Review of Max Hasting’s “Armageddon”

In Armageddon, Max Hastings’, a journalist and historian, advances the history of World War II, picking up from his previous book, Overlord, which highlighted the events of the Allied invasion. Armageddon, on its part, focuses on the last stages of the Second World War, from September 1944 through May 1945, using evidence from interviews with 170 witnesses and unpublished manuscripts to advance its course. Deliberately, however, Hastings does not foray into the events that occurred in Italy; although he recognizes the impact that such events had on the struggle for Germany, he opines that their inclusion “would have overwhelmed [his] narrative” (Hasting, 2004, p. 6). As such, Armageddon focuses on events on the Eastern and Western fronts. Despite adopting a narrative style where the general events of the war are interspersed with personal experiences of the interviewees, Hastings seeks to bring out an objective analysis, not of what happened but of why such events occurred.

Underlying the narrations, for instance, is the critique of military strategy, and especially of the use of war as a foreign policy tool. In this respect, Hastings offers harsh criticism of Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, specifically his shortsightedness and failure to recognize the import of Joseph Stalin’s rule and its implications for Eastern Europe. For instance, Hastings advances that “… any claim of Roosevelt’s superior wisdom becomes hard to sustain convincingly in the light of the president’s failure to perceive, as Churchill perceived, the depth of evil which Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union represented” (p. 23). Although he accords Winston Churchill and his troops more accolades than their American counterparts in respect to military strategy during the war, it is Stalin and his generals who Hastings considers to have demonstrated the highest efficacy as warfighters and architects of the conflicts that followed the war. Moreover, despite his argument of the inexcusable fumbling of the war by Hitler, Hastings considers the German army to have been the most organized, and proactive throughout the war stating that it “always detected and punished an enemy’s mistakes” (p. 118).

One of the strengths of Hastings’ work is the collection of testimonies from various divides, which provides a basis for understanding the behavior of different armies during the war. Specifically of importance, are the testimonies from Germans that can help elucidate why the Germans had resisted pulling out of the war even when they had great number of casualties than their opponents. One such testimony was by Von Hase who opined that “Germany behavior in 1945 reflected a determination not to repeat the experience of 1918, when the German army was not defeated but gave up” (p. 557). Hastings’ argues that such acts were honorable and reflective of reasons he considers the German army to have been the best throughout the period that Armageddon covers. The contention that the Red Army, Stalin’s troops, was the core reason for Hitler’s failure rather than the American, British and Allied forces is also not in contention. However, Hastings’s critique of Roosevelt’s strategy and conclusion of its complete inefficacy due to what he considers “unselfish” war aims opposed to selfish aims of Stalin is arguable (p. 30). Firstly, such consideration that American and British war aims were unselfish may be difficult to justify in the context that both countries were in pursuit of national interests – which are inherently selfish. More so, the strategy used, though depicting an American force that was less eager to engage in battle, may be argued to have served the overall national interest of winning the war with minimal cost in respect to the loss of troops.

In conclusion, despite its weaknesses, Armageddon offers some value to the advancement of the history of the Second World War. Firstly, such arises from the treatment of the subject, which, rather than simply offering a chronological account of the events, underlines the human tragedy that occurred at the time. The use of oral testimonies and unpublished manuscripts from various divides of the war also help to bring a multi-perspective input to the book, instead of relying on the account of one side that could be biased. Additionally, more evident are Hastings’ writing skills with which he is able to organize such large evidence into a compelling account that offers the reader, not only a peek into the events at the end of the Second World War, but also an analysis of the human tragedy that the war entailed.

Reference

Hastings, M. (2004). Armageddon: The battle for Germany 1944-1945. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.