Stalingrad: The City that Defeated the Third Reich

by Jochen Hellbeck (Editor), Christopher Tauchen (Translator)

The turning point of World War II came at Stalingrad. Hitler's soldiers stormed the city in September 1942 in a bid to complete the conquest of Europe. Yet Stalingrad never fell. After months of bitter fighting, 100,000 surviving Germans, huddled in the ruined city, surrendered to Soviet troops.

During the battle and shortly after its conclusion, scores of Red Army commanders and soldiers, party officials and workers spoke with a team of historians who visited from Moscow to record their conversations. The tapestry of their voices provides groundbreaking insights into the thoughts and feelings of Soviet citizens during wartime.

Legendary sniper Vasily Zaytsev recounted the horrors he witnessed at "You see young girls, children hanging from trees in the park.[ . . .] That has a tremendous impact." Nurse Vera Gurova attended hundreds of wounded soldiers in a makeshift hospital every day, but she couldn't forget one young amputee who begged her to avenge his suffering. "Every soldier and officer in Stalingrad was itching to kill as many Germans as possible," said Major Nikolai Aksyonov.

These testimonials were so harrowing and candid that the Kremlin forbade their publication, and they were forgotten by modern history -- until now. Revealed here in English for the first time, they humanize the Soviet defenders and allow Jochen Hellbeck, in Stalingrad , to present a definitive new portrait of the most fateful battle of World War II.

Genres: History, World War II, Nonfiction, War, Military History, Military Fiction, Russian History

512 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 2012

About the author

Jochen Hellbeck is Associate Professor of History at Rutgers University, specializing in the history of Eastern Europe.

Reviews

[☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an account of the battle that took place in the middle of Stalingrad, a populated city, where regular citizens, kids, old people of all nationalities (and there were plenty, as is usual in Russia) - everyone fought against the Nazi plague. They didn't want the Holocaust to become their new reality, they didn't welcome the Nazi army and they were at home.

It was a peaceful city.
It wasn't trying to spread communism to Germany or anywhere else (no matter how some modern historians are trying to twist what the hell Germany was even doing in the middle of Russia (then, a part of the USSR)).
Volgograd (then, Stalingrad) was just going about it's daily life. This book shows what happened when Nazi Reich started modern (contemporary) warfare in the middle of a populated city. And it isn't pretty.

What's most terrible is that there were more cities where same things happened. There were villages burnt to the ground along with all the people. Same things happened everywhere. And this is why Russian effort to defeat the Nazism shouldn't be discounted or dismissed (even though this nauseating trend is getting so damn popular today).

Russia actully took the brunt of the Nazi strike forces, weakened them and ultimately sent them back packing to Berlin. Everyone else, well, they should have entered the skirmish earlier (the US, which actually didn't defeat Hitler, sorry guys, I love you but you didn't do it) and fought more valiantly (cheers to all the European countries that went down faster than some Russian cities), if they wanted to become the heroes of the day.

Stalingrad per se didn't defeat the 3d Reich. But Russia (and incidentally, Stalin) did. And for all the guy's atrocities and gulags and everything, it doesn't affect the fact that it took Stalin to defeat Hitler. Maybe Hitler should have been allowed to become a painter, after all.

Spoiler: This material is not for the dainty of heart. The whole WW2, as it was experienced by Russia, isn't.

Disclaimer: This should not be a discourse on Stalin or (de)merits of сommunism. This all is in discussion only when the topic demands it. Ruthlessness of the communist leaders was actually reflected pretty well throughout these pages. (For all the reviewers who believed this is propagandistic, I don't think it is, unless propaganda includes demonstrating how things actually worked. Some things worked, others didn't. It's always like that.)

