What do you think?
Rate this book
1945: The War That Never Ended
1945 is a monumental, multi-dimensional history of the end of World War II. Dallas narrates in meticulous detail the conflicts, contradictions, motives, and counter-motives that marked the end of the greatest military conflict in modern history and established lasting patterns of deceit, uncertainty, and distrust out of which the Cold War was born.
Beginning with the siege of Berlin, Dallas describes in simple human terms the interactions of Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Zhukov, Truman, de Gaulle, Macmillan, along with others relatively unknown, vividly portraying the interpenetration of the daily with the epochal, the obscure with the great political events taking place on the world stage. A grand narrative of diplomatic mistakes, military accidents, and the chaos inherent in human affairs,1945 draws the reader into a profound reflection on the basic shaping forces of history, the arbitrary ways we objectify its conflicts, and the subtle, almost invisible filaments that enmesh public events with private passions.
Beginning with the siege of Berlin, Dallas describes in simple human terms the interactions of Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Zhukov, Truman, de Gaulle, Macmillan, along with others relatively unknown, vividly portraying the interpenetration of the daily with the epochal, the obscure with the great political events taking place on the world stage. A grand narrative of diplomatic mistakes, military accidents, and the chaos inherent in human affairs,1945 draws the reader into a profound reflection on the basic shaping forces of history, the arbitrary ways we objectify its conflicts, and the subtle, almost invisible filaments that enmesh public events with private passions.
792 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
13 people are currently reading
182 people want to read
About the author
Gregor Dallas
11 books7 followersGregor Dallas attended Sherborne School in Dorset, received a BA at the University of California at Berkeley and a PhD at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 10, 2016
This one was a long haul, but worth the time. I found it well organized and accessibly written - important qualities in a historical account of over 600 pages if the author hopes for his readers to see it through to the end. More significantly, it was eye opening. I don't consider myself naive about how over glorified America's contribution to WWII has been elevated. I've read Churchill, and I've read perspectives from Hungary and France, and certainly a cross section of American work. It's terribly sad, all the same, to look through a lens other than the American one and recognize how we turned a blind eye to the sinister motives of our "ally" the Soviet Union, took our ball and went home. The repercussions continue to play out in Europe today. We can do better than this.
Read
May 11, 2014Having read one-third of the book, this is not a review. I have not abandoned it, but have put it back on the shelf and maybe get back to it in future. The first one-third didn't reveal much I didn't already know about WWII that has already been extensively covered on the second world war.
I thought this book was supposed to be about after the war.
The writing is factual and dry, and page after page of the massive death tolls does my head in.
There are too many books I want to read on my to-read list. Priorities.
I thought this book was supposed to be about after the war.
The writing is factual and dry, and page after page of the massive death tolls does my head in.
There are too many books I want to read on my to-read list. Priorities.
August 7, 2019
книга була б на "5", якби не ляпи перекладу. адже це доволі детальний виклад подій 1944-1945 рр. в Європі: суміш політичної, соціальної та військової історій.
September 3, 2008
An amazing analysis of the wars-within-the-war, looking at the problems of countries trying to prepare for the postwar world. France was threatened by civil war between Gaullists and communists, Poland was already torn between its Western (London) and Soviet (Lublin) governments, Berlin was turning on itself, the US was busy with Okinawa and Southeast Asia, and none of the Allies could fully deal with any of the others. Best book I've read in a while.
April 14, 2019
Interesting. Well written. Leftist slant. Leftist Yale Univ. press. Written while at Leftist Princeton Univ.
January 27, 2025
I struggled to get through this book and found the author's style frustrating. Dallas gives the reader a lot of interesting information, but his style can be repetitive and occasionally disjointed. With that said, it was a really interesting and educational read.
May 20, 2021
Very good on the details, focused almost exclusively on Europe, so I kind of missed the aspects of the Pacific. I was very surprised to read of the tumultuous post-liberation period in France and was saddened by the details of the same period in Poland.
Read
October 20, 2015Takes a long time to actually get to 1945, but a powerful (though repetitive) re-cap up to '45, and passionate description of the failures of the "peace".
November 9, 2007
Interesting review of the last months of the war and post-war Europe.
March 31, 2012
Long book - I'm not interested in the war enough to warrant dedicating the time to read this tome.
April 15, 2015
I think it's better than his "1918 War and Peace."
And it led to Ceszlaw Milos!
And it led to Ceszlaw Milos!
