The Vanishing Sky is a mildly intriguing drama about a German family at the end of the Second World War. You have Josef, the father, a teacher and forThe Vanishing Sky is a mildly intriguing drama about a German family at the end of the Second World War. You have Josef, the father, a teacher and former soldier who is slowly becoming more forgetful, and resents both his elder son's military achievements and his own uselessness. The elder son, Max, served on the Eastern Front but is clearly suffering from some sort of PTSD. There's also Georg, fifteen, training with the Hitler Youth. And the mother, Etta, who tries to hold everything together.
This is a book that's good enough to keep reading, but won't stay with you very long after. It's like the potential was there, particularly in Max's story, but the author never really finds that sweet spot. We spend a lot of time with the characters individually, and maybe that jumping around didn't help with forming a cohesive narrative. The book ends by just... ending. Nothing is wrapped up at all, and we have no idea what becomes of the characters we've spent the last almost-300 pages with. I wouldn't go so far as to recommend this, but if you stumble across it it's a decent read....more
Warsaw 1944 is an intimidating book. I've had this sitting around for about half a year, but I kept putting it off. It goes without saying that the coWarsaw 1944 is an intimidating book. I've had this sitting around for about half a year, but I kept putting it off. It goes without saying that the content was going to be tragic - tens of thousands of civilians killed; one of Europe's great cities reduced to rubble. The length was also something I wasn't looking forward to: this thing is huge. But the time came for me just to plunge in and read it. And it was fantastic.
Going back to the length, I'm a slow reader. And based on the size of the book, I figured this was going to take a couple months for me to get through. But the font is actually on the larger size, and there's something about Alexandra Richie's writing that makes for smooth reading. I was surprised how fast I ended up getting through this.
But I'm not saying that to trivialize the content, as if this were a breeze to read. Warsaw 1944 is brutal. The suffering, death and destruction is absolutely painful to read. It's page after page of unrelenting horror. Incredible to think that after the two-plus months of fighting that the Uprising spurred, the Germans actually thought the Poles might join with them to fight against the Soviets. Baffling!
This is a book you'll be taking a lot of notes from as you read. In reality, though the fighting was between the Germans and Polish AK, the Soviet Union was also tangentially involved. It was Stalin's drive west in Operation Bagration that was the (ill-timed) launching pad for the uprising to start. It was Stalin that chose to basically do nothing and watch as the Germans and Poles fought it out. It might be too much to say that German brutality was unique in Warsaw, but there were some things that surprised me. There was of course, the order for Warsaw to essentially be wiped off the map. It wasn't enough merely to control the city; Hitler wanted it completely destroyed. It also seemed that many German troops were left to do as they pleased, especially those under Oskar Dirlewanger, resulting in particularly sadistic killings, as well as widespread rape.
Warsaw 1944 is detailed and thorough, but presented in a way that guides readers through the Warsaw Uprising seamlessly. Although the content is hard to digest, it's both a testament to the bravery and tenacity of Polish civilians and the AK, and a witness to the horrors they endured. This book is very much recommended....more
Why did Germany continue the fight into 1945? Even to the most ardent Nazi, or the most loyal follower of Hitler, it had to have been obvious by that Why did Germany continue the fight into 1945? Even to the most ardent Nazi, or the most loyal follower of Hitler, it had to have been obvious by that point that there was no way Germany was going to win the war. So why bring further misery to the German people instead of capitulating? Ian Kershaw tries to answer this by bringing readers through the end of the Second World War, beginning with the failure of the July 20 plot, until Germany finally signs an unconditional surrender almost a year later.
I've had this book on my radar for quite a while, so I was pleased to find it at a local used bookstore. It's always disappointing when something you're looking forward to doesn't really do it for you. I have to say I was a little unimpressed with The End on the whole.
I don't think there's anything particularly noteworthy in terms of Kershaw's writing. It's certainly serviceable, but lacks that extra flair that would've elevated the book. I also found some of his sentences to read a little grammatically wonky. It bothered me less as I read on, so I must have gotten used to it, but it was very noticeable for me early on.
Coming in at 400 pages, it's not exactly a tome of a book but definitely long enough; really, it probably should've been shorter. In trying to understand why Germany didn't give up earlier, there's only so many reasons Kershaw provides. If you were a high-ranking individual in this militaristic society, you owed your power to the Nazi Party. You'd want the war to continue to maintain that power. There would be nothing left for you without the Party. If you were a general or officer, you might be a fanatic, but you might also simply feel a sense of duty to your country and carrying out the orders of your superiors. If you were a soldier, you could possibly be a Nazi diehard, but you might also feel loyal to your country, or your comrades; or maybe you were just trying to survive. For civilians, it might depend on which front you were on.
That's a huge theme in The End - how different the eastern and western fronts were. People weren't scared of the Americans like they were the Soviets. Soldiers and civilians alike might want the war to continue if only to try and keep the Russians held back. Germans had been inundated with propaganda for years about the terror that would befall them if the Russians ever made it to Germany. And soldiers were well aware that there would be retribution for what they did throughout the USSR. Surrendering to the Americans meant something completely different than losing to the Russians.
