What do you think?
Rate this book
Stalingrad
Hitler made two fundamental and crippling mistakes during the Second World War: The first was his whimsical belief that the United Kingdom would eventually become his ally, which delayed his decision to launch a major invasion of Britain, whose army was unprepared for the force of blitzkrieg warfare. The second was the ill-conceived Operation Barbarossa--an invasion of Russia that was supposed to take the German army to the gates of Moscow. Antony Beevor's thoughtfully researched compendium recalls this epic struggle for Stalingrad. No one, least of all the Germans, could foretell the deep well of Soviet resolve that would become the foundation of the Red Army; Russia, the Germans believed, would fall as swiftly as France and Poland. The ill-prepared Nazi forces were trapped in a bloody war of attrition against the Russian behemoth, which held them in the pit of Stalingrad for nearly two years. Beevor points out that the Russians were by no means ready for the war either, making their stand even more remarkable; Soviet intelligence spent as much time spying on its own forces--in fear of desertion, treachery, and incompetence--as they did on the Nazis. Due attention is also given to the points of view of the soldiers and generals of both forces, from the sickening battles to life in the gulags.
Many believe Stalingrad to be the turning point of the war. The Nazi war machine proved to be fallible as it spread itself too thin for a cause that was born more from arrogance than practicality. The Germans never recovered, and its weakened defenses were no match for the Allied invasion of 1944. We know little of what took place in Stalingrad or its overall significance, leading Beevor to humbly admit that "[t]he Battle of Stalingrad remains such an ideologically charged and symbolically important subject that the last word will not be heard for many years." This is true. But this gripping account should become the standard work against which all others should measure themselves. --Jeremy Storey
498 pages, ebook
First published July 1, 1998
2506 people are currently reading
72915 people want to read
About the author
Antony Beevor
28 books2,587 followersSir Antony James Beevor is a British military historian. He has published several popular historical works, mainly on the Second World War, the Spanish Civil War, and most recently the Russian Revolution and Civil War.
Educated at Abberley Hall School, Winchester College, and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Beevor commanded a troop of tanks in the 11th Hussars in Germany before deciding in 1970 to leave the army and become a writer. He was a visiting professor at Birkbeck, University of London, and the University of Kent. His best-selling books, Stalingrad (1998) and Berlin: The Downfall 1945 (2002), have been acclaimed for their detailed coverage of the battles between the Soviet Union and Germany, and their focus on the experiences of ordinary people. Berlin proved very controversial in Russia because of the information it contained from former Soviet archives about the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army in 1945.
Beevor's works have been translated into many languages and have sold millions of copies. He has lectured at numerous military headquarters, staff colleges and establishments in Britain, the US, Europe, and Australia. He has also written for many major newspapers.
Educated at Abberley Hall School, Winchester College, and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Beevor commanded a troop of tanks in the 11th Hussars in Germany before deciding in 1970 to leave the army and become a writer. He was a visiting professor at Birkbeck, University of London, and the University of Kent. His best-selling books, Stalingrad (1998) and Berlin: The Downfall 1945 (2002), have been acclaimed for their detailed coverage of the battles between the Soviet Union and Germany, and their focus on the experiences of ordinary people. Berlin proved very controversial in Russia because of the information it contained from former Soviet archives about the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army in 1945.
Beevor's works have been translated into many languages and have sold millions of copies. He has lectured at numerous military headquarters, staff colleges and establishments in Britain, the US, Europe, and Australia. He has also written for many major newspapers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,607 reviews
June 8, 2016
"You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia' - but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line'"!
-- Wallace Shawn as Vizzini in The Princess Bride
Never get involved in a land war in Asia. Or the European portion of Russia.
That's good advice.
For whatever reason, though, the lure of Russia - its vast steppes, its vast resources, its vast and bloody history - has proven irresistible, stretching back to early Mongol invasions. The two most famous fools who dared strive for Moscow were Napoleon and Hitler. Napoleon was failed by the logistics of his day and age; the harder he pressed Kutuzov, and the deeper he got into Russia, the longer his supply line became. When he reached his goal, he ran out of food, and turned back in the midst of a cruel winter. On his retreat, Napoleon famously remarked that "from the sublime to the ridiculous is but a single step."
The temptation when dealing with Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, is to compare its failure to that of Napoleon, and chalk it up to Russia's tremendous size and unforgiving winters. Undoubtedly, the winters were rough, and the Germans unprepared, but as Anthony Beevor makes clear in Stalingrad, the fault did not lie in the weather, but in Hitler and the stars.
Operation Barbarossa was a huge gamble, one that many of Hitler's generals (and his generally imbecilic foreign minister Ribbentrop) wanted him to avoid. However, due to Stalin's willful blindness, it almost worked. Indeed, it should have worked. Without Hitler's constant bumbling intervention, it would have worked.
Instead, the Germans attacked Stalingrad and nearly captured it. Then, the Russians surrounded the Germans, and the attackers became the attacked. The Germans at Stalingrad surrendered, and eventually the entire German invasion was turned.
The mistake at issue in Beevor's Stalingrad is that there was ever a battle of Stalingrad in the first place. Specifically, in the second summer of the German invasion, the Nazi armies were poised to sprint to the Caucuses and seize the Soviet oil fields. Hitler intervened and split the German Army Group, sending Group B to Stalingrad, where it was eventually chewed to pieces.
This is all explained in the beginning sections of Stalingrad, which are dedicated to the the planning of Operation Barbarossa, the start of the invasion, the battle for Moscow, and the first Russian winter. I found this to be the weakest part of the book, and it actually made me pause and consider continuing. Not that I didn't appreciate the purpose. I firmly believe that even the most subject-specific history book should provide a little context. In this case, though, the overview was not only cursory, but confusing. Beevor jumps quickly from event to event, battle to battle, using a series of unconnected anecdotes. He tries to cover too much subject matter in too few pages, so there is no room to breath or even reflect on what you're reading. Oh, the Germans executed thousands of Jews at Babi Yar? That's interesting, but we're moving right along.
The situation is not helped by the small number of maps. Beevor expends a lot of ink detailing troop movements. However, without a map showing where that body of soldiers was actually positioned on this earth, it's all a lot of numbers and letters signifying nothing. If you want me to care that the 81st Cavalry Division in the 4th Cavalry Corps crossed the Kalmyk steppe to the southern flank, you will kindly have to show me where the Kalmyk steppe is located. (I'm guessing it's...somewhere to the south).
Once the preliminaries are taken care of, and the focus is placed on General Paulus' fight for Stalingrad, things get better. At the very least, the writing is at times vivid and evocative. Beevor has a novelistic flair for creating memorable images. Take, for instance, this description of Russian troops crossing the Volga to enter Stalingrad:
Even during this middle section of the book, while the Germans were still on the offensive, I still had problems with the book's coherence. A lot of times, the paragraphs on the page seemed absolute strangers to each other. Also, many paragraphs just left me scratching my head. For instance, one paragraph dealing with the Russian response to deserition stated that "[o:]n a rare occasion...the authorities considered that officers had been overharsh." After giving this statement, Beevor goes on to quote a story about a nineteen year-old lieutenant being executed after two of his men deserted. Huh? The proposition in the paragraph was that sometimes even the Russians realized they were nuts; but instead of supporting this statement, Beevor tells a story that shows just the opposite. This is not to get nit-picky, but as I read, I often had this almost unconscious sensation that something was slightly off.
The final third of the book, though, is quite strong. Once the Germans are on the defensive, battling Russians and the winter, Beevor's narrative really grips you. It's a good book to read while sitting in an armchair on a frigid February day (so you can sympathize, without having to empathize). Along with the details of battle, there are fascinating discussions (is fascinating the right word?) about topics as varied as medical care, starvation, frostbite, and Russian vodka rations (they often went into battle drunk, natch).
Stalingrad is a hard battle to write about. There are big troop movements leading up to the fight in the city. And there are big troop movements that lead to the encirclement of the German Army. However, most of the bitter fighting within the city itself was small unit action. There are certain locations of note - such as the Tractor Factory - but a lot of the descriptions of the fighting are vague and generalized, since they come from the individual soldiers, and they certainly couldn't know what was going on.
Beevor is at his absolute best when he leaves the generalities and finds a specific character or two to follow for a couple of pages. These mini-arcs were engrossing, none more so than Beevor's tale of Smyslov (Russian Army intelligence) and Dyatlenko (of the Russian NKVD). These two men were ordered to give a message to General Paulus. And in the Russian army, orders mean something. After braving German fire, they convince a Nazi sentry to bring them into a bunker (after they are blindfolded with their own parkas). Once in the bunker, they finally convince the German company commander to take the message to his commander. But then the commander comes back and says that he won't deliver the message. When the Russians ask the German to sign a receipt for the message, which they can take to their superiors, the German refuses. This is almost Shakespearean-level farce.
One of the oddities of this book is that I found my rooting interest to be with the Germans. I don't think this is entirely my fault, because there is a distinct anti-Soviet bias in Beevor's telling. While the German atrocities in Russia are briefly recounted at the book's start, the Russian atrocities - against their own troops, no less! - are covered in great detail. Beevor even devotes an entire chapter to explaining how much the Germans loved Christmas, and how they tried to celebrate despite freezing and starving to death. Beevor even compares and contrasts the letters home from the troops. While the German soldiers wrote tenderly about how much they missed hearth and home, Beevor makes clear that the Russian letters were filled with mindless propaganda.
Stalingrad was known as "the fateful city." It was Germany's high water mark. Even as Stalingrad was falling, Rommel was losing in North Africa and America was gearing up to (finally) get in the fight. From that point on, Germany would know nothing but defeat.
In hindsight, we are left to gasp at how close we came to a world dominated by Nazis. Some might find it hard to believe that we escaped through what appears to be luck - luck that Hitler made such a string of foolhardy decisions.
I'd hardly call this luck, though. To me, it was inevitable. Our character is our fate. A Napoleonic dictum says that to gain power, one must be absolutely petty, but to wield power, one must exercise true greatness. It makes perfect sense that a self-aggrandizing, paranoid-delusional sociopath such as Hitler would strive for absolute power and, with a few breaks along the way, eventually achieve it. But it also makes just as much sense that a self-aggrandizing, paranoid-delusional sociopath would be utterly unable to exercise that power, and would make stupid decisions in the unsupported belief that he was always right.
These traits ensured that he'd get as far as Stalingrad and then self-destruct.
-- Wallace Shawn as Vizzini in The Princess Bride
Never get involved in a land war in Asia. Or the European portion of Russia.
That's good advice.
For whatever reason, though, the lure of Russia - its vast steppes, its vast resources, its vast and bloody history - has proven irresistible, stretching back to early Mongol invasions. The two most famous fools who dared strive for Moscow were Napoleon and Hitler. Napoleon was failed by the logistics of his day and age; the harder he pressed Kutuzov, and the deeper he got into Russia, the longer his supply line became. When he reached his goal, he ran out of food, and turned back in the midst of a cruel winter. On his retreat, Napoleon famously remarked that "from the sublime to the ridiculous is but a single step."
The temptation when dealing with Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, is to compare its failure to that of Napoleon, and chalk it up to Russia's tremendous size and unforgiving winters. Undoubtedly, the winters were rough, and the Germans unprepared, but as Anthony Beevor makes clear in Stalingrad, the fault did not lie in the weather, but in Hitler and the stars.
Operation Barbarossa was a huge gamble, one that many of Hitler's generals (and his generally imbecilic foreign minister Ribbentrop) wanted him to avoid. However, due to Stalin's willful blindness, it almost worked. Indeed, it should have worked. Without Hitler's constant bumbling intervention, it would have worked.
Instead, the Germans attacked Stalingrad and nearly captured it. Then, the Russians surrounded the Germans, and the attackers became the attacked. The Germans at Stalingrad surrendered, and eventually the entire German invasion was turned.
The mistake at issue in Beevor's Stalingrad is that there was ever a battle of Stalingrad in the first place. Specifically, in the second summer of the German invasion, the Nazi armies were poised to sprint to the Caucuses and seize the Soviet oil fields. Hitler intervened and split the German Army Group, sending Group B to Stalingrad, where it was eventually chewed to pieces.
This is all explained in the beginning sections of Stalingrad, which are dedicated to the the planning of Operation Barbarossa, the start of the invasion, the battle for Moscow, and the first Russian winter. I found this to be the weakest part of the book, and it actually made me pause and consider continuing. Not that I didn't appreciate the purpose. I firmly believe that even the most subject-specific history book should provide a little context. In this case, though, the overview was not only cursory, but confusing. Beevor jumps quickly from event to event, battle to battle, using a series of unconnected anecdotes. He tries to cover too much subject matter in too few pages, so there is no room to breath or even reflect on what you're reading. Oh, the Germans executed thousands of Jews at Babi Yar? That's interesting, but we're moving right along.
The situation is not helped by the small number of maps. Beevor expends a lot of ink detailing troop movements. However, without a map showing where that body of soldiers was actually positioned on this earth, it's all a lot of numbers and letters signifying nothing. If you want me to care that the 81st Cavalry Division in the 4th Cavalry Corps crossed the Kalmyk steppe to the southern flank, you will kindly have to show me where the Kalmyk steppe is located. (I'm guessing it's...somewhere to the south).
Once the preliminaries are taken care of, and the focus is placed on General Paulus' fight for Stalingrad, things get better. At the very least, the writing is at times vivid and evocative. Beevor has a novelistic flair for creating memorable images. Take, for instance, this description of Russian troops crossing the Volga to enter Stalingrad:
The crossing was probably most eerie for those in the rowing boats, as the water gently slapped the bow, and the rowlocks creaked in unison. The distant crack of rifle shots and the thump of shell bursts sounded hollow over the expanse of river. Then, German artillery, mortars and any machine-guns close enough to the bank switched their aim. Columns of water were thrown up in midstream, drenching the occupants of the boats. The silver bellies of stunned fish soon glistened on the surface...Some men stared at the water around them to avoid the sight of the far bank, rather like a climber refusing to look down. Others, however, kept glancing ahead to the blazing buildings on the western shore, their steel-helmeted heads instinctively withdrawn into the shoulders...As darkness intensified, the huge flames silhouetted the shells of tall buildings on the bank high above them and cast grotesque shadows. Sparks flew up in the night air...As they approached the shore, they caught the smell of charred buildings and the sickly stench from decaying corpses under the rubble.
Even during this middle section of the book, while the Germans were still on the offensive, I still had problems with the book's coherence. A lot of times, the paragraphs on the page seemed absolute strangers to each other. Also, many paragraphs just left me scratching my head. For instance, one paragraph dealing with the Russian response to deserition stated that "[o:]n a rare occasion...the authorities considered that officers had been overharsh." After giving this statement, Beevor goes on to quote a story about a nineteen year-old lieutenant being executed after two of his men deserted. Huh? The proposition in the paragraph was that sometimes even the Russians realized they were nuts; but instead of supporting this statement, Beevor tells a story that shows just the opposite. This is not to get nit-picky, but as I read, I often had this almost unconscious sensation that something was slightly off.
The final third of the book, though, is quite strong. Once the Germans are on the defensive, battling Russians and the winter, Beevor's narrative really grips you. It's a good book to read while sitting in an armchair on a frigid February day (so you can sympathize, without having to empathize). Along with the details of battle, there are fascinating discussions (is fascinating the right word?) about topics as varied as medical care, starvation, frostbite, and Russian vodka rations (they often went into battle drunk, natch).
Stalingrad is a hard battle to write about. There are big troop movements leading up to the fight in the city. And there are big troop movements that lead to the encirclement of the German Army. However, most of the bitter fighting within the city itself was small unit action. There are certain locations of note - such as the Tractor Factory - but a lot of the descriptions of the fighting are vague and generalized, since they come from the individual soldiers, and they certainly couldn't know what was going on.
Beevor is at his absolute best when he leaves the generalities and finds a specific character or two to follow for a couple of pages. These mini-arcs were engrossing, none more so than Beevor's tale of Smyslov (Russian Army intelligence) and Dyatlenko (of the Russian NKVD). These two men were ordered to give a message to General Paulus. And in the Russian army, orders mean something. After braving German fire, they convince a Nazi sentry to bring them into a bunker (after they are blindfolded with their own parkas). Once in the bunker, they finally convince the German company commander to take the message to his commander. But then the commander comes back and says that he won't deliver the message. When the Russians ask the German to sign a receipt for the message, which they can take to their superiors, the German refuses. This is almost Shakespearean-level farce.
