also may i add (there's a lot to unpack)
Operation Barbarossa started in early summer of 1941, not 1942. The goal was to reach the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan Line by December, which obviously wasn’t achieved.
The Russian winter being the reason the Germans were pushed back is a common myth. Both nations were equally affected by the winter, especially after considering Soviet equipment losses in 1941-1942. The winter stopped both armies dead in their tracks in 1941, except for an incredibly costly Soviet winter offensive near Moscow.
In fact, the only major German winter offensive was Operation Winter Storm, the attempt to break the Sixth Army out of Stalingrad. The Germans “attacking in winter,” as many like to put it, basically never happened. The Soviets attacked during winter more often, securing victories, yes, but those victories came at an incredible cost of life.
You’ve completely ignored my point that even by 1944, Britain alone would not have the military or industrial capability to launch an operation like Overlord. The Royal Navy can only do so much to support offensive, land-based operations by the British Army.
Another common myth. This whole “Hitler micromanaged everything” idea comes from postwar writing by German generals, who shifted the blame from themselves onto Hitler. While Hitler did have his hands in things, being the leader of the nation, the majority of German operations and ideas were drawn up and executed by the military leaders. The generals weren’t always right, not by any means.
Even still, it should be noted that people like Manstein can and should be considered military geniuses, despite some of their failures. The Wehrmacht performed admirably for what they went up against. Taking a look at just Barbarossa, we can clearly see how the Wehrmacht completely annihilated the frontline units of the Red Army and Soviet Air Forces, pushing them back to Moscow within six months. This is no easy feat.
See, a close friend of mine is very involved in military history circles, and neither he's nor I’ve once heard this book or author mentioned. After looking into it, I can see why.
Richard Maybury is not a military historian, he’s an economist. His other major writings are entry level books on economics. While several economists have written fantastic novels on the economics of World War Two, such as Tooze and his work, Maybury perpetuates incredibly outdated myths, and does not focus on the area where he might be able to make meaningful contributions to the history.
From what I can tell, he blatantly lies, misrepresents, and misunderstands strategic and military interests. Perhaps the most egregious of this is how he seems to conflate the Allied Strategic Bombings of Germany and Japan with the Holocaust as equal in levels of evil. This is disgusting, and blatantly dishonest. The Allied Strategic bombing campaigns had the strategic interest of destroying German and Japanese military capability, which they were very successful in doing. Without the extensive bombing campaigns, Germany and Japan would have fought on for far longer due to an increased ability to produce equipment, supply troops, and defend against the Allies.
This book seems to get such an incredible amount of basic information wrong that it should never be taken as a legitimate academic source. Even if it didn’t blatantly misinform people, a war which has been continuously discussed for 75 years cannot be accurately in a 350 page book. There are books that go over a single tank model which last over one hundred pages.