January 22, 2018
The original title of the book in English is “1945: The War That Never Ended.” That’s basically the essence of the book: the author follows the events of the war and related aspects of the world politics in the context of one key idea — World War Two was started by Germany and the USSR with the purpose of dividing the world between themselves; both did it under different internal grounds but with the same hatred towards the democratic and liberal societies; and when Germany eventually decided that it might win the whole world including the USSR (and almost did), and the USSR found itself among its opponents, together with the so-much-hated democratic and liberal societies, it could not accept it for a long time, did not collaborate with the unexpected allies, and insisted on the intended schemes of “dividing the world” until the very end, just not naming the things properly. It was the Soviets’ main and only purpose — to obtain new territories and areas of influence in the world, and they were ready to sacrifice as many millions of their own and other people for the ultimate goal. They succeeded, albeit just partly, and eventually they obtained much bigger “territories and areas of influence” than it would be possible if Germany still had been their ally, as in the late 1930s. The civilized world understood this, of course, but was forced to be flexible and agreeable in the name of the peace in the world, because the scale of killings and destruction in the war was unimaginable already, and so the West did everything possible to be resilient and diplomatic simultaneously.
And that’s why this war actually HAS NEVER ENDED. As a result of the agreements, which were reached through so many struggles and trade-offs, the USSR occupied or completely brought into submission multiple countries/regions, destructed and divided prosper societies, tried to eliminate whole nations from Earth and the world’s history, and it was still unsatisfied, still blood-thirsty, still in pursuit of bigger advances and takeovers. That’s why we had all those permanent “apparently local” wars and conflicts all over the world in the following years that were inspirated and supported (if not conducted personally) by the USSR: Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., etc., including the current war in Ukraine (which is not discussed in the book, of course, but which is an integral part of the problem, “The War That Never Ended”).
Gregor Dallas provides a comprehensive analysis of the war-related events through the prism of this idea, and I should say that it is absolutely impossible to look at World War Two and the history of the 20th century from any other point of view after you grasp the idea. I have made dozens of notes illustrating and underlining this thought, but I would not even look at them now, because I find the general concept much more important and clear than any particular details. Everything that was going on during the war, every battle, every movement (or the deliberate absence of movement) of armies, every negotiation and agreement between allies — everything was subordinated to the Stalin’s pursuit of occupying as much territory as he wanted and without any obligations and control from the allies, from one side, and to the efforts of the allies to minimize the damage to the world and yet reach peace eventually, from the other side. The author shows clearly that “The Yalta Conference” actually started much earlier, in the middle of the war, when Stalin finally understood that Hitler would never be his ally again and that he should “divide the world” under other conditions and with other people. Do you think that when allies conducted negotiations during the war they discussed the ways of helping each other and defeating Germany? No, they mostly discussed which territory would become which after the war! That’s because Stalin refused even to discuss any “collaboration” without having clear guarantees about his “bounty” after the war. Why do you think Warsaw was allowed to be completely destroyed in 1944 when the Red Army arrived nearby and there was the Warsaw Uprising inside the city? It was a slaughter and complete annihilation of the city, and it took place exactly because Stalin wanted to eliminate Poland as a state and to kill as many Polish people as possible, it was HIS BOUNTY, and allies could not do anything about it: the USSR prohibited any intervention, from air support to dropping food supplies to people on the ground; they just arrived to the city and waited for its destruction, not allowing any help from any side, until 85% of Warsaw was destroyed. Such and similar examples, supported by documentary evidence and detailed analysis of well-known historic facts, demonstrate perfectly the essence of the war and why it’s “never ended” eventually, despite the formal termination.
The very creation and existence of key modern Western international organisations and unions (EU, NATO, UN, etc.) were necessary (and sometimes urgent) measures for containment and control under the pressure of constant USSR expansive politics. They were themselves a part of the continued war, an attempt to restrain and answer it. We know now that the efforts were effective but not ultimate, and now these institutions undergo a major crisis. Because THAT war has never ended, and the hatred towards the Western world with its democratic and liberal societies is still the key driver of every global problem, and it is more and more obvious in recent years.
It should be said, however, that I rated this book as 2 of 5 in general and cannot wholeheartedly recommend it for reading. The author handles the facts and evidence correctly, and I appreciate this general idea a lot, as I said, but he has a VERY confusing style of writing. I struggled over this book for months, not being able to read more than a couple of pages at once. A bad translation into Ukrainian (shame on you, thanslators and editors!!!) did not help, but I suppose the main problem was with the author’s personal style. He just jumps from large-scale aspects to smallest and apparently insignificant details, from events to personalities, from documents to private conversations, etc. It’s just very tiresome and mind-boggling.
And that’s why this war actually HAS NEVER ENDED. As a result of the agreements, which were reached through so many struggles and trade-offs, the USSR occupied or completely brought into submission multiple countries/regions, destructed and divided prosper societies, tried to eliminate whole nations from Earth and the world’s history, and it was still unsatisfied, still blood-thirsty, still in pursuit of bigger advances and takeovers. That’s why we had all those permanent “apparently local” wars and conflicts all over the world in the following years that were inspirated and supported (if not conducted personally) by the USSR: Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., etc., including the current war in Ukraine (which is not discussed in the book, of course, but which is an integral part of the problem, “The War That Never Ended”).