One of the oddities of this book is that I found my rooting interest to be with the Germans. I don't think this is entirely my fault, because there is a distinct anti-Soviet bias in Beevor's telling. While the German atrocities in Russia are briefly recounted at the book's start, the Russian atrocities - against their own troops, no less! - are covered in great detail. Beevor even devotes an entire chapter to explaining how much the Germans loved Christmas, and how they tried to celebrate despite freezing and starving to death. Beevor even compares and contrasts the letters home from the troops. While the German soldiers wrote tenderly about how much they missed hearth and home, Beevor makes clear that the Russian letters were filled with mindless propaganda.
Stalingrad was known as "the fateful city." It was Germany's high water mark. Even as Stalingrad was falling, Rommel was losing in North Africa and America was gearing up to (finally) get in the fight. From that point on, Germany would know nothing but defeat.
In hindsight, we are left to gasp at how close we came to a world dominated by Nazis. Some might find it hard to believe that we escaped through what appears to be luck - luck that Hitler made such a string of foolhardy decisions.
I'd hardly call this luck, though. To me, it was inevitable. Our character is our fate. A Napoleonic dictum says that to gain power, one must be absolutely petty, but to wield power, one must exercise true greatness. It makes perfect sense that a self-aggrandizing, paranoid-delusional sociopath such as Hitler would strive for absolute power and, with a few breaks along the way, eventually achieve it. But it also makes just as much sense that a self-aggrandizing, paranoid-delusional sociopath would be utterly unable to exercise that power, and would make stupid decisions in the unsupported belief that he was always right.
These traits ensured that he'd get as far as Stalingrad and then self-destruct.
June 19, 2023
Military Historian Antony Beevor has delivered a tour de force with Stalingrad. The retelling of one of the biggest, most vicious battles of WWII (?ever) is a gruesome, detailed read which, at times was difficult to read. Not only because of the details of countless atrocities, but also because of the volume of detailed military details contained within. No wonder this book has received numerous accolades.
Hitler described Operation Barbarossa as a ”Battle between two opposing world views” when he commenced the Nazi invasion of Russia in mid-1941.The German advance on the Eastern Front progressed until they reached the area East of the Don River, approaching Stalingrad and the mighty River Volga.The Russians managed to re-group and counterattack. This was known as Operation Uranus. By the time the battle of Stalingrad commenced – the conflict on the Eastern front had been going for 12 months - soldiers on both sides were already exhausted before the battle for Stalingrad commenced. They had endured 12 months of freezing temperatures and scant supplies.
Stalin treated soldiers who surrendered appallingly, even those who were captured by the Germans earlier in this battle and survived the Nazi POW camps (which is a feat in itself), were sent to the Gulags upon returning at the end of the war. Both sides expected their forces to fight to the last man. Hitler also would not hear of any of his soldiers surrendering. He would have nothing to do with ideas concerning the retreat or surrender of the encircled 6th Army in Stalingrad. They had to fight. Hitler was also very involved in operational details.
The conditions, particularly during the winter, were atrocious. Supply lines were strained, or simply cut-off, shelter was difficult to find. Also, decisions on what types of supplies required were misplaced – such as Hitler’s underestimation of the winter clothing needed. German soldiers, looted clothing from civicilans, and their shelter – to the point of tearing down their houses. Often leaving these poor people without shelter, food, farm animals, and even clothes.
The Nazi’s main force, the 6th Army, was eventually surrounded (ringed) at Stalingrad by resurgent Russian armies. This was the most appalling part of this conflict as the war of attrition stepped up to inhuman levels effort and endurance. Hitler’s orders of ‘never surrender’ were largely followed, and as such the daily grind of freezing temperatures, lack of shelter, hunger, thirst, no supplies, and atrocities continued until the Russians eventually destroyed the 6th Army – resulting in tens of thousands of POWs.
Of course, the starving German soldiers were neglected by a Russian regime who showed them little sympathy – the Russians were struggling to feed and cater to their own forces and civilians.
Germans POWs, being marched through a city by Russian soldiers. Many of these marches were, in fact, death marches as POWs were moved from camp to camp
I found the image below the most chilling. This fountain called, - The Children’s Khorovod was left standing amongst the ruins and remains of Stalingrad. This is haunting – particularly with the knowledge that many thousands of children died. The actual number is unknown.
This epic account contains many maps of military formations, detailed breakdowns of the forces involved, and details of the generals and senior officers involved on both sides. There are two sections of photographs too. Many accounts used by Beever are taken from soldiers’ letters to home from both sides.
A review can not ever do a book like this justice. This experience has left me shaken and overwhelmed.
5 Stars
*Optional Extra*
For those of you who can see the statue of the children doing a Russian circle dance around the crocodile this is the allegory:
Little children! / For nothing in the world / Do not go to Africa / Do not go to Africa for a walk! // In Africa, there are sharks, / In Africa, there are gorillas, / In Africa, there are large / Evil crocodiles / They will bite you, / Beat and offend you - // Don't you go, children, / to Africa for a walk / In Africa, there is a robber, / In Africa, there is a villain, / In Africa, there is terrible / Bahr-mah-ley! // He runs about Africa / And eats children - / Nasty, vicious, greedy Barmaley!
ref: Wikipedia
For those who are interested and can't see it - google The Children’s Khorovod and click on images. It truly is an enduring and chilling image of this horrendous battle.
Hitler described Operation Barbarossa as a ”Battle between two opposing world views” when he commenced the Nazi invasion of Russia in mid-1941.The German advance on the Eastern Front progressed until they reached the area East of the Don River, approaching Stalingrad and the mighty River Volga.The Russians managed to re-group and counterattack. This was known as Operation Uranus. By the time the battle of Stalingrad commenced – the conflict on the Eastern front had been going for 12 months - soldiers on both sides were already exhausted before the battle for Stalingrad commenced. They had endured 12 months of freezing temperatures and scant supplies.
Stalin treated soldiers who surrendered appallingly, even those who were captured by the Germans earlier in this battle and survived the Nazi POW camps (which is a feat in itself), were sent to the Gulags upon returning at the end of the war. Both sides expected their forces to fight to the last man. Hitler also would not hear of any of his soldiers surrendering. He would have nothing to do with ideas concerning the retreat or surrender of the encircled 6th Army in Stalingrad. They had to fight. Hitler was also very involved in operational details.
The conditions, particularly during the winter, were atrocious. Supply lines were strained, or simply cut-off, shelter was difficult to find. Also, decisions on what types of supplies required were misplaced – such as Hitler’s underestimation of the winter clothing needed. German soldiers, looted clothing from civicilans, and their shelter – to the point of tearing down their houses. Often leaving these poor people without shelter, food, farm animals, and even clothes.
The Nazi’s main force, the 6th Army, was eventually surrounded (ringed) at Stalingrad by resurgent Russian armies. This was the most appalling part of this conflict as the war of attrition stepped up to inhuman levels effort and endurance. Hitler’s orders of ‘never surrender’ were largely followed, and as such the daily grind of freezing temperatures, lack of shelter, hunger, thirst, no supplies, and atrocities continued until the Russians eventually destroyed the 6th Army – resulting in tens of thousands of POWs.
Of course, the starving German soldiers were neglected by a Russian regime who showed them little sympathy – the Russians were struggling to feed and cater to their own forces and civilians.
Germans POWs, being marched through a city by Russian soldiers. Many of these marches were, in fact, death marches as POWs were moved from camp to camp
I found the image below the most chilling. This fountain called, - The Children’s Khorovod was left standing amongst the ruins and remains of Stalingrad. This is haunting – particularly with the knowledge that many thousands of children died. The actual number is unknown.
This epic account contains many maps of military formations, detailed breakdowns of the forces involved, and details of the generals and senior officers involved on both sides. There are two sections of photographs too. Many accounts used by Beever are taken from soldiers’ letters to home from both sides.
A review can not ever do a book like this justice. This experience has left me shaken and overwhelmed.
5 Stars
*Optional Extra*
For those of you who can see the statue of the children doing a Russian circle dance around the crocodile this is the allegory:
Little children! / For nothing in the world / Do not go to Africa / Do not go to Africa for a walk! // In Africa, there are sharks, / In Africa, there are gorillas, / In Africa, there are large / Evil crocodiles / They will bite you, / Beat and offend you - // Don't you go, children, / to Africa for a walk / In Africa, there is a robber, / In Africa, there is a villain, / In Africa, there is terrible / Bahr-mah-ley! // He runs about Africa / And eats children - / Nasty, vicious, greedy Barmaley!
ref: Wikipedia
For those who are interested and can't see it - google The Children’s Khorovod and click on images. It truly is an enduring and chilling image of this horrendous battle.
December 25, 2012
This is a painful book to read, as it shows the horror of the war on both sides. The half-year battle for the streets of Stalingrad was an unremitting horror, with not only two armies, but thousands of civilians jammed into a city that was being bombed into rubble while everyone was starving or dying of thirst. (Apparently this book demonstrated the dangers of trying to substitute snow for water.)
Just when the battle for the streets of Stalingrad appeared to be turning into a stalemate, with General Vassili Chuikov of the Soviet 62nd Army fighting Paulus's German Sixth Army to a virtual draw, Marshal Zhukov initiated an encircling movement that caught the Nazis unaware. Both Hitler and his generals were astonished that the Russians had so many more men, tanks, and planes when it had seemed that there was nothing left on the Russian side but stumbling starvelings. In a trice, it was the Sixth Army that turned into stumbling starvelings sans food, sans ammunition, sans fuel, sans everything.
Hitler forbade Paulus to surrender. It was his fervent wish that the whole army commit suicide so that they could go down as heroes. They didn't: tens of thousands surrendered. But Hitler and Goebbels tried to buffalo the German people into thinking that the whole army was wiped out.
In the battle between Hitler and Stalin, it appeared that the Russian was the more reasonable. Hitler had no notion whatsoever of supplying a large army that was thousands of miles from its base in Central Europe. He just thought that his armies could supply themselves by living off the newly occupied territories. That worked to a certain extent, but how does an army make its tanks and cannon work without replacement equipment? And what about ammunition? As the Eastern Front collapsed toward the Volga, the Russians were closer to their base of supply in the Urals and around Moscow, while the Germans were dangerously stretched.
Antony Beevor has written an excellent history which should be required reading for those who think that D-Day was what broke the back of the Nazi war machine. The Wehrmacht units on the Ostfront would have paid to serve against the Americans and the British, instead of dying by the millions on the pitiless steppes of Russia.
Just when the battle for the streets of Stalingrad appeared to be turning into a stalemate, with General Vassili Chuikov of the Soviet 62nd Army fighting Paulus's German Sixth Army to a virtual draw, Marshal Zhukov initiated an encircling movement that caught the Nazis unaware. Both Hitler and his generals were astonished that the Russians had so many more men, tanks, and planes when it had seemed that there was nothing left on the Russian side but stumbling starvelings. In a trice, it was the Sixth Army that turned into stumbling starvelings sans food, sans ammunition, sans fuel, sans everything.
Hitler forbade Paulus to surrender. It was his fervent wish that the whole army commit suicide so that they could go down as heroes. They didn't: tens of thousands surrendered. But Hitler and Goebbels tried to buffalo the German people into thinking that the whole army was wiped out.
In the battle between Hitler and Stalin, it appeared that the Russian was the more reasonable. Hitler had no notion whatsoever of supplying a large army that was thousands of miles from its base in Central Europe. He just thought that his armies could supply themselves by living off the newly occupied territories. That worked to a certain extent, but how does an army make its tanks and cannon work without replacement equipment? And what about ammunition? As the Eastern Front collapsed toward the Volga, the Russians were closer to their base of supply in the Urals and around Moscow, while the Germans were dangerously stretched.
Antony Beevor has written an excellent history which should be required reading for those who think that D-Day was what broke the back of the Nazi war machine. The Wehrmacht units on the Ostfront would have paid to serve against the Americans and the British, instead of dying by the millions on the pitiless steppes of Russia.
November 1, 2020
Antony Beevor's book is a compelling, meticulously researched study of the Battle of Stalingrad.
The first time the German people heard of the city of Stalingrad as a military objective was only two weeks before Hitler, who had never wanted his troops to become involved in street-fighting in Moscow or Leningrad, became determined to sieze this city "at any price." As Beevor explains, the events on the Caucasus Front, supposedly the Führer's main priority, played a major role in his decision. On 7 September, a day when Heider noted "satisfying progress at Stalingrad", Hitler displayed his exasperation at the failure to advance in the Caucasus. He refused to accept that Field Marshal List didn't have enough troops for the task.
After the triumphs in Poland, Scandinavia, and France, Beevor explains, Hitler was often ready to despise "mundane requirements", such as fuel supplies and manpower shortages, "as if he were above the normal material constraints of war." When General Alfred Jodl, having just returned from a visit to List's headquarters, pointed out to the Führer that List had only followed his orders, Hitler screamed, "That's a lie!" and stormed out. Beevor argues that this outburst had brought the Führer "to a sort of psychological frontier.": General Warlimont was so shocked by Hitler's "long stare of burning hate" that he thought "he has realized that his fatal gamble is over, that Soviet Russia is not going to be beaten in this second attempt."
According to Beevor, Hitler probably did sense the truth, but he still couldn't accept it. The Volga was cut and Stalingrad's war industries destroyed – both the goals defined in Operation Blue (the main Nazi offensive in southern Russia). Yet, he now desired to capture the city named after Stalin, as though this in itself would achieve the subjugation of the enemy by other means. "The dangerous dreamer had turned to symbolic victory for compensation," writes Beevor.
As he shows, one or two spectacular successes sustained the illusion that Stalingrad "would be the crucible in which to prove the superiority of German might." On the north front, Russians sent in Lend-Lease American tanks, which with their thin protection, proved easier to knock out. The Soviet crews complained, "The tanks are no good. The valves go to pieces, the engine overheats and the transmission is no use." This is the reason why Count von Strachwitz, the commander of the 16th Panzer Division, destroyed more than a hundred of them, thus achieving the needed "spectacular victory."
However, although Soviet attacks at this point were appallingly wasteful and incompetent, there could be no doubt about the determination to defend Stalingrad at any cost. It was a resolve that more than matched the determination of the invader. "The hour of courage has struck on the clock..." quotes Beevor Anna Akhmatova's poem. As he also reveals, since the fall of Rostov, any means of igniting resistance had become permissible: on September 8, a picture in Stalingrad Front newspaper showed "a frightened girl with her limbs bound. 'What if your beloved girl is tied up like this by fascists?' said the caption. 'First they'll rape her insolently, then throw her under a tank. Advance warrior. Shoot the enemy. Your duty is to prevent the violator from raping your girl.'"
So, although when the first phase of the German onslaught began on September 13, the Germans made progress into the western edge of the city, capturing the small airfield and some barracks, the fighting proved to be much harder than they'd expected. Many privately realized that they might well be spending the winter in Stalingrad, mentions Beevor.
The struggle became especially intense for the Mamaev Kurgan. If the Germans took it, they could control the Volga, so they counterattacked again and again for days. Yet, General Rodimtsev's troops managed to hold on to the Kurgan, and the German 295th Infantry Division was "fought to a standstill." "Their losses were so heavy," describes Beevor, "that companies were merged. Officer casualties were particularly high, largely due to Russian snipers. After less than two weeks in the line, a company in Colonel Korfes's regiment of the 295th Infantry Division was on the its third commander, a young lieutenant."
Gradually, German soldiers, "red-eyed with exhaustion from the hard fighting, and mourning more comrades than they ever imagined", were losing their victorious mood. Hitler's frustrations over the lack of success in the Caucasus and at Stalingrad, meanwhile, reached its zenith when he dismissed General Haider, the chief of the Army General Staff. This dismissal, Beevor asserts, marked the tragic end of the general staff as an independent planning body. In addition, Hitler had said that with the Sixth Army "he could storm the heavens", yet Stalingrad still did not fall...
