Perilous Question - Reform or Revolution? Britain on the Brink, 1832 (Antonia Fraser, 2013)

Interesting, worthwhile, but not terribly compelling.

Things were dicey across Europe in 1832 - not all that long since French Revolution; unrest in France in 1830 leads to Louis Philippe; 1832 saw Parisians manning the barricades as described in this pretty famous book.  Unrest elsewhere on the Continent.

And in typically stable Britain - lots of forces in play.  Much attention focused on the need to Reform the electoral rules for House of Commons.  The famed "rotten boroughs" - places that perhaps were populated hundreds of years back are still entitled to elect one or two Members, while rapidly growing industrial centers in some cases had no representation at all.

Duke of Wellington - highly successful military leader (as described here) and effective conservative political leader - uninterested in any such Reform.

A new King - William IV - gives cause for hope of Reform.  But his conservative (and German) wife seems to slow his role.

Charles Grey becomes prime minister and is the key figure in pushing the Reform project.  (And his success causes great popularity; a new tea is introduced which to this day is named "Earl Grey".)

Growing influence of trade unions (Birmingham a key example).  The "people" are fired up - fear of violence is a driving force, interestingly enough.  Lots of changes going on - leading to actions such as destruction of machines believed to be taking away jobs.

House of Commons - led by Grey - approves Reform.  House of Lords - not accountable electorally - blocks it.  William IV finally agrees to appoint enough additional peers to tip the vote - which obviates the need for such drastic action.

Lots of echoes to current times here.  Passage of Reform in 1832 typically cited, apparently justifiably, as a good example of England's ability to evolve - and avoid France-style revolutions.  (Though note that following Reform, very few males still can vote and, of course, no females.  One step at a time.)

Armor and Blood - The Battle of Kursk - The Turning Point of World War II (Dennis E. Showalter, 2013)

". . . Kursk's defining event:  the tank battle at Prokhorovka.  All the elements of myth were at hand.  Prokhorovka offered a head-on, stand-up grapple between the elite troops of the world's best armies, on a three-mile front that left no room for fancy maneuvers or for air and artillery to make much difference.  The drama is heightened by a a familiar image of both sides attacking simultaneously - an encounter battle in the literal sense, suggesting predators in rut.  Like Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, Prokhovoka offered an emotional turning point;  afterward, nothing was ever the same.  Afterward, the tide of war rolled only one way - toward Berlin." 

Wow.  And really, just the word "Kursk" connotes epic; mythic; amazing.  

But I didn't love this book - supposedly lots of new detail (based on recently-opened Russian archives) - but that doesn't guarantee a good story line.  (Or maybe someone with my low level of military know-how is better suited for something like this, which I much enjoyed).  

Still - it was much worth paging through this book.  Reinforced just how truly awesome this particular battle really was (using the word "awe" in its original sense).  Reading the preparations for the battle, and then the day-by-day developments - how could these combatants lock up like this (both at the individual and macro levels), and then somehow sustain the intensity?

Tigers were amazingly effective.  Germans controlling the air for the most part - Stukas doing damage.  But Germany was already grievously over-stretched, while Russia had made great advances since the staggeringly weak (presumably purge-abetted) performance during Barbarossa.  Exhausting, deadly battles all day long; moving and repairing equipment - and shifting formations - and digging in - by night.  Russians dig in their tanks - just the turrets showing - mobility often pointless against Tigers etc. anyway.  Incredible physical demands even considered in isolation from the endless pounding - absolutely amazing what these folks endured.  Psychological demands (if that's the right terminology) perhaps even worse?

Author introduces the key players in both armies - Model, Hoth, Manstein; Vatutin, Khrushchev.  Interesting, but they didn't really come to life.

Despite all the problems - and the incredible setback at Stalingrad - German army came close to pulling off a victory here.  (Though not clear that it would made a big difference given overall trend lines).  Nazis worried about Allied progress in North Africa - and Sicily invasion - going on roughly in parallel with Kursk (as discussed in this just-finished book).  

An Army at Dawn - the War in North Africa,1942-1943 (Rick Atkinson, 2002)

This is the first volume in Rick Atkinson's quite excellent trilogy covering US role in World War II.  For whatever reason, I read it last among the three books (volume two discussed here; volume three discussed here).  Would have been useful to have read the three works in the correct order - mostly to gather the background on key personalities plus understand how some of the initial maneuverings related to later efforts - but each of the three works also stands quite nicely on its own.  All highly recommended.

I had read a bit about the US efforts in North Africa as part of larger histories; also did some reading about the British experience there (for example, this book).  But very much ignorant for the most part.  So this was quite valuable.

A few ideas:

1.  The incredible amount of preparation required for the US military to participate effectively.  The lack of sophistication resulting in severe setbacks.  Reminiscent of WWI.  (And I don't have the slightest criticism of this - seems quite fine that the country didn't maintain a large standing military presence in the run-up to either of the world wars.)

2.  I need to better understand Hitler's thinking in relation to the Vichy regime.

3.  Such an awkward situation with the French military in North Africa - protecting this territory against the Allies was part of the Vichy government's deal with Hitler.  Weird that in the early going the Allies fought battles (sometimes pitched, sometimes desultory) with the French in North Africa!  While trying to work with the "Free French."  Casablanca-style intrigues.

4.  Rommel, Kesselring.  Manpower and materiel shortages plaguing German army (along with Italian ineffectiveness).  German troubles in Stalingrad and Kursk; Italy wavering; Hitler limited in ability to allocate resources to North Africa even while pulling some divisions away from Russia.

5.  The Allied politicians - Roosevelt and Churchill primarily. England pushing to prioritize the Mediterranean operation.  Eisenhower's maturation in an incredibly challenging job.  Titching between British and US military folk at all levels.

6. Difficulties with ambitious amphibious landings - large, but significantly smaller scale than would be undertaken in Italy and Normandy.

7.  Kasserine Pass.

8.  Quite a bit of focus on a division (34th) with heavy representation from Southwest Iowa (including a leader from Red Oak).

9.  The story of Count Stauffenberg's injuries in North Africa at the hands of strafing fighters; he uses his recuperation period to work on the assassination plot involving the briefcase under the conference room table (recounted in the recent Tom Cruise movie (Valkyrie)).

10.  The goums and their penchant for collecting Nazi ears for bounties (fake submissions suspected, however).  I need to re-read Irvin Bormann's diary on this topic.

11.  As in the other two volumes:  plenty of references and connections to wars fought in these areas going back to classical times.  (In this case:  a focus on Carthage.)

12.  Patton was pulled away from the final stages to focus on plans for invading Sicily (leading into volume two).

Borrowed from PJr.