Monte Cassino - The Hardest-Fought Battle of World War II (Matthew, Parker, 2004)

I've read a fair amount about this battle (have been interested in it from Irvin Bormann perspective in addition to general interest in World War II).  At first I wasn't feeling that this book added a lot - and I still prefer the discussion about the battle (and Italian campaign in general) in this book.  But the author's technique - heavy reliance on survivor interviews - became progressively more interesting or captivating as the book proceeded, and I ended up liking it quite a bit.

It reinforces the message that the Italian campaign was messed up in so many ways, that so many lives were thrown away in the way the attacks were staged, that so little was accomplished in terms of diverting Nazi resources etc.  It's hard to be too critical of the political and military leadership in such a difficult overall situation, but it makes the thought of the losses even more depressing.

The Germans were excellent, well-trained soldiers.  The Gustav Line was amazing.  Even Hannibal was smart enough not to try to attack up the Italian peninsula from the south.  The weather was appalling.

Got a better feel for the multi-national coalition involved (which of course made everything more difficult in terms of coordination, which turns out to be pretty important in these settings).

The title here seems overblown, but some of the battle descriptions make you wonder if other battles were much worse than Monte Cassino - it certainly had elements of World War I static slaughter, as well as Stalingrad house-to-house fighting.

I keep thinking politicians should be required to read books like this, and then re-read them once or twice more, before they ever commit soldiers to battle.