There is more Kershaw delves into that provides further context for why some would want to war to go on, including an increasingly violent society, war apathy, the lack of a revolutionary spirit amongst Germans. Kershaw notes that almost 50% of German soldiers that died in the war did so in the last ten months of the conflict. And we have to further think about concentration camp prisoners randomly killed towards the end, or civilians killed during bombing raids or caught up in battles. Just a massive waste of life on every scale.
As I was reading, I found the book to get a little repetitive. Kershaw structures The End chronologically, and he addresses in the introduction why he chose to do this: "the narrative approach has the virtue of being able to depict in precise fashion the dramatic stages of the regime's collapse, but at the same time its astonishing resilience and desperate defiance in sustaining an increasingly obvious lost cause." And I was happy to read that - I generally prefer a narrative approach. I find it much more engaging to read. But in the end, I'm not sure how I feel about it. Because of its structure, Kershaw has to repeatedly discuss the same points over and over again as circumstances of the war change. But it gets a little tiring to read.
I don't know if a thematic approach would have been the better option, but I think it would've saved a little of that repetition. It also would've perhaps allowed Kershaw to delve a little deeper into some of the reasonings his gives for the continuation of the war. One of the big ones, as noted, was that many generals and officers felt a duty to their country and a loyalty to their superior(s), to the point where they were carrying out orders they knew were unachievable. Where does this sense of loyalty come from? How was it so strong in these German generals that they would throw away the lives of their men for a senseless cause? Is this something that had been long-ingrained in the officer corps? How does it compare to the First World War? Some further discussion on this would've been welcomed for sure.
The questions that The End seeks to answer are interesting. And of course, the end of WWII is fascinating as a topic. But I feel like I didn't get quite enough out of this book. It's not a moment-by-moment play of the end of the war, so that 'story' can feel a little choppy or lacking detail at times. It also can feel a little too repetitive when going over the exact reasons war was sustained. Maybe this will be a book I appreciate more as I sit and think on it, but right now, I can't help but feel that there's not a lot new here....more
History is a complicated thing. Very rarely is it neat, organized, or wholly positive. It can become even more complicated when it involves our own faHistory is a complicated thing. Very rarely is it neat, organized, or wholly positive. It can become even more complicated when it involves our own family. New Yorker writer Burkhard Bilger uses Fatherland to trace his own family history: the story of his grandfather, a member of the Nazi party, who taught children at school and had political authority in a village in Alsace during the Second World War, and who was later accused of war crimes.
I found this book to be a very engrossing read. We weave through not only Bilger's own travels and research, but the story of Karl Gönner, his maternal grandfather. He was drafted and saw combat during the First World War, and went on to be a teacher. He joined the Nazi Party in 1933, but seemed drawn more toward their early economic policies than anything that would come later. When Bilger asked his mother if Gönner had any anti-Semitic views, "I could see her wrestling with her memories and then resigning herself to them. Her father rarely made anti-Semitic remarks at home, she said, but he did make them."
But later, when being tried for being an accomplice to murder, Gönner had many people speak out on his behalf. He may have looked the other way when kids didn't join the Hitler Youth; he may have pretended not to hear someone badmouth Hitler. "He was that strange and contradictory figure that villagers... later described to me: a reasonable Nazi. Was there even such a thing?" And for me, that's kind of the lasting question of the book.
We seem to almost end on a note of 'yes, he was a Nazi, but not one of the really bad ones.' He wasn't on the Eastern Front murdering Russian peasants. He wasn't sending Jews to death camps. He wasn't a general bulldozing his troops through France. And Bilger does provide examples, as mentioned, where Gönner actively went against the Party line, or aided villagers in small ways. But at the same time, he more or less went with the flow. Are his small actions of resistance (if we can even call it that) enough to exonerate him? I don't think that's what Bilger is asking readers to do, however. I don't think Fatherland is meant to act as a judgement at all. It's the story of one man, but one man who was like many others during this period - and what do we make of that?...more
I was really struggling when picking out another book on the Pacific War. It was between this one and Bloody Okinawa by Joseph Wheelan. The books wereI was really struggling when picking out another book on the Pacific War. It was between this one and Bloody Okinawa by Joseph Wheelan. The books were published within about a month of each other, have a similar length, have a similar rating here on Goodreads, and obviously cover the same topic. It was pretty much a coin toss, and I went with Crucible of Hell. Not sure if that was the right choice, but it was a solid read.
There are a few things I can easily say I loved about the book. Author Saul David uses tons of personal accounts in here - he's quoting from them constantly. It's always a huge plus when we can hear directly from the men involved in the battle. And there's a pretty excellent balance between the American and Japanese perspectives, as well. These multiple perspectives are interwoven in a way that feels quite natural. David's writing is clear, and the book is written chronologically so we're not jumping all over the place. We meet a lot of people in Crucible of Hell, but Saul anchors the narrative with certain names that keep reappearing.
But for all that, there was something about this that didn't fully grab me. I can't pinpoint anything in particular, but it just lacks that certain je ne sais quois~ that takes a book to the next level. At some point I stopped taking notes while I read and just went along for the ride. It is, at many times, a difficult read because of the nature of what it covers, but it just didn't quite come together for me in the end.
