed trials.

When not engaged in military operations Jack Churchill was a quiet, unassuming man, though not above astonishing strangers for the fun of it. In his last job he would sometimes stand up on a train journey from London to his home, open the window and hurl out his briefcase, then calmly resume his seat. Fellow passengers looked on aghast, unaware that he had flung the briefcase into his own back garden.

Jack Churchill married, in 1941, Rosamund Denny; they had two sons.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

My favourite in his obituary despite all the military exploits is the paragraph about the briefcase.

[Colin]

I know this story about Churchill well, great man indeed.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

This January 2015 release is going straight onto my wish list. I am also sure a few members in this group may be interested in checking a copy as well:

Aachen: The U.S. Army's Battle for Charlemagne's City in WWII by Robert W Baumer
Description:
By September 1944, the Allied advance across France and Belgium had turned into attrition along the German frontier. Standing between the Allies and the Third Reich's industrial heartland was the city of Aachen, once the ancient seat of Charlemagne's empire and now firmly entrenched within Germany's Siegfried Line fortifications. The city was on the verge of capitulating until Hitler forbade surrender.
•Dramatic story of the American battle for Aachen, the first city on German soil to fall to the Allies in World War II.
•Chronicles the six weeks of hard combat for the city, culminating in eight days of fighting in the streets
•Details the involvement of some of the U.S. Army's finest units, including the 1st Infantry Division ("Big Red One"), the 30th Infantry Division ("Roosevelt's SS"), and the 2nd Armored Division ("Hell on Wheels")

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

David Stahel has a new book due out sometime in early 2015 (Feb-March). It looks like it will be another interesting account of the German army on the Eastern Front:

The Battle for Moscow by David Stahel
Description:
In November 1941 Hitler ordered German forces to complete the final drive on the Soviet capital, now less than 100 kilometres away. Army Group Centre was pressed into the attack for one last attempt to break Soviet resistance before the onset of winter. From the German perspective the final drive on Moscow had all the ingredients of a dramatic final battle in the east, which, according to previous accounts, only failed at the gates of Moscow. David Stahel now challenges this well-established narrative by demonstrating that the last German offensive of 1941 was a forlorn effort, undermined by operational weakness and poor logistics, and driven forward by what he identifies as National Socialist military thinking. With unparalleled research from previously undocumented army files and soldiers' letters, Stahel takes a fresh look at the battle for Moscow, which even before the Soviet winter offensive, threatened disaster for Germany's war in the east.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Another new WW2 title due out later this year and offering something a bit different to readers of this conflict:

Holocaust Versus Wehrmacht: How Hitler's "Final Solution" Undermined the German War Effort by Yaron Pasher
Description:
In 1941, as Nazi Germany began its disastrous campaign against the Soviet Union, Hitler's other campaign, to exterminate European Jewry, was also commencing in earnest. What began with organized executions carried out by the Einzatsgruppen evolved into systematic genocide, reaching its frenzied final moments just as the Wehrmacht was meeting defeat on the military front. These campaigns—and Germany's failure—were inextricably linked, Yaron Pasher tells us in Holocaust versus Wehrmacht. Pasher argues, in fact, that the major share of the logistical problems faced by the Wehrmacht during World War II stemmed from Hitler's obsession with securing the resources—especially from the Reichsbahn railway—needed to implement the "Final Solution." To a degree never fully recognized or understood, Hitler's anti-Semitic ideology was his war's undoing.

Through four major Wehrmacht military campaigns—Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk in the east and Normandy in the west—Pasher explores this fatal contradiction in Hitler's efforts to dominate the European continent. As Operation Typhoon, the sequel to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, got underway in November 1941, organized train transports began carrying Jews to the East—with the last trains taking Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz just as the Allies invaded Western Europe and moved inexorably to encircle the Third Reich. In these years, this book shows us, the trains transporting Jews could have carried men, machines, and fuel to depleted and trapped divisions in the Caucasus, and later, to the Western Front. As the Germans moved deeper into Soviet territory, they became increasingly dependent on train transport—which entailed converting Soviet railway line to German specifications; and yet, however successfully this conversion was completed, the trains that might run on these rails were working elsewhere in service of the Final Solution, leaving the Wehrmacht's overextended armies without the resources to survive, let alone win, their final battles.

In the end, what Hitler called "the Jewish problem" was his downfall. In documenting the distribution of Germany's resources and operational capabilities through four major campaigns, Holocaust versus Wehrmacht offers a clear picture of the Nazis' military objectives as inseparable from—and finally, fatally susceptible to—Hitler's and his henchmen's other, ideological war to rid Europe of Jews.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "This January 2015 release is going straight onto my wish list. I am also sure a few members in this group may be interested in checking a copy as well:

[bookcover:Aachen: The U.S. Army's Battle fo..."

