Book Review: ‘Victory ‘45' chronicles the long, winding road to ending WWII
In the popular imagination, World War II concluded in 1945 with the deaths of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Europe, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. As historians James Holland and Al Murray chronicle in their finely detailed book 'Victory '45: The End of the War in Eight Surrenders,' those events alone were not capable of halting the colossal military might unleashed over the previous six years.
Consider how the ultimate aim of the Allies — unconditional surrender as set in a joint declaration — contrasted with the Nazi blood oath calling for a '1,000-year Reich or Armageddon.' President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, meeting in Casablanca in January 1943, outlined the strategic, political, and moral clarity necessary to fight a global conflict. By spring 1945 Hitler and his supporters were rotting in his Berlin bunker.
Holland and Murray use the bunker setting — depicted in the 2004 German film 'Downfall' featuring a meme-able Hitler tirade — as the predicate for the multiple European surrenders to come. If rehashing Hitler's suicide, in April 1945, early in the book seems anti-climactic, 'Victory '45' justifies itself by moving on to the unsung but equally dramatic tales of those who navigated the confusion of a war that was won but hardly finished.
The first significant capitulation began weeks earlier when two backstabbing rivals in the Nazi SS high command in Northern Italy separately schemed to save their own postwar skins. Their intrigues delayed the first of Europe's unconditional surrenders, limited to their sector, signed just a day before Hitler's demise. A recurring motif was the futile attempts by the Germans to only yield to the West in hopes of splintering the Allies and escaping Soviet vengeance.
While Holland and Murray include brief profiles of famous politicians and commanders as further European surrender ceremonies were staged and announced, 'Victory '45' finds its relevance and poignancy when it directs its focus downward. There, ordinary individuals journeyed to the intersections of triumph and despair, relief and revulsion.
Examples include the Jewish-American college student haunted by the atrocities at a slave compound in Austria seized by his Army unit. Those rescued included a Jewish-Czech teen who lied about his age to avoid extermination at Auschwitz and joined his father in surviving stints at multiple camps. Liberation was punctuated by grief just days later in a makeshift hospital when his father died in his arms.
On the Eastern Front, a young female translator in Soviet military intelligence was integral to a search in Germany's devastated capital. Were the reports of the Fuhrer's death Nazi disinformation? She interrogated captured witnesses, attended the autopsy of the burned corpse, and was even given custody of the teeth that were eventually confirmed as Hitler's. Not much further west, a bedraggled teenage German conscript who did escape Berlin's aftermath lived on the run until captured by a Russian soldier who simply told him, 'War is over! All go home!'
Turning to the Pacific Theater, 'Victory '45' examines the grim prospect the Western Allies faced in 'unconditionally' conquering a warrior ethos in Japan, epitomized by their civilians' suicidal resistance to the Allied invasion of Okinawa. The necessity of the atomic bombings was proven by the attempted military coup staged by high-ranking Japanese holdouts who wanted to defy Emperor Hirohito's orders and continue fighting despite the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Weekly
A weekly look at what's happening in Winnipeg's arts and entertainment scene.
Not simply targeted to WWII enthusiasts, 'Victory '45' illustrates for those with a broader historical interest the myriad challenges in bringing to heel the dogs of war. Brits Holland and Murray cannot be expected to quote Yankee baseball legend Yogi Berra, but their book deftly explains 80 years later why in war as well as sports, 'It ain't over 'til it's over.'
___
Douglass K. Daniel is the author of 'Kill — Do Not Release: Censored Marine Corps Stories from World War II' (Fordham University Press).
___
AP book reviews: https://apnews.com/hub/book-reviews
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
5 hours ago
- Toronto Star
With only one nuclear arms pact left between the US and Russia, a new arms race is possible
For decades, the threat of nuclear conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union hung over humanity — and occasionally the superpowers edged toward the brink, as with the Cuban missile crisis. But beginning in the 1970s, American and Soviet leaders started taking steps toward de-escalation, leading to a handful of critical treaties, including the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty that eliminated an entire class of nuclear-capable missiles.
