A dispassionate look at war worth fighting through

Moral Combat: A History of World War II

MICHAEL BURLEIGH is a fine historian and writer. His analysis of World War II and its multiple aspects is generally outstanding. His prose is typically clear and accessible, with his The Third Reich: A New History setting a new standard. This, however, falls short of that standard.

War histories are 10-a-penny, so finding a new niche or aspect is an achievement all in itself. Burleigh, to his credit, has often done this, and Moral Combat is no exception.

As he puts it, “it is about the prevailing moral sentiment of entire societies and their leaderships”, how this changed because of war, and the “moral reasoning of individuals” involved in the war. It is not quite moral history or moral philosophy, but is something quite distinct.

Burleigh does tend to apply judgements. For example, the countries that would form the Axis — Germany, Italy and Japan — are referred to as “the predators”. There is nothing inherently wrong with a historian having opinions, but part of the job has always been about keeping one’s feelings out of the subject.

There is a lot of background in this book, making it quite heavy at times and meaning a general reader could struggle to keep track of everyone and everything. Part of this is just Burleigh’s nature: He is always thorough and has always thought things through.

However, it can also detract from the argument and analysis, as there can be a lot of information regarding what happened as opposed to the “moral sentiment” or reasoning behind it.

That said, over the course of its 560 pages, he makes valuable points and observations, such as in what motivated individual soldiers on both sides to carry out what we would be considered inhuman acts.

This is a strength of the book, and is worth the read, even if the subject matter becomes quite unpleasant.

Also, that he starts the process before the war begins, establishing the prevailing ideas and societies, is very worthwhile as it shows a proper context and development.

For instance, he analyses why Japanese soldiers and officers carried out atrocities in Manchuria, China, including executions, looting, gang rapes and general pillaging.

The military structure was designed so that no individual would have the “transcendental moral code to offset the absolute dictates of officers, who in turn were the unquestioning servants of the Emperor”. In addition, looting was, for ordinary Japanese soldiers, necessary; they were poorly paid and had families to feed back home. Burleigh does not endorse any of this, but he takes a dispassionate look at a brutal subject.

It can come down to how you read it. A reader who is somewhat familiar with the subject, or with Burleigh’s work, will find some repetition. A reader who wants a single-volume history that isn’t wholly focused on the battlefield would probably gain a lot more.

Moral Combat will and should be considered a quality work of excellent scholarship, but you would need to stick with it. Worthwhile, but not to be taken lightly.