I shall look forward to reading this, and a worthy subject as I think this action is somewhat overshadowed by others in the US Army's campaign history in NW Europe - said as a Brit so I stand corrected if the US members feel I am wrong.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I have read about it in general histories but I don't think there have been many good stand alone accounts of the fighting for Aachen.

[Jerry]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Another new WW2 title due out later this year and offering something a bit different to readers of this conflict:

[bookcover:Holocaust Versus Wehrmacht: How Hitler's "Final Solution" Undermined th..."

That puts the iron in irony.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Very true Jerry!

[Lee]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I have read about it in general histories but I don't think there have been many good stand alone accounts of the fighting for Aachen."

There's at least one, I remember reading it in 8th grade-- I was shocked that my middle school library: a very small room-- had anything so specific on WW2. Having said that, the roughly-simultaneous Hurtgen campaign and Patton's Lorraine campaign generally get more attention.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Hi Lee,

You are right, most books tend to concentrate on the fighting in the Hurtgen forest and Aachen gets a passing mention. This is the only book I have on the campaign involving Aachen:

The Longest Battle: September 1944-February 1945: From Aachen to the Roer and Across by Harry Yeide

[happy]

Lee wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I have read about it in general histories but I don't think there have been many good stand alone accounts of the fighting for Aachen."

There's at least one, I remember readi..."

I have the same memory, but I have no idea what the name of the book was/is :)

[carl]

happy wrote: "I have the same memory, but I have no idea what the name of the book was/is :) "

hey me too, I recall that the GI's called it achin' Aachen.

[Stu]

Could it be this one?

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Lee wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I have read about it in general histories but I don't think there have been many good stand alone accounts of the fighting for Aachen."

There's at least one, I remember readi..."

Thanks Lee and interesting to hear your memories and that it does seem to be overshadowed.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Stu wrote: "Could it be this one?

"

Thanks Stu - it might be the one the US gents read as it was published in the 1970s although I'm sure they are all far too young really ;)

[Manray9]

Stu wrote: "Could it be this one?

"

I may have read this in the early eighties. Too old. Too many books.

[happy]

Geevee wrote: "Stu wrote: "Could it be this one?

"

Thanks Stu - it might be the one the US gents read as it was published in the 1970s although I'm sure they ..."

Unfotunatley that is exactly the right time period for me. I graduated from HS in 1975 :)

[Lee]

Stu wrote: "Could it be this one?

"
Could be, it was in the 1981-82 school year. My opinions about C. Whiting hadn't formed that young, it appears.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Funny Lee but in a way the opinions on Whiting don't matter too much as I suspect he may have allowed many people - myself included - to come to and read military non-fiction in an easy and accessible way. Experience, further reading and wider study will then balance out his skill as a writer to that of him being a historian.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

That's very true Geevee, I read a lot of Whiting when I was young but your tastes mature as you get older and read more but he was a good starting point back in those days.

[Jerome]

Another May 2015 release:

by Alan Axelrod
Description:
On August 12, 1944, Lieutenant Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., heir to one of America’s most glamorous fortunes, son of the disgraced former ambassador to Great Britain, and big brother to freshly minted PT-109 hero JFK, hoisted himself up into a highly modified B-24 Liberator bomber. The munitions he was carrying that day were fifty percent more powerful than TNT.

Kennedy’s mission was part of Operation Aphrodite/Project Anvil, a desperate American effort to rescue London from a rain of German V-1 and V-2 missiles. The decision to use these bold but crude precursors to modern-day drones against German V-weapon launch sites came from Air Corps high command. Lieutenant General Jimmy Doolittle, daring leader of the spectacular 1942 Tokyo Raid, and others concocted a plan to install radio control equipment in “war-weary” bombers, pack them with a dozen tons of high explosives, and fly them by remote control directly into the concrete German launch sites—targets too hard to be destroyed by conventional bombs. The catch was that live pilots were needed to get these flying bombs off the ground and headed toward their targets. Joe Jr. was the first naval aviator to fly such a mission. And—in the biggest manmade explosion before Hiroshima—it killed him.

A rare exploration of the origin of today’s controversial military drones, this book is also a searing and unforgettable story of heroism, WWII, and the Kennedy dynasty that might have been.

[Colin]

Actually, the largest man made explosion in history non nuclear in WW II was the German bombing of Pireaus, Greece in 1941, when Captain Hajo Herrmann dropped his bombs on a British transport ship. That ship was full of munitions, and the explosion sank another 10 ships tied to the dock, which totally destroyed the port (which was unusable until the 1950s), and the shockwave was felt over thirty miles away with windows being shattered and people knocked off their feet. Every one of the ships in port was packed with high explosive and gasoline.