Winnipeg Free Press
5 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
With only one nuclear arms pact left between the US and Russia, a new arms race is possible
For decades, the threat of nuclear conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union hung over humanity — and occasionally the superpowers edged toward the brink, as with the Cuban missile crisis. But beginning in the 1970s, American and Soviet leaders started taking steps toward de-escalation, leading to a handful of critical treaties, including the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty that eliminated an entire class of nuclear-capable missiles. The pact was terminated in 2019 after the U.S. withdrew. On Tuesday, Russia announced it was ending self-imposed restrictions on the deployment of the missiles covered in the agreement. That leaves just one nuclear arms pact between Moscow and Washington still standing: New START, which experts say is on the ropes and set to expire in February in any case. While the end of nuclear weapons agreements between the U.S. and Russia does not necessarily make nuclear war more likely, 'it certainly doesn't make it less likely,' said Alexander Bollfrass, an expert on nuclear arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Moscow and Washington are still signatories to multilateral international treaties that aim to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons, but the increasingly erratic relationship between the countries, combined with the dwindling treaties, has many worried. Survivors of the atomic bomb dropped 80 years ago Wednesday by the U.S. on the Japanese city of Hiroshima expressed frustration about the growing support of global leaders for nuclear weapons as a deterrence. US and Russia have far fewer warheads than decades ago In 1986, the Soviet Union had more than 40,000 nuclear warheads, while the U.S. had more than 20,000, according to the Federation of American Scientists. A series of arms control agreements sharply reduced those stockpiles. The federation estimated in March 2025 that Russia has 5,459 deployed and non-deployed nuclear warheads, while the U.S. has 5,177. Together, that's about 87% of the world's nuclear weapons. Washington and Moscow have signed a series of key treaties In May 1972 — a decade after the Cuban missile crisis — the U.S. and Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I, or SALT I, which was the first treaty that placed limits on the number of missiles, bombers and submarines carrying nuclear weapons. At the same time, they also signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or ABM, putting restrictions on missile defense systems that protect against a nuclear strike. Then, in 1987, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan inked the INF treaty, banning missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,410 miles). U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the pact during his first term, citing Russian violations that Moscow denied. The White House also said it placed the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage to China and Iran, neither of which was party to the agreement and each of which it said had more than 1,000 INF-range missiles. The Kremlin initially said it would abide by its provisions, but on Tuesday, it ended that pledge. Even before that, Moscow test-fired its new intermediate-range Oreshnik hypersonic missile at Ukraine in November. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said those missiles will be deployed to Russia's neighbor and ally Belarus later this year. Meanwhile, the START I nuclear arms reduction treaty signed in 1991 reduced the strategic arsenals of U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads, as well as missiles, bombers and submarines carrying them. It has since expired. Another treaty, START II, was signed but never entered into force. In 2002, then-U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM agreement after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of concerns that the agreement limited U.S. capabilities to counter attacks, including from countries such as Iran or North Korea. Russia strongly opposed the move, fearing that it would allow the U.S. to develop a capability that would erode its nuclear deterrent. The last remaining bilateral treaty — New START, signed in April 2010 — aimed to set limits on deployed nuclear weapons and launchers and enforce on-site inspections. It, too, is 'functionally dead,' said Sidharth Kaushal, a senior fellow in military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. It expires on Feb. 5, 2026, and Russia already suspended its participation after its invasion of Ukraine, resulting in a halt of on-the-ground inspections of Russian nuclear sites. Moscow said, however, it would continue to abide by the pact's limits on its nuclear forces. Russia and the US aren't the only players The INF and New START treaties, in particular, led to 'serious on-the-ground inspections' that lowered tensions in Europe, Bollfrass said. Their end could rachet up tensions between the two Cold War adversaries, experts said. But they also reflect a broader interest in conventionally armed intermediate-range missiles, the experts said, pointing to the planned U.S. deployment of such missiles to Europe and the Pacific, as well as Israel's and Iran's use of missiles during their recent war. New bilateral agreements on nuclear weapons between the U.S. and Russia in the immediate future are 'highly unlikely' because the level of trust necessary to negotiate and follow through with an arms control agreement does not exist, Kaushal at RUSI said. And the U.S. is increasingly looking at other threats. Both the Bush and Trump administrations withdrew from treaties with Russia partly by citing concerns that the agreements didn't place limits on other countries' build-up of nuclear weapons. As China increasingly becomes a nuclear peer of the U.S. and Russia, it could drive a 'competitive spiral' in which Washington could develop more nuclear, as well as conventional, weapons to counter what it perceives as a threat from Beijing, Kaushal said. Any increase in U.S. intermediate- or long-range weapons could, in turn, drive Russia to increase its own nuclear arsenal, he said. But even as Cold War treaties end, Cold War thinking may endure. The possibility of mutually assured destruction may still demand restraint, the experts said. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:
Toronto Star
11 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Mark Carney has a golden opportunity to redefine Canadian identity and defence
What do the two words 'national defence' really mean in Canada? What are our core values and vital interests today, and how can we invest responsibly in their promotion and protection going forward? These are core questions for all Canadians to debate. They speak to the security we must now strengthen at home, and the sacrifices that will be required to support these efforts. Canada needs a modernized strategic culture that reflects a renewed understanding of and approach to security and defence, and is firmly grounded in active public debate and clear national priorities. The seeds of a renewed and more ambitious Canadian strategic culture may already have been sown by Prime Minister Mark Carney in several recent assertions and decisions: we can be an ' energy superpower ' in a world facing ever increasing energy demand and growing energy insecurity. We could be the 'most European non-European nation,' with a new strategic partnership with the EU and participation in ReArm Europe. And, perhaps most importantly, and certainly most strikingly, 'the old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military co-operation is over.'
