The first time the Nazi war machine lost in World War II
There were many key turning points in World War II. In fact, in his six volume memoir of the war, Winston Churchill even titled the fourth book The Hinge of Fate, describing what to him was the moment the tide in the war finally turned “from almost uninterrupted disaster to almost unbroken success.” Others have claimed the moment of truth occurred with the attack on Pearl Harbor which forced the U.S. to enter the war, or the decision by Hitler to invade the Soviet Union, or the arrival of the Americans in Africa in its first European amphibious landing.
All these turning points however deal with larger strategic issues, and though they were certainly key to the defeat of Nazi Germany and the victory by the Allies, none of them point to a specific moment in battle when Germany suddenly faced its first defeat and its war machine was finally thrown back.
To John Bierman and Colin Smith, the authors of the 2002 history The Battle of Alamein: Turning Point World War II, it was this battle that turned the tide. Prior to this battle, Germany had experienced a continuous string of victories. At no time had its military been stopped, or even slowed considerably. By 1942 it ruled all Europe, was on the doorstep of Stalingrad hundreds of miles inside Soviet Russia, and had pushed the British eastward only miles from Cairo, with their entire holdings in the Middle East, including its rich oils, on the verge of German capture.
At Alamein, a small village on the coast of the Mediterranean, the British finally won, succeeding in forcing Rommel’s army to retreat to Tunisia in disarray, where it was finally crushed between the British forces from the east and the newly arrived American forces from the west. The Alamein battle occurred first, before the Americans arrived and before the Russian victory at Stalingrad. It was the Allies first real victory in the war.
Berman and Smith tell this story quite vividly, capturing not only the larger strategic decisions that made victory possible, but the individual actions of specific brave men, who often made the choice to die so that their nation would triumph. In the former category they tell with humor the failures and successes of a string of British leaders, who almost by accident finally picked the right general, Bernard Montgomery, to lead their army. Their portrayal of “Monty” — a flawed man with brilliant military talent — is both fair, thoughtful, and humane.
In the latter category the book does an excellent job of describing a number of very fascinating off-beat British missions behind enemy lines to gain reconnaissance or to sabotage German operations. In two cases the missions got access to German facilities by having Free-French soldiers pose as prisoners, and Jewish Palestine refugees from Germany act as their German captors.
The book also vividly describes the intelligence work of both sides, with the British stealing all of German’s Engima-coded messages and the Germans stealing the chatty correspondence of one American officer in Egypt who failed to code his messages properly, making them very easy to decipher.
If you want to learn more about the history of World War II from the point of view of its early years, before victory was certain, The Battle of Alamein is a perfect choice.
My only caveat about the book is that it is really is a historian’s history, a book for those who make reading about World War II either a profession or a hobby. For the general reader its focus on only one part of World War II that to many is not the most important part might make it less interesting. I say: read it anyway, because gaining depth in your knowledge is never bad, and in this case you do it by reading something that is well written and fast-paced.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
That’s a WWII book I’ve never read. Thanks!
This looks like a book I’m going to have to acquire…
Pedantic point incoming, but meant in the best possible spirit:
“At no time had its military been stopped, or even slowed considerably.”
There is truth in this, but it has to be qualified! The Germans had lost battles before: the Battle of Britain; the Battle of Moscow; the defeat of Operation Rheinübung (in which Bismarck was sunk); and Rommel’s defeat in the British Crusader offensive in Cyrenaica in December 1941. But I think the point about El Alamein was that it was a defeat in a land battle that was a genuine turning point in the way those other setbacks were not. Germany remained on the strategic offensive after those earlier defeats; whereas with El Alamein and Stalingrad (which happened at nearly the same time), they were ever on the retreat afterward (with the qualified exception of Operation Citadel, I suppose).
Monty was not a likable fellow, and he really ought to have been sacked by the end of 1944, but he deserves ample credit for this battle, for just that reason.
All true, and the precise reason I inserted the phrase “or even slowed considerably.” The other defeats did nothing to stop Germany’s march across Europe. In Africa, Rommel’s defeat in 1941 was more equivalent to the U.S.’s “defeat” in the Battle of the Bulge, a forced retreat aimed at preparing for a later offensive, which in both cases worked.
I should have noted in my review that I don’t entirely agree with the authors’ premise. This battle was important, but if the U.S. had not entered the war it is very likely it would not have made that significant a difference in the long run. As I said in my opening paragraphs, there were a lot of turning points, and to me personally, I have found again and again that Hitler’s decision to invade Russia rather than finishing off England first was actually the biggest one. He had a peace treaty with Russia, which Stalin was very much honoring. Hitler was in no threat from the east.
