Rating: 
Summary: unoriginal and arrogant
Review: I understand Fussell's aim: to disabuse us of the notion that World War II was a "good war," that combat is somehow romantic. In the end, the goal of WWII was noble, but the war was as base and destructive as any other; no war can be civilized, however justified it may be. I understand and believe that. We absolutely need these warts-and-all histories, but Fussell isn't the first to make the point, and he won't be the last. I respect and admire Fussell; his book on World War I (The Great War and Modern Memory) is a true classic, one that will surely endure for years and years to come. But this book is not all that original and is marred by intellectual arrogance. From the get-go, Fussell explains that he will not--that he refuses to--use what he calls "cuteisms": nicknames such as "The Big Red One" or "deuce-and-a-half." He believes such phrases "adolescent." But isn't that the point: that this war was fought by boys, by adolescents? Did not the boys--except, apparently, Lieutenant Fussell--use such euphemisms, was that not their reality? I like Fussell's discussions of the war as a crusade, especially how discovering the slave labor and concentration camps was a turning point in making it a moral crusade. But such sparks of insight do little to redeem the book as a whole.
Rating:
Summary: unoriginal and arrogant
Review: I understand Fussell's aim: to disabuse us of the notion that World War II was a "good war," that combat is somehow romantic. In the end, the goal of WWII was noble, but the war was as base and destructive as any other; no war can be civilized, however justified it may be. I understand and believe that. We absolutely need these warts-and-all histories, but Fussell isn't the first to make the point, and he won't be the last. I respect and admire Fussell; his book on World War I (The Great War and Modern Memory) is a true classic, one that will surely endure for years and years to come. But this book is not all that original and is marred by intellectual arrogance. From the get-go, Fussell explains that he will not--that he refuses to--use what he calls "cuteisms": nicknames such as "The Big Red One" or "deuce-and-a-half." He believes such phrases "adolescent." But isn't that the point: that this war was fought by boys, by adolescents? Did not the boys--except, apparently, Lieutenant Fussell--use such euphemisms, was that not their reality? I like Fussell's discussions of the war as a crusade, especially how discovering the slave labor and concentration camps was a turning point in making it a moral crusade. But such sparks of insight do little to redeem the book as a whole.
Rating: 
Summary: The Way it Was
Review: I was around when all of this took place. Fortunately for me I had enlisted in the Air Corps Cadet program in 1943. Waiting to be called up to active duty, in the Fall of 1944, many of my college classmates were drafted to be sent over to Hurtgen Forrest and the Bulge with alot less than 4 months of training. More like 6 weeks.Fussell tells it as it happened. Those campaigns were meat grinders. This is a moving document, beautifully told by a man who was there. Some of the negative reviews do not reflect the reality of living experience. I remember those days, and felt the power of this book. It causes me to relive the Fall and Winter of 1944. And, it is not too far a stretch to wonder about our young men in Iraq who are in danger, every day.
Rating:
Summary: Rehashed WWII History
Review: I'm sorry but this book is simply not worth the price. As a fan of Fussell's writing I was eagerly looking forward to more of his unsentimental, realistic insight as a counterpoint to pop-WWII history. Unfortunately this is a slim, scant volume with much blank space between short chapters. The main problem, however, is that the vast majority of the work is rehashed writing of well-known events. Those of us who've read any WWII history know what happened during Operation Cobra, in the Huertgen Forest, the Ardennes and when "the camps" were liberated. There's simply very little new or enlightening material here. When I finished the book I asked myself what I had learned and, other than a couple of anecdotes that I found interesting, the answer was nothing. The subjects the author addresses are summed up in "chapters" (more like short essays) that span maybe 1 1/2 to 3 pages. If Fussell had gone into more detail (more than his previous books) about his own experiences, further light would have been shed on the American infantry's experience in Northwest Europe in 1944-45. An example of this is "Sixty Days in Combat" by Dean Joy. As a slightly bitter former ASTP student/soldier, who's time at the Univ. of Idaho was cut short by cancellation and consignment to an infantry division, Dean's account gives an excellent picture of what it was like in a green unit during the last three months of the war. To make matters worse, the book quotes liberally from far more touching, shocking and true-to-life memoirs, specifically "The Medic" by Leo Litwak and "Before Their Time" by Robert Kotlowitz. The latter is probably the finest account I've ever read by a WWII infantryman in the European Theater. His story epitomizes everything Fussell is trying to say so you'd be