I'm not trying to imply that Crucible of Hell was a disappointing read at all. I learned a lot, and came away with a clear picture of the battle from both the American and Japanese perspectives on land, sea and air. This is a book I'm quite satisfied with, but wish it had that little extra something to it that would've made it a 5-star read. I think a re-watch of The Pacific is in my future......more
How did Canada remember its own place in the Second World War in the years and decades after 1945? Apparently not very well. While the First World WarHow did Canada remember its own place in the Second World War in the years and decades after 1945? Apparently not very well. While the First World War made a massive mark on our small country, the Second seemed to fade quickly from public memory. People moved on. Soldiers integrated back into society. Little was done by the government to keep the memory alive. Canada was essentially letting itself to be left out of histories of the war, allowing the British and Americans to take centre stage.
This book was quite eye-opening for me in some ways. When I was in high school and university, it was World War II that everybody cared about. World War I was seen as boring in comparison, and a war that us younger people had a huge disconnect from. (I feel like that hasn't changed much since then, except for maybe when the centenary rolled around and people cared about it for four years.) So I was surprised to read that Canadians were apparently fairly apathetic about the Second World War. But what Tim Cook means by that is not the war as a whole, but Canada's role in the war.
Cook moves chronologically through the post-war years, highlighting the near-lack of anything done to commemorate, celebrate or remember Canada's contributions. The Second World War saw no centralized memorial in Ottawa; our generals did not seem to care about writing memoirs; our historians were slow to produce much of note. When we did talk about that war, focus seemed to be on failures such as Dieppe, and problems on the home front like the internment of Japanese-Canadians. With the popularity of British and, especially, American books and media, Canada was being left out of the history of the conflict - something that was its own fault.
Cook balances the negatives with all the work veterans and veterans' organizations did after the war to have their voices heard and their war experience remembered. He also highlights the important relationship between Canadians and the Dutch, even to this day. Cook spends quite a bit of time at the end of the book discussing the planning for the new Canadian War Museum, which was really fascinating. This was a potent example of how we interpret history, and how it's interpreted between those that were there for the events and professional historians who were not. Cook also cites the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings as a major turning point in getting the war back into the public consciousness.
Everything in The Fight for History was interesting, but if I have a criticism it's that I'm not sure it all quite gelled. Some of the things Cook brings up, while related, only feel tangentially so. And there were times I wasn't sure I agreed with his conclusions. He spends time, for example, talking about the growing image of Canadians as peacekeepers and how that was another way the country couldn't come to terms with its role during WWII. I didn't feel like that was a particularly strong argument, because it doesn't seem to have affected how we view WWI. And Cook even says at one point that the soldiers of WWII were often seen only in the shadow of those of WWI. So clearly Canadians were aware of the country's successful martial history, at least in a general sense, if that's the case.
Like any book by Tim Cook, this was a breeze to read. It's extremely accessible history, but that doesn't come at the expense of good scholarship and research. This is still absolutely quality history, but the benefit is that anyone can pick it up and work their way through it. The Fight for History was incredibly interesting, and also something that I was surprised to learn about.
Cook has such a beautiful way of covering Canadian military history. It's not in-your-face or jingoistic, and he's not afraid to talk about the failures and the negatives. I'll readily admit that I got choked up a few times while reading this. I'd give The Fight for History a 4.5 or 5 for enjoyment, but because I'm not sure everything that's in here really needed to be included, I'm settling on a 4....more
3.5 The lead up to the dropping of the two atomic bombs, and Japan's eventual surrender. Evan Thomas tells this story in The Road to Surrender by focus3.5 The lead up to the dropping of the two atomic bombs, and Japan's eventual surrender. Evan Thomas tells this story in The Road to Surrender by focusing on three men: US secretary of war Henry Stimson, head of the Pacific bomber command Gen. 'Tooey' Spaatz, and Japan's foreign minister Shigenori Togo.
This was one of those books where there's nothing really wrong with it, but it just lacks something that would push it from good to excellent. As is, it's a totally serviceable account of the end of the war in the Pacific. Thomas' writing is simple and maybe without flourish, but this makes it easy to understand the content and he gets straight to the point. Coming in at only about 230 pages, Thomas does not waste any space here. The information is organized well, and the book flows nicely as you read. It is, oddly, written in the present tense. Not sure how I felt about that while reading.
Lots of interesting stuff in here. There's the 'moral' dilemma for the US in using the atomic bomb: 'how to save lives by killing people.' They knew dropping the bombs would save the lives of American soldiers fighting a prolonged war with a possible invasion of Japan. It also meant saving the lives of the Chinese and other peoples in Southeast Asia under brutal Japanese occupation. Interestingly, Stimson and others argued for warning Japan by telling them about the bomb to essentially scare them into surrendering. This of course did not happen. Nor did they approach Japan with peace terms earlier that stated Japan would be allowed to keep its emperor as a figurehead. Could that have been a major missed opportunity?
The book wraps up with the obvious discussion about the necessity of dropping one atomic bomb, let alone two. Thomas concludes that they were indeed both necessary as Japan was not ready to surrender, even though some members of its government supported peace negotiations.
