Scan barcode
A review by whywhynot
Moral Combat: A History of World War II by Michael Burleigh
2.0
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.
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.