What do you think?
Rate this book
Battle of Stalingrad: A History from Beginning to End
* * *Download for FREE on Kindle Unlimited + Free BONUS Inside!* * *
Read On Your Computer, MAC, Smartphone, Kindle Reader, iPad, or Tablet.
The Battle of Stalingrad, perceived by historians as the most important battle of World War II and regarded by Russians as the most significant battle in their country’s history, cannot be viewed solely as a military engagement between two powerful, long-time foes. The Soviet Union, which had climbed to power from the shambles of the 1917 Revolution that saw communism overthrow the czar, and Germany, which had risen from the ashes of World War I’s Treaty of Versailles, certainly had a complicated history. Stalingrad was a battle between the Allies and the Axis Powers; it was a struggle between the Soviet Union and Germany for victory; and it was also a test of wills between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, two totalitarian dictators who were willing to do whatever was necessary to demonstrate the supremacy of their systems of government.
✓ Josef Man of Steel
✓ Adolf A Quest for Vengeance
✓ Operation Barbarossa
✓ The Stalingrad Street Fighting Academy
✓ The Heroes of Stalingrad
And much more!
Stalin had succeeded Vladimir Lenin as the leader of the Soviet Union, and his entry upon the world stage ushered in a reign of absolute power as he bent a battered nation to conform to his will. Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, was elected chancellor of Germany in 1933 and promptly turned the beleaguered nation into a launch pad for Aryan domination.
As their armies met at Stalingrad for a long and bloody struggle that would ultimately tally two million civilian and military casualties, the world would watch as two brutal regimes challenged one another while the fate of the free world hung in the balance.
Series World War 2 Battles Book 1
Read On Your Computer, MAC, Smartphone, Kindle Reader, iPad, or Tablet.
The Battle of Stalingrad, perceived by historians as the most important battle of World War II and regarded by Russians as the most significant battle in their country’s history, cannot be viewed solely as a military engagement between two powerful, long-time foes. The Soviet Union, which had climbed to power from the shambles of the 1917 Revolution that saw communism overthrow the czar, and Germany, which had risen from the ashes of World War I’s Treaty of Versailles, certainly had a complicated history. Stalingrad was a battle between the Allies and the Axis Powers; it was a struggle between the Soviet Union and Germany for victory; and it was also a test of wills between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, two totalitarian dictators who were willing to do whatever was necessary to demonstrate the supremacy of their systems of government.
✓ Josef Man of Steel
✓ Adolf A Quest for Vengeance
✓ Operation Barbarossa
✓ The Stalingrad Street Fighting Academy
✓ The Heroes of Stalingrad
And much more!
Stalin had succeeded Vladimir Lenin as the leader of the Soviet Union, and his entry upon the world stage ushered in a reign of absolute power as he bent a battered nation to conform to his will. Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, was elected chancellor of Germany in 1933 and promptly turned the beleaguered nation into a launch pad for Aryan domination.
As their armies met at Stalingrad for a long and bloody struggle that would ultimately tally two million civilian and military casualties, the world would watch as two brutal regimes challenged one another while the fate of the free world hung in the balance.
Series World War 2 Battles Book 1
46 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 6, 2017
209 people are currently reading
216 people want to read
About the author
Hourly History
691 books854 followersAt Hourly History, we focus on publishing history books that are concise, straightforward and take no longer than one hour to read.
Receive our new eBooks for free every Friday.
Sign up at: www.hourlyhistory.com/free
Receive our new eBooks for free every Friday.
Sign up at: www.hourlyhistory.com/free
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
November 7, 2025
The Battle of Stalingrad is one of the most vital battles in human history. It was a confrontation that didn't just decide the fate of a city but sort of the entire trajectory of the Second World War. The battle was brutal, tragic, and unrelenting, and this book tries to give a brief overview of it.
In short, Stalingrad was a turning point since the unstoppable German advance finally broke, and the Soviet resistance turned the tide of the war. But at its core, it is a haunting account of the futility of how ordinary soldiers became trapped in the machinery of ideology, and more precisely, the madness of two evil dictators.
In short, Stalingrad was a turning point since the unstoppable German advance finally broke, and the Soviet resistance turned the tide of the war. But at its core, it is a haunting account of the futility of how ordinary soldiers became trapped in the machinery of ideology, and more precisely, the madness of two evil dictators.
September 19, 2022
Written by someone with a pro-nazi, pro-Hitler, at any rate anti-Russian bias.
***
"The twentieth century began with unease and anarchy and a discomfiting sense that the way of life which had dominated Western society for generations was about to topple. The War to End All Wars, which began with the assassination of an Austrian archduke and ended with the social fabric of Europe ripped and re-stitched, left nations with new systems of government, new leaders, a new outlook on the way things ought to be, and a new state of anxiety. World War I introduced the cast of characters that would appear in the bloody sequel which was World War II.
"Germany had been an eager participant in the war, bellicose and confident that its military superiority would provide it with the supremacy it felt it deserved. By the end of the war, Germany’s vaunted military might was vanquished, and Kaiser Wilhelm II had abdicated. The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, brought the war to an end while bringing Germany to its knees. Germany agreed to accept responsibility for starting the war and to pay reparations for the damage that had resulted. Germany was only allowed to have a hundred thousand troops in its military force and was forbidden from owning tanks, warships, submarines, or armored vehicles. The terms were modified in the 1920s, but after Adolf Hitler had come to power in the 1930s, he renounced the Treaty.
