I'm posting this early, so Jimbrae can see if first thing in the morning his time. This is a bit longer post than I plan on making in the future.

An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943
Volume One of The Liberation Trilogy. By Rick Atkinson.

I will say upfront that I started reading this book with a pre-conceived perception. I had said that I had read this book as part of another reading group on another history forum I hang out at. I realized that I really hadn’t read the entire book, just some passages of it to reply to one series of posts in a thread. Those passages had left me feeling that Atkinson had focused far too much on the negatives in the Allied forces, especially the American forces. I realize now how well researched the book seems to be, and how he normally documents most passages with actual quotes from other books in the notes section. I still have some misgivings about the author having a bit of a bias about the fighting ability but I will try to have an open mind on this and I urge everybody else to NOT be influenced by my feelings.

All this said I will be looking for areas that I feel show how the author has developed a thesis, though he never comes right out with it, that the Allied forces were totally unprepared for war in North Africa. The very title, An Army at Dawn, to me bears this out. At first I thought it just referred to how the army that attacked North Africa did so beginning at dawn. I realize now that, as first part of a trilogy, that the author meant it to mean that the American army was truly at the dawn of it’s fighting power in WWII. This brings up another point, that although the subtitle says “The War in North Africa” it should be called, The American Army in North Africa. Although the British and French forces are certainly brought up it is only as side players. The only details of minor commanders, units, and equipment written about are American.

The prologue is a brief run down of events that happened prior to, and just after, the American entry in WWII. I t focuses quite a bit on the proposed invasion of Europe in either in 1942, code name SLEDGEHAMMER, or 1943, code name ROUNDUP, and the decision to attack North African instead, in what would become TORCH. The debate between the Americans and British as to the best way to attack the German forces as quickly as possible could almost take a book this size by itself. I believe that Atkinson states the pros and cons fairly, and concisely.

Chapter One, PASSAGE, takes up how the invasion is planned, organized, and the opening diplomatic moves with the French are carried out. One of the first things I noticed, and frankly at first it put me off, was how the author would categorize the major commanders with a fairly slanderous description of them. For example the very first major commander introduced is Admiral Kent Hewitt about whom he writes, “Double chins formed a fleshy creel at his throat, and on a ship’s bridge, in his everyday uniform, he appeared, “a fat, bedraggled figure in khaki” Atkinson backs up this description in his notes so it is not just his description of the admiral, but I wondered why he had to be so derogatory. I believe now that this method of character description is his way to make the main players in the story appear more interesting, and perhaps allow the reader to remember them better when they reappear later in the narrative.

I will say I really like the way Atkinson handles his notes. They are arranged at the back of the book by page, and paragraph. For example his description of Admiral Hewitt is found listed under pg 21, starting with the first words of the passage, along with the first words of the quote, then where Atkinson found this information. While reading the book I find myself constantly switching back to the notes section to see if a particular passage that catches my eye is notated in the notes. I find this helps me keep objective in my feelings towards the author as so many times when I feel he’s being particularly biased, I find in the notes that he’s just relaying what somebody else has written. That doesn’t mean that he might not be picking and choosing what quotes he is including, but at least he’s backing them up.

Guys:

OK, here we go & I'll piggyback on Rodger's lead here.

On the title, I knew this was to be a trilogy, the intent to show the development of the US Army in WW2. So from that, I expected it to be US-centric. And in fact, I decided to read it for that reason only -- not because I'm US-focused to the exclusion of others but because of the training/doctrine implications.

That he apparently focuses on un-preparedness is telgraphed in the prologue when he mentions America's "first battles" -- an allusion to a book I cited earlier which pretty well lays out how the US gets waxed in the first battle, learns, improves, then overcomes ... I recommend "America's First Battles 1776-1965" by Heller & Stoft.

I liked the prologue - in fact if I wanted a quick study on the subject, I'd just read it & save the other 500+ pages. He follows good military teaching principles -- tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, tell 'em, then tell 'em what you told 'em ...

Chapter 1:
Got to get this one off -- in the Rendevous section we get "knots per hour" -- aaarghh !!! Must have been an editor failure !!! Thankfully it isn't repeated later ...

Like Rodger, I don't need what I consider superfluous description in history books. The Admiral's chins aren't relevant (other than us Army guys think all Navy guys are slobs ), not are such flights of fancy about what someone sees from the window of an airplane as they fly into wherever.

Section: Gathering of Ships & On the Knees of Gods. When I read the logistics problems, I knew I had seen them before -- the Army "Green Book" series on the ETO. I highly recommend them for a look into the logistics issues facing the Army.

OK, impressions.

-- He writes well; it moves along well and clearly. I don't fall asleep ...

-- I don't like the footnote style; I prefer little superscripts to trigger me to look at the sources. Otherwise I just tend to read thru and then have to back up in the notes, if I even remember to do so. I also prefer the notes to be on the same page as the text so I can just glance at them & not distract myself by looking elsewhere.

-- I don't see how he can tell the story (thinking of the trilogy) without more discussion of how the Army got there. One has to start with the Sp-Am War & WW1, go thru the 20's & 30's and set the stage for doctrine, tactics, organization, education & training. Without this, I do not see how he can, later on, adequately discuss lessons learned and evolution of doctrine, tactics, training, etc ... This is, as previously stated, a major goal of my reading ...

-- My biggest gripe with military books is maps -- page after page after page of they went here & went there & not a clue what this means on the ground (or sea). Thankfully, this book has maps !!!! I've copied them to be handy while reading and this is most helpful.

I'll admit to not much analysis to this point, but my goals were stated earlier -- I am interested in the learning process and the effect on doctrine, training, organization, and tactics -- so I would not expect to find this until much later in the book ... Until then, so far it is a good read, well documented, un-controversial, but not trite ...

John