According to Beevor, the fighting in Stalingrad was remarkable because it represented a whole new form of warfare, concentrated "in the ruins of civillian life." The waste of war – shell cases, burnt-out tanks, and grenade boxes – was mixed with the wreckages of family homes. Soviet writer Vasily Grossman depicted "fighting in the brick-strewn, half-demolished rooms and corridors of apartment blocks, where there might stoll be a vase on the table, or a boy's homework open on the table." German infantrymen hated house-to-house combat, narrates Beevor. They found it "psychologically disorientating." During the last phases of the September battles, both sides had struggled to capture a warehouse on the Volga bank. At one point, it was "like a layered cake with Germans on the top floor, Russians below them, and more Germans underneath them." Often the enemy was unrecognizable, "with every uniform impregnated by the same dun-coloured dust."
On top of that, German generals did not even imagine what awaited their divisions inside the ruined city. As Beevor explains, since they lost their Blitzkrieg priorities, they were in many ways thrown back to WWI techniques. For instance, the Sixth Army had to respond to Soviet tactics with "storm-wedges" introduced in 1918: "assault groups of ten men armed with a machine-gun, light mortar and flame-throwers for clearing bunkers, cellars, sewers."
Thus, Antony Beevor shows that the fighting in Stalingrad was extremely terrifying. It possessed "savage intimacy," which horrified German generals, who felt they were rapidly losing control over events. "The enemy is invisible," wrote General Strecker to a friend. "Ambushes out of basements, wall remnants, hidden bunkers, and factory ruins produce heavy casualties among our troops."
Much of the fighting now consisted not of major attacks, but of relentless little conflicts, and the war turned into "stationary annihilation." German troops believed that they had been lured into a trap.
Antony Beevor's brilliant work succeeds in showing the experience of troops on both sides. The author draws upon a wide range of material, from Russian archives to war diaries, personal accounts, letters, and NKVD interrogations of German POWs. He creates a no-holds-bared account not only of the battle itself, with its logistics, strategies, and reality, but also of extraordinary events such as disertion of Soviet soldiers, incompetence, self-inflicted wounds, and drunkenness. For example, he reveals the shocking fact that the Soviet authorities executed around 13,500 of their own soldiers at Stalingrad, a demonstration of the brutal coercion used against diserters by the NKVD.
Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege is a very well written history of the ideologically important battle. My only complaint is that it's awfully short of maps. Otherwise, I highly recommend it to all WWII buffs.
The first time the German people heard of the city of Stalingrad as a military objective was only two weeks before Hitler, who had never wanted his troops to become involved in street-fighting in Moscow or Leningrad, became determined to sieze this city "at any price." As Beevor explains, the events on the Caucasus Front, supposedly the Führer's main priority, played a major role in his decision. On 7 September, a day when Heider noted "satisfying progress at Stalingrad", Hitler displayed his exasperation at the failure to advance in the Caucasus. He refused to accept that Field Marshal List didn't have enough troops for the task.
After the triumphs in Poland, Scandinavia, and France, Beevor explains, Hitler was often ready to despise "mundane requirements", such as fuel supplies and manpower shortages, "as if he were above the normal material constraints of war." When General Alfred Jodl, having just returned from a visit to List's headquarters, pointed out to the Führer that List had only followed his orders, Hitler screamed, "That's a lie!" and stormed out. Beevor argues that this outburst had brought the Führer "to a sort of psychological frontier.": General Warlimont was so shocked by Hitler's "long stare of burning hate" that he thought "he has realized that his fatal gamble is over, that Soviet Russia is not going to be beaten in this second attempt."
According to Beevor, Hitler probably did sense the truth, but he still couldn't accept it. The Volga was cut and Stalingrad's war industries destroyed – both the goals defined in Operation Blue (the main Nazi offensive in southern Russia). Yet, he now desired to capture the city named after Stalin, as though this in itself would achieve the subjugation of the enemy by other means. "The dangerous dreamer had turned to symbolic victory for compensation," writes Beevor.
As he shows, one or two spectacular successes sustained the illusion that Stalingrad "would be the crucible in which to prove the superiority of German might." On the north front, Russians sent in Lend-Lease American tanks, which with their thin protection, proved easier to knock out. The Soviet crews complained, "The tanks are no good. The valves go to pieces, the engine overheats and the transmission is no use." This is the reason why Count von Strachwitz, the commander of the 16th Panzer Division, destroyed more than a hundred of them, thus achieving the needed "spectacular victory."
However, although Soviet attacks at this point were appallingly wasteful and incompetent, there could be no doubt about the determination to defend Stalingrad at any cost. It was a resolve that more than matched the determination of the invader. "The hour of courage has struck on the clock..." quotes Beevor Anna Akhmatova's poem. As he also reveals, since the fall of Rostov, any means of igniting resistance had become permissible: on September 8, a picture in Stalingrad Front newspaper showed "a frightened girl with her limbs bound. 'What if your beloved girl is tied up like this by fascists?' said the caption. 'First they'll rape her insolently, then throw her under a tank. Advance warrior. Shoot the enemy. Your duty is to prevent the violator from raping your girl.'"
So, although when the first phase of the German onslaught began on September 13, the Germans made progress into the western edge of the city, capturing the small airfield and some barracks, the fighting proved to be much harder than they'd expected. Many privately realized that they might well be spending the winter in Stalingrad, mentions Beevor.
The struggle became especially intense for the Mamaev Kurgan. If the Germans took it, they could control the Volga, so they counterattacked again and again for days. Yet, General Rodimtsev's troops managed to hold on to the Kurgan, and the German 295th Infantry Division was "fought to a standstill." "Their losses were so heavy," describes Beevor, "that companies were merged. Officer casualties were particularly high, largely due to Russian snipers. After less than two weeks in the line, a company in Colonel Korfes's regiment of the 295th Infantry Division was on the its third commander, a young lieutenant."
Gradually, German soldiers, "red-eyed with exhaustion from the hard fighting, and mourning more comrades than they ever imagined", were losing their victorious mood. Hitler's frustrations over the lack of success in the Caucasus and at Stalingrad, meanwhile, reached its zenith when he dismissed General Haider, the chief of the Army General Staff. This dismissal, Beevor asserts, marked the tragic end of the general staff as an independent planning body. In addition, Hitler had said that with the Sixth Army "he could storm the heavens", yet Stalingrad still did not fall...
According to Beevor, the fighting in Stalingrad was remarkable because it represented a whole new form of warfare, concentrated "in the ruins of civillian life." The waste of war – shell cases, burnt-out tanks, and grenade boxes – was mixed with the wreckages of family homes. Soviet writer Vasily Grossman depicted "fighting in the brick-strewn, half-demolished rooms and corridors of apartment blocks, where there might stoll be a vase on the table, or a boy's homework open on the table." German infantrymen hated house-to-house combat, narrates Beevor. They found it "psychologically disorientating." During the last phases of the September battles, both sides had struggled to capture a warehouse on the Volga bank. At one point, it was "like a layered cake with Germans on the top floor, Russians below them, and more Germans underneath them." Often the enemy was unrecognizable, "with every uniform impregnated by the same dun-coloured dust."
On top of that, German generals did not even imagine what awaited their divisions inside the ruined city. As Beevor explains, since they lost their Blitzkrieg priorities, they were in many ways thrown back to WWI techniques. For instance, the Sixth Army had to respond to Soviet tactics with "storm-wedges" introduced in 1918: "assault groups of ten men armed with a machine-gun, light mortar and flame-throwers for clearing bunkers, cellars, sewers."
Thus, Antony Beevor shows that the fighting in Stalingrad was extremely terrifying. It possessed "savage intimacy," which horrified German generals, who felt they were rapidly losing control over events. "The enemy is invisible," wrote General Strecker to a friend. "Ambushes out of basements, wall remnants, hidden bunkers, and factory ruins produce heavy casualties among our troops."
Much of the fighting now consisted not of major attacks, but of relentless little conflicts, and the war turned into "stationary annihilation." German troops believed that they had been lured into a trap.
Antony Beevor's brilliant work succeeds in showing the experience of troops on both sides. The author draws upon a wide range of material, from Russian archives to war diaries, personal accounts, letters, and NKVD interrogations of German POWs. He creates a no-holds-bared account not only of the battle itself, with its logistics, strategies, and reality, but also of extraordinary events such as disertion of Soviet soldiers, incompetence, self-inflicted wounds, and drunkenness. For example, he reveals the shocking fact that the Soviet authorities executed around 13,500 of their own soldiers at Stalingrad, a demonstration of the brutal coercion used against diserters by the NKVD.
Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege is a very well written history of the ideologically important battle. My only complaint is that it's awfully short of maps. Otherwise, I highly recommend it to all WWII buffs.
August 25, 2025
Where the Fate of the World was Decided
Stalingrad has been on my mind for 20 years, since I was a school boy and my history teacher had a poster of it on his wall. The reason I’d never turned to it was because I was initially more interested in periods earlier than the 20th Century. However, as I’ve ventured down the rabbit hole of consuming history, it become unavoidable if one wants to learn from the lessons of history to avoid todays mistakes.
Stalingrad is my first by Sir Antony Beevor and I can say it did not disappoint. Beevor has stated as the son of a writer he grew up writing fiction however turned to military history and when beginning his research in the Russian Military Archives he was almost pushed into the biography of the battle of Stalingrad. The book flows like a novel, it is fast paced, interesting and easy to understand. I have recapped what the book told me and I am able to conclude that I know when and how it started, what the German plans were, who was in charge, who fought there, how the battle panned out, how the Red Army held on, why they won, how they won and the huge impact of this for the influence of the outcome of the war and the expanse of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe.
Stalingrad has an excellent combination of ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ story telling. Grand strategy is merged with the stories and suffering of individuals. The horrors of history and the pity of war.
If I was the criticise this book, I would say that it was a slow starter, hard to understand or imagine the scale of the battle and I felt I missed the house to house combat in the earlier stages of the battle. However, I am happy to revisit this and cover it again. Beevor would have taken a lot to fall here, as the subject matter is almost writes itself, being so fascinating. He does an excellent job putting it down on paper in a logic and coherent form.
One can only draw parallels with the 1812 invasion and the unimaginable suffering of both armies in the cold so far away from home. The majority never to see their families and loved ones ever again. With that there is a subtle study of human nature here and what people will do to survive when their backs are against the cliff edge. I cannot wait to read another Beevor and will definitely revisiting this book.
Stalingrad has been on my mind for 20 years, since I was a school boy and my history teacher had a poster of it on his wall. The reason I’d never turned to it was because I was initially more interested in periods earlier than the 20th Century. However, as I’ve ventured down the rabbit hole of consuming history, it become unavoidable if one wants to learn from the lessons of history to avoid todays mistakes.
Stalingrad is my first by Sir Antony Beevor and I can say it did not disappoint. Beevor has stated as the son of a writer he grew up writing fiction however turned to military history and when beginning his research in the Russian Military Archives he was almost pushed into the biography of the battle of Stalingrad. The book flows like a novel, it is fast paced, interesting and easy to understand. I have recapped what the book told me and I am able to conclude that I know when and how it started, what the German plans were, who was in charge, who fought there, how the battle panned out, how the Red Army held on, why they won, how they won and the huge impact of this for the influence of the outcome of the war and the expanse of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe.
Stalingrad has an excellent combination of ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ story telling. Grand strategy is merged with the stories and suffering of individuals. The horrors of history and the pity of war.
If I was the criticise this book, I would say that it was a slow starter, hard to understand or imagine the scale of the battle and I felt I missed the house to house combat in the earlier stages of the battle. However, I am happy to revisit this and cover it again. Beevor would have taken a lot to fall here, as the subject matter is almost writes itself, being so fascinating. He does an excellent job putting it down on paper in a logic and coherent form.
One can only draw parallels with the 1812 invasion and the unimaginable suffering of both armies in the cold so far away from home. The majority never to see their families and loved ones ever again. With that there is a subtle study of human nature here and what people will do to survive when their backs are against the cliff edge. I cannot wait to read another Beevor and will definitely revisiting this book.
March 31, 2013
It's not a bad book, but as a proclaimed "historical analysis" I can hardly give it more than one star. Reasons include:
- Heavy anti-Soviet bias. The author tries very hard to hammer in the notion of every Red Army soldier being a drunken lout. "Slavic peasant" phrasing is uncomfortably common, and it makes you question the author's intentions.
- Use of individual anecdotes to portray behaviors depicted in those anecdotes as common and regular.
- Unfounded claims, the most jarring of which being 13,500 Soviet soldiers supposedly executed by the NKVD during the course of the battle. Documented sources put the number of NKVD detainees at 1,218 men, of which only 21 were executed, the rest returning back to the front.
- The 'totalitarianism fallacy' of equating socialism and fascism.
And more.
Don't read unless you want to work your criticism muscles.
- Heavy anti-Soviet bias. The author tries very hard to hammer in the notion of every Red Army soldier being a drunken lout. "Slavic peasant" phrasing is uncomfortably common, and it makes you question the author's intentions.
- Use of individual anecdotes to portray behaviors depicted in those anecdotes as common and regular.
- Unfounded claims, the most jarring of which being 13,500 Soviet soldiers supposedly executed by the NKVD during the course of the battle. Documented sources put the number of NKVD detainees at 1,218 men, of which only 21 were executed, the rest returning back to the front.
- The 'totalitarianism fallacy' of equating socialism and fascism.
And more.
Don't read unless you want to work your criticism muscles.
March 20, 2024
An astonishing achievement in military history writing. My first time reading Beevor and it's easy to see why he's regarded so highly when it comes to this type of book. At near 500 pages it's deep and dense enough giving you just about the most comprehensive account of the Battle of Stalingrad, yet never becomes boring or too academic making for an immensely addictive and intense read if you like your WW2 history books. Not to state the obvious, but it is also one of the most sobering books I've ever read. Just to put it into perspective - the landings at Omaha Beach ended up costing the Allied around 10.000 servicemen: which in itself is one hell of a loss, so putting the death toll of soldiers and civilians at over one million during the colossal battles in Stalingrad and its surroundings over roughly an eight month period is simply beyond comprehension. With Hitler's launch of Operation Barbarossa and planned annihilation of Bolshevism - or rather, it's new form: Stalinism, his armies would turned up on the banks of the Volga and end up marking the turning point in the second World War. The Third Reich would reach it's ceiling; its high point, before the gradual decline and a vengeful Stalin marching his Soviet forces west to steamroll Berlin. What I found staggering, besides those lost through battle, starvation, illness and suicide, were the high number of executions for cowardice - shooting one's self in a limb as to not fight for example; particularly on the Soviet side. Of course, there is a flip side to this too in heroism, and medals dished out like they were sweets. The brutal Russian winter - which played a huge part in the final encirclement and devastation of the German Sixth Army - is another thing that really takes hold in this book. I almost felt like wrapping myself in a warm blanket when thinking just how cold it got. In my opinion, this book will never be bettered when it comes to the Battle of Stalingrad. Vasily Grossman's recorded experiences on the Eastern Front in A Writer at War - some of his journal entries even appear in this book, makes for a great companion piece to this. Though Grossman himself was actually there reporting from the front lines, Beevor's book is much much deeper, thus resulting in a richer and more rewarding reading experience when it comes to the Battle of Stalingrad.
