John Bierman, Colin Smith. The Battle of Alamein: Turning Point, World War II. New York:
Viking, 2002. xvii + 478 pp. $32.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-670-03040-8.
Reviewed by Thomas J. Mayock (Retired Military Historian)
Published on H-Levant (January, 2003)
A Last Hurrah
Because such a study naturally concentrates on the
military antagonists, there is little discussion on the
Egyptians whose territory was the original bone of contention, let alone the Senussi and other Libyans who
eventually found themselves liberated by His Majesty’s
forces.
A Last Hurrah
Bierman and Smith are veteran British newspapermen, well-versed in the history of the Middle East, and
who still live in Cyprus. The present work, under a different title (Alamein: War Without Hate), appeared in
England last year in time for the sixtieth anniversary
of the famous battle. The subtitles “War without Hate”
and “Turning Point, World War II,” along with the catchphrase “last hurrah,” define their work well. The book
is dedicated to the dwindling survivors, British, Commonwealth, German, and Italian, of the Desert War with
whom they have had numerous interviews. The overall
picture of the campaigns presented to readers is designed
as a backdrop for the accounts of the veterans’ often harrowing experiences.
The idea that this war was conducted in a sportsmanlike spirit–ohne Hass (without hate)–gains a priori credence from the fact that a large number of participants
believed it. Totally lacking in Africa were the killing of
Jews and mistreatment of prisoners that disfigured German campaigns in Eastern Europe. Libya and the Western Desert had few civilians and very few Jews. Rommel was free from interference from the SS and, although
mildly antisemitic himself, he had no interest in antiJewish activities.[1]
Let us say at once that the authors succeed admirably
in their intent. They write well and neutrally along with
a great instinct for detail. All the while, they manage to
sustain interest for a diverse audience of veterans, buffs,
and scholars in describing the long, back-and-forth campaigns of Wavell, Auchinleck, and, finally, Montgomery.
Rommel consistently projected an image of a warriorsportsman. He might have taken umbrage when the
British unsportingly tried to assassinate him.[2] Instead,
he expressed surprise that they would think to find his
headquarters so far in the rear. Rommel also sent his personal chaplain when they buried the leader of the commandos, the son of a British admiral, with full military
honors. Churchill went so far as to publicly compliment
him, but the British eventually found it wiser to play
down Rommel’s popularity, especially since Goebbels
had been using him as a propaganda asset.
The book opens with an account of a veterans’ fourday reunion at the Rommel Barracks near Ulm, attended
by survivors of both sides, including a delegation of unrepentant admirers of Mussolini. The authors use this
description to set the moral and historical overtones and
focus of the book. An endpiece, entitled “Requiem,” describes the war cemeteries at Alamein and reinforces that
focus.
In the conduct of the war, the British responded in
kind to Rommel’s example. There were few complaints
that the laws of war were violated by either side while
1
H-Net Reviews
there were many instances of thoughtfulness and consideration. The authors do not dwell on the complaints.
a status that interrupted progress towards greater autonomy for the Farouk regime. The British took a stiff
line with the Egyptians. When King Farouk proved stubThe passage of years has diminished the reputations born about appointing a new government, Ambassador
of the great figures of the Desert War, yet Rommel’s im- Sir Miles Lampson had the palace sealed off and appeared
age has lost little. The reason, in part, is due to the fact along with a number of tanks and officers with pistols
that he died early (committing suicide when he was susdrawn. This demarche so impressed Churchill that he
pected of complicity in the July 1944 attempt on Hitler)
was tempted to send Sir Miles to New Delhi as Viceroy of
and, in part, because he did his best in a strategically India.[5] Among the Egyptian Army officers arrested for
specious and logistically hopeless sideshow. On the other pro-Italian activities were two future presidents of Egypt,
hand, his opponent, Montgomery, went on to a stormy Anwar Sadat and Gamal Abdel Nasser.
and controversial career.
