Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #35452 in Books
• Published on: 1989-08-04
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 464 pages

From Library Journal
In this useful and gripping study, an English military biographer examines the forces which operate upon fighting men in and out of battle. Holmes presents numerous well-organized anecdotes that range from Waterloo to the Falklands, often deliberately blurring the distinction between wars in order to show their common factors. Although the book is drawn exlusively from secondary sources, it contains a wealth of insights useful to professional students. His observations on the role of females in combat zones are timely, if unsurprising to most veterans. As a work of lay psychology, the book surpasses John Ellis's The Sharp End ( LJ 2/15/81). Recommended to most public libraries. History Book Club main selection. Raymond L. Puffer, U.S. Air Force History Prog., Los Angeles
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Customer Reviews

Solid Book About Facing Death and Killing in War
Whether intentional or not, this book's audience is the former or current military member. But if you have read and enjoyed works such as the first two volumes of "Roots of Strategy", you should have no trouble following this book.

The author successfully shows that military personnel have mixed feelings about war. Although he addresses behavior in the midst of battle, the author seems more interested in the views about war held by those outside war itself, i.e., those who had not yet experienced it and those who were looking backward in retrospect. How those people felt in the midst of the madness is almost certainly different from how they anticipated or how they adjusted their feelings afterwards. I think this "flavor" derives from his personal-interview-and-historical-research approach. I do not see this as a negative but rather staying within his scope of knowledge and expertise.

The review titled "Flawed work of a historian with no sociological credibility" seems too harshly critical. Perhaps this reviewer expected a highly technical, in-depth psychological approach. As a note: page 58 cites S.L.A. Marshall as stating that only "some 15 per cent of American infantrymen fired." True, the subject of women in the military is barely broached. However, in all fairness, the author never pretends to have extensive knowledge about how women react in battle and simply doesn't go there. Perhaps that is a deficiency of character, but not of the book. I get the feeling that this review didn't find what he wanted and then "skimmed" the book without thinking into what was being presented.

Although now much more interested in peace studies, I enjoyed reading this book. I found a number of passages that shed light on where I have been and where I seek to go. I don't see this as a pro-military book although at times it may seem so. I characterize it as an honest endeavor to address and understand some of the difficult questions that most of us have concerning death and killing in war-time.

very good
I write this review because it seems that most reviews are written on the basis of the theories or ideas of the author confronted to others the reviewers prefer.
I am not an expert in militar books, I just bought this book because I picked it from a shelve and I thought I would like to read something about the subject of human behaviour in war.
I found it deep, well writen and fairly interesiting. I have recommended it to frequent business literature readers and they also loved it and found in it new views of human behaviour under maximum stress circumstances.
From an average man point of view, not expert in militar literature, I think it is a must read.

Flawed work of a historian with no sociological credibility
There is no doubt that much of what Holmes writes is true or solidly based in fact. However, there are glaring ommissions from this book that are quite damming.

Holmes quotes Col. S.L.A. Marshall at length throughout the book. And yet, despite this pattern, not once (that I could find anyway) did Holmes mention the massive WW II Marshall study which concluded that the *majority* of US combat troops did not fire in the heat of combat.

Marshall showed how many soldiers, in the heat of combat, exhibit "posturing" which is identical to behavior exhibited throughout the animal world. The idea is to look and sound aggressive without actually attacking to kill. In combat this might mean shooting wildly in various directions, shooting over the enemy's heads, etc. To the casual eye (e.g. watching archival combat footage) this looks like true combat, but it's not. Marshall discovered this behavior through interviews with countless US soldiers who admitted (with much guilt) what they had done.

The result of that study was the overhaul of basic training and boot camp so that soldiers not only experienced the sights and sounds of combat, but that they also simulate killing as much as possible - which in turn has resulted in a huge majority of US soldiers (since Vietnam) actually shooting to kill.

Essentially, the Marshall study negates much of Holme's central thesis that warfare is "natural" for men and that most men seek it out willingly.

Holmes also gives lip service to women and combat and uses convenient examples to discredit. For example, many people use Israel as an example of a sexually intregated force. This is despite the fact, as Holmes points out, that women really don't handle weapons much in the Israeli military. However, there is at least one force that Holmes failed to mention -- the Viet Cong which consisted of over 75 percent women! Because he doesn't mention that example, he can easily sweep the issue of sex under the rug. The truth of the matter is, in war environments where one side views itself as attempting to liberate itself women usually play an integral role, including combat. This was seen throughout the 20th century.

Holmes' sociological ignorance is never more obvious than when he discusses the sexuality of soldiers versus those who oppose war. Soldiers biologically want sex with women more! Holmes issues this proclamation without the slightest effort to back it up or to explore other options. In Holmes' world all soldiers are heterosexual and want lots of sex. This would certainly be surprising to the many great homosexual military leaders in warfare history. And I think quite a few "peaceniks" from the 60's might have some contrary evidence to offer Holmes as well.

Holmes is a historian with a military background. He is not a sociologist and he lacks the experience, training and understanding to explore deeper issues and to look at contradictions to his beliefs.

I give this book two stars just because this is important field to look at. Hopefully someone with better understanding of the use of propaganda (from all sides), gender roles, sexism, cultural history (that isn't Anglo Saxon!) will come along and do this topic justice.