***
Role of Germany in the chain of events that began with Lenin being taken deep into Russia on a sealed diplomatic train, inducing bolsheviks to take over and, subsequently - and, justifiably speaking, consequently, as well - resulting in massacre of Romanovs, chiefly of Tsar Nicholas and his family, his wife Alexandra and their five children.
Considering that the Kaiser Wilhelm was a first cousin of Alexandra since both were grandchildren of Queen Victoria, one would've expected him to care about the lives of this family. But in fact, for years he'd been after her, to marry him, and she'd refused him, having fallen in love with Nicholas instead.
So - did Cousin Willy, as the Royal Mob called him - deliberately beginthe chain of events that ended with, not only the Russian revolution, but massacre of the Romanovs?
***
"Russia had joined World War I on the side of the Allies, but after the Bolsheviks had overthrown Czar Nicholas II, the country negotiated a peace settlement with Germany as Vladimir Lenin sought to focus on the Bolshevik Party as it consolidated its power. The Romanov family may have been one of the first casualties of Russia’s adoption of communism as an economic policy and dictatorship as a political weapon, but ultimately the Russian people would bear the brunt of the country’s change in government."
This author is fudging when saying "Russia had joined World War I on the side of the Allies"; the chain of events was slightly more complex.
Austria-Hungary had, because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, who was heir to the throne, declared war on Serbia; Serbia did not want war, but wasn't willing to bend as far as demanded by Austria-Hungary to placate, so it began.
Russia had a treaty with Serbia, France with Russia, and England with France; Germany had one with, of course, Austria-Hungary.
So in fact, it was Britain and France that joined on side of Russia, while the latter had joined due to Serbia being forced into war by Austria-Hungary, the empire that had lost the heir to assassinationin Serbia.
***
"Because France had lost more human lives and suffered more damage than the other combatants, the French desire for revenge against the Germans ran deep. Two million young Frenchmen were killed or maimed in the war. The real estate damage was enormous; three hundred thousand homes and twenty thousand places of business were destroyed. ... "
Authors are not taking into account the devastation wreaked by German forces against forests in France, and ecological damage in general.
" ... When Germany failed to make the payments required by the Treaty of Versailles, France occupied the Ruhr to enforce the reparation payments. Whether Germany could afford to make the payments or not was irrelevant to the French; nothing could bring back the young men who had lost their lives, and France did not forgive."
Author perhaps is German, if not of US; but, if latter, they might recall that Japan was subjected to nuclear devastation by US, not because Japan had done anything comparable, but partly to save lives of US soldiers who'd have died fighting Japan; the third alternative, stopping the war unilaterally after surrender by German forces, was never even considered.
Talking of revenge' against Germany, by France after WWI or by Russia after WWII, is cheap and easy, but fraudulent, in attempting to insinuate that Germany wasn't guilty of the responsibility for the deaths of millions, or of loot conducted deliberately. Truth is, UK and France lost a generation due to WWI, and was put hard to it raising the next generation.
A generation of young men was gone, and women left alone, with no one to marry and raise children with, all because Cousin Willy felt slighted by the Royal Mob at royal events across the continent - and in England.
***
"The decade of the Roaring Twenties which followed the war years of 1914-1918 witnessed a dynamic conversion of social traditions, as women, who had done their part during the war, sought the right to vote and a voice in government. Citizens of European colonies who had fought for the nations that controlled them were no longer content to occupy inferior status when the war ended. New ideologies, including Bolshevism, fascism, and socialism, claimed new adherents and inspired new loyalties."
India had never been "content to occupy inferior status", or being controlled by powers abroad. It's hard to imagine that any other countries were so 'content'.
***
"Then the Great Depression came, and the economies of the world were devastated. The 1930s saw nations retreat into isolation, so consumed by their financial dilemmas that they had no interest in the mounting problems in other countries. So it was that Adolf Hitler was elected to power as the leader of the Nazi Party, dedicated to restoring what he deemed as Germany’s rightful place in the world and to the subjugation of inferior peoples and the extermination of the Jews. The 1930s were a decade when the nations of the world looked over their shoulders at what was happening around them and remembered the War to End All Wars. Then they turned their attention back to the home front. They had enough to worry about. And maybe the nightmares would pass."
In other words, Allies weren't quite as willing to go to war as they needed to be against a Hitler, due to WWI being remembered.
In this, they can't be blamed.
***
"“This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by eleven o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you that no such understanding has been received and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.”
"—Neville Chamberlain, 1939"
History has been slightly unfair to this PM of England who was in a difficult position at a difficult time, and an honest man facing a wily, fraudulent goon.
It wasn't his unwillingness to go to war that was at fault, but his lack of ability to play poker with humans as chips and nations as cards. And his opponent was someone who had, fuel to this unwillingness of Allies to go to war again, had repeatedly bluffed, ending up adding huge swaths of territories to Germany, from Rheinland on, when France could have stopped him immediately - and didn't.