January 9, 2023
British historian Antony Beefor has written a complete and objective history of the titanic Battle of Stalingrad during WWII. He certainly did his research, drawing upon the once secret Russian archives as well as German records. The result is very readable, a narrative that moves along swiftly, so that at times I couldn't put it down. And we know the ending--the Soviet Army's defeat and destruction of the German Sixth Army in the city of Stalingrad in Russia. I would argue that it was not only the turning point of the Eastern Front, but of the entire war. In the previous year (1941), the Germans had been stopped before Moscow and they had to struggle to survive the brutal Russian winter. In the summer of 1942, the German blitzkrieg of panzers (tanks) and Stuka dive bombers drove across Russia to reach the mighty Volga River--and Stalingrad, the city named for the Soviet dictator on the west side of the river. By fighting in the city, street by street, block by block, and even house by house, the Germans threw away their great advantage of mobility. The Soviet troops dug into the rubble of the bombed-out city and fought desperately for time. Stalin wanted to hold the Germans within the city while building reserves to mount a counter-offensive in the winter. That happened with Operation Uranus in November, as Soviet forces broke through the allied Romanian armies on the German flank--and trapped the 6th Army within the city that it had been fighting so hard to conquer. Then began a nightmarish ordeal as the Germans suffered from frostbite, disease, and even starvation during a siege that finally ended at the end of January, 1943. 91,000 prisoners were taken including 22 German generals and that included Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus, the commander. But even more than the horrendous losses, it was the psychological impact on Hitler and Germany that made Stalingrad the war's turning point. Victory was no longer assured and, in fact, Germany would need to fight for its life. Beevor gives us a lot of images and scenes that leave a lasting impression. Here is one scene-"These defeated remnants of the Sixth Army.....shivering in their inadequate greatcoats....were herded into long columns of march. A group of survivors from the 297th Infantry Division was confronted by a Russian officer, who pointed at the ruins around and yelled at them: "That's how Berlin is going to look." (pg. 387)
Read
November 23, 2010So, I'm watching a movie in German about the siege of Stalingrad last night while I'm knitting and my first thought was 'but I won't have a clue what is going on' and my second is 'fair enough....why should I have an unfair advantage over the poor fuckers who were there in the thick of it.' Just because I'm watching the movie, it shouldn't give me an edge.
Afterwards, explaining this to my mother, she asked, so did you get it? And I'm like 'nope, but neither did they.' Bunches of people being confused in the snow and doing horrible things to each other.
This I greatly regret: I have a friend, Josek, who was in that siege as one of many idealistic Polish volunteers who made the incredible trip there, survived despite getting TB, and was given a loaf of bread to set him on his way back to Poland - if you ask me it's more than a one loaf walk, but anyway. His story is as amazing as you'd expect and a few years ago I decided to start interviewing him properly in order to tell it. And then, in that way life is fucking unfair to people who deserve better he fell over and died.
Josek was tiny, so small and frail that a strong breeze was his natural enemy. He died falling over on a trip to the bathroom - that doesn't surprise me - but to have survived some of the worst of all the history of the world first and then die that way is ridiculous. Still. He would have shrugged, if he could. He would have said that's life.
Afterwards, explaining this to my mother, she asked, so did you get it? And I'm like 'nope, but neither did they.' Bunches of people being confused in the snow and doing horrible things to each other.
This I greatly regret: I have a friend, Josek, who was in that siege as one of many idealistic Polish volunteers who made the incredible trip there, survived despite getting TB, and was given a loaf of bread to set him on his way back to Poland - if you ask me it's more than a one loaf walk, but anyway. His story is as amazing as you'd expect and a few years ago I decided to start interviewing him properly in order to tell it. And then, in that way life is fucking unfair to people who deserve better he fell over and died.
Josek was tiny, so small and frail that a strong breeze was his natural enemy. He died falling over on a trip to the bathroom - that doesn't surprise me - but to have survived some of the worst of all the history of the world first and then die that way is ridiculous. Still. He would have shrugged, if he could. He would have said that's life.
November 29, 2009
This is an excellent account of the battle of Stalingrad, I'd place it next to 'Enemy at the Gates'. The author gives you an overview of the military situation on the Eastern Front prior to the German Offensive towards Stalingrad on the Volga. The author tells the story of this terrible battle through the accounts of those soldiers who endured this inferno and survived as well as using letters and diaries of those who didn't! This is a story of the fighting, not of the strategy and tactics behind the Armies. It's a good account of the battle and well worth the time to read. You'll feel for those common soldiers, both German & their Allies and the Russians. A great book.
April 8, 2024
What a fascinating book based on eye witness accounts, letters home, documents etc. I wanted to read to see a parallel with the Ukraine war now in process. The parallel can be drawn as well as other battles led by hubris. My mind went to the loss of 3 Roman legions by Varus in the Teutenburg forest. Not least Hitler being disgusted that General Paulus did not choose the Varus suicide.
Obviously with hindsight Hitlers Operation Barbarossa was less than a good idea. Whilst the initial drive into Russia went well the extended pipeline and resistance of the Russian people finally stopped it. Not helped by Hitler dabbling in military decisions.
Beevor gives detailed accounts of General Paulus and Georgy Zhukov and their relationships to Hitler and Stalin respectively. The bravery of both sides through the siege of Stalingrad is remarkable.
Beevor uses vignettes to paint the picture of misery. From the lice infestations ( a soldier counting over 200 in his helmet; moving masses leaving a dead body to find living flesh). Bravery - Russian soldier having one Molotov cocktail shot from hand and enveloping him in fire, only to carry the second and himself onto a Panzer tank. There are so many of these stories.
The starvation and desperate cold inducing frostbite ( one soldier having two of his toes chewed off by mice in the night). The horrors expended by each side on the other and the fact that almost 10,000 civilians remained alive during the siege.
The narrative style of the book just makes it more readable. In fact so readable I plan to read his book on the Spanish civil war.
From a Ukrainian perspective ie, read Stalingrad for Kiev this has many points of departure. One man’s hubris, extended pipelines, bad weather and national resistance. Let’s see how history records this.
Obviously with hindsight Hitlers Operation Barbarossa was less than a good idea. Whilst the initial drive into Russia went well the extended pipeline and resistance of the Russian people finally stopped it. Not helped by Hitler dabbling in military decisions.
Beevor gives detailed accounts of General Paulus and Georgy Zhukov and their relationships to Hitler and Stalin respectively. The bravery of both sides through the siege of Stalingrad is remarkable.
Beevor uses vignettes to paint the picture of misery. From the lice infestations ( a soldier counting over 200 in his helmet; moving masses leaving a dead body to find living flesh). Bravery - Russian soldier having one Molotov cocktail shot from hand and enveloping him in fire, only to carry the second and himself onto a Panzer tank. There are so many of these stories.
The starvation and desperate cold inducing frostbite ( one soldier having two of his toes chewed off by mice in the night). The horrors expended by each side on the other and the fact that almost 10,000 civilians remained alive during the siege.
The narrative style of the book just makes it more readable. In fact so readable I plan to read his book on the Spanish civil war.
From a Ukrainian perspective ie, read Stalingrad for Kiev this has many points of departure. One man’s hubris, extended pipelines, bad weather and national resistance. Let’s see how history records this.
February 11, 2022
Адът не е врящ котел, а замръзналият Сталинград.
Книгата започна с един минус (за мен) - за пореден път се убеждавам, какъв грях към читателя е да започнеш с благодарствени слова и нещо като мотивационно писмо. Това по-скоро удря спирачка в историята, преди дори да е потеглила. Единствено полезна беше информацията откъде е почерпил някои руски извори и как те отново са били недостъпни след това. А след това - всичко с книгата си е наред и нищо с тази война не е наред.
Описват се маневрите от изненадващата (явно само за Сталин) инвазия на Вермахта в "руски" теротирии до достигането на ройона на Сталинград. По пътя, застрашен в един момент изглежда и Москва, но нещата сравнително бързо се разминават и московчани могат да си отдъхнат, че няма да водят сражения на Червения площад. Сталин използва умело стратегически момента с мащабен военен парад, който да даде вяра в силите, енерция и знак за останалия свят.
Лека по лека, описанието на стратегии и маневри отстъпва място на частни истории на войници, офицери и генерали. И цивилните в района - най-големите губещи от всяка война. Обсадата на Сталинград, разбира се не е като онези средновековни обсади, за които сме чели - едните се затварят зад високите крепостни стени, а другите правят стан и се опитват да влязат или да уморят от глад града. Макар в тази част на света, WWII да започва да прилича на окопната война WWI, а и да се правят редица паралели с Наполеоновото поражение - военният театър е доста по-сложен за разбиране, а развръзката си остава все същата - един оцелява, друг умира, всички страдат.
Голямото достойнство на книгата е именно стремежът да се погледне през хиляди анонимни очи и няколко общо известни, които да ни разкажат историята такава, каквато са я видели - в лични писма, в доклади, сводки, спомени. Не ми стана ясно каква част от книгата е взаимствана от онзи достъп до руски архив, за който Бийвър говори в началото, но тя не ще да е толкова голяма, защото към 2/3 от книгата звучат като от германски източници. Освен, ако това не са пленени от руснаците немски материали. И все пак, разкрива ни се много повече за немските планове, действия, мисли от фронта на обикновения войник, отколкото това да важи за руската страна.
Правим и уточнинието, че като говорим за немска страна - тук влизат не малко австрийци, поне 10 хиляди румънци, незнайно колко от пленените страни - чехи, поляци ... няколко стотин италианци (за които е имало изрична заповед до германците "да не им се подиграват") и .. руснаци. Чудещ е броят на руснаците, които съдействат по различни начини на фрицовете - помагачи от всякакъв тип - за намиране на храна, преводачи, лични асистенти и каквото се сетите. И дори воюващи. От страната на русите пък, Бийвър твърди, половината са от останалите съветски републики. Така, че това е колкото война между немци и руси, толкова и между останала сбирщина от народности, всеки със своята си мотивация или принуда.
Статистиките са най-неясни за цивилното население. По начало, градът не е бил евакуиран. Сталин е сметнал, че така войските ще го защитават по-отвержено, а пък и местните все нещо ще помогнат на отбраната. С голямо закъснение част от хората са били изтегляни с параходи, но някои от тях неуспешно. А там, където са ги стоварвали - условията не са били много по-добри. Немската 6-та армия, попаднала по-късно в обкръжение от врага, се числи по различни източници на от около 240 до 290 хил. В това число "помагачите" може да са достигали и до 50 хил. Не си спомням Бийвър да цитира числа за руските сили в региона, но те трябва да са били много повече сумарно за периода на бойните действия.
Така, нека видим какъв всъщност е врагът на войника:
- Студ (на първо място), най-много се говореше за смърт от измръзване, а на практика няма войник в тази позиция, който да не страда от измръзване.
- Глад. След обкъжението доставките са затруднени и се пренасят само по въздух. Колкото повече продължава войната, толкова по-малко налична храна има. Дажбите са жалки. Голяма беда е и че няма достатъчно гориво за да топят сняг, което поне би облекчило жаждата за вода.
- Въшки и гризачи.
- Коктейл от болести - тиф, дезинтери��, жълтеница и др. екстри.
- Параноята от предателства, контрапредателства и страхът както от враг, така и от свои.
Отличава се и големият брой на войници, които се самонараняват. Някои са станали експерти в това, като раната трябва да е такава, че да не можеш да продължиш боя, да не е твърде очевидна (като да се простреляш в дясната ръка) и все пак ... да не умреш от нея. Дезертьорство има и от двете страни, в зависимост от фазата на битката и накъде са наклонени везните. Разстрел от своите има и в двете страни - поводите могат да са много.
Източният фронт е една месомелачка, работеща във фризер.
Накрая, руснаците ще приключат с 6-та армия и 4-та танкова дивизия, а пред тях ще се ширне цялото поле в посока Берлин. Жертите на Червената армия, а и на цивилните, които вероятно да са 5 пъти повече, в крайна сметка ще е козът в ръцете на Сталин за бъдещите преговори със Съюзниците. Това малко звучи като обратното на кредото на нашия национален герой и излиза нещо такова: "Ако загубя - губи само руският народ, ако спечеля, печеля само аз и политбюро". Пропагандата, че войниците са тръгвали от окопите с викове "за Сталино" не намират почва в историческите извори и дори войник признава, че Сталин и полит идеологията са последното, за което са мислели в тези решителни моменти. Руснаците се вдигат от инстинктивно чувство за самосъхранение и защита на нацията, а Вожда го пропагандира в своя угода. Не че пропагандата в Берлин е по-близо до реалността. Но тя скоро няма да има вече никакво значение. Там един маниакален ум ще си играе до последно с флагчета на картата, символизиращи (отдавана заличени) армии.
Накрая мога да заключа, че поговорката "Човек, каквото сам си направи, никой друг не може да му го направи" важи и в по-глобален смисъл: "Хората, каквото сами си причинят, нищо друго не може да им го причини".
Ценна книга. С уроци, които отказваме отново и отново да научим в човешката история.
Книгата започна с един минус (за мен) - за пореден път се убеждавам, какъв грях към читателя е да започнеш с благодарствени слова и нещо като мотивационно писмо. Това по-скоро удря спирачка в историята, преди дори да е потеглила. Единствено полезна беше информацията откъде е почерпил някои руски извори и как те отново са били недостъпни след това. А след това - всичко с книгата си е наред и нищо с тази война не е наред.
Описват се маневрите от изненадващата (явно само за Сталин) инвазия на Вермахта в "руски" теротирии до достигането на ройона на Сталинград. По пътя, застрашен в един момент изглежда и Москва, но нещата сравнително бързо се разминават и московчани могат да си отдъхнат, че няма да водят сражения на Червения площад. Сталин използва умело стратегически момента с мащабен военен парад, който да даде вяра в силите, енерция и знак за останалия свят.
Лека по лека, описанието на стратегии и маневри отстъпва място на частни истории на войници, офицери и генерали. И цивилните в района - най-големите губещи от всяка война. Обсадата на Сталинград, разбира се не е като онези средновековни обсади, за които сме чели - едните се затварят зад високите крепостни стени, а другите правят стан и се опитват да влязат или да уморят от глад града. Макар в тази част на света, WWII да започва да прилича на окопната война WWI, а и да се правят редица паралели с Наполеоновото поражение - военният театър е доста по-сложен за разбиране, а развръзката си остава все същата - един оцелява, друг умира, всички страдат.
Голямото достойнство на книгата е именно стремежът да се погледне през хиляди анонимни очи и няколко общо известни, които да ни разкажат историята такава, каквато са я видели - в лични писма, в доклади, сводки, спомени. Не ми стана ясно каква част от книгата е взаимствана от онзи достъп до руски архив, за който Бийвър говори в началото, но тя не ще да е толкова голяма, защото към 2/3 от книгата звучат като от германски източници. Освен, ако това не са пленени от руснаците немски материали. И все пак, разкрива ни се много повече за немските планове, действия, мисли от фронта на обикновения войник, отколкото това да важи за руската страна.
Правим и уточнинието, че като говорим за немска страна - тук влизат не малко австрийци, поне 10 хиляди румънци, незнайно колко от пленените страни - чехи, поляци ... няколко стотин италианци (за които е имало изрична заповед до германците "да не им се подиграват") и .. руснаци. Чудещ е броят на руснаците, които съдействат по различни начини на фрицовете - помагачи от всякакъв тип - за намиране на храна, преводачи, лични асистенти и каквото се сетите. И дори воюващи. От страната на русите пък, Бийвър твърди, половината са от останалите съветски републики. Така, че това е колкото война между немци и руси, толкова и между останала сбирщина от народности, всеки със своята си мотивация или принуда.
Статистиките са най-неясни за цивилното население. По начало, градът не е бил евакуиран. Сталин е сметнал, че така войските ще го защитават по-отвержено, а пък и местните все нещо ще помогнат на отбраната. С голямо закъснение част от хората са били изтегляни с параходи, но някои от тях неуспешно. А там, където са ги стоварвали - условията не са били много по-добри. Немската 6-та армия, попаднала по-късно в обкръжение от врага, се числи по различни източници на от около 240 до 290 хил. В това число "помагачите" може да са достигали и до 50 хил. Не си спомням Бийвър да цитира числа за руските сили в региона, но те трябва да са били много повече сумарно за периода на бойните действия.
Така, нека видим какъв всъщност е врагът на войника:
- Студ (на първо място), най-много се говореше за смърт от измръзване, а на практика няма войник в тази позиция, който да не страда от измръзване.
- Глад. След обкъжението доставките са затруднени и се пренасят само по въздух. Колкото повече продължава войната, толкова по-малко налична храна има. Дажбите са жалки. Голяма беда е и че няма достатъчно гориво за да топят сняг, което поне би облекчило жаждата за вода.
- Въшки и гризачи.
- Коктейл от болести - тиф, дезинтери��, жълтеница и др. екстри.
- Параноята от предателства, контрапредателства и страхът както от враг, така и от свои.
