Moral Combat begins with great promise, describing the conditions and events that combined to effect the massive moral sinking within, primarily, the axis nations of WWII. It is detailed, well-researched and complete, becoming, by the end, an uncompromising and utterly depressing accounting of the inhumanity that occurred in that specific conflict. It is a fairly easy read for the most part, although Burleigh’s attention to detail can bog things down… I think that I counted about 14 different committee and organization names on a single page; the information is admirably complete, but probably not useful unless one is engaged in drawing organization charts and ‘family trees’ within the Nazi hierarchy.

More troubling, to this reader, is that it is very much an example of ‘history is written by the victors’. While I would never argue that the allies and the axis were equal in their manifestation of the nastiness that is war, the larger part of the book that deals with Nazi and Japanese atrocity is written in unflinching detail, while the decisions and actions of the allies, a much smaller portion of the book, are effectively rationalizations for the what was done, with Burleigh clearly impatient. of those who now might wish to debate whether incinerating Dresden actually furthered the war effort, or whether alternative targeting of the atomic blasts might have wrought the same result. Debate as to the fairness of the Nuremberg trials is set aside with the sentiment that “One needs only to imagine a war crimes trial conducted by Nazis to reach the conclusion that Nuremberg was fair by the lights of the day.” While I don’t doubt that the Nuremberg trials were essentially fair, and vastly more fair than any trials that might have been conducted by Nazis, I’d prefer to see Burleigh lead to address, in a sense, ‘absolute morals’ in addition to ‘relative morals’.

Much of the immorality described in the book is of the visceral and immediate ‘bullet in the head’ variety. Only passing references are made to other, also fascinating questions: Is it moral that the war crimes trials proceeded with a list of topics that could not be raised by the defence (Russian massacres, area fire-bombing?) Is it moral that some perpetrators who aided the axis war cause were tried and punished severely, while others…more potentially useful, but not necessarily any less involved in the prosecution of war, ended up being buried in Alexandria, Virginia after a long and decorated life in the U.S? The answers are too complex and perhaps perceived as too divisive, but they are valid questions that apparently warranted barely a superficial survey by Burleigh.

The most effective part of the book, for me, was the chapter “‘We Were Savages’: Combat Soldiers”, which performed the worthwhile function of describing the horror of war – and the moral abyss-- from the foot soldiers perspective. My father fought in Italy, Holland, France and Germany, and this chapter is another contribution to the understanding that I’m now gaining, that I wish I had had while he was still alive.

Very inspirational and detailed. It goes in-depth on some aspects of why treatment of civilians and POWs was different going from theater to theater. Treatment of POWs was different assessing the culture of Japanese, Americans, Europeans and Russians. Same can be said about non-combatants and the exodus that Jews were in Europe. Treatment of lesser humans than Aryans has been very detailed, and some of those facts are not taught in schools. A must read for those that want to drill down into the though process, or lack of, during the turbulent period of WW2, and how it has set up the world and its treatment through combat going forwards.

Book Review: Moral Combat: Good and Evil in World War II, by Michael Burleigh.

Synopsis: The Nazis were bad people who did bad things for bad reasons. The Soviets under Stalin were bad people who did bad things for one good reason. The Japanese did a lot of bad things, but since the legal definition of conspiracy is unfathomable, those things just happened – and some of them were good people who loved their families, so there's that. The Americans were good people who did good things but were too naive and unsophisticated to know why they did what they did. The British are good people who did good things for good reasons, except when they did bad things for good reasons, so those were good things too, really. The Italians changed sides so that 99% of the Fascists could escape punishment for the not so terribly bad things they did. The Croatian Ustashe are beneath notice, and while Polish and French resistance is remarkable, the Yugoslav Partisans turned out to be Commies, so there is no reason to acknowledge them.

Reinhold Neibuhr and Martin Niemöller can't hold a candle to CoE (Church of England) clergy when it comes to the theological implications of morality in wartime, so are justly ignored. Also, lawyers, and moral philosophers, the political “left,” the New York Times, and all other historians are ignorant. And you can tell whether someone is morally virtuous by their appearance and personal habits. Lastly, apparently there is no problem with using terms like “Apache-like” and Gypsy.

TL, DR: Hitler bad, Churchill good.

The premise of the title sounds good, but its playing out falls short.

Not really a lot of new discussion here. Hints at one possible area of discussion were over Soviet collaboration with the Nazis in the period between the invasion of Poland and Barbarossa. But, Burleigh doesn't go into more depth, and also, that's not a period of combat.

And, there are several failings.

First, yes, Pius XII may have intervened once to help Roman Jews. He also repeatedly stood silent with chances to help either Italian Jews or those of all Europe. Burleigh says nothing.

Second, he talks about US generals being holystoned by a "febrile press." And Monty wasn't?

Third, not just once but twice, he seems to equate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Fourth, he seems to overrate Churchill as a strategist, though that's outside the issue of morals.

Fifth, on the Manhattan Project, he was wrong that Oppie's best work was past him. MANY astrophysicists believe his late life work on star development was Nobel-class stuff.

I was going to three-star this, as a gentleman's C, but just can't do it. The absence of good stuff combined with the errors above undercut it.