***
"On September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to Great Britain brandishing a non-aggression agreement signed by German Chancellor Adolf Hitler which asserted that Germany did not intend to ever go to war with the British again. Chamberlain had gone to the Munich Conference which was attended by, in addition to Great Britain and Germany, Italy and France. The meeting had been convened to discuss the fate of the Sudetenland, a region of Czechoslovakia with a significant German population. After the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party had been appointed to the position of Chancellor, Adolf Hitler lost no time in repudiating the terms of the humiliating Treaty of Versailles which had punished the Germans for instigating World War I and bringing devastation to the European continent. He began his retaliation close to home."
Hitler’s and generally Germany’s claims regarding the Versailles Treaty being unfair, vengeful, humiliating, et al, have been established in popular mind by dimple being reiterated over decades since immediately post WWI, when Germany made propaganda beginning immediately after the treaty, and welcomed on it beginning almost immediately.
Fact is, even while claiming that German babies were dying of starvation, Germany was spending gold narks in plenty in France, with purpose of creating a disturbance and disruption of financial and political fabric of France, as revenge as much as anything else.
This isn't different from Cousin Willy sending Lenin deep into Russia in a sealed diplomatic train, and causing not only the Bolshevik revolution, but deaths of Romanovs, all because Alexandra had married Nicholas instead of Willy - and Willy felt slighted by rest of the Royal Mob at royal events across the continent.
***
"March 12, 1938, saw the Anschluss, the unification of Austria with Germany to consolidate the German peoples. Two weeks later, he was secretly negotiating with a representative of the ethnic German parties of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia so that Hitler would have an excuse to take territory under the guise of unifying the German peoples. Europe was beginning to feel uneasy about the land-grabbing Hitler, but the thought of war was still unpopular."
In slightly more recent era, Tibet vanished into China's jaws, just as one Austria and Czechoslovakia and rest of the continent of Europe had vanished into German jaws, except that, no one has saved Tibet, or even raised a voice - so far.
So China has proceeded since then, claiming other territories that belong to other nation - and claiming not only rights, but humiliation and right to avenge, just as Germany did until 1945.
***
"In 1939, when the Germans invaded Poland, Europe could no longer ignore the problem. Before the invasion, Hitler had fretted that if he attacked Poland, the act would ignite a war with the British before Germany was ready for it, but his foreign minister was confident that the British and French would not honor their obligation to the Poles. Hitler had already made provisions, in a mutual non-aggression pact, to split Poland with the Russians. Through political sleight-of-hand, Hitler intended to offer a peace plan at the last minute that would land blame for the approaching war on the Poles and the British."
And, not only nazi Germany then, but goons such as Buchanan in US, usually republicans, have been fraudulently presenting that as their argument, claiming Hitler had no war against English speaking people and no designs on British Empire, and it was Allies, chiefly Winston Churchill and FDR, who erred warmongers, since they did not accept peace proposals from Hitler after he'd occupied most of the continent, leaving out very little - and thst, besides, UK and France had no reason to go to war for Poland, which was far away!
***
"Hitler had reason to be optimistic that his plans to turn Europe into an enormous German field of conquest would succeed. He expected that the Battle of Britain, which commenced on July 10, 1940, would bring the British to the same point of surrender as it had the French, but the Royal Air Force was able to hold the Luftwaffe at bay despite terrible air strikes intended to cause damage and demoralize the British civilians. Winston Churchill rallied his people with stirring oratory and a determination not to be defeated."
Explicitly the plans were to turn Europe into, not just "German field of conquest", but fields of potatoes, for German consumption, worked by locals who were to be slave labour until successfully starved to death by German masters.
"Even though Great Britain emerged unbowed from the air battle, which was largely over by October 31, 1940, the bombing didn’t end, and the nation’s forces were engaged in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Atlantic. The Soviet Union had been pursuing its gains from the nonaggression pact it had signed with Germany, but when the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, it was evident that the pact meant nothing, and the Soviets entered the war on the side of the Allies.
***
"The United States had adopted a policy of neutrality, although President Franklin D. Roosevelt, recognizing the inevitability of American involvement, had introduced the Lend-Lease program which provided military equipment to the Allies. Then, in one of those unpredictable events which become a crucial turning point, the Empire of Japan bombed the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, and the United States entered the war. The leaders of Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States were allies in a war which truly made strange bedfellows, as they put aside their differences to unite in the cause of defeating Germany and Japan. Josef Stalin was not the sort of colleague with which, in other circumstances, the British and the Americans might have chosen to work. The alliance was expedient for a war which needed to have Germany fully engaged on both its Eastern and Western fronts."
This isn't completely correct. Negotiations with Russia by England had been on before Germany signed the treaty with Russia, in 1939. UK just wasn't as quick and practical in thinking, and in action, as Germany.
For example, England sent to Russia, not a minister, but a lower level official, for talks - and he travelled, not in short few hours by then available fastest transport, flight, but by a packet boat, taking weeks! Meanwhile German high level ministers were eager wining and dining Russians to secure the treaty they needed, desperately, for respite until their planned date of invasion of Russia.
Russians preferred to deal with England, but simply couldn't wait and take the dilly-dallying.
