Advance Britannia: How the Second World War Was Won, 1942-1945

656 pages

Mike Farquharson-Roberts PhD (Mar Hist)

This is the second part of Alan Allport’s history of the Second World War, the first part Britain at Bay covered the years 1938 to 1941. The author is a professor at Syracuse University in New York State, publishing books about the British involvement in the Second World War.

Is there a need for yet another book looking at the British contribution to the war?  Yes, this one. Rather than setting out a detailed history, this book takes a refreshing look at the some of the people and events of the war. Even at over 600 pages, it is not a narrative of the whole war, rather a series of observations on various aspects and personalities. There are some interesting points of view and interpretations that challenge the ‘accepted’ wisdom. Some are amusing, Liddell-Hart being described as a ‘pop strategist’, others put forward what is generally agreed but rather more bluntly put than most e.g., Montgomery described as a ‘bullshitter’ and some are interesting observations, that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders apparently were known to some as the ‘Argyll and Bolton Wanderers’ reflecting the number of Englishmen in the regiment. It would appear that modern difficulty recruiting to Scottish regiments is far from new! Going more broadly, his detailed examination of the Battle of the Atlantic at the strategic level basically suggests that the Germans could never have won it; they could not have sunk enough ships with the resources they had or could have had.

It has a very interesting section on Rommel, generally thought of as the only ‘good’ German general who fought a clean war and is generally held not to have done all that Nazi stuff. Certainly, this reviewer has always had slight disquiet at that, after all, before the war he had commanded Hitler’s personal bodyguard and was his favourite general. This author argues that “There is… no evidence that at least until the last few weeks of his life, Rommel was ever anything than a dutiful servant of his Fuhrer.” He argues that large numbers of civilian weren’t murdered on his watch because “the fortunes of war sent him to a barren theatre …almost entirely denuded of all living things, let alone people.” He points out that an SS Einsatzkommando killing squad was arresting, deporting, enslaving and executing Jews in Libya and Tunisia, in preparation for the capture of the Nile and Palestine. He concludes that Rommel’s “… career is testament to the idea that virtue owes as much to accidents of fate as it does to intent.”

Looking at the Allied bomber offensive, many focus on British area bombing with Harris cast as the bad guy, while comparing it unfavourably with American precision bombing. When the RAF offensive started it was the only way Britain had to hit Germany, however imperfectly – initially the RAF couldn’t even guarantee to hit Germany, let alone a specific target – and it was popular. In turn the Americans precision bombing was never as accurate as the USAAF initially hoped. The author looks at the origins of the campaign, after all strategic bombing was to the RAF their doctrinal basis, and Portal, Chief of the Air Staff and Harris’ boss was no apostate, Harris did what Portal wanted.

Paying for the war was far more than Lend Lease; Britain had an extensive empire and drew on its wealth, exploiting the advantages of the power of being the centre of the sterling monetary area. Inevitably a large burden fell to India, and this funding of the war was contributory to the Bengal famine. The author addresses the thesis that Churchill didn’t really care about the starving people of Bengal because he was a racist. Racist he certainly was. However, that is far from the whole story. The Viceroy, Linlithgow, was an inept even incompetent manager, and Wavell, his successor came to things too late, and did not see eye to eye with Churchill. Allport examines the famine and its management in some detail concluding that it was “a dark stain on the administration of India” and a systemic crime, not just Churchill’s personal crime.

It is not a revisionist or iconoclastic book, but it does look at the history in an enquiring way. It is a refreshing book, critical without being polemical. Your reviewer has ordered the first volume.