Rating: 
Summary: No Holes Barred View of WWII- and no one (including US)....
Review: ..was always an angel. This will shatter some of our high blown and high falutin' images we like to say about ourselves. Yes, we were on the right side for sure. But the general nastiness of war, this war, any war, should not be hidden under a flag either. For many soldiers, the worst enemy was their own commanding officers. Of course, this is true for the other belligerents too. And the German soldiers were fighting for their own cause too, and believed they were on the side of truth and justice. Really, only near the very end, when the realities of the concentration camps became fully known, did just about everyone,including the Germans,realize that theirs was the wrong cause. Mr. Fussell says that nearly every American soldier,in the beginning,learned the hard way that the Germans actually were often much better equiped,clothed,and trained,and had better weapons,guns,tanks. Only later did we remedy this bad situation, sometimes after paying a steep price. Yes, war is hell!
Rating: 
Summary: Fussell returns to the Second World War
Review: I read this book for a university History class. My professor's take on the book? Not a good history, and not even an effective piece of literature. Gee, then what is it? What my professor did admire about it is that it attempted to strip away the myths romanticizing the war experience.My own personal take on the book? Having read The Great War and Modern Memory, I had some serious doubts about whether Fussell would be capable of writing a book like Wartime adequately. He is an English professor, not a historian. The Great War and Modern Memory, indeed, was a sophisticated study on WWI literature, but as a history it was flawed. Wartime, on the other hand, is categorized only as a history. Reading the book, I indeed noted one nearly fatal flaw. Many of Fussell's observations are not referenced, and many that are are referenced to fictional works. Still, Fussell being a veteran of the war, I suppose he would have been able to pick out what in the fictional works stood out to him as real. Wartime, then, reads better as a memoir, but even that is tricky since Fussell rarely refers to himself. I have no idea what battles Fussell even fought in, though I believe he was in Europe. The book sheds some light on what conflict was like in WWII. At least one other reviewer has said that people already had a general idea of the realities, but the fact today is that a new generation lives in an age of cruiser missiles and embedded journalism, and it's hard to think of "precision bombing" in WWII without thinking of the 1990-1 Persian Gulf and 2003-4 Iraq Wars. I respected Wartime for its blunt honesty, and for the times when it seemed like a sequel to The Great War and Modern Memory for tying general war experiences with the depelopment of war literature. Some have complained the chapter on readings in the war was tedious. In fact, I sympathized with his take on the publication Horizon, since my enjoyment of the arts is mostly limited to a similar compilation of works. I also found his despription of comic book clubs sympathetic. This is a time, after all, when fan base for Lord of the Rings is soaring. I know that I now view the fighting in WWII in a less romantic light, more like Vietnam. The book is similar to Saving Private Ryan in that way. Other reviewers of Wartime have bashed that movie as romanticism paying lip service to war-is-horrible, but I viewed it more as a way of saying "These soldiers have sacrificed all of this for you. What are you doing to earn this?" I still think WWII was a just war (just think about an Axis victory), but it was by no means an adventure.
Rating:
Summary: "I could carve a better man out of a banana!"
Review: I want to disagree with the three previous reviews, to defend Fussell's vision. One reviewer seems to be confusing "Wartime" with Fussell's memoir "Doing Battle." The former is not intended as a memoir but as an alternate history--an alternative to the kind of history represented by a book recommended by another of the reviewers, i.e.,, Stephen Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers." If Ambrose's book can be seen as a companion to Spielberg's romantic (and therefore disappointing) "Saving Private Ryan," then "Wartime" is parallel to--in fact is clearly inspired by--Heller's satirical "Catch-22." What Fussell and Heller have in common is that they both reject absolutely the work of the apologists of war--a category into which all three of these reviewers probably fit. What the reviewer who labels Fussell's book "unadulterated junk" seems to object to most is that Fussell, by training a literary critic, should have the presumption to write HISTORY. The reviewer suggests that, instead of reading Fussell, one should read anti-war novels, including Heller's "Catch-22." Here's what Heller had to say about Fussell's book: "No novel I have read surpasses its depiction of the awful human costs to all sides of modern warfare. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it is unforgettable." What these reviewers find unFORGIVEable is that Mr. Fussell has, in writing this book, stepped outside the established conventions of historiography--that is why a book that to Heller and to me (another of those blasted literary types--YUCK!) is eminently readable appears to them "confused." They haven't yet learned how to read the sort of history Fussell is writing. THEY are confused, not Fussell. I suspect these reviewers would prefer the sort of history written by Kurt Vonnegut's Bertram Copeland Rumfoord. And Rumfoord's attitude toward Billy Pilgrim, whose very existence problematizes Rumfoord's "official" history of the bombing of Dresden, rather nicely parallels that of these three reviewers toward Fussell: "It was difficult for Rumfoord to take Billy seriously, since Rumfoord had so long considered Billy a repulsive non-person who would be better off dead. Now, with Billy speaking clearly and to the point, Rumfoord's ears wanted to treat the words as a foreign language that was not worth learning" ("Slaughterhouse Five", pp. 191-92). The language Fussell is speaking is well worth learning. These reviewers should take a lesson.
Rating:
Summary: Balance your view of the Good War
Review: If your only exposure to WWII was Band of Brothers, I suggest you read this book. Fussel fought in WWII so he knows first hand what he's writing about. Its cynical and portrays the players in the conflict as nameless faceless war serfs serving in giant war machines. He strips away the "we're right, they're evil" wallpaper of WWII and tells it like it was. While you can argue the war was necessary all day long, you can't argue that it was a dehumanizing disaster for most involved and few who participated came away unharmed by the experience. There is nothing glamorous about fighting in a war. Its ugly, its dirty, its not fair and usually run by incompetent screw ups. The winner is not the bravest or those who want to win more, the prize goes to whoever can produce the most bombs, bullets and gasoline. The other thing nobody ever talks about is how big a role alcohol played in combat during the war on all sides. Seems soldiers stayed drunk whenever possible, and especially when going into combat.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: One of the best books I have read about the psychology and mindset of soldiers (or for that matter, all people). The best chapter is Chicken S***.
Rating:
Summary: It's not Shirer, but that's not the point.
Review: Readers of this book tend to either love it or hate it. I think this is an enourmously valuable book when taken for what's intended to convey. This book describes the cultural gestalt of the American people during the second world war and the experience of the common soldier. When held to the standard of historical research of the sort William L. Shirer produced in his history of the Third Reich, it natuarally falls short. (Althought I strongly disagree with the critique of Fussells scholarship offered in other reviews.) The book is not a strict history, but a social commentary and a view from a a man who fought in the war. Dr. Fussell served during WWII and is personally closer to the material than his award winning work in "The Great War and Modern Memory." What is lost in his capacity for objectivity is more than compensated for in his empathy, his insight and his common touch with the experience of the young men who fought in the war. Who could blame a man who fought in a war for being critical of aspects of it? Why should we expect him to extole its virtues? Is it really such heresy to state that people had doubts about fighting the second world war? Does it really show disrespect to acknowledge that the generation who fought the second world war thought about what the war meant? If anything, bringing this to light shows that people back then weren't too different from ourselves. It shows that as a society we have known the same anxieties and resevations about war that we do today and survived. We are rapidly loosing the generation of men who fought WWII, and with them an important group of people who participated in the shaping of the modern world. This book communicates one mans educated and eloquently stated perspective on the defining conflict of the last hundred years. We could use more books like this, and I'm grateful that we have this one.
Rating:
Summary: It's not Shirer, but that's not the point.