He could have marshaled his vast forces to hit England. In the case of Africa, had he concentrated his effort there rather than in Russia, he easily had the resources to push Britain out of the entire Middle East and thus capture its oil resources while putting all of the Mediterranean under his control. After that an invasion of England would have been quite plausible.
But Hitler went for Russia instead, before finishing England. He created the one thing he knew was a mistake, a two-front war, including invading a vast country whose terrain has always eaten its enemies. It also left the island of England available for the U.S. to use as a base for the Normandy invasion.
All fun speculation, but I do base on it on extensive research about the war.
It’s been decades since I read Churchills six volumes. No idea of which move I lost them along with so many other books. Really makes it hard to back myself up on various opinions. From Hill and Peterson (turbomachines) to a bio on Montgomery, I’m having to rely on memory without having the actual volumes to check myself.
Apologies for the rant. It just gets me once in a while when there’s a discussion of interest that I can’t back up.
I don’t remember where I heard it but the British didn’t target Hitler because if he were taken out the Germans would have had someone who knew what he was doing making the big command decisions.
Yes, indeed, and not least, I would say, because El Alamein was only possible in the first place because of the massive shipments of war material Roosevelt rushed to Egypt after the fall of Tobruk in June 1942! (Churchill, to his credit, gives FDR and George Marshall full credit for this in his history of World War II.)
And then, having won, Monty could only stand in triumph in Tunis in May 1943 when it was all over because the U.S. had simultaneously overrun French North Africa. Everything that followed in Western Europe . . . that was even more the case. British courage, ingenuity and zeal deserves the greatest praise, but Britain simply did not have the strength to mount a second front by itself.
“But I think the point about El Alamein was that it was a defeat in a land battle . . .”
I noticed something similar in my ongoing write-ups of Revolutionary War battles. The Battle of Harlem Heights in September 1776 is often cited as the first American victory since Concord-Lexington in April 1775. There were several Rebellion victories prior: Moore’s Creek Bridge, Dorchester Heights, and Sullivan’s Island. But, not first-team field engagements. Harlem Heights was the first time the Americans pushed back the professional British Army in a conventional engagement, and raised morale considerably amongst the Continentals.
“How Much Were WW-2 Soldiers Paid?”
Mark Felton (July 2026)
https://youtu.be/FEKjj8YZHlg
8:16
Not to argue it was THE turning point, but even as a lifelong student of WWII history, I read only recently of the British military staff’s amazement at the outcome of the Battle of Midway.
After Pearl Harbor, the Brits were relieved to have the Americans on side (Churchill is alleged to have wept as he thanked God), but regarded the U.S. Navy as more or less a sacrificial lamb to slow down the Japanese in the Pacific, until the RN could afford to deal with them seriously.
The news of the sinking of four IJN fleet carriers, coming a mere six months after the disaster at Pearl, was initially treated as a literal hoax by the British!
A really neat thing for a US president to do would be to honor the Marine and Navy pilots who died at Midway by assembling the descendants of their families at the White House.
As I noted above, Monty really does deserve serious credit for whipping the Eighth Army into fighting shape and leading it to decisive victory in the kind of set-piece battle that was his forte, and it sounds like Bierman and Smith reflect that. But the flaws that came with that talent, well . . . let’s just say they were notorious well before he got the job: vain, arrogant, irrascible, relentlessly self-promoting, able to give offense as easily as breathing — and they nearly cost him field command on multiple occasions. My favorite anecdote about El Alamein involves the capture of General Wilhelm Ritter von Thoma, commander of the Afrika Korps, in the final hours of the battle. Thoma was brought to Montgomery’s headquarters, and he invited Thoma into his private trailer to talk about the battle over dinner. Churchill heard of this, and remarked: “I sympathize with General von Thoma: Defeated, in captivity and . . . (long pause for dramatic effect) dinner with Montgomery.”
The book goes into the Thoma dinner, but does not overplay it, which I think is correct.
Montgomery was similar to Grant, Sherman, Patton, and many other great military leaders: He had flaws which annoyed people on his own side terribly, but he was also a strong aggressive leader. He did not tolerate defeat, only offensive action, done wisely.
Lincoln’s description of Grant fits to all of these men: “He fights.”
That Ike could corral the generals so well is a testament to his leadership style. Imagine getting Montgomery and Patton to work together.
I have one question. All the books read and I think the great World at War series I watched as a 10 year old called it El Alamein. Has there been a historians agreement to switch or it is personal preference.
Have to admit after reading so much about the North Africa campaigns I admired Rommel as a child. German heritage may have played into it. And my dad was in the Pacific.