More about this book/
check for other copies

Two Multifaceted Views of the Last Year of WWII

[Ed. note: This review covers two books, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany, 1944-1945 and Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45.]

While most war histories are told from the perspective of a particular side, World War II holds a particular one-sidedness in the historical record. According to many World War II books, America's "greatest generation" fought and won the war almost single-handedly (the British helped). By these accounts, the war started without any warning December 7, 1941, and spread to Europe on June 6, 1944. The Russians were kind enough to keep the Germans busy in the east while the Americans landed, but this is as much acknowledgment as Russia's contribution usually gets. Most books by popular WWII authors are more monuments to American soldiers than honest histories of their actions.

As an antidote, Hastings wrote these companion volumes about the war's endgame from all perspectives. For Armageddon, in addition to interviewing U.S. soldiers, he talked to Germans, Russians, Poles, French, Britons, and Dutch. Retribution covers American, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, British, French, Philippine, Australian, and Russian viewpoints. All military ranks are covered, from supreme commanders to privates digging ditches. Civilians get their due as well, talking about losing their homes, suffering from deprivations by occupying armies, and reflecting on the propaganda and indoctrination they received from their governments. Hastings has endeavored to convey what it was like to live through 1944 and 1945, for everyone affected by the war.

One overarching theme is there are no clean slates. Armies of all sides looted and raped after conquering. All sides caused civilians a lot more suffering than human decency (or the Geneva Convention) dictates. Nobody can take a high road concerning treatment of POWs and shooting surrendering soldiers. However, another theme is there were acts of kindness and generosity on all sides. Japanese and Russian soldiers helped women escape their raping compatriots. Every army has heroes, and every army has rogues. People are people. In response to the "greatest generation" moniker, Hastings says in Retribution, "The people of World War II may have adopted different fashions and danced to different music from us, but human behaviour, aspirations and fears do not alter much. It is more appropriate to call them, without jealousy, 'the generation to which the greatest things happened.'"

I was pleased in Armageddon to find a book which acknowledges that Russia beat Germany, and America's role was to help pull the dangerous staggering beast down after the fatal shots had been fired. All American casualties in the war combined are less than Russia's defending Stalingrad alone. Casualties during the famed (by Americans) Battle of the Bulge were insignificant compared to eastern-front actions. Russian civilians (the temptation to use the cliché peasants is great) had it bad before the war, worse during the war, and not much better after. Many Russian soldiers who had been captured during the war found themselves sent to camps when they returned home, suspected of having been turned into counter-revolutionaries by their captors. As the war wound down, German civilians had to decide whether to be on the Allied or Russian side of the line when it all ended.

Retribution discusses the road to the firebombing of Japan, properly placing the atomic bombs within that context. I'm not sure I agree with Hasting's casual dismissal of John Dower's argument of the Pacific War being a racist war (check out Dower's War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War -- a bit overstated, but still quite intriguing). You don't set entire cities of marginal military value on fire unless you are devoid of empathy for the humans who live there. Americans took part in one firebombing attack in Europe (Dresden), but conducted over 40 such attacks in Japan. Folks who think MacArthur was a barely competent blowhard will relish his treatment in Retribution (unflattering is a word that springs to mind). Halsey also gets a drubbing. Meanwhile, so do members of the Japanese military, the Chinese, the Australians, etc. Japan's post-war unwillingness to admit its belligerence in the war gets good coverage. I myself was offended by a display in Tokyo's Yushukan War Museum about Nanking, which states that after the Japanese army had "liberated" the city, the civilians "could then live in peace." The eternal peace of a mass grave, perhaps.

Armageddon and Retribution deserve recognition simply for the concept of telling the story of the war's closing from multiple perspectives, rather than just one. More than that, though, these books are excellent for placing human faces on all sides, warts and all. In WWII history, there are many attempts at relativist apologetics, like saying the atomic bombs were justified by Pearl Harbor or Nanking. Hastings avoids that route, simply reporting what armies and individuals did and placing these events within the larger context of political and military goals. It's easy to make judgements after the fact, once we know the outcomes of actions; Hastings constantly reminds the reader what the climate and information was that surrounded decision makers at the time. Like the soldiers they commanded, these leaders were just men as well, placed in situations that were often over their heads. For this balanced view, both Armageddon and Retribution are valuable additions to the World War II canon.