Road to Surrender was definitely a solid read, but just lacks a little something to it. It's nevertheless a very engaging and very easy read that does a good job of covering both the Japanese and American perspectives. This should please anyone who picks it up....more
When we think of concentration camps, there's no doubt we think of Auschwitz first. We might also know names like Bergen-Belsen, Sachsenhausen, DachauWhen we think of concentration camps, there's no doubt we think of Auschwitz first. We might also know names like Bergen-Belsen, Sachsenhausen, Dachau, Majdanek. Ravensbrück is for many (including myself prior to reading this) largely unknown. A unique camp holding female prisoners of all backgrounds, which was both a labour camp and death camp (though, apparently cannot 'officially' be called a death camp), mutating as the war progressed. It saw women gassed, shot, experimented on, worked to death, left to die from the elements or starvation. Thanks to this book, hopefully Ravensbrück's name will no longer be hidden away.
As a reader, what can I even say? Starts off terrible and then just gets worse and worse and worse. Although the If This is a Woman is a lengthy book, coming in at about 730 pages, and the subject is brutal, there's an ease to Sarah Helm's writing that doesn't make this a chore to read.
There are certain names of prisoners that come up throughout the book which creates a nice focal point and allows readers to get a little deeper than broad generalizations. But, maybe because of this, it always felt like there was this sort of background mass of women that seemed to exist apart from these main figures - they are mentioned in passing, where things happened to them or they did things themselves, but we don't seem to have names for. And this is something that Helm addresses in terms of sources - many women felt they could not speak of what they endured, were encouraged not to speak out, or were simply not allowed to due to government pressure.
I certainly appreciated the times that Helm slightly challenged a survivor's recollection. It's always done in a respectful way, but as a reader it's important to see that Helm was clearly cross-referencing and not taking everything at face value.
Every page of this book is heartbreaking. Instances of the prisoners' resistance and agency are that much more impactful - refusing to be separated from friends, trying to help those sicker or weaker at their own expense, refusing to follow orders from camp guards or the SS. At no point were these women safe, even as freedom seemed to be an assured thing. Women were still being gassed right up to the end; they were also sent on death marches and raped by their Soviet 'liberators.'
What Helm's research and interviewing has uncovered is incredible, and she concludes the book with a very powerful epilogue. If This is a Woman is sure to stay with you long after you've finished reading....more
There is so much to praise here. Tower of Skulls is wonderfully organized. Author Richard B. Frank writes with authority on the subject. The importancThere is so much to praise here. Tower of Skulls is wonderfully organized. Author Richard B. Frank writes with authority on the subject. The importance of China comes through. Allied failures come through. Stunning Japanese successes that would not last come through. And, perhaps most importantly, I learned a lot from having read this.
I just wish it had been more of an engaging read. My mind wandered constantly as I read, meaning it probably took me longer to get through than it should have. I thought Pearl Harbor was handled particularly well, but other than that Frank's writing felt a little lifeless to me. I was also missing a final chapter to sort of sum up what I had just spent 500+ pages reading. As it is, the book just sort of ends.
I think Tower of Skulls is deserving of all its praise, and I'm ready and waiting for the next two volumes. But overall it's just missing that certain something to the writing that would've really made this an outstanding book in my eyes....more
The destruction and suffering that unfolded during the monthlong Battle of Manila is almost unfathomable. But James M. Scott takes readers through allThe destruction and suffering that unfolded during the monthlong Battle of Manila is almost unfathomable. But James M. Scott takes readers through all of it in his stellar account, Rampage: MacArthur, Yamashita, and the Battle of Manila.
This was absolutely gripping from cover to cover. It is, however, a very difficult read. Scott provides great detail about military engagements and the fighting in the city, but I think Rampage is more about what the residents of Manila - largely, though not exclusively, Filipino - went through. The Japanese, knowing they could not defeat the Americans, were set on doing whatever they could to slow the American advance, with zero regard for the civilians in the city. The mindset was seemingly that if they were going to be defeated, the civilian population would be going down with them.
Part of this was destruction of the city (though the Americans contributed to the destruction as well). This made things incredibly difficult for US troops as they essentially were fighting block by block, building by building, floor by floor, and room by room. This is to say nothing of the city's cultural elements that were lost in the destruction. But it was the civilians that bore the brunt of the horror: mass killings, internment, rape, starvation, torture. I think Rampage contained some of the worst stuff I've ever read in a history book, which is saying something when you read a lot of military history.
Once the battle comes to a conclusion, you might think the book would peter out a bit. But it wraps up with Yamashita's war crimes trial, which was fascinating. I didn't know anything about this, or the process. The Americans obviously had plenty of evidence of the war crimes committed, but there was nothing to tie them directly to Yamashita - and the nature of the evidence (hearsay, for example) was sometimes unusual.
Yamashita claimed to be unaware of what Japanese troops were doing in Manila - but is an officer not responsible for the conduct of his soldiers? It seems like a very easy way to get yourself off the hook by saying you simply didn't know, especially with a lack of physical evidence tying you to any of the crimes. Scott provides a quote from Time magazine:
'Yamashita's spirited defense had suddenly emphasized the lack of precedent for war crimes trials, the vagueness of the charges--violations of the rules of war... What was Yamashita--a consummate liar or a victim of circumstance?'