Отличава се и големият брой на войници, които се самонараняват. Някои са станали експерти в това, като раната трябва да е такава, че да не можеш да продължиш боя, да не е твърде очевидна (като да се простреляш в дясната ръка) и все пак ... да не умреш от нея. Дезертьорство има и от двете страни, в зависимост от фазата на битката и накъде са наклонени везните. Разстрел от своите има и в двете страни - поводите могат да са много.
Източният фронт е една месомелачка, работеща във фризер.
Накрая, руснаците ще приключат с 6-та армия и 4-та танкова дивизия, а пред тях ще се ширне цялото поле в посока Берлин. Жертите на Червената армия, а и на цивилните, които вероятно да са 5 пъти повече, в крайна сметка ще е козът в ръцете на Сталин за бъдещите преговори със Съюзниците. Това малко звучи като обратното на кредото на нашия национален герой и излиза нещо такова: "Ако загубя - губи само руският народ, ако спечеля, печеля само аз и политбюро". Пропагандата, че войниците са тръгвали от окопите с викове "за Сталино" не намират почва в историческите извори и дори войник признава, че Сталин и полит идеологията са последното, за което са мислели в тези решителни моменти. Руснаците се вдигат от инстинктивно чувство за самосъхранение и защита на нацията, а Вожда го пропагандира в своя угода. Не че пропагандата в Берлин е по-близо до реалността. Но тя скоро няма да има вече никакво значение. Там един маниакален ум ще си играе до последно с флагчета на картата, символизиращи (отдавана заличени) армии.
Накрая мога да заключа, че поговорката "Човек, каквото сам си направи, никой друг не може да му го направи" важи и в по-глобален смисъл: "Хората, каквото сами си причинят, нищо друго не може да им го причини".
Ценна книга. С уроци, които отказваме отново и отново да научим в човешката история.
July 31, 2021
Lately I have been on a reading binge of books focused on the Eastern Front and the Second World War. I recently ordered David Glantz’s complete set of books on the battle of Stalingrad, but because I felt this book would be a good stepping stone before I started reading his in-depth series, I began reading it. I have never read any other books by Anthony Beevor, but now that I have, I really like his style of writing and will be reading his other works in the future. Beevors writings offered me a great baseline of understanding about the situation and I came from this book with facts that left an imprint on me. I have no doubt Stalingrad and failure of the Fall Blau (operation blue) was the turning point where the Red Army went from a stumbling colossus to a mighty goliath. Zhukov, Vasilevskiy, and Chuikov emerged out of this conflict as heroes of the Soviet Union, and it was this successful campaign that swayed Stalin into allowing Red Army commanders more freedom, (putting commissars into subordinate roles) and allowing them to use deep battle operations.
In this book we get to read about the living conditions of German soldiers during Stalingrad, those who become prisoners, and what happened to Red Army prisoners. You read about the HiWis (look them up if you don’t know about them) and the select group who fought until the end for the Sixth army. You read a story about how in certain soviet prisoner of war camps, Romanian prisoners of war would beat the life out of German Prisoners of war, because of how they felt anger at the fact they were brought into this ordeal. You read about how German soldiers prayed to get back home, and thought of Germany as a world away. You read about the sniper ace, Vasily Zaitsev, and how snipers were trending in this battle. We see so many acts of inhumanity, but we read some stories of some rare humane treatment in this book. You read about General Paulus’s nervous tic, or about how Operation Uranus, the plan that encircled the Sixth army, came into being. You hear about the stories of typhus, dysentery, diphtheria outbreaks, and you shudder at the idea of being a soldier in a trench, being put through the most hellish conditions. Some soldiers were optimistic about Hitler’s declarations about how he would relieve the army at Stalingrad but pray to be taken away via Pitomnik airfield. I found my brain visualizing the German soldiers in their defenses, tired, hungry, cold, and I just couldn’t help but feel like they were betrayed. I couldn’t help but picture what life must’ve been for the Russians and how after seeing their dead comrades shown no mercy by the Germans, they were praying for revenge. In the book when the Germans did surrender, I remember reading one Russian soldier say that Berlin would look like Stalingrad when the war was over with, and that turned out to be true. Overall, this book was pleasing, and I would recommend it to anyone who is thinking about reading it.
In this book we get to read about the living conditions of German soldiers during Stalingrad, those who become prisoners, and what happened to Red Army prisoners. You read about the HiWis (look them up if you don’t know about them) and the select group who fought until the end for the Sixth army. You read a story about how in certain soviet prisoner of war camps, Romanian prisoners of war would beat the life out of German Prisoners of war, because of how they felt anger at the fact they were brought into this ordeal. You read about how German soldiers prayed to get back home, and thought of Germany as a world away. You read about the sniper ace, Vasily Zaitsev, and how snipers were trending in this battle. We see so many acts of inhumanity, but we read some stories of some rare humane treatment in this book. You read about General Paulus’s nervous tic, or about how Operation Uranus, the plan that encircled the Sixth army, came into being. You hear about the stories of typhus, dysentery, diphtheria outbreaks, and you shudder at the idea of being a soldier in a trench, being put through the most hellish conditions. Some soldiers were optimistic about Hitler’s declarations about how he would relieve the army at Stalingrad but pray to be taken away via Pitomnik airfield. I found my brain visualizing the German soldiers in their defenses, tired, hungry, cold, and I just couldn’t help but feel like they were betrayed. I couldn’t help but picture what life must’ve been for the Russians and how after seeing their dead comrades shown no mercy by the Germans, they were praying for revenge. In the book when the Germans did surrender, I remember reading one Russian soldier say that Berlin would look like Stalingrad when the war was over with, and that turned out to be true. Overall, this book was pleasing, and I would recommend it to anyone who is thinking about reading it.
November 14, 2017
List of Illustrations
List of Maps
Preface to the New Edition
Preface
--Stalingrad
Appendix A: German and Soviet Orders of Battle, 19 November 1942
Appendix B: The Statistical Debate: Sixth Army Strength in the Kessel
References
Source Notes
Select Bibliography
Index
List of Maps
Preface to the New Edition
Preface
--Stalingrad
Appendix A: German and Soviet Orders of Battle, 19 November 1942
Appendix B: The Statistical Debate: Sixth Army Strength in the Kessel
References
Source Notes
Select Bibliography
Index
April 8, 2013
My first Beevor, it was outstanding. I will be coming back for more. Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942-1943 gets 5 Stars for the epic battle history presented here. What Beevor conveys better than others is the sheer brutality of the eastern front and the Stalingrad battle. While millions die, Beevor brings the tragedy down to the individual level. Atrocity is matched by atrocity until you mourn the death of each side while seeing each side having justification. The Nazis started it but the Soviets paid them back with interest.
Beevor takes the first 100 pages to give an account of the war in the east up to arriving at the outskirts of Stalingrad. Excellent and succinct. As the Sixth Army arrives at the suburbs of Stalingrad, the Germans feel like they will win shortly while the Russians despair at ever mounting losses. Yet in a few months everything will be turned around. The Germans get a taste of the desperation of the defense:
Fight like a girl
The Luftwaffe helps to subdue the defenders…or do they? The “house warmings”, as the Stuka attacks were known, only made the city tougher to fight in for the Germans whose army was made for swift, blitzkrieg battles…not urban bloodbaths. The Soviets turn every factory and substantial building into a strongpoint. What good are Panzers in an urban battle? Not much.
Because of the ever present advantage of Luftwaffe support, the Soviets become night fighters. They are good at it. The Germans are harassed on the ground and in the air at night. I was not aware of the Soviet U-2 biplanes dropping bombs at night but they were very successful at keeping the Germans from any rest.
Beevor presents the attitudes of each side as the battle evolves. It was truly a battle between two ruthless socialist societies for domination. The fanaticism of the young Nazis raised to worship Hitler against the patriotic fervor somehow rekindled in the Russians is discussed. Yes, the Soviet Special Brigades posted just behind the front lines to execute any who retreat and the NKVD squads roaming the rear for deserters and escapees account for some of the reasons why the Soviets held out. But there was something more, some patriotic motivation that resulted in such a tenacious defense.
After Operation Uranus succeeds in trapping the Sixth Army, the Soviets confidence is boosted tremendously. The commander Zhukov tells it like it is:
Zhukov was characteristically to the point when he described the encirclement of the Sixth Army as ‘a tremendous education for victory for our troops’. Grossman was also right when he wrote: “The morale of the soldiers has never been so high’. (Interestingly, neither of these observations exactly confirmed the official Soviet propaganda line that ‘the morale of an army depends on the socially just and progressive order of the society it defends’.)
Communist or socialist, the individual means nothing compared to the state. That is why the Soviets could send so many to die without giving them training, arms or tactics to succeed. And why the Sixth Army was consigned to die on the Volga. How about this guy as a leader?
Hitler: “What is Life, Life is the Nation. The individual must die…” remarks upon learning Field Marshal Paulus did not commit suicide as demanded.
Permanent addition to the WWII shelf.
Beevor takes the first 100 pages to give an account of the war in the east up to arriving at the outskirts of Stalingrad. Excellent and succinct. As the Sixth Army arrives at the suburbs of Stalingrad, the Germans feel like they will win shortly while the Russians despair at ever mounting losses. Yet in a few months everything will be turned around. The Germans get a taste of the desperation of the defense:
Fight like a girl
The Luftwaffe helps to subdue the defenders…or do they? The “house warmings”, as the Stuka attacks were known, only made the city tougher to fight in for the Germans whose army was made for swift, blitzkrieg battles…not urban bloodbaths. The Soviets turn every factory and substantial building into a strongpoint. What good are Panzers in an urban battle? Not much.
Because of the ever present advantage of Luftwaffe support, the Soviets become night fighters. They are good at it. The Germans are harassed on the ground and in the air at night. I was not aware of the Soviet U-2 biplanes dropping bombs at night but they were very successful at keeping the Germans from any rest.
Beevor presents the attitudes of each side as the battle evolves. It was truly a battle between two ruthless socialist societies for domination. The fanaticism of the young Nazis raised to worship Hitler against the patriotic fervor somehow rekindled in the Russians is discussed. Yes, the Soviet Special Brigades posted just behind the front lines to execute any who retreat and the NKVD squads roaming the rear for deserters and escapees account for some of the reasons why the Soviets held out. But there was something more, some patriotic motivation that resulted in such a tenacious defense.
After Operation Uranus succeeds in trapping the Sixth Army, the Soviets confidence is boosted tremendously. The commander Zhukov tells it like it is:
Zhukov was characteristically to the point when he described the encirclement of the Sixth Army as ‘a tremendous education for victory for our troops’. Grossman was also right when he wrote: “The morale of the soldiers has never been so high’. (Interestingly, neither of these observations exactly confirmed the official Soviet propaganda line that ‘the morale of an army depends on the socially just and progressive order of the society it defends’.)
Communist or socialist, the individual means nothing compared to the state. That is why the Soviets could send so many to die without giving them training, arms or tactics to succeed. And why the Sixth Army was consigned to die on the Volga. How about this guy as a leader?
Hitler: “What is Life, Life is the Nation. The individual must die…” remarks upon learning Field Marshal Paulus did not commit suicide as demanded.
Permanent addition to the WWII shelf.
November 26, 2021
Cateva informatii extrase din carte despre armatele romane de la Cotul Donului:
-erau slab echipate si incomplete
-existau regimente cu un singur tun antitanc. Si acela de 37 mmm, numit de rusi "bataie in usa", pentru ca nu putea penetra blindajul tancului T 34.
-ofiterii isi tratau soldatii ca pe niste sclavi. Bucatarii pregateau trei feluri de mancare, pentru ofiteri, subofiteri si soldati.
-Generalul Dumitrescu, comandantul Armatei a 3-a Romane, aflata la sud de Don, i-a avertizat pe nemti despre armamentul antitanc insuficient si despre necesitatea eliminarii celor doua capete de pod detinute de rusi peste Don, la Serafimovici si Kletkaia. Ideea era sa foloseasca Donul ca pe un imens obstacol antitanc. Cererile generalului au fost ignorate.
-au fost unitati romane care au ridicat imediat mainile in fata rusilor, dar in general Armata Romana a luptat curajos, avand in vedere conditiile. Grupul Lascar a rezistat eroic pana a ramas fara munitie.
-generalii germani s-au grabit sa dea vina pe romani pentru situatie. Hitler si Antonescu au avut o discutie tensionata in "Wolfschanze" (buncarul lui Hitler din Prusia Orientala). In final, interesele comune au prevalat. Hitler a interzis apoi orice critica la adresa Armatei Romane.
Insuficienta trupelor pentru operatiunile din 1942 este cauza reala a insuccesului german. De unde si necesitatea folosirii armatelor aliate. Chiar si asa se observa cu trecerea anilor o reducere a scarei operatiunilor ofesnsive germane: in 1941 nemtii ataca pe toata latimea Uniunii Sovietice, in 1942 ataca doar in partea sudica, in 1943 atacul se limiteaza la regiunea Kursk, iar in 1944 sunt in retragere generala.
-erau slab echipate si incomplete
-existau regimente cu un singur tun antitanc. Si acela de 37 mmm, numit de rusi "bataie in usa", pentru ca nu putea penetra blindajul tancului T 34.
-ofiterii isi tratau soldatii ca pe niste sclavi. Bucatarii pregateau trei feluri de mancare, pentru ofiteri, subofiteri si soldati.
-Generalul Dumitrescu, comandantul Armatei a 3-a Romane, aflata la sud de Don, i-a avertizat pe nemti despre armamentul antitanc insuficient si despre necesitatea eliminarii celor doua capete de pod detinute de rusi peste Don, la Serafimovici si Kletkaia. Ideea era sa foloseasca Donul ca pe un imens obstacol antitanc. Cererile generalului au fost ignorate.
-au fost unitati romane care au ridicat imediat mainile in fata rusilor, dar in general Armata Romana a luptat curajos, avand in vedere conditiile. Grupul Lascar a rezistat eroic pana a ramas fara munitie.
-generalii germani s-au grabit sa dea vina pe romani pentru situatie. Hitler si Antonescu au avut o discutie tensionata in "Wolfschanze" (buncarul lui Hitler din Prusia Orientala). In final, interesele comune au prevalat. Hitler a interzis apoi orice critica la adresa Armatei Romane.
Insuficienta trupelor pentru operatiunile din 1942 este cauza reala a insuccesului german. De unde si necesitatea folosirii armatelor aliate. Chiar si asa se observa cu trecerea anilor o reducere a scarei operatiunilor ofesnsive germane: in 1941 nemtii ataca pe toata latimea Uniunii Sovietice, in 1942 ataca doar in partea sudica, in 1943 atacul se limiteaza la regiunea Kursk, iar in 1944 sunt in retragere generala.
March 11, 2020
„Сталинград“ е 400 страници чисто страдание. Дори обръгналите на военна проза и исторически книги за Втората световна война ще се затруднят да асимилират емоционално покъртителните мащаби за ужаса на Източния фронт.
Започнала като операция „Барбароса“, германската офанзива от лятото на 1941 г. в Съветския съюз няма за първоначална цел превземането на града, който носи името на най-големия враг на Хитлер. Последният ламти за Кавказ заради нефтените залежи там и за житните нивя на Украйна. Постепенно обаче личната омраза, ирационалният оптимизъм и маниакалността на диктатора вземат връх над военната логика и действителното състояние на нещата. Сталинград се превръща в метафора на поражението за целия Вермахт, но смъртта и страданията там са съвсем буквални. Ако прибавим и екстрем��ите природни и климатични условия на негостоприемната руска степ, получаваме коктейл, забъркан в ада.
В битките за тази символична цел – града на река Волга, и двете страни погазват брутално нормите на международното право за водене на война. Едните са водени от концепцията за тотална война, по прословутата заповед „нито крачка назад“, а другите – от патриотичен фанатизъм в режим „оцеляване“. Бийвър редува широкообхватни картини на битки, стратегии, и движение на войските с интимни детайли от войнишкото ежедневие, описания на характери, настроения и дори отделни любопитни случки.
(Не са спестени нито срамните, нито достойните прояви и от двата лагера, и все пак останах с някакво смътно впечатление, че авторовите симпатии клонят повече към немците. Техните висши офицери са по-изчерпателни като образи и характери, за разлика от руските им съответстващи, обезличени от самата система и идеология, която с лекота жертва отделния човек. Ако въобще съм права (а няма как да знам), това може да се дължи и на разликите в отношението, което Бийвър е получил в опит да проучи архивите в Русия, съответно в Германия.)