Gregor Dallas provides a comprehensive analysis of the war-related events through the prism of this idea, and I should say that it is absolutely impossible to look at World War Two and the history of the 20th century from any other point of view after you grasp the idea. I have made dozens of notes illustrating and underlining this thought, but I would not even look at them now, because I find the general concept much more important and clear than any particular details. Everything that was going on during the war, every battle, every movement (or the deliberate absence of movement) of armies, every negotiation and agreement between allies — everything was subordinated to the Stalin’s pursuit of occupying as much territory as he wanted and without any obligations and control from the allies, from one side, and to the efforts of the allies to minimize the damage to the world and yet reach peace eventually, from the other side. The author shows clearly that “The Yalta Conference” actually started much earlier, in the middle of the war, when Stalin finally understood that Hitler would never be his ally again and that he should “divide the world” under other conditions and with other people. Do you think that when allies conducted negotiations during the war they discussed the ways of helping each other and defeating Germany? No, they mostly discussed which territory would become which after the war! That’s because Stalin refused even to discuss any “collaboration” without having clear guarantees about his “bounty” after the war. Why do you think Warsaw was allowed to be completely destroyed in 1944 when the Red Army arrived nearby and there was the Warsaw Uprising inside the city? It was a slaughter and complete annihilation of the city, and it took place exactly because Stalin wanted to eliminate Poland as a state and to kill as many Polish people as possible, it was HIS BOUNTY, and allies could not do anything about it: the USSR prohibited any intervention, from air support to dropping food supplies to people on the ground; they just arrived to the city and waited for its destruction, not allowing any help from any side, until 85% of Warsaw was destroyed. Such and similar examples, supported by documentary evidence and detailed analysis of well-known historic facts, demonstrate perfectly the essence of the war and why it’s “never ended” eventually, despite the formal termination.
The very creation and existence of key modern Western international organisations and unions (EU, NATO, UN, etc.) were necessary (and sometimes urgent) measures for containment and control under the pressure of constant USSR expansive politics. They were themselves a part of the continued war, an attempt to restrain and answer it. We know now that the efforts were effective but not ultimate, and now these institutions undergo a major crisis. Because THAT war has never ended, and the hatred towards the Western world with its democratic and liberal societies is still the key driver of every global problem, and it is more and more obvious in recent years.
It should be said, however, that I rated this book as 2 of 5 in general and cannot wholeheartedly recommend it for reading. The author handles the facts and evidence correctly, and I appreciate this general idea a lot, as I said, but he has a VERY confusing style of writing. I struggled over this book for months, not being able to read more than a couple of pages at once. A bad translation into Ukrainian (shame on you, thanslators and editors!!!) did not help, but I suppose the main problem was with the author’s personal style. He just jumps from large-scale aspects to smallest and apparently insignificant details, from events to personalities, from documents to private conversations, etc. It’s just very tiresome and mind-boggling.
June 17, 2018
"Poisoned Peace 1945 The War That Never Ended" Gregor Dallas.
More than just a history of devastation and defeat...
Where is the world today and how did we get here? Poisoned Peace is not a popular history. There seems to be a lack of reviews by recognized historians. May then, there be some truth in the world view it proposes? Poisoned Peace is not about war nor the victors or the vanquished... not about civilization, society, religion, nations, culture, politics, or economics (what have I left out?)... but rather all of these things and their derivative: survival... of the individual, of the collective, of the system.
"In the second world war, the financial dependence of Britain on the United States (without European allies) expelled politics from the developing plans for a peace settlement. Thus it was the discussion of monetary matters which led to the creation of the World Organization (later called the United Nations), not the other way round. Both the monetary agreement and the accord for a World Organization were achieved within the frontiers of the United States; they followed an American electoral timetable, not the war: and here lies one of the principal reasons why the second world war, in contrast to all preceding major European wars, was not concluded by an international peace conference. Indeed, no politically agreed peace was ever established in Europe as a whole... Trade and money would establish the peace."
More than just a history of devastation and defeat...
Where is the world today and how did we get here? Poisoned Peace is not a popular history. There seems to be a lack of reviews by recognized historians. May then, there be some truth in the world view it proposes? Poisoned Peace is not about war nor the victors or the vanquished... not about civilization, society, religion, nations, culture, politics, or economics (what have I left out?)... but rather all of these things and their derivative: survival... of the individual, of the collective, of the system.
"In the second world war, the financial dependence of Britain on the United States (without European allies) expelled politics from the developing plans for a peace settlement. Thus it was the discussion of monetary matters which led to the creation of the World Organization (later called the United Nations), not the other way round. Both the monetary agreement and the accord for a World Organization were achieved within the frontiers of the United States; they followed an American electoral timetable, not the war: and here lies one of the principal reasons why the second world war, in contrast to all preceding major European wars, was not concluded by an international peace conference. Indeed, no politically agreed peace was ever established in Europe as a whole... Trade and money would establish the peace."
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews