George MacDonald Fraser's flawed, but interesting and entertaining recollection of his service in Burma during the latter stages of WW II are well worth reading on their own merit and especially so for his legion of Flashman: A Novel readers. Some slice of that readership will be particularly interested to see whether the memoir reveals just how much Flashman reflected the real thinking of the author. Fraser expressed his disdain for such modern "PC" readers in a piece excerpted in The Daily Mail around the time of his death in 2008 from another memoir he wrote about his experiences as a movie screenwriter called The Light's on at Signpost. Ouch.

Fraser's recollections come with a few drawbacks worth noting. For some reason, Fraser felt compelled to explain why he was writing this book. One would think that a book about a famous author's service in Burma would not really require such explanation. I suppose what he really meant was "why was he writing it after all those years?" - the personal history was not published until 1992 and had been written recently from memory and not based on any contemporaneous notes or early draft.

Fraser explains that firstly he is recording what may be the "last great battle in the last great war". Such an utterance of sodden nonsense is disappointing coming from the author of the Flashman books - that, if anything, establish humanity's ready willingness to blow one another's brains out (See e.g. Flashman and the Redskins). He fears that the battle has been forgotten, but gives a hint of his real motive when he laments the changed "attitudes to war". Fraser also notes that he is offering a soldier's view of the Burma campaign rather than the already well-told officer's view.

Fraser slips off the rails, however, when he further justifies his book by an attack on Paul Fussell's Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War - or rather a review of that book. As becomes clear in reading Fraser's war memoir, he and Fussell experienced war - or recall their war experiences - in profoundly different ways (Fussell wrote Wartime in 1989.). Fussell was severely psychologically damaged by his war experiences (as well as physically wounded). Fussell set out to knock down many of the myths of WW II, the so-called Good War, and Fraser is outraged by such attitudes (not outraged enough to have actually read the book, however). Fraser is intent on preserving as many of the myths as possible (which he denies are myths). More unsettling is Fraser's adamant unwillingness to accept that other soldiers experienced the war in starkly different terms (He flatly states Fussell presents "a view which is false".).

Fraser's tale focuses on his 8-man 'section' (equivalent to a US squad) of his platoon. He does not use the soldiers' actual names for reasons that are not entirely convincing. Like Flashman, Fraser was working from memory, but unlike Flashy, Fraser does not have an omniscient editor adding historical footnotes and correcting his lapses of memory. Not using real names does not add to the reader's confidence.

One final bit of carping: Fraser was clearly offended that views of war had changed, even among soldiers, and just will not let it drop. He cites modern soldiers' confessing fear in battle to the "disgusting inquisition of war reporters". In his day, that "was simply not done." Perhaps so, at least in his own section, but Fraser should heed his own counsel. He has earlier warned against trying to view WW II experiences through the outlook of today; he should have inferred the corollary that viewing current actions through the outlook of 70 years ago is just as likely to lead to misunderstanding and incomprehension.

Nonetheless, as a devoted fan of the Flashman books, I think other devotees will also enjoy the book. Fraser's trademark dexterous use of the language employed by his Cumberland 'marras' (mates) brings the characters vividly to life. He introduces the reader to topics little known but of historical importance (aside from the Burma campaign itself there is the battle of Imphal and Kohima that stopped the 1944 Japanese invasion of India). The writing is crisp and a joy to read. In addition to Fussell's Wartime, I would also suggest that the reader try E.B. Sledge's memoir With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa. Readers may also enjoy Fraser's lesser known works of historical fiction based on his later WW II experiences in the Middle East, The Complete McAuslan: All the Hilarious McAuslan Stories in One Volume. ( )

I really liked this memoir because it talked about one of the campaigns of World War II that Americans just don't hear as much about. In addition, Fraser discussed his role in the fighting in a way that was both clear and realistic. He admits that many of the details are hazy at best after this many years, but the things he remembers are related in a way that brings the other men in his Section to memorable life. Fraser does not shy away from the more grisly aspects of his service, nor does he dwell on them unnecessarily. ( )

George MacDonald Fraser is perhaps better known for his humour, in the Flashman series. This book certainly contains humour, as it details the boredom and farce of the everyday life of a soldier. In some ways it is thus similar to Spike Milligan's books on the war. But, unlike Milligan, Fraser saw real active service in the front line in Burma, and he recounts the horrors of war at first hand.

One theme that comes through strongly is that we cannot judge the actions of young national servicemen in 1945 according to the standards of the 21st century. It was kill or be killed, fighting a particularly fierce and ruthless enemy. Fraser killed, and saw his friends being killed.

Like many others who study what soldiers fight for, Fraser says it is basically for your mates - in his case the 10-man infantry rifle section.

He reflects on the problems of being an eye-witness. In a battle you see only a very small part of the action (or sometimes no action). If you are in action, you are totally focused on a very narrow front, on the people who are trying to kill you personally and you them. You are oblivious to all else. Thus, despite extensive research in the official records, he still finds it difficult to match some of his personal recollections with the official history.

Fraser spends some time discussing the dropping of the atomic bombs, which probably saved the lives of either himself or some of his immediate friends, at great cost.

To the modern reader he comes over as quite conservative, reactionary, right wing. And yet he is no armchair ideologue. His views have been formed by bitter experience, and he is prepared to justify them, while also remaining surprisingly open to people who disagree with him.

This is an excellent read, not only for its exciting account of guerilla warfare, but also for its insights into various broad themes. ( )

Quartered Safe Out Here is George MacDonald Fraser's "memoir" about being in Burma as a 19 year old soldier in World War II. While it's a vivid and honest first hand account about being in the thick of battle, I found it slow moving and tiring. Fraser takes great pains to get every accent phonetically spelled out - so much so that the written page looks like a foreign language at times. But, it wasn't the accents that I found the most tiresome. It was the fact that nearly every every other page contained a footnote containing a special explanation or definition. Fraser could have added another 50 pages if the footnotes were included in the body of the text. Probably the scene that held my attention the best was when Fraser was looking in bunkers for 'Japs.' His innocence to the danger is touching. ( )

A story of World War II in Burma. It is a very personal, enlisted-man's view of war. It is the story of one squad of British infantry on the frontlines in Burma in the 'forgotten war'. It is the story of men in combat on the 'sharp end'. Those who lived and those who died.