Nicholas Sarantakes’ The Battle of Manila provides a compelling account of how the United States recaptured Manila from a horrific Japanese occupation, leveling the city in the process. It focuses on the leadership and personality of General Douglas MacArthur, whose push to make good on his 1942 promise to return to his sentimental home led to a fast-paced drive to liberate the city. Retaking Manila involved tradeoffs, sacrificing civilian lives and the city itself for the sake of reducing American casualties and expediting victory, thus the book’s subtitle, Poisoned Victory in the Pacific War.

Sarantakes is known for his thorough, readable accounts of US diplomatic and military history, especially in the Pacific theater of WWII. The Battle of Manila is no different; founded on extensive research (evident in 188 pages of endnotes), it shows how powerful personalities clashed in the invasion of Luzon and entry into Manila. Organised chronologically, the book details American and Japanese battle preparations, focusing on the tactical, strategic, and operational aspects of the American landings, advances, and ultimate entrance into Manila on the 5th of February, 1945. Sarantakes elucidates several key reasons that the Americans won the Battle, including Japanese inter-branch disagreements, poor Japanese training and impressment into service, superior American intelligence and air power, and support from Filipinos.

The author takes care to highlight voices from across US forces, including several ranks, specialties, and branches, making for a well-rounded American perspective. Mentions of Japanese-American interpreters, as well as the roles of soldiers from Formosa and Korea who were less intent on fighting, are much appreciated. The chapters include many humorous asides, however dark the jokes shared among those on the front lines may be. In his take on key figures such as MacArthur, Sarantakes provides a balanced view, accepting the General’s bravado and stubbornness, while noting where he was convinced to change course and his concern for civilian casualties. This symmetrical portrayal of MacArthur is a strength, likely displeasing his many supporters and critics equally.

This is a book written for American audiences, especially those with military backgrounds and futures. For example, Asia-Pacific locations are repeatedly referred to not in terms of geographic area, but compared to the size of US states. At one point, civilian cheers for the returning Americans sounding are describes like those for a Joe DiMaggio home run in Yankee Stadium (p.103). At times, Sarantakes is given to flourishes that will appeal to some readers while irking others. The book has occasional cringeworthy ethnocentrisms; the author refers to lower-ranked Japanese troops ordered to slow advancing US forces as ‘obedient samurai’ (p. 75). Filipinos, meanwhile, are framed as grateful to the US army, victims of Japanese troops, abusive guerillas, or collaborators. While a book on the Battle of Manila, this is more accurately a book on the US military campaign to recapture Manila: Americans are actors, with Japanese and especially Filipinos limited to bit parts.

This US lens is exemplified in accounts of atrocities. The book repeatedly, rightly criticises horrific crimes carried out by Japanese soldiers, including raping nuns and young girls. Sarantakes also emphasises the brutality of Filipino guerrillas, who were known to maim or kill captured Japanese fighters, foregoing precious intelligence. In a book largely based on US sources, the Americans are disgusted with others’ savagery rather than responsible for anything questionable themselves (even when noting surging rates of venereal diseases among US troops). When civilian maltreatment is put at the feet of Americans, it is based on regretful strategic calculations, and even this is due to Japan’s refusal to surrender. The American soldier is heroic and clever, witty with clear personalities, while for the most part, non-Americans are abusive or incompetent.

This said, the book is hardly uncritical of American forces. Sarantakes makes it clear that the US made several errors, often based on poor intelligence or personality conflicts. US troops were not trained for urban warfare, forced to innovate and at times uncertain of what to do, making critical mistakes such as moving too quickly and leaving Japanese positions behind them. Still, it can be challenging to square the book’s US-centrism. In describing the cultural impact of the war, the reader is told the battle would dominate Filipino writing for years to come but without citing local authors or titles (p. 326), while the US side references specific media accounts, memoirs, and films. As the book concludes, Sarantakes states that ‘the young republic was simply not ready for its new obligations…[t]he only organization with the resources to perform these tasks in any meaningful way was the United States Army’ (p. 311). What could be seen as the symbolic end of US colonialism in the Philippines instead justifies sustaining colonialism, as the destruction ‘guaranteed that the Philippines would stay in the US orbit for decades to come’ (p. 332).

The book is summarised in one passage: ‘The American dilemma in Manila was whether to destroy a city to save it’ (p. 214). In this calculus, the battle for Manila is consistent with colonialism more generally. The ways that the United States military razed Manila escaped deeper criticism because of Japanese brutality, giving US forces ‘a free pass’ (p. 332). The book emphasises the disturbing aftermath, with 10 per cent of the population killed, 30,000 buildings destroyed, a desperate lack of food, and numerous other challenges borne by Manileños. While providing an American military perspective, The Battle of Manila nonetheless provides a sober assessment of what made their achievement so very poisoned.