Q:
Historians in the west have overlooked the Communist party’s mobilizing function. This is partly because their access has been limited to official documents from political headquarters, which offer little insight into the everyday working of the political apparatus. But it is also because they tend to understand the party as solely repressive in nature, regarding its ideological work as a mere demonstration of political power. Also contributing to this oversight is the view of many military historians that the Communist party hampered the military, and that the Red Army did not become an effective combat force until the political officers were removed. But in reality the party never left; indeed, its presence in the armed forces increased as the war continued. (c)
Q:
The party was an ever-present institutional force in the form of political officers and ideological messages. It permeated all military levels and sent its emissaries—political officers, agitators, party and youth league secretaries—into the trenches, where they sermonized, provided counsel, encouraged and rallied the troops, explained the current state of affairs, and created meaning. (c) Yes, party was going about conditioning. But how else do you mobilise a bunch of regular people, citizens just recruited to wage war against a merciless enemy? The Germany and everyone else did the same, everyone in terms of their own paradigm.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

* Propaganda
* Jingoism
* Stalin apologist

Reading some of the negative reviews here I'm not sure what book they've read or what book they were expecting. Maybe the problem is the English title, Stalingrad: The City that Defeated the Third Reich.

The original German title, The Stalingrad Protocols: Soviet Eyewitnesses Report From the Battle is a much clearer description of what this book is about. The title is made even more poignant with the near double entendre since German word for battle - schlacht - is close to the word for slaughter - schlachten.

This book is not a comprehensive account of the Battle for Stalingrad, which perhaps readers who only took notice of the English title of the book expected. If that's what you're after you might want to read a book like Beevor's Stalingrad first. In fact, to fully appreciate Hellbeck's book I would say having at least some cursory knowledge about the tos and fros of the battle is, if not necessary, then at least recommended.

But to fully understand the Battle for Stalingrad, and especially the Soviet side, I would say that Hellbeck's book is absolutely indispensable.

It is based on recorded interviews carried out by Soviet historians in the middle of and immediately after the battle. As such, the source material is absolutely unique and has not been tainted by hindsight. The recorded interviews were locked up in a vault as the historical project lost favor with the Soviet leadership after the war, and the only reason why it survives and is available to this day is because it was hidden by dutiful historians (the last chapter of the book deals with this fascinating process).

The Soviet historians interviewed people from the very top, like General Chuikov who commanded the defense of Stalingrad, to nurses, cooks and privates. Hellbeck does a fine job putting these accounts into historical context. The end result is uniquely fascinating and one of the better books I've read in the last few years.

Hellbeck also refutes some popular myths propagated by authors like Beevor and movies like Enemy at the Gates (a movie I love, by the way).

So what about the three words I listed in the beginning of my review? Is this book jingoistic, Stalin apologist propaganda? Not at all. As usual people have problems distinguishing between supporting and trying to explain. Just because you account for what someone says and tries to explain it by putting it into the proper historical and cultural context, doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it. These are the words of the Soviet soldiers themselves.

To use an example from another excellent book, Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, I'm pretty sure Bruce Lawrence isn't an al-Qaeda operative even though the book is entirely based on statements by Bin Laden.

To assume that someone agrees with what they quote is a childish and fiercely anti-intellectual approach.

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stalingrad: The City that Defeated the Third Reich was chock full of original sources for the battle. Unfortunately, most of them were pure propaganda. "My friend was killed so I went and killed 9, or maybe 38 Fritzes in revenge", "we held a Komsomol meeting every day after battle to review our progress...", "our political education was the reason we were victorious...", all of it uncritically reproduced by the author without any real narrative to put it in, other than the greater battle for Stalingrad. The only good parts were a couple of personal accounts by Chuikov, Zaitsev and maybe a couple of others toward the end of the book. I did not enjoy this one much. Good photos and maps though, so there is that.

[Andrew Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Using previously unreleased interviews, Hellbeck is able to construct a formidable account of the Soviet perspective of one of the most apocalyptic battles ever. His use of interviewees ranges from high-profile figures such as Chuikov and Zaytsev, but also focusses on the common soldier, creating a powerful view of the struggle. Definitely worth a read.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Russian side of the battle

Well written and organized accounts of the Stalingrad battle from the Russian participants. If one is a WWII and/or Stalingrad reader then I highly recommend this book. Many first person accounts from soldiers to generals that bring a new perspective to the battle.

[Michelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of the most pivotal battles of WWII is examined here in a collection of interviews conducted by Soviet government appointed historians. As such, they must be taken with that in mind, always with the question in mind: Just how honest are these answers, especially in regards to feelings about Communism, party affiliation, and motives? That being said, what unfolds in this book is rather interesting accounts - some related word-for-word personal accounts of soldiers (of all ranks) & citizens who experienced this event first-hand. I did have to keep asking myself, however, just how honest some of the responses were knowing that the NKVD would be reading and keeping record of their responses to questions such as, "What was your motivation? How do you feel about Comrade Stalin? And... Is it true that troop commanders shot those soldiers who retreated? One also has to keep in mind that, with Russian Revolution more than 20 years prior, the majority of the soldiers were now the first generation growing up entirely in Soviet Russia and fed Communist propaganda from birth.

The "cult of Stalin" is described by Hellbeck, but he comes off as a kind of Stalin apologist and almost pro-Communist. This shaded my view of the book. I mean, what happened to being objective where history is concerned? For this reason, I downgraded the rating from 3 to 2 stars as I just feel that interjecting one's own political views into a book of "non-fiction" such as this is unprofessional for any historian.

I did find the civilian accounts - mostly concerning the women and children - caught in the middle of this battle, to be hard and almost gut-wrenching to read. Those of us with children of our own cannot help but place ourselves and our own children in those circumstances and shudder.

The most interesting info came from the section on the capture of Field Marshal Paulus (Jan 31) and his army. Those interviewed talk about the urban street fighting and clearing Germans out of basements, seeing comrades getting picked off by snipers, sorting Germans from civilians, and seeing the conditions of both were in at the time of that surrender. Also interesting were Russian first-hand accounts of German officers and of Paulus. The book is full of interviews of soldiers,officers, and civilians so chock full of personal accounts of before, during, and immediate after. They contain details that are at once tedious and captivating to read. I found myself quickly skimming over the more tedious technical parts that other readers may actually find more fascinating. Definetly the most compelling interview for me was thatof Russian sniper Vasily Zaytsev made famous due to movie "Enemy at the Gates."

Several interviews by German POWs at the end included their fears about how they would be treated by the Russians, yet nothing is said by Hellbeck about how they actually WERE treated; most did not return.

The ending is sort of anti-climactic. He only summarizes why the interviews haven't surfaced until now, there is no summarizing of the book and its contents - or the event itself or its impact years later, It just sort of...ends.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was great!

[Guillermo · Rating 5 out of 5]

A series of interviews woven together to tell the story of Stalingrad, real life people talking plainly about their suffering, bravery and destiny.
For WW2 fans, a must.

[John Gorski · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have read numerous accounts of the battle of Stalingrad, from General Chuikov's personal account of the battle to Anthony Beevor's (still) definitive study. Reading Jochen Hellbeck's "Stalingrad: The City That Defeated the Third Reich" was both fascinating and frustrating. The transcripts of interviews with participants in the battle, both Soviet and Wehrmacht, are fascinating in the extreme. These interviews, previously unavailable, took place within months of the end of the fighting and, in some of the cases of captured German soldiers, while the fighting was ongoing. These interviews present a very personal and local perspective of the fighting. Soviet entries from September and October provide an intense picture of just how desperate the situation was; while German interviews during January depict the sudden drop off in morale and increasing desperation inside Der Kessel. Particularly poignant is the diary of a young German soldier that abruptly ends on December 18.

What is frustrating is Hellbeck's overview of the battle and his attempts at deconstructing some of the conventional wisdom. For example, he comments that Beevor's assertion of 13,500 executions of Soviet soldiers under orders from General Chuikov does not cite convincing proof while his own assertion comes from Soviet sources taken during and not long after the war. Soviet sources have been demonstrated to be not exactly the most reliable. Also, throughout the interviews are firsthand account of commanders shooting men under their command:

"...but the main party didn't move, they just stayed put...The platoon commander just lifted them up by their collars and shot them."

Hellbeck also comes off as somewhat of a Stalin apologist. Concerning the Red Army purges of 1937 - 39, Hellbeck claims that of the 34,000 officers purged, 11,000 were reinstated by 1941 and of the remaining 23,000, half were brought up on minor charges. That may be so but that still leaves 11,000 or so shot, tortured, imprisoned, etc. This appears to be a fact Hellbeck dismisses out of hand.

