Shaara revealed information which is essentially contrary to what had been accepted history. In 1945, as the Allies were cutting through the remaining German forces like a hot knife through butter, General Eisenhower had contacted his Russian counterparts in the field to work at preventing inadvertent mix-ups between his forces and the Russians. Heretofore, this has been stated as Eisenhower conceding Berlin to the Russians while he took his forces in the central part of Germany. Ike has been roundly condemned for what many thought was the assumption of authority beyond his station. Sharra reveals in this book that the decision to allow the Russians to take Berlin was taken by the "Big Three" at Yalta, months before the Eisenhower's forces were anywhere near the Russians. Clearly, Shaara has had access to a great volume of information which was not available when earlier histories of the war were written. He probably also, from his greater distance from the events, has been able to exercise a more dispassionate approach.
The author's technique of using individuals to tell the story is still quite effective.
A pet question is still unanswered: was Montgomery oblivious to the negative effect his persistence in striving to get command of the whole Western front had on others. Shaara has gone to a greater level to explain Montgomery's approach to battle as a means to preserve British lives, which is probably correct. But that thinking could not be extended to his simultaneous efforts to take on the top job. ( )

Good overall perspective of the final 9 months of the European war, esp from the front line infantryman's view. If you are looking for historical facts on every page, this is not the book for you.
Good for a casual reader, or as a refresher.

I usually like Jeff Shaara novels, but this may be the weakest of all of his books that I've read. This is the 3rd of his World War 2 novels, and in theory covers the time period from November 1944 to May 1945. The area is strictly limited to France and Germany. To me this is the book's biggest flaw. World War 2 is too complex for a book of this limited scope. In theory, by following Eisenhower as he does, we could get an overall picture of the war in Europe, but that is not the case.
There are good things in this book. The story of an infantryman and what he goes through is enlightening and informative. The perspectives of the Germans are also interesting. The parts that focus on the end of the war in Germany and what the allies discovered there, while not new information, are presented in different way.
Overall, while I found this somewhat interesting, I really didn't learn much I didn't already know, and there weren't enough new perspectives to make a difference. Not enough information or revelations for people who are familiar with the history of World War 2. ( )

Shaara uses the historical fiction method to tell the story of Allied victory in Europe from the start of the Battle of the Bulge to the end of the War. He has us see the the events through the eyes and minds of the soldiers and the commanders from both sides of the lines. I know from my reading in this area that he is very accurate in his interpretation of these events. ( )

G reat format which shows the feelings of both sides during the conflict. The Battle in the Ardennes is included. ( )