[Jerome]

A March 2015 release:

by Bruce Henderson
Description:
From the bestselling author of Hero Found comes the incredible true story of one of the greatest military rescues of all time, the 1945 World War II prison camp raid at Los Banos in the Philippines--a tale of daring, courage, and heroism that joins the ranks of Ghost Soldiers, Unbroken and The Boys of Pointe du Hoc

In February 1945, as the U.S. victory in the Pacific drew nearer, the Japanese army grew desperate, and its soldiers guarding U.S. and Allied POWs more sadistic. Starved, shot and beaten, many of the 2,146 prisoners of the Los Banos prison camp in the Philippines--most of them American men, women and children--would not survive much longer unless rescued soon.

Deeply concerned about the half-starved and ill-treated prisoners, General Douglas MacArthur assigned to the 11th Airborne Division a dangerous rescue mission deep behind enemy lines that became a deadly race against the clock. The Los Banos raid would become one of the greatest triumphs of that war or any war; hailed years later by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell: "I doubt that any airborne unit in the world will ever be able to rival the Los Banos prison raid. It is the textbook operation for all ages and all armies."

Combining personal interviews, diaries, correspondence, memoirs, and archival research, Rescue at Los Banos tells the story of a remarkable group of prisoners--whose courage and fortitude helped them overcome hardship, deprivation, and cruelty--and of the young American soldiers and Filipino guerrillas who risked their lives to save them.

[carl]

Colin wrote: "Actually, the largest man made explosion in history non nuclear in WW II was the German bombing of Pireaus, Greece in 1941, when Captain Hajo Herrmann dropped his bombs on a British transport ship...."

hadn't heard of that one. Always read the Texas City explosion that occurred in '47 was one of the biggest, but might just be in Texas even the explosions are bigger kind of attitude...

[Colin]

Jerome wrote: "Another May 2015 release:

by Alan Axelrod
Description:
On August 12, 1944, Lieutenant Jo..."

This subject was also covered in the two part History Channel episode I was on.

[Jerome]

A June 2015 release:

by Brian Murphy
Description:
Shortly before Christmas in 1943, five Army aviators left Alaska’s Ladd Field on a test flight. Only one ever returned: Leon Crane, a city kid from Philadelphia with little more than a parachute on his back when he bailed from his B-24 Liberator before it crashed into the Arctic. Alone in subzero temperatures, Crane managed to stay alive in the dead of the Yukon winter for nearly twelve weeks and, amazingly, walked out of the ordeal intact.

81 Days Below Zero recounts, for the first time, the full story of Crane’s remarkable saga. In a drama of staggering resolve with moments of phenomenal luck, Crane learned to survive in the Yukon’s unforgiving landscape. His is a tale of the human capacity to endure extreme conditions and intense loneliness—and emerge stronger than before.

[Jerome]

A July 2015 release:

by Stephen Harding
Description:
On August 18, 1945, US Army sergeant Anthony J. Marchione bled to death in the clear, bright sky above Tokyo. Marchione, a gunner in the US Air Forces, died like so many before him in World War II—quietly, cradled in the arms of a buddy. Though tragic, Marchione’s death would have been no more notable than any other had he not had the dubious distinction of being the last American killed in World War II combat.

Based on official American and Japanese histories, personal memoirs, and the author’s exclusive interviews with many of the story’s key participants, Last to Die is a rousing tale of air combat, bravery, cowardice, hubris, and determination, all set during the turbulent and confusing final days of World War II.

[carl]

Jerome wrote: "A July 2015 release:

Last to Die: On August 18, 1945, US Army sergeant Anthony J. Marchione bled to death in the clear, bright sky above Tokyo. "


“Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?”

[Jerome]

Another June 2015 release:

by Robin Prior
Description:
From the comfortable distance of seven decades, it is quite easy to view the victory of the Allies over Hitler’s Germany as inevitable. But in 1940 Great Britain’s defeat loomed perilously close, and no other nation stepped up to confront the Nazi threat. In this cogently argued book, Robin Prior delves into the documents of the time—war diaries, combat reports, Home Security’s daily files, and much more—to uncover how Britain endured a year of menacing crises.

The book reassesses key events of 1940—crises that were recognized as such at the time and others not fully appreciated. Prior examines Neville Chamberlain’s government, Churchill’s opponents, the collapse of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. He looks critically at the position of the United States before Pearl Harbor, and at Roosevelt’s response to the crisis. Prior concludes that the nation was saved through a combination of political leadership, British Expeditionary Force determination and skill, Royal Air Force and Navy efforts to return soldiers to the homeland, and the determination of the people to fight on “in spite of all terror.” As eloquent as it is controversial, this book exposes the full import of events in 1940, when Britain fought alone and Western civilization hung in the balance.