***
"“This war is not an ordinary war. It is the war of the entire Russian people. Not only to eliminate the danger hanging over our heads, but to aid all people groaning under the yoke of Fascism. . . . The Red Army and Navy and the whole Soviet people must fight for every inch of Soviet soil, fight to the last drop of blood for our towns and villages . . . onward, to victory!"
"—Josef Stalin, 1941"
Whether due to love of Mother Russia, or inspired by leaders - former, largely, is a safe bet - Russians undoubtedly fought most valiantly, against the far better equipped enemy intent on reducing Russia to potato fields to sustain German population.
***
"Late in the 1930s, Stalin began the Great Purge in his military, replacing the officers of the Red Army with his supporters; proficiency in the art of war was not a prerequisite, but unquestioned loyalty to Stalin was. Either Stalin did not detect an ominous shadow to the clouds of war which were gathering in the skies over Europe, or he decided that the first objective was to rid himself of anyone he regarded as a potential threat from within before addressing external danger. Only two of the five marshals appointed in 1935 survived the purge. The death toll took the lives of 15 of 16 army commanders, 50 of 57 corps commanders, 154 of 186 divisional commanders, and 401 of 456 colonels, for a loss of approximately 30,000 soldiers in the Red Army."
Author of this work deliberately omits mention of the role played by nazis in this; they'd insinuate, or worse, create a false secret report that somehow found its way to Russian agents, regarding someone whom they wanted Stalin to get rid of; suspicion cast, that person vanished.
This helped weaken Russian forces, which precisely was nazi objective.
***
"In 1941, by the time the Soviet Union was engaged in the war against Germany, roughly 75% of the country’s military leaders had been in their positions for less than a year, partly because of the decimating purges and partly because military units had been newly created at a swift pace. Stalin would need his Red Army to be on its mettle as they went against Germany’s military killing machine.
"Stalin intended to win, no matter how many soldiers or civilians had to die in the process. ... "
This is disgusting, from author of this compilation. What exactly was the alternative for Russian people? Being butchered by nazis, as two million civilians were, whole villages burnt alive including children, babies, old people, women, and anyone escaping shot dead by German forces?
This author might prefer that, but he's simply in nazi ranks, and most of humanity is not. Do he's presenting Stalin ss one in wrong for fighting against Hitler and his forces, when it was Germany that had invaded Russia, and Russians were defending their homeland.
" ... The Soviet Union was his greatest creation, and everyone was expendable in the course of maintaining the country’s image. The zeal for remaking the Soviet Union in Stalin’s name extended as far as re-naming cities. ... "
From Roman's and Islamic hordes on, every conqueror has renamed the territory conquered. The whole continent from pole to pole across the 'pond' west of Europe has names that do not relate to anything indigenous, from name of continent to names of streets, for most part. For that matter, it's unclear why European names in India are considered not inappropriate.
As for Stalingrad, it's as good or bad a name as Tsaritsyn, unless one is committed yo a doctrine of equality of citizens, hence against monarchy, royalty, aristocracy and inherited property. Then renaming Tsaritsyn is only natural. It was, for a while, named Volgograd. It's named Volgograd again, now, sensibly.
" ... Tsaritsyn had been a Russian city since the sixteenth century, and as time went on, the city grew to prominence as a port and center of commerce. It fell under the control of the Bolsheviks in November 1917. The White Russians and the Bolsheviks battled for control, but by 1925, Tsaritsyn was renamed Stalingrad in recognition of the role that both the city and Stain had played in the defense against the White Russians."
***
"The city was an important industrial ....
***
"The twentieth century began with unease and anarchy and a discomfiting sense that the way of life which had dominated Western society for generations was about to topple. The War to End All Wars, which began with the assassination of an Austrian archduke and ended with the social fabric of Europe ripped and re-stitched, left nations with new systems of government, new leaders, a new outlook on the way things ought to be, and a new state of anxiety. World War I introduced the cast of characters that would appear in the bloody sequel which was World War II.
"Germany had been an eager participant in the war, bellicose and confident that its military superiority would provide it with the supremacy it felt it deserved. By the end of the war, Germany’s vaunted military might was vanquished, and Kaiser Wilhelm II had abdicated. The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, brought the war to an end while bringing Germany to its knees. Germany agreed to accept responsibility for starting the war and to pay reparations for the damage that had resulted. Germany was only allowed to have a hundred thousand troops in its military force and was forbidden from owning tanks, warships, submarines, or armored vehicles. The terms were modified in the 1920s, but after Adolf Hitler had come to power in the 1930s, he renounced the Treaty.
***
Role of Germany in the chain of events that began with Lenin being taken deep into Russia on a sealed diplomatic train, inducing bolsheviks to take over and, subsequently - and, justifiably speaking, consequently, as well - resulting in massacre of Romanovs, chiefly of Tsar Nicholas and his family, his wife Alexandra and their five children.
Considering that the Kaiser Wilhelm was a first cousin of Alexandra since both were grandchildren of Queen Victoria, one would've expected him to care about the lives of this family. But in fact, for years he'd been after her, to marry him, and she'd refused him, having fallen in love with Nicholas instead.
So - did Cousin Willy, as the Royal Mob called him - deliberately beginthe chain of events that ended with, not only the Russian revolution, but massacre of the Romanovs?