But someone needed to be held accountable for what occurred during the battle, and so it was Yamashita.
My only complaints have nothing to do with Scott's work, but of the physical book. The pages are like bible page paper-thin, which was a little unpleasant. And the pictures are black and white on a grey background on that same paper, making them not very clear. But those are minor inconveniences.
Rampage exceeded any and all expectations I had for it. I absolutely could not put it down. And while the fighting is one thing, this book is more about the civilians and the horrors they endured....more
I've been trying to get myself to read more about the Pacific theatre in World War II, after largely (though not fully) exhausting most of my interestI've been trying to get myself to read more about the Pacific theatre in World War II, after largely (though not fully) exhausting most of my interest in the war in Europe some time ago. A few years ago I read Blood and Thunder, which is also written by Hampton Sides. I loved that book so much that seeing that he was also the author of Ghost Soldiers is what sold me on it.
I don't think I can say I enjoyed Ghost Soldiers quite as much, but it's absolutely an engaging and well-written account of the daring prison break in the Philippines. The book alternates chapters between the point of view of the Rangers who would liberate the POW camp, and the POWs themselves. This was a smart way to allow two things happening at the same time to exist beside each other without getting muddled, and also creates a feeling of tension for the reader.
I found the early chapters to be some of the most enjoyable. They lay great groundwork in setting up the circumstances of how the POW camp came to be. The Prologue was also very enlightening, particularly the discussion of treatment of POWs and the mentality of the Japanese.
I'm not sure Ghost Soldiers crosses the line from good to excellent, but it does at many times come close. A soundly enjoyable and informative read, though the subject matter is of course difficult....more
Not sure why, but recently I was thinking about S.L.A. Marshall's claim that only 15-25% of soldiers fire their rifles in battle. Looking for more opiNot sure why, but recently I was thinking about S.L.A. Marshall's claim that only 15-25% of soldiers fire their rifles in battle. Looking for more opinions or information, I found a post on r/askhistorians that linked to an article by Robert Engen that began to refute Marshall's claims. And it looked like Engen had a book that expanded on the article. That is how I came to find Canadians Under Fire: Infantry Effectiveness in the Second World War.
Engen's article actually spends more time addressing the claims Dave Grossman puts forth in On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (which I've read), that humans have an aversion to killing, even during war. Grossman makes heavy use of Marshall to try and prove his point, which you can understand why. But Engen doesn't agree with Grossman at all, and has serious doubts about Marshall's 'findings.' I was very impressed with Engen's article in how straightforward and direct it was, while still maintaining professionalism and appreciating certain merits of both Grossman and Marshall's work.
Canadians Under Fire is Engen's full work to provide contradictory evidence of Marshall's 15-25% claims. Grossman doesn't come up much in the book; here Engen is going directly against Marshall, which, as stated, was sort of a basis for Grossman's own claims. To do this, Engen is using questionnaires answered by Canadian officers that had all seen battle in Europe during the Second World War. They were asked a series of questions, and given extra space to expand on certain ones. According to Engen, there is no evidence in the officers' responses that lend any credence to Marshall's claim. In fact, he found the opposite: apparently Canadian soldiers, on the whole, fired too much.
I thought this was an excellent read. Even if you're not reading it as a sort of rebuttal, it's interesting nonetheless. It's only about 150 pages of reading, so concise, and no space is wasted; Engen does not go off on unnecessary tangents here. Everything is connected. He is able to show, successfully I think, that infantry was still bearing the brunt of the fighting - even with tanks, and artillery and air support. And that the Canadian officers answering the questionnaire would certainly have known what their men were doing during battle. The main conclusion here is that no officer made any sort of comment about troops simply not firing, which Engen is sure would have come up in sections where they were allowed to elaborate.
Engen is careful not to deem his research as conclusive, but Canadians Under Fire certainly provides strong evidence to take another look at Marshall's ratio of fire findings. Engen is not the first to challenge Marshall's work - as he details - but he is providing direct evidence to strongly contradict it. I don't want to get too detailed in this review, because there's a lot to say in regards to what Engen has pulled from the questionnaires, and I think the book is very much worth reading if you're interested in the topic. Even with the shorter length, Engen provides a very well-rounded look at these questionnaires and Canadian engagement during the Second World War. Very impressed with this book.
And for anyone interested, Engen's article "Killing for their Country: A New Look at 'Killology'" can be found here....more
"What a disgrace and what a humiliation to have been born amongst the Germans." -Hermann Kasack, June 1945
Before starting The German War, I had assumed
"What a disgrace and what a humiliation to have been born amongst the Germans." -Hermann Kasack, June 1945
Before starting The German War, I had assumed that it was going to be something along the lines of Max Hasting's All Hell Let Loose but from the German perspective: a history of the Second World War with a heavy focus on people like individual soldiers and civilians; a bottom-up history. But The German War really isn't a history of the war. Not in the military sense.