Бийвър е достатъчно умел и интелигентен историк и разказвач, за да изстърже идеологията от образите на редовите войници, сред които убедените нацисти или болшевики не са мнозинство. Сблъсъкът е между германци и руснаци, толкова. Срещат се и откровени антинацисти сред по-висшето командване като Карл Щрекер и Хелмут Гроскурт. Книгата дава изчерпателна информация за въоръжението и на двете страни, от което става ясно, че немците като цяло превъзхождат технически руснаците, особено в авиацията (пикиращите бомбардировачи „Щуки“ превръщат терена в лунен пейзаж), но като всяка сила, обучена да действа методично и прецизно, се изтощава, когато се сблъска с нелогичен и фанатичен отпор. Съветските войски имат на своя страна и още един силен съюзник – вездесъщата руска зима, двойно по-страшна в призрачната степ между Дон и Волга. Зимата отнема последното голямо предимство на немската войска – авиацията под командването на Рихтхофен, която не успява да осигури поддръжка на пехотата при лошо време и малко светлина. Неколкократно се натрапват паралели и с 1812 г., когато Наполеоновите войски катастрофират при сходни обстоятелства.
Екстремните условия преобразяват и самия характер на военните действия – от най-модерни се стига до най-примитивни форми на война, като ръкопашен бой сред развалините на съсипания град. Точно това са слабостите на германците – близък бой в сгради, от които съветската армия съумява да се възползва идеално. Плюс страшилищата-танкове Т-34. Дори идеологически имат известни „предимства“, защото във врата им дишат доносници на НКВД, вагоните за ГУЛАГ и абсолютизма на една система, която изисква от своите нищо по-малко от самоубийствена храброст. Разбира се, да се сравнява кой от двата лагера е готов да умре по-всеотдайно, е цинизъм, но между двете диктатури, иначе толкова близки в нечовечността си, има известни тънки нюанси, които Бийвър не е пропуснал.
Що се отнася до по-общата картина, на ниво диктатори е вярно, че култът към личността на Хитлер и Сталин, ги поставя в тотално различен балон от обикновените страдалци, но като че ли чувството за реалност на Сталин е доста по-силно. Хитлер е в пълно отрицание, дори когато числата говорят повече от всичко, а загубите стават твърде големи, за да бъдат пренебрегнати. Табелите, поставени по заповед на Гьобелс в редица германски градове и указващи разстоянието до Сталинград, скоро се превръщат в зловещи знаци за посоката, от която идва гибелта на Третия райх.
Със затягането на обръча около немските войски, се усилват и битовите несгоди. Страданията на обикновените войници са ужасяващи и не подлежат нито на изброяване, нито на описание (поне аз не се наемам да ги преразкажа тук). Само като обобщение може да се каже, че десетте седмици на обкръжението, силно намаленият порцион от сто грама хляб на ден, звуковата пропаганда от съветските високоговорители, минус тридесет и пет градусовият студ, въшките и гризачите, епидемията от тиф и дизентерия и един скъсал с реалността фюрер водят до там, че в редиците на злощастната и изоставена на произвола Шеста армия на Паулус не остава нито един здрав човек.
И въпреки, че по същото време войските на Ромел отстъпват в Северна Африка (есента на 1942 г.), именно грандиозният провал при Сталинград се оказва повратният момент, след който не остава съмнение, че Германия ще загуби войната.
Като всяка екстремна ситуация, сраженията при Сталинград предлагат примери в двата противоположния края на моралния спектър – маниакален героизъм и ужасяващо коравосърдечие, жертвоготовност и малодушие.
Книгата на Антъни Бийвър е изключителна, изчерпателна, достъпна и безкрайно вълнуваща. Прочитането й не е лесно преживяване, но си струва. За официалната историография Сталинград е колосален сблъсък на две противни идеологии, но за мен той е безсмислено жертвоприношение, функция на маниакална лудост, което ограбва илюзиите ти, че човекът е съзидателно и разумно същество.
Започнала като операция „Барбароса“, германската офанзива от лятото на 1941 г. в Съветския съюз няма за първоначална цел превземането на града, който носи името на най-големия враг на Хитлер. Последният ламти за Кавказ заради нефтените залежи там и за житните нивя на Украйна. Постепенно обаче личната омраза, ирационалният оптимизъм и маниакалността на диктатора вземат връх над военната логика и действителното състояние на нещата. Сталинград се превръща в метафора на поражението за целия Вермахт, но смъртта и страданията там са съвсем буквални. Ако прибавим и екстрем��ите природни и климатични условия на негостоприемната руска степ, получаваме коктейл, забъркан в ада.
В битките за тази символична цел – града на река Волга, и двете страни погазват брутално нормите на международното право за водене на война. Едните са водени от концепцията за тотална война, по прословутата заповед „нито крачка назад“, а другите – от патриотичен фанатизъм в режим „оцеляване“. Бийвър редува широкообхватни картини на битки, стратегии, и движение на войските с интимни детайли от войнишкото ежедневие, описания на характери, настроения и дори отделни любопитни случки.
(Не са спестени нито срамните, нито достойните прояви и от двата лагера, и все пак останах с някакво смътно впечатление, че авторовите симпатии клонят повече към немците. Техните висши офицери са по-изчерпателни като образи и характери, за разлика от руските им съответстващи, обезличени от самата система и идеология, която с лекота жертва отделния човек. Ако въобще съм права (а няма как да знам), това може да се дължи и на разликите в отношението, което Бийвър е получил в опит да проучи архивите в Русия, съответно в Германия.)
Бийвър е достатъчно умел и интелигентен историк и разказвач, за да изстърже идеологията от образите на редовите войници, сред които убедените нацисти или болшевики не са мнозинство. Сблъсъкът е между германци и руснаци, толкова. Срещат се и откровени антинацисти сред по-висшето командване като Карл Щрекер и Хелмут Гроскурт. Книгата дава изчерпателна информация за въоръжението и на двете страни, от което става ясно, че немците като цяло превъзхождат технически руснаците, особено в авиацията (пикиращите бомбардировачи „Щуки“ превръщат терена в лунен пейзаж), но като всяка сила, обучена да действа методично и прецизно, се изтощава, когато се сблъска с нелогичен и фанатичен отпор. Съветските войски имат на своя страна и още един силен съюзник – вездесъщата руска зима, двойно по-страшна в призрачната степ между Дон и Волга. Зимата отнема последното голямо предимство на немската войска – авиацията под командването на Рихтхофен, която не успява да осигури поддръжка на пехотата при лошо време и малко светлина. Неколкократно се натрапват паралели и с 1812 г., когато Наполеоновите войски катастрофират при сходни обстоятелства.
Екстремните условия преобразяват и самия характер на военните действия – от най-модерни се стига до най-примитивни форми на война, като ръкопашен бой сред развалините на съсипания град. Точно това са слабостите на германците – близък бой в сгради, от които съветската армия съумява да се възползва идеално. Плюс страшилищата-танкове Т-34. Дори идеологически имат известни „предимства“, защото във врата им дишат доносници на НКВД, вагоните за ГУЛАГ и абсолютизма на една система, която изисква от своите нищо по-малко от самоубийствена храброст. Разбира се, да се сравнява кой от двата лагера е готов да умре по-всеотдайно, е цинизъм, но между двете диктатури, иначе толкова близки в нечовечността си, има известни тънки нюанси, които Бийвър не е пропуснал.
Що се отнася до по-общата картина, на ниво диктатори е вярно, че култът към личността на Хитлер и Сталин, ги поставя в тотално различен балон от обикновените страдалци, но като че ли чувството за реалност на Сталин е доста по-силно. Хитлер е в пълно отрицание, дори когато числата говорят повече от всичко, а загубите стават твърде големи, за да бъдат пренебрегнати. Табелите, поставени по заповед на Гьобелс в редица германски градове и указващи разстоянието до Сталинград, скоро се превръщат в зловещи знаци за посоката, от която идва гибелта на Третия райх.
Със затягането на обръча около немските войски, се усилват и битовите несгоди. Страданията на обикновените войници са ужасяващи и не подлежат нито на изброяване, нито на описание (поне аз не се наемам да ги преразкажа тук). Само като обобщение може да се каже, че десетте седмици на обкръжението, силно намаленият порцион от сто грама хляб на ден, звуковата пропаганда от съветските високоговорители, минус тридесет и пет градусовият студ, въшките и гризачите, епидемията от тиф и дизентерия и един скъсал с реалността фюрер водят до там, че в редиците на злощастната и изоставена на произвола Шеста армия на Паулус не остава нито един здрав човек.
И въпреки, че по същото време войските на Ромел отстъпват в Северна Африка (есента на 1942 г.), именно грандиозният провал при Сталинград се оказва повратният момент, след който не остава съмнение, че Германия ще загуби войната.
Като всяка екстремна ситуация, сраженията при Сталинград предлагат примери в двата противоположния края на моралния спектър – маниакален героизъм и ужасяващо коравосърдечие, жертвоготовност и малодушие.
Книгата на Антъни Бийвър е изключителна, изчерпателна, достъпна и безкрайно вълнуваща. Прочитането й не е лесно преживяване, но си струва. За официалната историография Сталинград е колосален сблъсък на две противни идеологии, но за мен той е безсмислено жертвоприношение, функция на маниакална лудост, което ограбва илюзиите ти, че човекът е съзидателно и разумно същество.
February 15, 2015
This book was more from the 6th Army/German perspective, which wasn’t what I was expecting. But seeing as my background on this event comes more from the Russian perspective, so it was an interesting read. This book covers a lot of ground, starting with Operation Barbarossa (well, really even a little bit before that) and follows through some prison camps that extended into the 1950s! There is a part in this book that describes a German officer who gets flown out of the 6th Army encirclement (late in the battle) describing the desperate situation to Hitler. This officer realizes as he is describing events how out of touch Hitler is, he thinks that Hitler can only think of flags and maps and not people and reality. Which looking back is pretty obvious, but I wonder why other people didn’t just stop the maddness. How crazy do you have to be to send your fellow countrymen to their certain deaths. But how much crazier do you have to be really to just stand by while that happens? The Russian losses are incredible, but to their tiny bit of credit, they were invaded and spent all they could defending. What they did after was indefensible, but here in the early parts of the war I can cut them a little slack. This is a pretty dense and often hard to read book (not technically, but on an emotional level) and would only recommend to history buffs.
December 8, 2023
Stalingrad by Antony Beevor, an audio version of Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege 1942-1943, solves the puzzle of the battle by looking at individual combatants and the situation in general. The narrative logically begins with the first days of Barbarossa, which was the Germans' swift advance into Soviet territory on all fronts. As a reader, along with the author, moves toward the battle of Stalingrad, the players of different ranks and their fateful decisions come into play. Some chapters elucidate the chain of events that led to the Red Army's victory; composite chapters discuss specific features of the battle: hiwis or deficiencies of urban fighting for Germans. There are no tiresome minute-by-minute descriptions of what street or house switched sides on what day. That may be a book's downside for readers interested in details, but the book has much to offer to readers with limited knowledge.
For me, many facts were previously unknown, especially the fate of the surrendered Germans. Some captured commanders (namely, Walther von Seydlitz-Kurbach) were naive enough to create The League of German Officers and ask the Soviets to parachute them into Germany to start the fight against the Nazi regime. The Russian advance toward Germany forced Germans to defend Nazism in the same way as the German aggression forced Russians to defend Stalinism - this author's conclusion explains a lot of nations' controversial decisions to support their leaders in modern times.
I can't say which book is better or worse of the two I've already read, Stalingrad or Berlin: The Downfall 1945 . Peter Noble is the narrator for both of them, so despite describing events two years apart, they comprise a unique whole in my mind.
For me, many facts were previously unknown, especially the fate of the surrendered Germans. Some captured commanders (namely, Walther von Seydlitz-Kurbach) were naive enough to create The League of German Officers and ask the Soviets to parachute them into Germany to start the fight against the Nazi regime. The Russian advance toward Germany forced Germans to defend Nazism in the same way as the German aggression forced Russians to defend Stalinism - this author's conclusion explains a lot of nations' controversial decisions to support their leaders in modern times.
I can't say which book is better or worse of the two I've already read, Stalingrad or Berlin: The Downfall 1945 . Peter Noble is the narrator for both of them, so despite describing events two years apart, they comprise a unique whole in my mind.
January 12, 2020
Did you read the one about THE END OF THE WORLD but the name, ANTONY BEEVOR, was above the title and in as-big or bigger type? Antony Beevor is such a brand I think Penguin Books should just go full bore and give him an official logo in lightning-bolt font like some hair band of the '80s.
My rating of four stars is essentially meaningless. Three stars seems too severe but five seems too generous. Should you read it? Yes, but not as your first book on Stalingrad. Go to William Craig's Enemy at the Gates for that, then ease into ostensibly more detailed accounts like Beevor's. Beevor is for historians, but Craig and the like are for readers who enjoy a smoother narrative flow and sense of awe and context. Craig had access to hundreds of living witnesses to Stalingrad and still-living official sources, something Beevor did not, and the sense of on-the ground humanity is more vivid in Craig.
The impressions from a few hastily jotted notes:
The meh:
- Beevor starts with way too much context on Operation Barbarossa, unlike Craig who gets right down to Stalingrad itself. Context is fine but there are plenty of better books on Barbarossa to read first.
-Beevor quotes Russian writer Vassily Grossman so much I felt like I should be reading Grossman's accounts of the war instead.
-Beevor seems to please a lot of readers but, based on this, he's not the storyteller that John Toland and some others are. The narrative was often clausey and clunky.
The yeah:
-Lots of detail not in other Stalingrad books. Again, I feel this book is a gap-filler rather than a starter tome, but fine as that.
-Lots of detail about life on the perimeters of the Kessel front, as opposed to so much on the battle in the city itself, so this is both a good and a bad thing.
-Vivid portraits of Hell-on-Earth suffering on the ground. Some critics of Beevor apparently call him a "war porn" writer, which I think is absurd. War is obscene, so talking/writing about it in any true way is going to necessitate obscene detail. When it come to frostbite, lice, cannibalism, amputation and more horrors, Beevor delivers.
I found it interesting that men who'd essentially created their own self-Holocaust in the hopeless trap they'd made for themselves at Stalingrad couldn't even get their last letters home. Many of the planes carrying them crashed and scattered their final words to the winds and elements, or into the hands of Russians who used them for propaganda. Sad, pathetic and banal a touch, and Beevor related such things quite well.
Stalingrad is the extreme example of fake news: a collective fortress mentality in thrall to a callous leader who would throw anyone -- particularly his followers -- under the bus, existing miserably in an-ever tightening zone of unreality where the only possible conclusion is self-delusion morphing into self-suffering, madness and death.
kr/eg '19
My rating of four stars is essentially meaningless. Three stars seems too severe but five seems too generous. Should you read it? Yes, but not as your first book on Stalingrad. Go to William Craig's Enemy at the Gates for that, then ease into ostensibly more detailed accounts like Beevor's. Beevor is for historians, but Craig and the like are for readers who enjoy a smoother narrative flow and sense of awe and context. Craig had access to hundreds of living witnesses to Stalingrad and still-living official sources, something Beevor did not, and the sense of on-the ground humanity is more vivid in Craig.
The impressions from a few hastily jotted notes:
The meh:
- Beevor starts with way too much context on Operation Barbarossa, unlike Craig who gets right down to Stalingrad itself. Context is fine but there are plenty of better books on Barbarossa to read first.
-Beevor quotes Russian writer Vassily Grossman so much I felt like I should be reading Grossman's accounts of the war instead.
-Beevor seems to please a lot of readers but, based on this, he's not the storyteller that John Toland and some others are. The narrative was often clausey and clunky.
The yeah:
-Lots of detail not in other Stalingrad books. Again, I feel this book is a gap-filler rather than a starter tome, but fine as that.
-Lots of detail about life on the perimeters of the Kessel front, as opposed to so much on the battle in the city itself, so this is both a good and a bad thing.