The book takes the opportunity to dispel the poor repBernard Montgomery was the kind of soldier the utation of the Italian troops. The authors note how, after
British were apt to distrust after the experience with
Axis forces reached Alamein, Mussolini flew down from
Oliver Cromwell. He was single-minded, emotionally
Rome, anticipating a victory and thinking to ride into
limited, inflexible, teetotaling, religious, and definitely Cairo in triumph on a horse he brought along for the purnot clubbable. He nevertheless proved to be what was pose. The Italians had never succeeded in pacifying Libya
needed in the Eighth Army, whose officers were inclined entirely, and during the war the British harbored Sheikh
to debate orders from above, possessing too much of the Idris of the Senussi tribe, promising not to restore the
old cavalry spirit. Churchill’s choice for the Eighth Army
colonial power. Not long after Libya was cleared, British
was not Monty, a man he subsequently found impossiand French administrations were established in the terrible to bully from London, but “Strafer” Gott who was tory; however independence was delayed for a considerkilled just as Auchinleck was being replaced.[3] Bierman able time period.
and Smith deal matter-of-factly with the major battles
while they follow the Eighth Army to the denouement
The book has excellent maps to follow the action and
in Tunisia, the true strategic prize in the Desert War.
a good bibliography. There are multiple instances of the
use of “op. cit.,” making it difficult to determine which
On the way to their conclusion, the authors cover a
footnote is being cited. This drawback is likely to be overvariety of incidents: the siege of Malta; Colonel Fellers
looked by the reader involved in the personal exploits of
and the purloined American Black Code; plans to evacu- the book such as the pedigree of Lili Marlene, the true
ate Egypt (which almost caused a post-war court fight be- story of the English Patient, the drama of special opertween Field Marshals Montgomery and Auchinleck); the ations in the desert, or the steamy intrigue of wartime
three battles of Alamein; and the fobbing off of Churchill Cairo.
while Monty got the job done.
For several reasons, not the least of which were
The Desert campaign remains a justifiable source of
American objections, the British could not fully utilize
pride for the British, the first where they were able to deEgypt, even though cleared of the Axis, as a base for their
feat the Wehrmacht and the last they won without shar- wartime plans in the Near East. Thereafter came the swift
ing honors with the Americans. Even so, the Ameri- decline of the British presence in the region.
can nose was already in the tent. American tanks and
trucks had appeared in quantity and the local air force
Notes
had been equipped with a large number of American air[1]. See discussions of “Rommel’s anti-semitic edicts”
craft. When Washington decided that American planes
in the H-War Discussion Logs: <http://h-net.
should generally be flown by American pilots, an Amermsu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?~trx=lm&list=
ican air force gradually appeared in Egypt. A group of
B-24 bombers diverted from China even made an ineffec- h-war$>$.
tual raid on Ploesti from North Africa, while India con[2]. The SAS planned to either kill or kidnap Romtributed a few war-weary B-17 bomber aircraft. The in- mel in Normandy in July 1944, but he was strafed and
tegration of these units into the Middle East forces later severely wounded a few days before the raid. See David
foreshadowed the arrangements between the Allies.[4]
Fraser, Knight’s Cross: A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (London: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 513-515.
Egypt was officially non-belligerent during the war,
2
H-Net Reviews
[3]. Gott was an Englishman who bore the nickname in The Army Air Forces in World War I, vol. 2, (Chicago:
in reference to the German World War I slogan: “Gott University of Chicago Press, 1948).
strafe England” (“God Punish England”).
[5]. “School of Oriental and African Studies,” Research
[4]. See this reviewer’s article, “African Campaigns” News 9 (April 25, 1999).
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at:
https://networks.h-net.org/h-levant
Citation: Thomas J. Mayock. Review of Bierman, John; Smith, Colin, The Battle of Alamein: Turning Point, World
War II. H-Levant, H-Net Reviews. January, 2003.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=7078
Copyright © 2003 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for
nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication,
originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews
editorial staff at [email protected].
3