better off just reading Kotlowitz's book. Fussell's main point in "The Boys' Crusade" seems to be that the "boys" of America didn't deserve what happened to them in WWII. He frequently refers to "boys" and "youth" and even cherry-picks a photo of a highlighted baby-faced soldier to use on the cover of his book (which may have been solely the publisher's action). When one looks closer at this well-known Normandy invasion photo, however, it is revealed that the GIs surrounding the boy look plenty old enough to be in the infantry, appearing to me to be well into their 20s and maybe even early 30s. I bring this up because, despite Fussell's assertion, the average age of the Army's GI in WWII (including frontline troops) was 25, in stark contrast to the Marines' average of 19. I know of one citizen, married with kids, who was drafted and ended up in combat at the age of 43! I do agree with and welcome Fussell's thesis that by 1944-45 the US Army should have gotten a lot more right. They'd had a couple of years of combat experience to practice. There was no excuse, for example, for Bradley opting to ship bullets and not winter clothes to the troops just in case the popular assertion that "the war would be over by Christmas" didn't pan out. I also like to see some sober reality injected into the current genre of flag waving WWII nostalgia and don't fault the author for that. His exercise in "Boys' Crusade," however, could have been summed up with an essay published in a history magazine. I hate to be so disparaging of this well-known and admired professor but I found the price charged and the skimpy volume of this rehashed history a rip-off.
Rating:
Summary: Never Mind The Tactics
Review: Never mind the tactics, maps, and much of the armchair version of the War, Fussell takes you onto the front lines and gives a glimpse of life from the infantry viewpoint. As indicated, it focuses on Northwestern Europe and the privation, suffering, and confusion of the youthful soldiers who served there.
Fussell has an uncanny touch for bringing the horror to light in compact, efficient prose. Despite the carnage and mangled bodies, there is often a light touch, bringing some humor to bear on an otherwise dismal saga.
Using a number of primary sources, one can get an experiental sense of the soldiers' plight. Mismanaged units, ill-conceived operations, and the Allies' rivalries all contributed to the ongoing misery. Despite the techonological and intelligence advantages, the Allies squandered lives and opportunities in their effort to clinch a hasty conclusion to the Western theater of war.
Eisenhower, though not receiving glowing reviews, is treated respectfully by Fussell; not so for the egotistical Montgomery, whose persistent folly and dramatics compromised the Allied war agenda. Likewise, the tensions and almost mutual loathing between the British and American troops is an added bonus that often escapes some other more sanitized narratives.
A mere 165 pages, it is fluid writing that makes for an enjoyable read.
Rating: 
Summary: Not his best, but still worth reading
Review: Paul Fussell is one of my favorite authors. "The Great War and Modern Memory" is one of my favorite books. This slim volume is not as good as his earlier "Wartime" (also about World War II) but it's a nice little book. The sort of book that would be nice to find in a cabin by a lake when you've somehow allowed yourself to be invited on a fishing trip and you don't fish.
Rating:
Summary: The greatest generation was not that great.
Review: Since the late 1990s, people have romantized the generation that fought WWII. Fussell doesn't dispel that notion, but puts a dose of reality in this crusade against Nazism and militarism. mong the young soldiers who fought WWII were cowards, criminals, people who shot themselves, and deserters. Many of our soldiers were heroes, but this generation included the usual people found in any population. Fussell gives us the lowdown on this Greatest Generation. The soldiers who fought WWII were young men just entering the world. They made their share of mistakes on the battlefield like everyone else. They were not superhumans, but average people put into a difficult situation.
This is a great short read. I would hope people who have fallen in love with the concept of the Greatest Generation should read this book to temper their outlook.
Rating:
Summary: The greatest generation was not that great.
Review: Since the late 1990s, people have romantized the generation that fought WWII. Fussell doesn't dispel that notion, but puts a dose of reality in this crusade against Nazism and militarism. mong the young soldiers who fought WWII were cowards, criminals, people who shot themselves, and deserters. Many of our soldiers were heroes, but this generation included the usual people found in any population. Fussell gives us the lowdown on this Greatest Generation. The soldiers who fought WWII were young men just entering the world. They made their share of mistakes on the battlefield like everyone else. They were not superhumans, but average people put into a difficult situation.
This is a great short read. I would hope people who have fallen in love with the concept of the Greatest Generation should read this book to temper their outlook.