One theme presented throughout the book is that of Soviet men over German metal; the Red Army soldier's ideological preparation outweighed the Wehrmacht's superiority in technology and weaponry. This theme is reinforced throughout the series of interviews that make up the majority of the book. The politruk, or political officer, of each company holds meetings and instruction for the soldiers. The depiction of these meetings as natural, comradely occasions is almost laughable, much like something out of a Soviet propaganda film. (Ironic in-so-far-as Hellbeck makes this precise criticism of Beevor's portrayal of the Wehrmacht soldiers) I find it hard to accept that anyone interviewed would say anything for posterity knowing that the NKVD would read it. Also, once the battle was over and you have survived and won, a little boasting and elaboration along party lines is not that hard to imagine.

Similarly, I think by the end of January 1942 the physical situation inside the Kessel deteriorated to the extent as to nullify all but the most hard core ideology. Were the situation reversed the Red Army soldiers would have acted the same. What's more, the Wehrmacht had in it's ranks large numbers of Soviet defectors (the so-called "Hiwis") which also belies the superior Red Army ideological preparation.

All in all, I still think "Stalingrad: The City That Defeated the Third Reich" is a worthwhile read for those interested in the battle that swung on the hinge of fate. Just be aware of some of the inconsistencies.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

The bulk of the book comprises excerpts from soldiers' transcripts. While fascinating as eye-witness accounts, they don't really shed much new light on the battle. What we get is a chorus of voices that don't exactly follow Hellbeck's shakey composition.

Hellbeck attempts to tack on an argument about the willingness of the Soviet troops to protect and defend the Motherland due to successful efforts of the agents of political propaganda. High Soviet morale, and thereby fighting strength, according to Hellbeck, was based upon internalized ideological conviction. I don't find his argument entirely convincing.

Somewhat more problematic is Hellbeck's apparent willingness to accept the validity of his transcripts when dealing with political subjects. Throughout, he brings to the fore the ideological or patriotic sentiments expressed by Soviet troops -- who, it must be pointed out, were being interviewed by party operachiks immediately after the fighting -- yet seems to have a difficult time understanding similar ideological sentiment expressed by German prisoners.

Final assessment: interesting source material from those who lived through the battle, not so great history.

[Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a history of the battle of Stalingrad told from the perspective of those who fought it. It is based on interviews taken with the combatants immediately after the battle ended--interviews that were nearly lost for political reasons after the war. When there are longer narratives by individuals, it is fascinating and gives a powerful picture of how politically motivated even individual soldiers were. Where the story is pieced together by mixing fragments of various interviews it is more of a struggle to make sense of it. The stories from captured Germans at the end are especially moving and the entire work shows what a terrible thing war truly is.

[Julio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of the accounts on this book will send shivers down your spine. It's an excellent book for anyone interested in WWII. It also gives the reader a very good introduction into how the Soviet system was organized and directed. I have found this very useful when reading between the lines on other books published during and after Stalin.

Great read, give it a try if you see it on your local library.

[Damien G · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought I had read all about Stalingrad. This book changes my thinking. It allows us to see the battle from the Russian side,we hear the stories of the fighters. Accounts so real they were suppressed,residing and hidden in the Communist archives until now. It is a book in which the voice of the ordinary Soviet soldier us heard for the first time.

[Artie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating first hand accounts of one of history's most pivotal battles. Highly recommended.

[K. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Trigger warnings: war, death, gun violence, animal death, rape, seriously y'all it's about the Battle of Stalingrad, enter with caution.

90% of my knowledge of Stalingrad prior to reading this came from watching Enemy at the Gates multiple times. Hellbeck takes time to be like "HERE'S ALL THE WAYS IN WHICH ENEMY AT THE GATES GOT IT WRONG" (including the casting of Jude Law because his physical build doesn't exactly match the guy he's playing??), which mostly just made me want to watch Enemy at the Gates again...

Anyway. I feel like the print version of this would have been a better reading experience because in the ebook version, all the maps were crammed at the end and it would have been helpful to know they were there so that I could have flipped back and forth as various events were discussed.

