web
counter
 

100 Books in a Year: Endgame 1945 by David Strafford

By Mike R. (Dr. Controversy) | Posted Under Book Reviews | Comments (9)



endgame1945.jpg

Wow…I finished Endgame 1945. This isn’t an insult to David Stafford, or his work of historical importance, it’s just a comment on the length of the damn thing. It’s 604 pages, counting footnotes and the bibliography, but they’re a dense 604 pages. Information floods out of this book, yet at the same time you can sense the depth of all the threads explored here. If you’re expecting a beach read, go somewhere else. If you’re expecting a comprehensive historical account of the ending weeks of World War II, and those who experienced them, then this is a book worth your bookmark.

World War II is a popular subject in the historical subconscious of the world. Gone was the gentleman’s war that was World War I, and in came the savage inhumanity that was World War II. Indeed, one of the themes used in materials about the war, both fictional and non-fictional, is man’s inhumanity against his fellow man. The struggle of the minority against the majority, good triumphing over evil, and a nation being so blindly led by its leaders that they couldn’t stop to think about what was going on in their own backyards are all aspects that embedded themselves in the country’s minds even more firmly during the second “Great War.” Perhaps one of the reasons for its popularity is that World War II was (at least in my Poli-Sci addled mind) the last widely known (you know as well as I do that history classrooms don’t teach the Korean War in depth) legitimately actionable conflict the United States was involved in. As popular as the subject is, it’s taught rather hastily. Most classrooms would have you believe (at least the way they teach it) that after Hitler killed himself, everyone just kind of sat around and waited for Potsdam to miracle them out of the war. They would have you think everyone sat around playing Apples to Apples while waiting for all the bureaucracy and the formality of victory to set in. Unfortunately, that is a big fat lie, and in that widely unacknowledged truth is where Endgame 1945 tells its story.

Endgame 1945 begins where most WWII stories would start winding down, with Hitler and Ava Braun taking their lives and Germany in ruins. From this jumping off point, we follow the lives of several men and women we’ve never heard of before. We follow their triumphs, their awakenings, their pains, their pleasures, and their eventual postwar fates. We learn of Fey Von Hassel’s internment due to her indirect connection to the failed July 20th plot. We see war through the eyes of Leonard Linton, Reg Roy, and their respective battle outfits as they slog their way through the European theater fighting party faithfuls and worrying about the fabled “Alpine Redoubt.” We follow Robert Reid in his chronicles for the BBC, who actually recorded a report in the middle of a firefight and through such actions was one of the first reporters to bring the war home to his audience through the medium of radio.

It is through these stories that we see a more complete picture of the last days of World War II, and that picture shows us that just because the war was “over” by traditional standards, it didn’t mean the fighting was over. Germany didn’t rebuild itself overnight, the Nazis didn’t give up their arms and surrender automatically, and most importantly the book properly foreshadows the coming Cold War between the Russians and the Americans by detailing their actions and their tactics in dealing with each other. You can sense the tension, and the clashing of ideologies, particularly in one incident towards the end involving press coverage of the American treatment of Nazi prisoners.

Endgame 1945 is a slow read, and definitely not something that can be breezed through. It took me about two months to read this book, but it was well worth it. I recommend this to history buffs, and anyone who’s curious as to what happens in the immediate aftermath of conflict.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. Details about here and the growing number of participants and their blogs, from which these reviews are pulled, are here. And check here for more of Mike R.’s reviews.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Sit Down Shut Up Promos | The Girlfriend Experience Trailer









Comments

Nice review. I took a few European history classes in college and was stunned so very little of the information was taught at the high school level. But even those classes glossed over everything after Hitler's suicide. I'm not a huge fan of super dense non-fiction, I'm still very slowly going though "1776", but I'm interested enough in the subject to check it out.

Posted by: TylerDFC at April 16, 2009 11:26 AM

Nice review. I will definitely be checking this book out this summer. Pajibans, bring on more history books reviews, please.

Posted by: Mika at April 16, 2009 2:19 PM

I want you to convincingly argue how WWI was a "gentlemen's war."

Last checked, WWI was the bloodiest conflict humanity had ever known or recorded (prior to WWII). Introduction of chemical warfare, trench rot, etc.

Gentlemanly, indeed...

Posted by: Recondite at April 16, 2009 3:57 PM

Recondite, I'll try as best as I can. I don't claim to be a scholar on the subject, so I'm sorry if I look a little unprepared or watered down.

During WWI enemies were able to at least call a temporary truce for the Christmas season, plus as far as aviation went the pilots were a little less ruthless with each other. We were still in relatively civilized combat, for the most part. (Breaking out the chem set was a bit of a dick move, though.)

I would also note, that especially in comparative terms, WWI was a gentlemanly war. The resolution, however, is something that could be blamed for the even crueler, more destructive force that World War II was. A whole country made to bear blame for a conflict that was sparked off by an assassin's bullet, and basically cast down as a bastard child of Europe, these people would do ANYTHING to be in the sun again.

Posted by: Doctor Controversy at April 16, 2009 4:09 PM

Though, might I add, I'm glad we're squabbling over history instead of, less savory topics of legality. :)

Posted by: Doctor Controversy at April 16, 2009 4:10 PM

Such truces were also present during WWII, notably during Monte Cassino, where, even after 3 days and nights of slaughter on Snakeshead Ridge, the Germans still let the allies claim their 20,000+ dead even though they were clearly still in snipers' sights.

If that's the standard for "gentlemanly", we've still got a long way to go as a species.

It's like looking at 2 grains of sand and trying to draw a conclusion about the entirety of the beach.

It's more well argued to say "gentleman's wars" went out of "fashion" with the introduction of machine guns, i.e., anything previous to the 20th century.

Temporary truces amidst completely irrational slaughter does not a gentleman make.

Posted by: Recondite at April 16, 2009 4:19 PM

Well played sir. Well played.

Posted by: Doctor Controversy at April 16, 2009 5:19 PM

Though, may I counter with a revised hypothesis? I would hypothesize that to a degree, all wars up to World War II are that of eventually decreasing levels of gentlemanly conduct. It wasn't a completely polite affair, but there were still some polities that were present. We could then say that it was World War II that ushered in an era of complete loss of polity in warfare. I could just be scrambling for an argument here, but I rather enjoy this so I figured I'd keep running my mouth.

Posted by: Doctor Controversy at April 16, 2009 5:44 PM

I would argue that the term gentlemanly ultimately does not apply in any context to war, seeing as how coming to war meant all "gentlemanly" means had been exhausted and people decided to start shooting one another.

Posted by: Recondite at April 16, 2009 6:02 PM