Author Nicholas Stargardt does provide some military context to help propel the narrative, but this is absolutely not a military history. There's some details provided about different fronts, campaigns and battles, but this is a history of people. Soldiers, writers, children, teachers, regular civilians, doctors, priests, etc.
I have to say that this book really exceeded my expectations in every way. I mean, World War II is not an obscure topic. In undergrad I double majored in history and German - think of all the history classes I took that covered World War II and the Holocaust, how many German 'culture and civilization' courses I took that covered the war, and all the reading I've done on my own since finishing school. Obviously I haven't learned everything (nor can I recall everything I've ever learned), but there's been quite a bit of German-focused World War II history in my life. And yet I felt like I was constantly learning new things while reading this. I made tons of notes as I read.
I think one of the things Stargardt did that really makes an impression is his use of letters between two people, where the back-and-forth continued over a substantial period of time. This allows for us to see how their views and opinions changed over time, whether their support for the war or for the Nazi Party ever shifted, and how battle successes and failures affected them. There are certainly people we hear from that are used as more isolated evidence, but being able to follow specific people through the war is extremely effective.
The German War covers many, many topics: treatment of those with disabilities, correctional facilities for rebellious youth, the impact of American and British bombing on German cities, relationships between Germans and foreigners, the use of propaganda, the role of the church, how much the average German about the killing of Jews and other atrocities in the east, the fear of being isolated socially for having an opposing opinion, the view of Allied air raids as retaliation for the German treatment of Jews, and more.
At no point does the book ever feel overwhelming or hard to understand. It's never a chore to read. It's extremely informative from beginning to end without being repetitive. Of course, if you are looking for a military history of the Second World War, this is not going to be the book for you. But if you're interested in German society and the views of its people, make sure you grab this....more
This was an interesting little book that I enjoyed more and more as I read. It's basically about a grandfather writing a long letter to his grandson lThis was an interesting little book that I enjoyed more and more as I read. It's basically about a grandfather writing a long letter to his grandson looking back on his past. A German, he was drafted into the Wehrmacht and sent east during the Second World War.
This letter is not about forgiveness, but reflection. I think the book touches on some important themes and topics in how we view and remember the Second World War and those who fought it. There's an interesting discussion between pages 83 and 84 about collective guilt: "...that even if all you did in the war was serve lunches at a quiet rubber factory in the middle of Germany, your meals fed the workers whose rubber went into tyres that were fitted to trucks that carried people to their deaths." Our narrator doesn't feel guilty about things he didn't do or experience or know about, but he does feel shame.
The book also touches on the waste of life the war was. Of course we know about the deaths of the Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, etc. - the grandfather writes about it in his letter. But the war also hugely affected the young German men called up: "I'm not ashamed to say that I cried then, lying on that Polish earth and thinking of what my life had been used for. I would never be a professor; I would never make great discoveries..." Youth for many, many men and women was lost to the war in one way or another.
Towards the end, the grandfather again writes about the shame he feels, and having to live with what he had done. Should he see himself as a bad person? How does he weigh that collective guilt and personal involvement in the war?
...I would say to myself, I was only young; I was doing my duty; I look after my children, I love my wife and I pay my taxes, how can I be an evil man? And yet, we are not talking about some youthful indiscretion... And how I've actually lived is that I haven't rationalised my way to innocence... I wear a mark of shame. Over the years I've realised that, instead of trying to wash it clean, I just have to carry on wearing it... No matter what anyone says, it was me who held the rifle, and it always will be... I was never close to being one of the era's few heroes, but neither was I one of its butchers or sadists.
Interspersed are small sections with input from the grandson as we go through the letter. There's a great discussion about neo-Nazis around page 130, drawing attention to the absurdity of Eastern Europeans who buy into that. Also, what the book calls "Nazism enthusiasts." I think we've all come across that guy, either online or in person, who's just a little too into the German military of WWII, right?
As the book goes into some of these aforementioned deeper themes, it also functions as a narrative. If it sounds like the book might be a random collection of thoughts, there is actually a story here. Some of the book is the grandfather recounting his time in the East. And I really loved these parts. It's just the grandfather and a few other soldiers who initially were trying to find a food depot. But we follow the small group a bit further and learn about what they went through and what they did. The interaction between characters was great; the characters themselves felt real. You really feel the stress and strain of the war while reading these parts.
To sum up: I thought the book was alright to start, but as I read on I really began to enjoy it. Although it's a work of fiction, it's quite thought provoking and touches on important topics. At just under 200 pages, We Germans was a very nice little surprise....more
I feel like I've largely moved on from World War II. Not entirely, mind you, but my interests have been elsewhere for quite a few years now. Still, SiI feel like I've largely moved on from World War II. Not entirely, mind you, but my interests have been elsewhere for quite a few years now. Still, Sinclair McKay's book The Bombing of Dresden caught my attention and I am very glad I chose to read it.
One of the first things I noticed was McKay's writing style - it seemed wordy to me. But I was able to settle into it very quickly, and appreciated his descriptive flair for really bringing the story to life. McKay doesn't just throw us into the night of February 13, 1945 after some brief context. Instead we get a history of the city and get to see what life was like before the war and before the bombings. And his writing style only aided in presenting a solid picture to readers.
