Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Stalingrad (1998)by Antony Beevor (Author), Ole Steen Hansen (Translator), Artemis Cooper (Author), Ida Worsaae Petersen (Translator), Janus René Andersen (Cover designer)
Work InformationStalingrad by Antony Beevor (1998)
Loading...
Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book. No current Talk conversations about this book. My suggestion that Ray Monk’s career as a biographer peaked with his first book on Wittgenstein and became progressively less interesting attracted some vigorous comment when I reviewed his book on Oppenheimer earlier in the year. So I am expecting more of the same in putting forward the same thesis about (the much more popular and widely read) Antony Beevor. This book is possibly the most riveting piece of history I think I have ever read, surely at least one of the very best books of military history ever. Coming to it again after 20 years, I feel exactly the same sense of excitement and drama as I did when I first read it. So, highly recommended. And whilst I might read Beevor’s book on Berlin next (which I think was also his next book after this one) I am not sure how much further I would go. In my reading of his more recent books I find that much of the subject matter is less interesting and sadly so is much of the writing. But do read this The taking, destruction and retaking of Stalingrad. I read this book always thinking 'how could men endure this hell for so long?' Absolutely horrific conditions - Russian winters, starvation, nearly zero medical support and brutality brought on by both sides against not just each other, but also over their own brothers in arms. Both sides setting up special battalions whose only job was to shoot their own team if they retreated. Hitler and Stalin locked in a game over taking a city one wanted as a trophy and the other couldn't bear losing his namesake. The cost? Just all the people (soldiers & civilians) on the board of their little game. To hell with your life, defend that ground until you have one bullet left to use on yourself. The only thing that mattered was neither wanted to lose face.
Stalingrad's heart-piercing tragedy needed a chronicler with acute insight into human nature as well as the forces of history. Antony Beevor is that historia. Vividly told … a wonderfully readable work of history. Belongs to Publisher SeriesLe livre de poche (15095)
References to this work on external resources. Wikipedia in English (24)In June 1941, German forces swept across Soviet territory in an offensive that finally brought them within twenty-five miles of Moscow. But in August 1942, the overconfident Hitler chose the wrong target, Stalin?s namesake city on the Volga. The battle of Stalingrad is extraordinary in every way: the triumphant invader fought to a standstill; then the Soviet trap sprung, surrounding their attackers; and the terrible siege, with Germans starving and freezing, forced to fight on by a disbelieving Hitler.The story has never been told as Antony Beevor tells it here. He writes of the great Manichaean clash between Stalin and Hitler, and the strategic brilliance and fatal flaws of their generals. Stalingrad is first and foremost the story of the man on the ground, a soldier?s-eye view of fighting house-to-house on an urban battlefield, with helpless civilians caught in the crossfire. Beevor has gained access to Russian reports on desertions and executions that have never been seen by Western scholars, German transcripts of prisoner interrogations, and private letters and diaries. These help re-create the compelling human drama of the most terrible battle in modern warfare. No library descriptions found. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)940.5421785History and Geography Europe Europe 1918- Military History Of World War II Campaigns and battles by theatre European theatreLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. Penguin AustraliaAn edition of this book was published by Penguin Australia. |
Author shows the destruction Germans left in their wake, collusion between army and SS troops tasked with extermination of Slavs and creating the space for future German settlers and duplicity of German generals in these matters (Paulus and Manstein especially). All of this caused a very stubborn resistance (even suicidal in some areas) from Soviet Red Army and partisans troops. Not because they were fighting Germans as Germans but because they were fighting for the very survival. After initial heavy defeats it was clear what Germans had in mind for the entire country. Soviets weren't fighting for Stalinism as such, but organized around Stalin because he was the only rally point available. And it is not that Germans gave much other choice than to fight by tooth and nail.
Where author meanders and then stutters is unavoidable romantic depiction of German armies. This approach to history is a blot on historical cover of WW2 especially from western (and western influenced) countries. Germans by the end of the book are treated as defenders of Stalingrad (!) I mean what? And then there is cliche depiction of Soviets and Russians as ordinary peasants, always drinking, and always lacking something, led by merciless officers, sacrificing huge number of people to stop the Germans.
On the other side only Romanians are depicted as savages [even for their own troops], echo of very brutal feudal times. All other German allies that participated in this conflict - Hungarians, Austrians, contingents from area of Yugoslavia, even Slovaks (this surprised me a lot) - are always poetic souls (same as Germans) to the level it had me vomiting every so often.
What I find interesting is that in majority of books I read this idea that great Soviet casualties were not necessary. I am truly trying to figure out how they came to this conclusion - what was the other option? Surrender and vanish? Because when one fights for mere survival is it strange that drastic measures are used? They are bloody, but they worked - once front stabilized and industry was in full war footing, German armies were running back and at the end Germany was ruined. After Germans tried so much to touch, alter and end life of everyone in Soviet Union is it strange that Soviets decided to return the favor? Events that took place during German advancement were so final, literal point of no return, that to expect anything else but bloody revenge was wishful thinking (and Germans were aware of this).
Should we feel sorry for German army of WW2? No. They were treated in the same way they treated nations they conquered and brutalized during the 6 year period. They got what they deserved and it is truly sad that their ideals (and dehumanizing of the East) are again used and glorified in our times, 80 years later, not just by general propaganda but by the very German nation (that German sociologist/historian explaining on TV how Russians do not have same set of values as rest of Europe because they are Asian "mix" - bliiiimeeeeey! Disgusting).
Despite these shortcomings (which are to be honest shortcomings of majority of popular books in the western historical circles related to Eastern front (unfortunately more critical and objective books exist from 1960s but were never as popular as pro-German line)) book contains a lot of details on ordinary soldier's view of war and utter devastation of Stalingrad through available mail correspondence and diaries found on dead bodies after the major battles. This gives this very brutal theater of military operations a touch of humanity and shows how devastating war truly is (again something that was forgotten after these 80 years).
Recommended. ( )