Carl,

The criticism of the mass and ineffective training may be accurate, but that is what happens when you don't have a standing "professional" army. Instead of overwhelming the enemy with strategy and tactical skill we overwhelmed them with industrial might (at least initially).

I realize you're summarizing the book, but if the author is claiming the European armies were better I would like to hear why he/she felt that way? The French, Italians, and British performed terribly, and while the German Army reformed prior to WWII I haven't seen much in my readings that the other nations have.

Most of my reading has been focused on Pacific region and the Europeans during WWII performed extremely poorly there. Maybe the reality is that most peacetime armies, unless they're deliberately (not in response to a crisis) prepping for an invasion of another nation, are poorly trained?