***
"Russia had joined World War I on the side of the Allies, but after the Bolsheviks had overthrown Czar Nicholas II, the country negotiated a peace settlement with Germany as Vladimir Lenin sought to focus on the Bolshevik Party as it consolidated its power. The Romanov family may have been one of the first casualties of Russia’s adoption of communism as an economic policy and dictatorship as a political weapon, but ultimately the Russian people would bear the brunt of the country’s change in government."
This author is fudging when saying "Russia had joined World War I on the side of the Allies"; the chain of events was slightly more complex.
Austria-Hungary had, because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, who was heir to the throne, declared war on Serbia; Serbia did not want war, but wasn't willing to bend as far as demanded by Austria-Hungary to placate, so it began.
Russia had a treaty with Serbia, France with Russia, and England with France; Germany had one with, of course, Austria-Hungary.
So in fact, it was Britain and France that joined on side of Russia, while the latter had joined due to Serbia being forced into war by Austria-Hungary, the empire that had lost the heir to assassinationin Serbia.
***
"Because France had lost more human lives and suffered more damage than the other combatants, the French desire for revenge against the Germans ran deep. Two million young Frenchmen were killed or maimed in the war. The real estate damage was enormous; three hundred thousand homes and twenty thousand places of business were destroyed. ... "
Authors are not taking into account the devastation wreaked by German forces against forests in France, and ecological damage in general.
" ... When Germany failed to make the payments required by the Treaty of Versailles, France occupied the Ruhr to enforce the reparation payments. Whether Germany could afford to make the payments or not was irrelevant to the French; nothing could bring back the young men who had lost their lives, and France did not forgive."
Author perhaps is German, if not of US; but, if latter, they might recall that Japan was subjected to nuclear devastation by US, not because Japan had done anything comparable, but partly to save lives of US soldiers who'd have died fighting Japan; the third alternative, stopping the war unilaterally after surrender by German forces, was never even considered.
Talking of revenge' against Germany, by France after WWI or by Russia after WWII, is cheap and easy, but fraudulent, in attempting to insinuate that Germany wasn't guilty of the responsibility for the deaths of millions, or of loot conducted deliberately. Truth is, UK and France lost a generation due to WWI, and was put hard to it raising the next generation.
A generation of young men was gone, and women left alone, with no one to marry and raise children with, all because Cousin Willy felt slighted by the Royal Mob at royal events across the continent - and in England.
***
"The decade of the Roaring Twenties which followed the war years of 1914-1918 witnessed a dynamic conversion of social traditions, as women, who had done their part during the war, sought the right to vote and a voice in government. Citizens of European colonies who had fought for the nations that controlled them were no longer content to occupy inferior status when the war ended. New ideologies, including Bolshevism, fascism, and socialism, claimed new adherents and inspired new loyalties."
India had never been "content to occupy inferior status", or being controlled by powers abroad. It's hard to imagine that any other countries were so 'content'.
***
"Then the Great Depression came, and the economies of the world were devastated. The 1930s saw nations retreat into isolation, so consumed by their financial dilemmas that they had no interest in the mounting problems in other countries. So it was that Adolf Hitler was elected to power as the leader of the Nazi Party, dedicated to restoring what he deemed as Germany’s rightful place in the world and to the subjugation of inferior peoples and the extermination of the Jews. The 1930s were a decade when the nations of the world looked over their shoulders at what was happening around them and remembered the War to End All Wars. Then they turned their attention back to the home front. They had enough to worry about. And maybe the nightmares would pass."
In other words, Allies weren't quite as willing to go to war as they needed to be against a Hitler, due to WWI being remembered.
In this, they can't be blamed.
***
"“This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by eleven o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you that no such understanding has been received and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.”
"—Neville Chamberlain, 1939"
History has been slightly unfair to this PM of England who was in a difficult position at a difficult time, and an honest man facing a wily, fraudulent goon.
It wasn't his unwillingness to go to war that was at fault, but his lack of ability to play poker with humans as chips and nations as cards. And his opponent was someone who had, fuel to this unwillingness of Allies to go to war again, had repeatedly bluffed, ending up adding huge swaths of territories to Germany, from Rheinland on, when France could have stopped him immediately - and didn't.
***
"On September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to Great Britain brandishing a non-aggression agreement signed by German Chancellor Adolf Hitler which asserted that Germany did not intend to ever go to war with the British again. Chamberlain had gone to the Munich Conference which was attended by, in addition to Great Britain and Germany, Italy and France. The meeting had been convened to discuss the fate of the Sudetenland, a region of Czechoslovakia with a significant German population. After the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party had been appointed to the position of Chancellor, Adolf Hitler lost no time in repudiating the terms of the humiliating Treaty of Versailles which had punished the Germans for instigating World War I and bringing devastation to the European continent. He began his retaliation close to home."
Hitler’s and generally Germany’s claims regarding the Versailles Treaty being unfair, vengeful, humiliating, et al, have been established in popular mind by dimple being reiterated over decades since immediately post WWI, when Germany made propaganda beginning immediately after the treaty, and welcomed on it beginning almost immediately.