Dresden had been long celebrated for its beauty and quality of life, both by locals and visitors. It was also a centre for art, technology and innovation. In terms of bombing, other German cities would suffer before Dresden. But even before the war, many had concerns about the ethics in indiscriminately bombing cities and targeting civilians. By 1945, many seemed not to care to make the distinction between civilian and combatant - where was one to draw the line?
As a bombing target during the war, Dresden contained some factories and railway marshalling yards. But bombing was not precise and different types of bombs had begun to be used - ones that contained petroleum jelly that clung to whatever it stuck to. The bombing was to be carried out in three waves by both the British and the Americans, totaling around a thousand planes.
McKay takes readers through the bombing waves in a detailed and terrifying manner. He recounts how the oxygen needed to fuel the massive fires was suffocating people hiding in cellars and basements. This also created a strong wind, sucking people in. Shoes melted on the asphalt and dry clothing combusted. Although the aim was to create 'disruption and confusion' in a city packed with refugees, McKay notes that the reality of "corpses sitting in cellars with melted, fused organs" wasn't discussed. The decision makers were far, far from the city. However, I feel like I didn't get much of a sense in how the fires were put out or how long they burned for.
The rest of the book deals with the aftermath of the bombings and the rebuilding of the city under the Soviets. There is also some discussion on opinions of the bombings, but McKay does not provide a thorough look at this. He does trace this a little bit: he talks about the questioning of the morality and necessity of this type of bombing almost immediately after they occurred and how this line of thinking picked up steam as America headed into Vietnam. He also notes that a discussion of whether the bombings were war crimes obviously wouldn't fit in celebrating the Allies' victory and sacrifice. But he also plays a little bit of devil's advocate: perhaps the bombing was not 'vengeful' but was done out of desperation to stop the war. There's also the issue of acknowledging German suffering and how quickly this can move into neo-Nazi/right wing territory.
All in all, I thought McKay provided a detailed and fascinating account of those two days in February 1945. I would've liked to have seen more about the opinions of the bombings, especially now as we move further away from them. McKay's writing may come off as a bit too detailed or wordy, but this is an excellent book that shouldn't be missed if you have an interest in the topic....more
I've had this sitting unread on my bookshelf for a few years. Figured it was about time to try and get through it. But single-volume histories make meI've had this sitting unread on my bookshelf for a few years. Figured it was about time to try and get through it. But single-volume histories make me kind of nervous. Some are good but just not engaging in the right way, and others are simply too dry and packed with information to really be an enjoyable read at all. The little blurb on the cover states that All Hell Let Loose is "unquestionably the best single-volume history of the war ever written." That's a big claim, but this truly is an excellent history of the Second World War.
I haven't read every single-volume book about the Second World War, so I can't tell you for certain whether this is "unquestionably the best" or not, but I can't imagine that it's not in the running for top spot. While this is not an easy read - it took me just over two months to get through its 675 pages of reading - it is very readable and consistently engaging. I'm not normally too interested in military history that covers the sea and the air, but the chapters that focus on these topics were just as good as everything else.
I think a large part of the draw of this book is Hastings' use of "bottom-up views and experiences." It's that sort of stuff that makes the book. And Hastings found some incredible examples. When Germany's strike into Russia failed to deliver a crushing blow and dragged on, apparently a sarcastic joke went around among the Germans: "Eastern campaign extended by a month owing to great success." Or when the Brits fighting the Japanese in Burma heard about the end of the war in Europe, an NCO "turned to his men and said, 'The war in Europe is over. Five-minute break.'" There's so many great examples, but I don't want to load up the review with them (or spoil the pleasure of reading them!).
But equally important is Hastings' handling of the subject. I've never read anything by the author before, but I was impressed by the authoritativeness of his writing. He seemed fair in his judgements, and very direct in his opinions. A sort of enduring myth about WWII is that it was the SS that did all those terrible things and the Wehrmacht wasn't involved as they were just the regular army. Hastings flat out says "the Wehrmacht was wholly complicit in Himmler's operations, even though the SS did most of the killing." Likewise, he seems to have little sympathy for German victims of the RAF/USAAF bombings:
The killing of civilians must always be deplored, but Nazi Germany represented a historic evil. Until the last day of the war, Hitler's people inflicted appalling sufferings upon the innocent. The destruction of their cities and the deaths of significant numbers of their inhabitants seems a price they had to pay for the horrors they unleashed upon Western civilisation, and represents a far lighter toll than Germany imposed upon the rest of Europe.
I can appreciate that he's not wishy-washy in what he thinks.
If I could nitpick a little I'd point out that Hastings writes about Mao "Zhedong" a few times, and the name even appears like that in the index. And as a Canadian it was a little disappointing to read barely anything of our contributions. Hastings pulled some excerpts from Farley Mowat's excellent war memoir And No Birds Sang, where he was deployed it Italy, but we don't get too much more than that. He was also very harsh on Allied leadership, which I'm sure some readers will disagree with. I'm not an expert on this topic, but while his judgements seemed fair based on the information he presented, it also seemed like there was little praise for what they accomplished or how they accomplished it. And lastly, the section covering the Battle of Berlin felt a little anti-climactic.