-Vivid portraits of Hell-on-Earth suffering on the ground. Some critics of Beevor apparently call him a "war porn" writer, which I think is absurd. War is obscene, so talking/writing about it in any true way is going to necessitate obscene detail. When it come to frostbite, lice, cannibalism, amputation and more horrors, Beevor delivers.
I found it interesting that men who'd essentially created their own self-Holocaust in the hopeless trap they'd made for themselves at Stalingrad couldn't even get their last letters home. Many of the planes carrying them crashed and scattered their final words to the winds and elements, or into the hands of Russians who used them for propaganda. Sad, pathetic and banal a touch, and Beevor related such things quite well.
Stalingrad is the extreme example of fake news: a collective fortress mentality in thrall to a callous leader who would throw anyone -- particularly his followers -- under the bus, existing miserably in an-ever tightening zone of unreality where the only possible conclusion is self-delusion morphing into self-suffering, madness and death.
kr/eg '19
August 30, 2014
Ce livre a gagné trois prix majeurs: le Wolfson, le Samuel Johnson et l'Hawthorndon. Ce qui manqué aux Palmeres d'Antony Beevor, c'est le prix Nobel de littérature accordé à un historien pour la dernière fois en 1953. Je suis de l'avis ferme que Beevor le merit.
Diplomé du college célebre Sandhurst, Beevor admire profondement les grands guerriers sans les idolatrer. Pourtant, le genie de Beevor c'est de mettre les souffrances des petits gens aux premier plans de ces récits de batailles.
Les simples soldats allemdands ont recu un rude choc culturel sur le front de l'est. Ils ont du faire face à un enemi qui refusait de lacher. Des pièges les plus inattendus et les plus surprenants les attendait partout. Mais les chiens explosaient.
Pour leur part, les officiers allemends avaient trop peur de leur chef d'état capricieux pour trouver une stratégie valable. L'autre coté le brilliant Zhubov avait l'entiére confiance de Stalin qui a fait fabriquer à la demande de Zhubov trois cent milles uniformes blancs et autant de paire de skis. Tandis que les Allemands essayaient de se rechauffer dans leurs casernes, les Russes les ont éncirlclé. Les allemands ont fini par subir une des défaites les plus absolues de l'histoire militaire.
C'est un livre à lire pour qui que ca soit qui aime ou l'histoire ou la litterature.
Diplomé du college célebre Sandhurst, Beevor admire profondement les grands guerriers sans les idolatrer. Pourtant, le genie de Beevor c'est de mettre les souffrances des petits gens aux premier plans de ces récits de batailles.
Les simples soldats allemdands ont recu un rude choc culturel sur le front de l'est. Ils ont du faire face à un enemi qui refusait de lacher. Des pièges les plus inattendus et les plus surprenants les attendait partout. Mais les chiens explosaient.
Pour leur part, les officiers allemends avaient trop peur de leur chef d'état capricieux pour trouver une stratégie valable. L'autre coté le brilliant Zhubov avait l'entiére confiance de Stalin qui a fait fabriquer à la demande de Zhubov trois cent milles uniformes blancs et autant de paire de skis. Tandis que les Allemands essayaient de se rechauffer dans leurs casernes, les Russes les ont éncirlclé. Les allemands ont fini par subir une des défaites les plus absolues de l'histoire militaire.
C'est un livre à lire pour qui que ca soit qui aime ou l'histoire ou la litterature.
September 20, 2018
Stunning account of perseverance, deprivation and stupidity surrounding one of the most pivotal battles of WW II. In the summer of 1942 German axis forces descended on the small city of Stalingrad, Russia, pollution 400,000. The city was of no real significance other than it carried Joesph Stalin's name. Germany thought it would be an easy win for their propaganda machine. It proved otherwise. Over the next 9 months, the Axis threw roughly 1 MM well armed expertly trained soldiers, supported by the famed Luftwaffe, at the city. Russia countered with over 1 MM poorly trained, poorly armed, mostly forcibly drafted farm boys as cannon fodder. Toward the end, many Russian soldiers were not even issued weapons. They were told to pair up and pick up the weapon of a comrade when the comrade was killed. The Luftwaffe mercilessly bombed and cannons shelled city for months. The sSoldiers prowled the streets engaging close quarters fighting and sniping. They turned the city to rubble. Both armies were decimated. An estimated 850,000 Axis soldiers were killed or wounded. Over 1 MM Russians were killed or wounded. Germany lost and retreated in its first major defeat of WW II.
Beevor's account is highly readable, well researched and astounding. It is considered one of the seminal works on the battle and deservedly so.
As a companion piece, I recommend the movie Enemy at the Gates starring Jude Law and Ed Harris. Law plays Vassili Zaitsev who became a Hero of Russia for killing 225 Axis soldiers including 11 opposing snipers during the battle. Harris plays a fictional German sniper. While they are pitted against each other in a fanciful cat-and-mouse Hollywood contest, the visuals--the devastation of the city and deprivation of citizens unable to escape--bring Beevor's account to life.
One of my favorite historical reads. Highly recommended.
Beevor's account is highly readable, well researched and astounding. It is considered one of the seminal works on the battle and deservedly so.
As a companion piece, I recommend the movie Enemy at the Gates starring Jude Law and Ed Harris. Law plays Vassili Zaitsev who became a Hero of Russia for killing 225 Axis soldiers including 11 opposing snipers during the battle. Harris plays a fictional German sniper. While they are pitted against each other in a fanciful cat-and-mouse Hollywood contest, the visuals--the devastation of the city and deprivation of citizens unable to escape--bring Beevor's account to life.
One of my favorite historical reads. Highly recommended.
September 24, 2022
Beevor has captured the stupidity of war and all its idiocy in this book. The brutality of both sides, the sheer incompetency of the generals. The German’s unwillingness to criticise the stupidity of Hitler’s strategy. The Russians fear of Stalin and their willingness to use soldiers as cannon fodder. This book highlights the turning point where Germany lost the war.
Beevor does get bogged down on detail which is excellent but a few more maps would have been helpful. He also has a bias towards the Russians and the brutality of the NKVD towards its own soldiers. To me it was inevitable Germany was going to lose with Germany’s Generals fear of Hitler even though they were aware of what was happening in Stalingrad.
The encirclement, lack of supplies, winter and lack of initiative and reality by the high command were all nails in the coffin of the Sixth Army. It also was disgusting that the German captured Generals were treated well with most surviving. In contrast, disease, starvation, wounds, revenge of Russians soldiers did kill most of the German soldiers held prisoners with only a few thousand surviving incarceration.
Beevor does get bogged down on detail which is excellent but a few more maps would have been helpful. He also has a bias towards the Russians and the brutality of the NKVD towards its own soldiers. To me it was inevitable Germany was going to lose with Germany’s Generals fear of Hitler even though they were aware of what was happening in Stalingrad.
The encirclement, lack of supplies, winter and lack of initiative and reality by the high command were all nails in the coffin of the Sixth Army. It also was disgusting that the German captured Generals were treated well with most surviving. In contrast, disease, starvation, wounds, revenge of Russians soldiers did kill most of the German soldiers held prisoners with only a few thousand surviving incarceration.
July 17, 2025
In 2022, I read Stalingrad by Antony Beevor as if I were reading a novel written by an angry god who couldn’t decide whether to weep or destroy.
Now, revisiting it in 2025, under the quieter hum of my desk lamp and with a few more scars in my soul, I realise this isn’t just a war book—it’s a dissection. A meticulous, forensic slicing open of one of the most brutal military campaigns in human history, and at the same time, a meditation on madness, sacrifice, and the fragility of civilization under extreme pressure. If war is a furnace, then Stalingrad was its mouth, and Beevor—half-historian, half-necromancer—lets us hear the screams from the ash.
The strength of Stalingrad lies not in glorifying heroism, but in showing its limits—how even courage can curdle under starvation, how loyalty is devoured by frostbite and fear, how ideology shatters when human bodies freeze upright in trench mud. And Beevor makes no attempt to soften this—thank god. This is not some clean-suited history channel docu-style telling. This is writing that grips you by the collar and slams you into the concrete rubble of Pavlov’s House, that makes you smell the burnt oil in a shattered Panzer, that forces you to sit beside a trembling soldier trying to warm his hands over a dying comrade’s open chest.
But let me be fair—Beevor doesn’t trade solely in gore or grim horror. His real genius is in how he balances the cold, hard analytics of military history—the troop movements, the logistical bottlenecks, the backroom Stalinist whispers—with the intensely human. He digs through Soviet and German archives not like an archaeologist searching for bones, but like a novelist assembling characters. Take General Paulus, for instance—rigid, indecisive, and ultimately tragic. Beevor neither demonizes nor romanticizes him. He’s a man ground down by Hitler’s delusion and his own inability to assert command when it mattered most. Or look at the Russian civilians: anonymous in history, but here they become flesh—an old woman boiling wallpaper for gluey soup, a child scribbling patriotic slogans while bombs fall around her, Red Army soldiers who cry not for death but for bread.
And oh, the politics. The sheer, surreal Kafkaesque theatre of both Stalin and Hitler refusing to acknowledge reality while entire armies collapse. Beevor lets their madness unfold slowly, chillingly, as orders come down from above that have no relationship to the landscape below. "Retreat is treason," said Stalin. “Surrender is cowardice,” barked Hitler. Between those two lines of thought were a quarter of a million frozen corpses. Beevor shows how war ceases to be strategy and becomes pathology—how command structures can become psychotic under authoritarian paranoia, where a failed order doesn’t mean reassessment, but execution.
I remember being haunted most by the description of starvation—not just physical, but moral. As food disappeared and hope thinned out like the soup in a battered Soviet mess tin, people did things they would never speak of again. Cannibalism is mentioned, but Beevor doesn’t linger voyeuristically. He simply records, with clinical restraint, the disintegration of human codes. One can feel his restraint—he lets the horror speak for itself, and it does, thunderously.
But don’t mistake this book for mere tragedy porn. There’s a profound moral clarity in Beevor’s voice, though never a sermon. He never tells us what to think—he just shows us what happened, and if we have any decency, that’s enough. Stalingrad becomes, in his hands, not a symbol of victory, but a question mark—what is worth this level of suffering? What kind of system, ideology, or myth can justify such ruin?
I found myself underlining passages like a madman, especially Beevor’s throwaway lines that carry entire worlds of implication. “German troops, too cold to bury their dead, stacked them as windbreaks.” That’s not just detail; that’s a statement about the collapse of human categories. Or when he writes about Soviet commissars executing retreating soldiers while the enemy advances—not for dramatic effect, but because it was standard protocol. What does it mean when the rear is more terrifying than the front?
The city itself, of course, becomes a character. Stalingrad—reduced to rubble, scorched by bombs, but still somehow pulsing with resistance. I couldn’t help but see it as a kind of mythic body—torn, brutalized, violated by two empires locked in a death-dance—but also stubbornly alive. And it made me think of other cities under siege: Sarajevo, Grozny, Gaza, Mariupol. Beevor never says it, but you can feel it—Stalingrad wasn’t the last of its kind.
Is the book biased? It’s been accused of being “too Western” in its tone, perhaps too sympathetic to the Germans in places. But to me, Beevor tries—often successfully—to give everyone their due. He doesn’t valorize the Wehrmacht. He details their atrocities without flinching. He shows the Red Army as both liberators and brutalizers. If he sometimes seems to write with a bit more psychological nuance about German officers, it’s because there are simply more intact records—Soviet self-censorship was ferocious. What matters more is that he restores individuality to people the war tried to turn into statistics.
Reading it again in 2025, I can’t help but feel how Stalingrad has shaped the modern narrative of World War II. Before Beevor, much of this was either Soviet propaganda or dry academic analysis. He gave it flesh. And his success spawned a whole generation of narrative historians who tried to do the same—but few matched the balance he struck between intellectual rigor and emotional storytelling.
There’s also something uncomfortable and timely about this book now, in an age when history is again being weaponized, when strongmen echo the delusions of mid-century tyrants, when civilians are once more caught in the crossfire of nationalist fantasies. Stalingrad is not a book to be filed away. It’s a reminder. A caution. A scream from the ice.
When I finished it the first time, I remember sitting still for nearly half an hour. No music. No phone. Just the sound of my own breath, wondering how humanity survived this. Reading it again now, I still don’t know. But I do know that Beevor has done something rare—he’s written a war book that refuses to let us look away, yet doesn’t strip us of our empathy. And in a world increasingly numb to suffering, that may be the most radical thing a historian can do.
Now, revisiting it in 2025, under the quieter hum of my desk lamp and with a few more scars in my soul, I realise this isn’t just a war book—it’s a dissection. A meticulous, forensic slicing open of one of the most brutal military campaigns in human history, and at the same time, a meditation on madness, sacrifice, and the fragility of civilization under extreme pressure. If war is a furnace, then Stalingrad was its mouth, and Beevor—half-historian, half-necromancer—lets us hear the screams from the ash.
The strength of Stalingrad lies not in glorifying heroism, but in showing its limits—how even courage can curdle under starvation, how loyalty is devoured by frostbite and fear, how ideology shatters when human bodies freeze upright in trench mud. And Beevor makes no attempt to soften this—thank god. This is not some clean-suited history channel docu-style telling. This is writing that grips you by the collar and slams you into the concrete rubble of Pavlov’s House, that makes you smell the burnt oil in a shattered Panzer, that forces you to sit beside a trembling soldier trying to warm his hands over a dying comrade’s open chest.
But let me be fair—Beevor doesn’t trade solely in gore or grim horror. His real genius is in how he balances the cold, hard analytics of military history—the troop movements, the logistical bottlenecks, the backroom Stalinist whispers—with the intensely human. He digs through Soviet and German archives not like an archaeologist searching for bones, but like a novelist assembling characters. Take General Paulus, for instance—rigid, indecisive, and ultimately tragic. Beevor neither demonizes nor romanticizes him. He’s a man ground down by Hitler’s delusion and his own inability to assert command when it mattered most. Or look at the Russian civilians: anonymous in history, but here they become flesh—an old woman boiling wallpaper for gluey soup, a child scribbling patriotic slogans while bombs fall around her, Red Army soldiers who cry not for death but for bread.
And oh, the politics. The sheer, surreal Kafkaesque theatre of both Stalin and Hitler refusing to acknowledge reality while entire armies collapse. Beevor lets their madness unfold slowly, chillingly, as orders come down from above that have no relationship to the landscape below. "Retreat is treason," said Stalin. “Surrender is cowardice,” barked Hitler. Between those two lines of thought were a quarter of a million frozen corpses. Beevor shows how war ceases to be strategy and becomes pathology—how command structures can become psychotic under authoritarian paranoia, where a failed order doesn’t mean reassessment, but execution.
I remember being haunted most by the description of starvation—not just physical, but moral. As food disappeared and hope thinned out like the soup in a battered Soviet mess tin, people did things they would never speak of again. Cannibalism is mentioned, but Beevor doesn’t linger voyeuristically. He simply records, with clinical restraint, the disintegration of human codes. One can feel his restraint—he lets the horror speak for itself, and it does, thunderously.
But don’t mistake this book for mere tragedy porn. There’s a profound moral clarity in Beevor’s voice, though never a sermon. He never tells us what to think—he just shows us what happened, and if we have any decency, that’s enough. Stalingrad becomes, in his hands, not a symbol of victory, but a question mark—what is worth this level of suffering? What kind of system, ideology, or myth can justify such ruin?
I found myself underlining passages like a madman, especially Beevor’s throwaway lines that carry entire worlds of implication. “German troops, too cold to bury their dead, stacked them as windbreaks.” That’s not just detail; that’s a statement about the collapse of human categories. Or when he writes about Soviet commissars executing retreating soldiers while the enemy advances—not for dramatic effect, but because it was standard protocol. What does it mean when the rear is more terrifying than the front?
The city itself, of course, becomes a character. Stalingrad—reduced to rubble, scorched by bombs, but still somehow pulsing with resistance. I couldn’t help but see it as a kind of mythic body—torn, brutalized, violated by two empires locked in a death-dance—but also stubbornly alive. And it made me think of other cities under siege: Sarajevo, Grozny, Gaza, Mariupol. Beevor never says it, but you can feel it—Stalingrad wasn’t the last of its kind.
Is the book biased? It’s been accused of being “too Western” in its tone, perhaps too sympathetic to the Germans in places. But to me, Beevor tries—often successfully—to give everyone their due. He doesn’t valorize the Wehrmacht. He details their atrocities without flinching. He shows the Red Army as both liberators and brutalizers. If he sometimes seems to write with a bit more psychological nuance about German officers, it’s because there are simply more intact records—Soviet self-censorship was ferocious. What matters more is that he restores individuality to people the war tried to turn into statistics.
Reading it again in 2025, I can’t help but feel how Stalingrad has shaped the modern narrative of World War II. Before Beevor, much of this was either Soviet propaganda or dry academic analysis. He gave it flesh. And his success spawned a whole generation of narrative historians who tried to do the same—but few matched the balance he struck between intellectual rigor and emotional storytelling.
There’s also something uncomfortable and timely about this book now, in an age when history is again being weaponized, when strongmen echo the delusions of mid-century tyrants, when civilians are once more caught in the crossfire of nationalist fantasies. Stalingrad is not a book to be filed away. It’s a reminder. A caution. A scream from the ice.
When I finished it the first time, I remember sitting still for nearly half an hour. No music. No phone. Just the sound of my own breath, wondering how humanity survived this. Reading it again now, I still don’t know. But I do know that Beevor has done something rare—he’s written a war book that refuses to let us look away, yet doesn’t strip us of our empathy. And in a world increasingly numb to suffering, that may be the most radical thing a historian can do.
September 25, 2019
Description: The Battle of Stalingrad was not only the psychological turning point of World War II: it also changed the face of modern warfare. Historians and reviewers worldwide have hailed Antony Beevor's magisterial Stalingrad as the definitive account of World War II's most harrowing battle.
In August 1942, Hitler's huge Sixth Army reached the city that bore Stalin's name. In the five-month siege that followed, the Russians fought to hold Stalingrad at any cost; then, in an astonishing reversal, encircled and trapped their Nazi enemy. This battle for the ruins of a city cost more than a million lives. Stalingrad conveys the experience of soldiers on both sides, fighting in inhuman conditions, and of civilians trapped on an urban battlefield. Antony Beevor has interviewed survivors and discovered completely new material in a wide range of German and Soviet archives, including prisoner interrogations and reports of desertions and executions. As a story of cruelty, courage, and human suffering, Stalingrad is unprecedented and unforgettable.
Antony Beevor: why did Ukraine ban my book? After the Ukraine government condemned his book Stalingrad, Antony Beevor reflects on governments’ desire to alter the past and warns of the dangers of censorship
Opening: 'THE WORLD WILL HOLD ITS BREATH!': Part 1, Chapter one: The Double-Edged Sword of Barbarossa: Saturday, 21 June 1941, produced a perfect summer¨'s morning. Many Berliners took the train out to Potsdam to spend a day in the park of Sans Souci.
June 25, 2017
What can one say about this book! Antony Beevor has written a tome that will last the ages.
I found this book so easy to read and follow, but also exciting and majorly informative. I came into this book, not having much knowledge of Stalingrad and the battle/s surrounding it. There is a lot of personal narrative from soldiers on both sides that gives one a very heart wrenching and sometimes grotesque idea of the pain and struggle that not only the soldiers went through, but also the civilians that were stuck inside the city. It's written in a style that readers who like statistics and those who like story driven books will be able to come together as this book has both!
I'm not one to give too much information away, but what I can say is that if you want to read a book that will keep you hooked from page to page, and stir all emotions inside you, than Stalingrad should be at the top of your list!
I found this book so easy to read and follow, but also exciting and majorly informative. I came into this book, not having much knowledge of Stalingrad and the battle/s surrounding it. There is a lot of personal narrative from soldiers on both sides that gives one a very heart wrenching and sometimes grotesque idea of the pain and struggle that not only the soldiers went through, but also the civilians that were stuck inside the city. It's written in a style that readers who like statistics and those who like story driven books will be able to come together as this book has both!
I'm not one to give too much information away, but what I can say is that if you want to read a book that will keep you hooked from page to page, and stir all emotions inside you, than Stalingrad should be at the top of your list!
September 27, 2017
Dopo aver letto “Vita e destino” volevo saperne un po’ di più sulla battaglia di Stalingrado: ne ho saputo pure troppo. Scherzi a parte, è un libro interessantissimo, fatto molto, bene, documentato, ragionato e ben adatto a chi non è addetto ai lavori (storia militare, etc.) Beevor riesce a spiegare molto bene e in maniera persino avvincente per un disastro di tal portata, raccontando gli antefatti dell’Operazione Barbarossa, la blitzkrieg dell’estate 1941 che porterà le armate di Hitler a pochi chilometri da Mosca, la ritirata e infine lo sturm und drang travolgente dell’estate del 1942 fino a Stalingrado e al Caucaso. Con l’aiuto delle cartine e con un po’ di pazienza, sempre tenendo a mente le varie armate e le varie panzerarmee (che ce ne sono uno sfracello) si riesce a capire tattiche e strategie della Wehrmacht e dell’Armata Rossa. Fino all’Operazione Urano, la manovra a tenaglia nord-sud iniziata il 19 novembre 1942, che chiuderà la 6° Armata di von Paulus nella sacca di Stalingrado, trasformando l’assediante in assediato e il distruttore in distrutto. Ma l’estremo pregio del libro (non facile né scontato in un libro di storia militare) è la grande attenzione data all’elemento umano di tutta la vicenda, all’aspetto umanissimo di chi vi partecipò, militari, non solo, ma anche civili incastrati nell’assedio della città sul Volga, in termini di dolore, sofferenza estrema, sacrificio, coraggio, altruismo, come anche di cecità e indifferenza per le sofferenze altrui, odio razziale, etc. Grazie allo spoglio degli archivi tedeschi e russi, ma soprattutto dell’NKVD (la mamma del KGB di putiniana memoria) e alla consultazione ed analisi di rapporti, lettere dei soldati a casa, interrogatori dei prigionieri, nonché memorie e interviste ai sopravvissuti, vengono alla luce piccole e piccolissime storie, non solo di ufficiali superiori, ma di soldati e civili travolti, sbattuti, inghiottiti e divorati nel terribile gorgo di Stalingrado. Storie terribili che ricordano e anticipano le spietate battaglie di Kobane e Mosul, in cui il fanatismo, l’odio sadico e distruttivo la fanno da padroni. Vita da topi rintanati per mesi in cantine, rifugi e fogne, sotto le bombe che riducono una splendida città in un ammasso di rovine, prima per i russi e poi per i tedeschi assediati, con uno “stupendo” colpo di scena finale in cui le parti si invertono come in una trita e ritrita commedia. La vita umana non vale più nulla. Ogni istante può essere fatale: una bomba, una raffica, il colpo di un cecchino. Oppure la fame e la sete, terribili per chi è assediato e deve mangiare chicchi di grano marcito e bere acqua mischiata a petrolio. E pidocchi, terribili aguzzini di chi vive nelle buche a 30 gradi sotto zero senza potersi mai lavare, che abbandonano un uomo solo quando è morto. E trasmettono infezioni, che democraticamente infestano sia i tedeschi che i russi. Dissenteria, tifo, itterizia fanno più morti tra gli assediati tedeschi che le pallottole e le bombe russe. La carne in putrefazione dei feriti, in ospedali sotterranei dall’aria irrespirabile, sulla quale crescono i funghi… dita congelate e in cancrena che vengono via con le bende… prigionieri spossati dalla dissenteria che cadono e affogano negli scoli delle latrine tra l’indifferenza generale… uomini ridotti alla fame che si saziano di pezzi dei cadaveri dei loro compagni morti, prima che congelino… Sì, anche questo è Stalingrado. Come lo è anche la pietà delle donne russe per i prigionieri tedeschi, sì proprio per loro, gli invasori, che si avviano nei campi nella steppa a morire, che si esprime in piccoli gesti di grande umanità: un sorso d’acqua, un pezzo di pane. Storie di coraggio, molte, belle, soprattutto di chi difende casa e patria. Il sergente Jakov Pavlov che assume il comando di un plotone dopo l’accecamento del suo tenente e resiste per 58 giorni con i suoi uomini assediati dentro un palazzo ridotto a fortezza, distruggendo i carri tedeschi che attaccano. Pavlov, decorato in seguito come Eroe dell’Unione Sovietica, diventerà in seguito l’archimandrita Kirill nel monastero di Serge’vo in cui attirerà un enorme seguito di fedeli ,ma non per le sue gesta a Stalingrado. O le liceali che si offrirono volontarie per la difesa contraerea, morendo tutte coraggiosamente, mitragliate e bombardate dagli stukas di von Richtofen (il cugino del Barone Rosso).
Stalingrado è la svolta della 2° guerra mondiale, è la sconfitta, l’inizio della fine del nazifascismo e nello stesso tempo l’inizio dell’affermarsi del totalitarismo comunista sull’Europa orientale.
Una canzone, Zemljanka, o anche detta “I quattro gradini verso la morte”, di Aleksej Surkov, esprime meglio di tutti lo spirito di Stalingrado, il meglio dello spirito dei difensori dalla barbarie:
Il fuoco guizza nella stufetta
La resina cola dal ciocco come una lacrima
E la fisarmonica nel bunker
Mi canta del tuo sorrido e dei tuoi occhi
I cespugli mi sussurrano di te
In un campo bianco vicino a Mosca
Voglio soprattutto che tu senta
Com’è triste la mia voce
Ora sei molto lontana
Distese di neve si frappongono fra noi
È così difficile venire da te
E qui ci sono quattro gradini verso la morte
Canta fisarmonica, sfidando la tempesta di neve
Chiama quella felicità che ha smarrito la strada
Sto al caldo nel freddo bunker
Perché ho il tuo amore inestinguibile.
Stalingrado è la svolta della 2° guerra mondiale, è la sconfitta, l’inizio della fine del nazifascismo e nello stesso tempo l’inizio dell’affermarsi del totalitarismo comunista sull’Europa orientale.
Una canzone, Zemljanka, o anche detta “I quattro gradini verso la morte”, di Aleksej Surkov, esprime meglio di tutti lo spirito di Stalingrado, il meglio dello spirito dei difensori dalla barbarie:
Il fuoco guizza nella stufetta
La resina cola dal ciocco come una lacrima
E la fisarmonica nel bunker
Mi canta del tuo sorrido e dei tuoi occhi
I cespugli mi sussurrano di te
In un campo bianco vicino a Mosca
Voglio soprattutto che tu senta
Com’è triste la mia voce
Ora sei molto lontana
Distese di neve si frappongono fra noi
È così difficile venire da te
E qui ci sono quattro gradini verso la morte
Canta fisarmonica, sfidando la tempesta di neve
Chiama quella felicità che ha smarrito la strada
Sto al caldo nel freddo bunker
Perché ho il tuo amore inestinguibile.
August 23, 2024
In tutti questi anni mi è capitato tante volte di dare all'orrore della guerra una connotazione geografica: quel parallelogrammo compreso tra la Vistola ed il Dnepr, tra i Carpazi e la palude del Pripjat. Un parallelogrammo di sangue che richiama il meridiano di sangue di Cormac McCarthy con l'aggravante che è tutto vero: dalla guerra civile russa a Holodomor, dalla seconda guerra mondiale al conflitto tanto terribile quanto imprevisto esploso tra Russia ed Ucraina due anni fa.
In generale, i territori in cui risorse economiche, significato geopolitico ed odio etnico si incrociano, non riescono a conoscere pace. Ovviamente peraltro i poveracci non li vuole nessuno e li lasciamo magnanimamente agli altri.
La battaglia di Stalingrado non ricade nel parallelogrammo (è qualche centinaio di chilometri a est del Dnepr, ma per le distanze russe cento chiloetri sono niente), ma ne ricalca la logica come pure questo saggio dovrebbe spiegare e non fa. E' uno scontro per un territorio strategico e ricco di risorse, ed è anche il culmine dell'odio ideologico (nazismo contro comunismo) e razziale (ucraini e calmucchi contro russi, ancora una dannata volta). Anche solo per fare chiarezza su questo, "Stalingrado" di Anthony Beevor è un libro che avrebbe potuto essere attuale.
Ma per quel che riguarda la mia esperienza di lettura le positività finiscono qui. Il punto, ed è un problema generalizzato e preoccupante, è che nell'affrontare da profano appassionato un qualunque tema, ad un certo punto o ci si pone ad un livello specialistico che non si hanno nè il tempo nè le risorse per affrontare, oppure si incontra sempre e solo le stesse nozioni spicciole.
Nel caso specifico, il leggendario testo di Anthony Beevor dimostra tutti i suoi anni (è del 1998), sotto molti punti di vista. E' puramente qualitativo, mancano numeri e stime. La lettura dello scontro è puramente militare, mancano considerazioni sull'aspetto logistico, sull'aspetto delle risorse e soprattutto sull'aspetto etnico. Ma ciò che è peggio è che le considerazioni che farebbero capire le decisioni spesso apparentemente insensate dei protagonisti di quello scontro epico, mantengono tutte il punto di vista della guerra fredda.
Stalin cinico e disposto a tutto, Zukhov che usa migliaia di soldati come carte da macello, Hitler il pazzo che distrugge le strategie dei generali tedeschi (che non a caso, nei decenni successivi alla seconda guerra mondiale ebbero un ruolo importante nel consolidare le armate NATO in Europa). Davvero troppo, troppo poco per rendere un libro attuale nel ventunesimo secolo. Peccato.
Alla fine, la sufficienza se la guadagna comunque, alla luce della brillantissima penna di divulgatore di Antony Beevor, ma nulla più.
In generale, i territori in cui risorse economiche, significato geopolitico ed odio etnico si incrociano, non riescono a conoscere pace. Ovviamente peraltro i poveracci non li vuole nessuno e li lasciamo magnanimamente agli altri.
La battaglia di Stalingrado non ricade nel parallelogrammo (è qualche centinaio di chilometri a est del Dnepr, ma per le distanze russe cento chiloetri sono niente), ma ne ricalca la logica come pure questo saggio dovrebbe spiegare e non fa. E' uno scontro per un territorio strategico e ricco di risorse, ed è anche il culmine dell'odio ideologico (nazismo contro comunismo) e razziale (ucraini e calmucchi contro russi, ancora una dannata volta). Anche solo per fare chiarezza su questo, "Stalingrado" di Anthony Beevor è un libro che avrebbe potuto essere attuale.
Ma per quel che riguarda la mia esperienza di lettura le positività finiscono qui. Il punto, ed è un problema generalizzato e preoccupante, è che nell'affrontare da profano appassionato un qualunque tema, ad un certo punto o ci si pone ad un livello specialistico che non si hanno nè il tempo nè le risorse per affrontare, oppure si incontra sempre e solo le stesse nozioni spicciole.
Nel caso specifico, il leggendario testo di Anthony Beevor dimostra tutti i suoi anni (è del 1998), sotto molti punti di vista. E' puramente qualitativo, mancano numeri e stime. La lettura dello scontro è puramente militare, mancano considerazioni sull'aspetto logistico, sull'aspetto delle risorse e soprattutto sull'aspetto etnico. Ma ciò che è peggio è che le considerazioni che farebbero capire le decisioni spesso apparentemente insensate dei protagonisti di quello scontro epico, mantengono tutte il punto di vista della guerra fredda.
Stalin cinico e disposto a tutto, Zukhov che usa migliaia di soldati come carte da macello, Hitler il pazzo che distrugge le strategie dei generali tedeschi (che non a caso, nei decenni successivi alla seconda guerra mondiale ebbero un ruolo importante nel consolidare le armate NATO in Europa). Davvero troppo, troppo poco per rendere un libro attuale nel ventunesimo secolo. Peccato.
Alla fine, la sufficienza se la guadagna comunque, alla luce della brillantissima penna di divulgatore di Antony Beevor, ma nulla più.
October 8, 2014
Beevor manages to capture the scale of a truly titanic struggle without forgetting the human element. A powerful and often harrowing picture what happens when two dictatorships go to war. The Soviet Union may have been a dreadful place to live, but it should be remembered that its people did, once upon a time, save the world from something worse.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,607 reviews