Fact is, even while claiming that German babies were dying of starvation, Germany was spending gold narks in plenty in France, with purpose of creating a disturbance and disruption of financial and political fabric of France, as revenge as much as anything else.
This isn't different from Cousin Willy sending Lenin deep into Russia in a sealed diplomatic train, and causing not only the Bolshevik revolution, but deaths of Romanovs, all because Alexandra had married Nicholas instead of Willy - and Willy felt slighted by rest of the Royal Mob at royal events across the continent.
***
"March 12, 1938, saw the Anschluss, the unification of Austria with Germany to consolidate the German peoples. Two weeks later, he was secretly negotiating with a representative of the ethnic German parties of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia so that Hitler would have an excuse to take territory under the guise of unifying the German peoples. Europe was beginning to feel uneasy about the land-grabbing Hitler, but the thought of war was still unpopular."
In slightly more recent era, Tibet vanished into China's jaws, just as one Austria and Czechoslovakia and rest of the continent of Europe had vanished into German jaws, except that, no one has saved Tibet, or even raised a voice - so far.
So China has proceeded since then, claiming other territories that belong to other nation - and claiming not only rights, but humiliation and right to avenge, just as Germany did until 1945.
***
"In 1939, when the Germans invaded Poland, Europe could no longer ignore the problem. Before the invasion, Hitler had fretted that if he attacked Poland, the act would ignite a war with the British before Germany was ready for it, but his foreign minister was confident that the British and French would not honor their obligation to the Poles. Hitler had already made provisions, in a mutual non-aggression pact, to split Poland with the Russians. Through political sleight-of-hand, Hitler intended to offer a peace plan at the last minute that would land blame for the approaching war on the Poles and the British."
And, not only nazi Germany then, but goons such as Buchanan in US, usually republicans, have been fraudulently presenting that as their argument, claiming Hitler had no war against English speaking people and no designs on British Empire, and it was Allies, chiefly Winston Churchill and FDR, who erred warmongers, since they did not accept peace proposals from Hitler after he'd occupied most of the continent, leaving out very little - and thst, besides, UK and France had no reason to go to war for Poland, which was far away!
***
"Hitler had reason to be optimistic that his plans to turn Europe into an enormous German field of conquest would succeed. He expected that the Battle of Britain, which commenced on July 10, 1940, would bring the British to the same point of surrender as it had the French, but the Royal Air Force was able to hold the Luftwaffe at bay despite terrible air strikes intended to cause damage and demoralize the British civilians. Winston Churchill rallied his people with stirring oratory and a determination not to be defeated."
Explicitly the plans were to turn Europe into, not just "German field of conquest", but fields of potatoes, for German consumption, worked by locals who were to be slave labour until successfully starved to death by German masters.
"Even though Great Britain emerged unbowed from the air battle, which was largely over by October 31, 1940, the bombing didn’t end, and the nation’s forces were engaged in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Atlantic. The Soviet Union had been pursuing its gains from the nonaggression pact it had signed with Germany, but when the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, it was evident that the pact meant nothing, and the Soviets entered the war on the side of the Allies.
***
"The United States had adopted a policy of neutrality, although President Franklin D. Roosevelt, recognizing the inevitability of American involvement, had introduced the Lend-Lease program which provided military equipment to the Allies. Then, in one of those unpredictable events which become a crucial turning point, the Empire of Japan bombed the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, and the United States entered the war. The leaders of Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States were allies in a war which truly made strange bedfellows, as they put aside their differences to unite in the cause of defeating Germany and Japan. Josef Stalin was not the sort of colleague with which, in other circumstances, the British and the Americans might have chosen to work. The alliance was expedient for a war which needed to have Germany fully engaged on both its Eastern and Western fronts."
This isn't completely correct. Negotiations with Russia by England had been on before Germany signed the treaty with Russia, in 1939. UK just wasn't as quick and practical in thinking, and in action, as Germany.
For example, England sent to Russia, not a minister, but a lower level official, for talks - and he travelled, not in short few hours by then available fastest transport, flight, but by a packet boat, taking weeks! Meanwhile German high level ministers were eager wining and dining Russians to secure the treaty they needed, desperately, for respite until their planned date of invasion of Russia.
Russians preferred to deal with England, but simply couldn't wait and take the dilly-dallying.
***
"“This war is not an ordinary war. It is the war of the entire Russian people. Not only to eliminate the danger hanging over our heads, but to aid all people groaning under the yoke of Fascism. . . . The Red Army and Navy and the whole Soviet people must fight for every inch of Soviet soil, fight to the last drop of blood for our towns and villages . . . onward, to victory!"
"—Josef Stalin, 1941"
Whether due to love of Mother Russia, or inspired by leaders - former, largely, is a safe bet - Russians undoubtedly fought most valiantly, against the far better equipped enemy intent on reducing Russia to potato fields to sustain German population.
***
"Late in the 1930s, Stalin began the Great Purge in his military, replacing the officers of the Red Army with his supporters; proficiency in the art of war was not a prerequisite, but unquestioned loyalty to Stalin was. Either Stalin did not detect an ominous shadow to the clouds of war which were gathering in the skies over Europe, or he decided that the first objective was to rid himself of anyone he regarded as a potential threat from within before addressing external danger. Only two of the five marshals appointed in 1935 survived the purge. The death toll took the lives of 15 of 16 army commanders, 50 of 57 corps commanders, 154 of 186 divisional commanders, and 401 of 456 colonels, for a loss of approximately 30,000 soldiers in the Red Army."