All Hell Let Loose is clear, vivid, engaging and informative. The context is extremely well balanced with personal anecdotes from the people who lived and fought during the war. What more could you want in a history book?...more
My interest in World War II has waned a bit in the last few years, but this book caught my eye. The Siege of Leningrad is something I've never read inMy interest in World War II has waned a bit in the last few years, but this book caught my eye. The Siege of Leningrad is something I've never read in depth about, although I've known about it from more comprehensive WWII histories. Anna Reid's Leningrad provides readers with a close look into the city during the siege, as told by those that endured it.
I found the book to be an easy read. There were times here and there that I had to reread a sentence to really get what Reid was saying, but for the most part I enjoyed her writing style. The book is organized well and follows the siege (mostly) chronologically, and in depth, without seeming repetitive. Before getting into the siege itself, readers are given context to how it came to occur. This wasn't the best part of the book. It lacks detail and seemed a bit unclear.
Once we do get into the siege months, the book really picks up. Reid bases a lot of her account on diaries from some of Leningrad's citizens. This gives us an intimate look into the daily lives of these people. It becomes clear very quickly how unprepared the Soviet government was, leaving the Leningraders to suffer. There never seemed to be enough food; people would walk away empty handed after queuing for rations for hours in the freezing cold; watching family, friends and colleagues slowly dying and then becoming indifferent to those deaths.
Something important Reid also touches on is how the siege was framed post-war and how it's remembered. The Soviet government did their best to downplay any real atrocities and tried to frame it in a way that showed the perseverance of the people. The siege diaries Reid pulls from help to dispel any government-supported myths and also help piece together the reality....more
This was a very interesting book, albeit dated. I know it was fairly recently reprinted, but I'm not sure if any additions have been made as I read anThis was a very interesting book, albeit dated. I know it was fairly recently reprinted, but I'm not sure if any additions have been made as I read an older version. This book looks at post-war Germany and Japan to see how the two countries have dealt with guilt from the end of the war to the early 1990s.
Buruma constantly compares and contrasts the two countries, and by the end of the book it is clear that Germany and Japan have dealt with being war-time aggressors very differently. Germany is certainly an interesting case because the country was divided after the war and how these people dealt with their guilt (or were allowed to) was quite different. But overall, it seemed to be a generational thing. Those who were adults during the war didn't want to talk about it, they wanted that past to go away. Younger generations wanted to talk and educate. And it largely came down to confessing this guilt. And not only that, you had to really confess and be ashamed. It was almost as they had to overcompensate this feeling not to be ridiculed. But the further away the Second World War gets, more Germans are able to view and question their past without this burden of guilt that the generations before them felt.
We see almost the opposite with Japan where there is rarely any confession. In fact, many Japanese view themselves as victims and claim Japan was trying to save Asia from Communism or white imperialism or some junk like that. And because Japan has 'culture of shame,' anything that would make someone look bad is always hidden and kept hush-hush. Japan has had a hard time acknowledging its guilt and on educating its citizens. It's not that they didn't teach about the war, it was that they did it in a very skewed way: romanticizing their soldiers, not seeing themselves as an aggressor, conveniently leaving out the terrible things they did to other Asian countries. To be sure, of course, there are many well-informed Japanese who are against this rhetoric.
He touches on so many topics and interviews so many people with different opinions that I could never address it all, so this review really doesn't do the content of the book justice. What I laid out above is a very simplistic look at what Buruma goes into and some of the conclusions he draws.
It's definitely very readable and for the most part pretty interesting. At times I'd get lost in the politics but it was easy to follow. Generally. And I have to say that I actually liked the parts about Japan the most. I'm struggling between giving it a 3 or a 4, but whatever I decide know it's actually more like a 3.5....more
It is very clear to me that I am not going to even come close to meeting my reading goal for the year. It is also very clear to me that I love Antony It is very clear to me that I am not going to even come close to meeting my reading goal for the year. It is also very clear to me that I love Antony Beevor.
I have read two of his other books and find him to be an excellent author. I will say that I think I prefer his books focusing on a single battle over the all-encompassing The Second World War, though. Both Stalingrad and The Fall of Berlin 1945 were more engrossing reads; books you did not want to put down. It is not often I find books that cover this much history to have the same affect (save for maybe Tim Cook's two volumes on Canada in the First World War). It's just so much information to take in all at once and the depth to really draw you in simply is not there.
However, The Second World War is fantastic. It covers pretty much everything you need to know and is a great overview of the war. It also includes some things that I feel are sometimes left out, or at least not given enough attention. Of course my attention waned from time to time, especially on chapters that covered events that I'm not super interested in. I blame this partly on myself and how slow I read (I never intended for this book to take me over two months to get through!), but also because, as I mentioned earlier, it really isn't the most engrossing.
Nonetheless. the facts are all there and it's a very impressive work of research with mostly everything I love about Beevor's writing. So, as a general history of the Second World War it comes recommended. On the other hand, if you're new to Beevor, I'd very much suggest checking out his other books that cover individual battles....more
Loading...