Review: Readers of this book tend to either love it or hate it. I think this is an enourmously valuable book when taken for what's intended to convey. This book describes the cultural gestalt of the American people during the second world war and the experience of the common soldier. When held to the standard of historical research of the sort William L. Shirer produced in his history of the Third Reich, it natuarally falls short. (Althought I strongly disagree with the critique of Fussells scholarship offered in other reviews.) The book is not a strict history, but a social commentary and a view from a a man who fought in the war. Dr. Fussell served during WWII and is personally closer to the material than his award winning work in "The Great War and Modern Memory." What is lost in his capacity for objectivity is more than compensated for in his empathy, his insight and his common touch with the experience of the young men who fought in the war. Who could blame a man who fought in a war for being critical of aspects of it? Why should we expect him to extole its virtues? Is it really such heresy to state that people had doubts about fighting the second world war? Does it really show disrespect to acknowledge that the generation who fought the second world war thought about what the war meant? If anything, bringing this to light shows that people back then weren't too different from ourselves. It shows that as a society we have known the same anxieties and resevations about war that we do today and survived. We are rapidly loosing the generation of men who fought WWII, and with them an important group of people who participated in the shaping of the modern world. This book communicates one mans educated and eloquently stated perspective on the defining conflict of the last hundred years. We could use more books like this, and I'm grateful that we have this one.
Rating: 
Summary: A wildly uneven and entertaining book ...
Review: The phrase "War is hell" is oft-repeated, yet those words are without much meaning unless there is an understanding of what war is like. It has often been observed that those who actually went through WWII rarely discuss what they went through. Reading this book, particularly the last chapter, could explain why this is so. It contains the most graphic material in the book with its descriptions of the appearance, sounds, and smells of death, along with the despair that comes from near certain death in combat. Earlier chapters cover the many short-term and long-term detrimental effects of the war on the media, culture, and psyche of both the soldiers and those who remained in the United States and Britain. Given the nature of the recent war in Iraq, the chapter titled "Precision Bombing Will Win the War" was especially interesting. Many of the promises made today about the ease of battle due to precision bombing and air power were also made during WWII. However, it was startling to discover how inaccurate and ineffective the bombing was during WWII, and how many died from "friendly fire." (According to Fussell, it was so bad that many soldiers started to shoot at their own bombers.) Fussell does belabor some things to the point of being painfully tedious, particularly in his writing about what was read during the war. Most notable here was his extensive coverage of a British periodical called "Horizon." He seems to have liked that publication a lot. As a participant in the war, his approach is one-sided - he obviously hated it. However, it is a side of the story that is not repeated often enough. If your exposure to World War II is through the History Channel and Time-Life books, or if you think a decision to go to war is not that difficult, then read this book to see another side to the story. I found this book because it was referenced in this Joseph Sobran column ... I highly recommend his writings.
Rating:
Summary: Uneven but worthwhile reading
Review: This book was recommended by a colleague and I found it quite fascinating. Perhaps even more so as we have embarked on a "war on terrorism" and nuclear strategies are being developed specific to certain countries forming the "axis of evil." It appears that most reviewers found the book worthwhile while a few found little in it of redeeming value. After reading Ambrose, this was certainly a departure. However, overall I found it an interesting perspective and one that is rarely heard. An occasional chapter is tedious, especially that on the London literary scene in the 40s. But Fussell through that information tries to show how some tried to maintain some semblance of normalcy during a period of great privation. Overall, I would recommend this book for anyone interested in a different perspective on WWII. It was, in some ways, similar to certain civil war histories that focus more on the travails of the soldiers than the strategists.
Rating:
Summary: Fussell returns to the Second World War
Review: Well, as I think what the author want to say is that in WW II when any soldier of the Allied band confronted with Germans or Japanese he tried to shot the enemy, but a true pity! The uniform is made from onepiece and he can't resist the necessity of urinating and... These things don't happened to John Wayne, we agree, but it's that real war can't be repeated and his scenes essayed as cinema. Moreover, WW II was an entire unknown unrepeatable class of war form the beginning until the end. So Fussel joints a collection of misadventures very little heroical but I think unavoidable and necessary and over all, humane. At last Hitler perhaps had a private WC all time but he committed the highest mistake. Perhaps he was not humane.
|