Author of this work deliberately omits mention of the role played by nazis in this; they'd insinuate, or worse, create a false secret report that somehow found its way to Russian agents, regarding someone whom they wanted Stalin to get rid of; suspicion cast, that person vanished.
This helped weaken Russian forces, which precisely was nazi objective.
***
"In 1941, by the time the Soviet Union was engaged in the war against Germany, roughly 75% of the country’s military leaders had been in their positions for less than a year, partly because of the decimating purges and partly because military units had been newly created at a swift pace. Stalin would need his Red Army to be on its mettle as they went against Germany’s military killing machine.
"Stalin intended to win, no matter how many soldiers or civilians had to die in the process. ... "
This is disgusting, from author of this compilation. What exactly was the alternative for Russian people? Being butchered by nazis, as two million civilians were, whole villages burnt alive including children, babies, old people, women, and anyone escaping shot dead by German forces?
This author might prefer that, but he's simply in nazi ranks, and most of humanity is not. Do he's presenting Stalin ss one in wrong for fighting against Hitler and his forces, when it was Germany that had invaded Russia, and Russians were defending their homeland.
" ... The Soviet Union was his greatest creation, and everyone was expendable in the course of maintaining the country’s image. The zeal for remaking the Soviet Union in Stalin’s name extended as far as re-naming cities. ... "
From Roman's and Islamic hordes on, every conqueror has renamed the territory conquered. The whole continent from pole to pole across the 'pond' west of Europe has names that do not relate to anything indigenous, from name of continent to names of streets, for most part. For that matter, it's unclear why European names in India are considered not inappropriate.
As for Stalingrad, it's as good or bad a name as Tsaritsyn, unless one is committed yo a doctrine of equality of citizens, hence against monarchy, royalty, aristocracy and inherited property. Then renaming Tsaritsyn is only natural. It was, for a while, named Volgograd. It's named Volgograd again, now, sensibly.
" ... Tsaritsyn had been a Russian city since the sixteenth century, and as time went on, the city grew to prominence as a port and center of commerce. It fell under the control of the Bolsheviks in November 1917. The White Russians and the Bolsheviks battled for control, but by 1925, Tsaritsyn was renamed Stalingrad in recognition of the role that both the city and Stain had played in the defense against the White Russians."
***
"The city was an important industrial ....
July 7, 2018
A good book, gives basic knowledge about the siege of Stalingard. It might be great book if they have added some photos.
A enjoyable read.
A enjoyable read.
February 20, 2021
The battle that proved to be the turning point during the second World War and the one that lasted much longer than expected has been outlined through a fascinating narrative in the book.
August 29, 2021
(Kindle Ed., p. 33)
...Life in Stalingrad was a nightmare for the soldiers and civilians as the city was reduced to rubble. Bodies rotted, and the smell of decomposing corpses hung over the city. Disease became rampant. The noise from the Stuka dive bombers and Katyusha rockets created a grim orchestra of war. It was a scenario that challenged the stamina and even the sanity of all who endured it...
You cannot stop an army which has done Stalingrad. — Russian saying
Off the beginning, the book needs an editing.
Chapter 2 is just great, definitely worth reading.
The opening lines read pretty crude, and they still need to be refined as the book is on the market with its price tag on it. I don't know; maybe I'm reading an old edition, but anyways it's got quite a rough start, and I do feel like the book needs another editing work.
Yet, the book's got great lines with useful information.
(Kindle Ed., pp. 40-42)
...Now that the unbeatable German Army had been defeated, Germany would be fighting a defensive war...had the Battle of Stalingrad gone the other way, the outcome of the war might have been very different...
1. The book depicts the progress of the war and battles along with the meaning and significance of the Battle of Stalingrad.
2. The book presents very precise info that helps the readers understand the situation of Soviet army when the German invasion commenced.
It just needs the final editing work because, despite the quality of detailed information well-organized in such a short length, it appears incomplete with many typos and lines pretty rough to read.
By the way, is it just me or the following lines do remind us of someone else in Beijing today (Kindle Ed., pp. 18-19)?
...Suppression of opposition, machinations, and violence all paved Hitler’s path to power. One of the casualties of his rise included the German military; officers who disagreed with his determination to be ready for war by 1938 were blackmailed and forced to resign. Twenty-eight generals lost command, forty-four others were transferred, although their only fault may have been that they failed to exhibit sufficient Nazi credentials. Hitler took the title of commander-in-chief, making himself the leader of the military...
...Life in Stalingrad was a nightmare for the soldiers and civilians as the city was reduced to rubble. Bodies rotted, and the smell of decomposing corpses hung over the city. Disease became rampant. The noise from the Stuka dive bombers and Katyusha rockets created a grim orchestra of war. It was a scenario that challenged the stamina and even the sanity of all who endured it...
You cannot stop an army which has done Stalingrad. — Russian saying
Off the beginning, the book needs an editing.
Chapter 2 is just great, definitely worth reading.