This book is primarily made up of primary sources - oral history interviews that were done at the time with Soviet soldiers and nurses about their experiences in Stalingrad. There are also interviews with German POWs about their experiences. And for the most part, it made for a very informative reading experience. But I also felt like it was longer than was necessary and the interviews occasionally became repetitive.

Additionally, a lot of the Russian experiences are heavily (and obviously) propagandised. Add in an anticlimactic ending and this was, sadly, just middle of the road.

[Adam Balshan · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars [Memoir]
(W: 2.47, U: 2, T: 2.38)
Exact rating: 2.28

A collective memoir mostly consisting of the interviews of soldiers on the ground at Stalingrad in 1943.

Let me persuade you of one thing at the outset: contrary to the claims of some reviewers, this book is not "pro-Stalinist" or "Soviet apologia." My assertion ought to be worthy of consideration: I am a 'card-carrying anti-Communist,' have read 37 books concerning Communism, have otherwise interacted with its philosophy and its derivative movements for about 15 years, and personally hate the ideology. Hellbeck's narration could be characterized, at places, as a robust depiction of the plenary brainwashing the Bolshevists enacted at every level, and Hellbeck already implied that they were brainwashed by p.68, before the interview chapters began.

Statistics were Hellbeck's weakness. He seemed to disbelieve Western ones, but then (at one point, anyway) took those of the Soviet Secret Service as trustworthy (p.17)! Mitigating this, Hellbeck later admitted that "tens of thousands [of Soviet soldiers] were sentenced to death and executed [by their own army for alleged cowardice]" (p.59). But this kind of skewed narration was rare; for much of the rest of the book, Hellbeck pointed out the hypocrisy and deception of the Soviet modus operandi. Hellbeck might seem pro-Soviet because he faithfully transcribed the testimonies of brainwashed Soviets.

Hellbeck's Stalingrad suffers in its rating for rather different reasons. Its utility as a collective eyewitness memoir was notable [3], however this was compromised by the political conditioning of all Soviet interviewees: we could not hear how they really felt most of the time [1]. Hellbeck cannot be charged with the falsehoods they believed, but because these constituted almost the entire Body, it cannot redound to high utility.

The truths related by these interviews often rate a composite [2], but glimpses of genuine reality regarding the war, Communism's brainwashing, and trench psychology raise it to a [2.38].

The poor pacing of long-form interviews made for a lower prose rating, and really this book ought to be engaged only by those with certain, limited, historical interests.

_______
//W lex 2.5, syn 2.82 (phrasing 2.5, tightness 3.13), sem 2.25 (3.5 visceral war, 1 conditioned narrative), pac 2, dyn 2.75, reg 3, l&o 2

[Trigger Warning Database]

Trigger & Content Warnings

Rape
Gun violence
Animal death
War themes, specifically the Battle fo Stalingrad

[Hal · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is primarily a compilation of interviews taken from the participants in this epic battle that turned the face of WWII on the eastern front. I was actually looking for more of a historical account of the battle and I soon found this was not close to that format. About 80 percent is devoted to descriptions of various length about individual experiences and fights of the Red Army soldiers. It got quite repetitious and rambling in effect and was not very engrossing to me.

The high point of the book came in the capture and surrender of Field Marshal Paulus in downtown Stalingrad. The descriptions and narratives were gripping and intriguing. The closing accounts from the German soldiers was limited but more interesting from the perspective of these combatants. The closing chapter spins off into so obscure struggles of those producing accounts and political takes on the battle that seemed very much out of place. In conclusion I would say if you are looking for a strategic or historical narrative this is certainly not a good choice.

[Harry Casey · Rating 3 out of 5]

The story of the most important battle of the 20th century and a turning point in world history. The book presents testimonies of the participants that are so candid that the Kremlin forbade their publication until recently. A good read for the history buff but not so much for the casual reader.

[Dan Donovan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dry and ponderous

A narrative of the people involved in one of the most memorable battles of WW2, somehow it lacks passion and urgency. The narratives are factual to a fault yet lack emotion and,poignancy.

Slow plodding narrative full of formation and insights.

[Gabriel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro sobre una de las batallas más mencionada y conocida de la Segunda guerra mundial, aunque en este caso profundiza más en la parte anímica y psicológica de los que en ellas participaron.