Rating:
Summary: Eyes Wide Open? Read!
Review: Sometimes it seems that we tend to romanticize and glorify the nature of the general experience of war to better adopt ourselves to the idea of it and our tacit acceptance of and participation in it. Thus, with memorable novels such as "From Here To Eternity" or in movies like "Saving Private Ryan", we overlay the experience of war with a sentimentality that makes the whole notion of combat much more palatable. Yet, in this relatively brief but articulately stated and footnoted book, noted historian Paul Fussell takes able aim at such sentimental balderdash regarding the welter of pimple-faced post-adolescent warriors we sent by the millions to help liberate Europe in 1944. He announces early on that far from flying with the angels of popular culture, which imply that the experience of war produces admirable and even desirable factors as pride, companionship, and "the consciousness of virtue enforced by deadly weapons", the actual experience of the men on arms was anything but ennobling, prideful, or mutually embraced courage among one's peers. For, although the youngsters sent to liberate Europe were surely launched on what can only be described as a moral crusade, their experience of the events surrounding it were anything but romantic and sentimental. They arrived in Britain by the very boatloads, settling down amidst small rural setting in the countryside to polish their rather rudimentary soldiering skills and to prepare for the oncoming onslaught, the single largest amphibious landing ever attempted, and they understood from the beginning what a bloody affair it was all destined to be. They were more consumed with the particulars of their experience, an affair better characterized in terms of massively poor planning, inadequate training regimes, antiquated and obsolete weapons until close to the launch dates for the invasion, and a lackluster officer corps. Once launched into battle in France, these problems were additionally compromised by incidents of frequent desertions, self-inflicted gunshot wounds, and overwhelming fear. This was, according to Fussell, especially true for infantry, which, while only composing some on eighth of the total allied forces in Europe, suffered more than seventy percent of all the deaths and wounded. Moreover, they were often poorly led, as by General Bradley in an unconscionable and yet insistent push into the Hurtgen Forest area in the late fall of 1944, managed to suffer over thirty thousand casualties. Indeed, before the end of the war in Europe, scores of units refused to obey orders, feigned illnesses, or shot themselves to avoid further combat. Many even broke ranks and ran. In fact, close to twenty thousand Americans deserted their units during the final campaign on 1944-45. In surveying all this, Professor Fussell is neither denying the heroic efforts of countless young men and women, nor is he suggesting the sacrifices of millions was anything less than justified for the result it produced; the total liberation of Europe. Rather, he is accentuating the actual experience of the combat on the individuals who suffered through it so that we might better appreciate the true magnitude of their sacrifice on the one hand, and the true horrific cost of the conflict for those who lived through it, day by day, and on the solid bloody ground of the battlefield, far from the sounding trumpets and the roar of the crowds in the victory parades. For Fussell, it is crucial for us to understand just how momentous and fateful the decision to send such young men and women into combat is. It something that should only be done as a last resort, when no other choice pertains. To do it on any lesser basis, especially while clinging to some sentimental and romantic notion of heroism pertaining to war, is heinous and inhumane. This will be a controversial book, but one I hope will be widely read and appreciated for what it is, a mature view of the actual experience of modern war.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful
Review: The author's prior works were marvelous, and thus I broke a rule: never buy a history book before reading the reviews at Amazon. I have studied WWII for 45 years, and aside from recent greatest-generation cheerleading and a few immediate-post-war memoirs, "Boys' Crusade" is the single worst book on the topic I have had the misfortune to find. It does not include a single original source (hard to tell, as there are no footnotes or chapter references), and misses its lesser intended target, the errors in citizen army command and execution (no mention of Slapton Sands, TF Baum, tac air absent at D-Day, overall lack of strategic and operational immagination, Market Garden...). This small volume is packed with illegitimate assertions: that replacements made the army worse in 1945 than 1944 (nonsense, see Balck on development of American combined arms skill), that the Germans defended and we bombed the pas de Calais solely because of US deception, that "99%" of soldiers would have left for home had they the chance... every chapter has a whopper.
Fussell's larger target appears to be that war is so awful that it is not worthwhile under any circumstances. Okay, fair enough, but say so on the cover; don't masquerade as history.
This is not just a bad work, it is a dishonest publication, a hack job trading on the author's reputation. Publisher and author should donate all proceeds of sale to a veterans' group.
|