The opening lines read pretty crude, and they still need to be refined as the book is on the market with its price tag on it. I don't know; maybe I'm reading an old edition, but anyways it's got quite a rough start, and I do feel like the book needs another editing work.
Yet, the book's got great lines with useful information.
(Kindle Ed., pp. 40-42)
...Now that the unbeatable German Army had been defeated, Germany would be fighting a defensive war...had the Battle of Stalingrad gone the other way, the outcome of the war might have been very different...
1. The book depicts the progress of the war and battles along with the meaning and significance of the Battle of Stalingrad.
2. The book presents very precise info that helps the readers understand the situation of Soviet army when the German invasion commenced.
It just needs the final editing work because, despite the quality of detailed information well-organized in such a short length, it appears incomplete with many typos and lines pretty rough to read.
By the way, is it just me or the following lines do remind us of someone else in Beijing today (Kindle Ed., pp. 18-19)?
...Suppression of opposition, machinations, and violence all paved Hitler’s path to power. One of the casualties of his rise included the German military; officers who disagreed with his determination to be ready for war by 1938 were blackmailed and forced to resign. Twenty-eight generals lost command, forty-four others were transferred, although their only fault may have been that they failed to exhibit sufficient Nazi credentials. Hitler took the title of commander-in-chief, making himself the leader of the military...
March 21, 2021
History of a battle I didn't know.
I wish history could be written as it is here. In school we learned dates of battles not interesting facts. One such interesting fact was that I thought Hitler and his wife just committed suicide. Read this book to find out the rest. I don't want to spoil your read.
I wish history could be written as it is here. In school we learned dates of battles not interesting facts. One such interesting fact was that I thought Hitler and his wife just committed suicide. Read this book to find out the rest. I don't want to spoil your read.
July 12, 2018
Brief History...
This subject about The Battle of Stalingrad has too many sides and aspects to do it justice with the amount of words available. Good try though. The writer also jumped around chronologically too much. It made it kind of confusing trying to keep track correctly.
This subject about The Battle of Stalingrad has too many sides and aspects to do it justice with the amount of words available. Good try though. The writer also jumped around chronologically too much. It made it kind of confusing trying to keep track correctly.
May 25, 2019
Stalingrad
A very informative book. It really spells out what the Russian army was up against. And through long hard fighting and hunger they were able to defend Stalingrad. A very good hourly book for people who want to learn more of WWII history.
A very informative book. It really spells out what the Russian army was up against. And through long hard fighting and hunger they were able to defend Stalingrad. A very good hourly book for people who want to learn more of WWII history.
December 29, 2019
Battle of Stalingrad.. great to know about the Man of steell Stalin.
Another well researched subject by hourly history. They give you an in-depth detail of the historical past. Very concise and to the point.
Another well researched subject by hourly history. They give you an in-depth detail of the historical past. Very concise and to the point.
April 7, 2021
Volgograd
A terrible and tragic battle for everyone. Atrocities on both sides. I feel that it should have stayed with the subject and not meandered into the Battle of Berlin and the Cold War.
A terrible and tragic battle for everyone. Atrocities on both sides. I feel that it should have stayed with the subject and not meandered into the Battle of Berlin and the Cold War.
March 19, 2022
Great Education
This book reflects the series in that it provides a quick history of an important event. I knew some of the issues, but the detail is helpful to clarify my understanding of the era.
This book reflects the series in that it provides a quick history of an important event. I knew some of the issues, but the detail is helpful to clarify my understanding of the era.
September 27, 2022
Stalingrad
This book gives a good, brief overview of the most important battle of WW2. It starts with the early lives of the two dictators who controlled the fate of the men and women who fought there.
This book gives a good, brief overview of the most important battle of WW2. It starts with the early lives of the two dictators who controlled the fate of the men and women who fought there.
May 31, 2018
One of the nicer reads of what was the turning point of world war 2.
Gives good details of Stalins expectations, Germans not keeping their word and how the siege was handled by the Russians
Gives good details of Stalins expectations, Germans not keeping their word and how the siege was handled by the Russians
September 14, 2019
I am glad that I read it! Provides a nice lead up to WWII but too much biography of Adolf Hitler. This important battle is not covered very well in general high school and college history classes.
March 30, 2021
Incredible!
The author framed a time great lost coupled by the account of people who were ready to give up all for their country! Right or wrong!
The author framed a time great lost coupled by the account of people who were ready to give up all for their country! Right or wrong!
February 28, 2023
Good Read
Very entertaining read on this part of WW2 history of Stalingrad and it’s outcome in determining the future direction of the war. Would recommend.
Very entertaining read on this part of WW2 history of Stalingrad and it’s outcome in determining the future direction of the war. Would recommend.
March 5, 2024
Nothing to see here. More of a quick synopsis of WWII with little said about the Battle of Stalingrad. A quick chapter about the armies involved, but not much else.
December 16, 2024
What a great little book, interestingly written, due to the size it is obviously NOT exhaustive but it is succinct and somewhat satisfying. I plan to read all 12 volumes in the series. On to Dunkirk!
March 23, 2019
World War II Stalingrad: A History From Beginning to End by Hourly History... A short but essential read...
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews