What do you think?
Rate this book
Year of Stalingrad
Sunday Times war-correspondent Werth spent four years in the Soviet Union during WW2. He traveled widely, interviewed Russian officers and enlisted men, civilians and German prisoners. His diary entries and description of why and how the Russians managed to turn back the Nazi invasion make this a fascinating book to read.
500 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2001
55 people want to read
About the author
Alexander Werth
83 books23 followersAlexander Werth was a Russian-born, naturalized British writer, journalist, and war correspondent.
Werth's family fled to the United Kingdom in the wake of the Russian Revolution.
Werth wrote about France in the prewar period and about Russia in World War II, especially the Battle of Stalingrad and the Siege of Leningrad. He was fluent in both Russian and English. His best-known work is "Russia at War 1941 to 1945", (London, 1964) a behind-the-scenes look at life in the wartime Soviet Union; he spent the war there as the BBC's correspondent, and had unrivalled access due to the combination of his BBC press credentials and his ability to function as a native Russian.
Werth was among a group of journalists to visit the Majdanek concentration and extermination camp after it had been discovered by the advancing Red Army. He filed a report on the atrocities, but the BBC initially refused to broadcast it, believing that it was too incredible to be true and suspecting a Soviet propaganda stunt.
He was the Moscow correspondent for the Guardian newspaper from 1946 to 1949. He was one of the first outsiders to be allowed into Stalingrad after the battle. Other works include: France 1940-1955: the de Gaulle Revolution; Moscow 41; The Last Days of Paris: a Journalist's Diary; Leningrad; The Year of Stalingrad; and Musical Uproar in Moscow.
His son Nicolas Werth is a well-known French historian (Directeur de recherche au CNRS) who specializes in the history of the Soviet Union.
Source: wikipedia.com
Werth's family fled to the United Kingdom in the wake of the Russian Revolution.
Werth wrote about France in the prewar period and about Russia in World War II, especially the Battle of Stalingrad and the Siege of Leningrad. He was fluent in both Russian and English. His best-known work is "Russia at War 1941 to 1945", (London, 1964) a behind-the-scenes look at life in the wartime Soviet Union; he spent the war there as the BBC's correspondent, and had unrivalled access due to the combination of his BBC press credentials and his ability to function as a native Russian.
Werth was among a group of journalists to visit the Majdanek concentration and extermination camp after it had been discovered by the advancing Red Army. He filed a report on the atrocities, but the BBC initially refused to broadcast it, believing that it was too incredible to be true and suspecting a Soviet propaganda stunt.
He was the Moscow correspondent for the Guardian newspaper from 1946 to 1949. He was one of the first outsiders to be allowed into Stalingrad after the battle. Other works include: France 1940-1955: the de Gaulle Revolution; Moscow 41; The Last Days of Paris: a Journalist's Diary; Leningrad; The Year of Stalingrad; and Musical Uproar in Moscow.
His son Nicolas Werth is a well-known French historian (Directeur de recherche au CNRS) who specializes in the history of the Soviet Union.
Source: wikipedia.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 30, 2015
Awesome journalistic account. Extremely interesting, unique first-class coverage of the events.
March 9, 2013
Even after the wonderful Stalingrad of Anthony Beevor, this very first book written in 1946 by Werth is still a key reference, especially by the testimonies and the dialogs caught during the visit made on the battle camp just after the Soviet victory. The strengh of Werth book is also to show that Stalingrad was not only a heroic fight of the Russian soldiers surviving to unbelievable suffering, but also a fabulous trap built by the Soviet generals to destroy the Paulus Army.
March 10, 2020
Who reads about WW2 anymore, and if they do, who reads about the war on the eastern front, the Nazi military offensive against the former Soviet Union?
I do and frequently.
There are a number of reasons. First and foremost – it is a personal act of gratitude for what in the USA is often an unappreciated – the Soviet contribution to the defeat of fascism, the monumental effort involved, the oft unappreciated human suffering and sacrifice it entailed. Watching how people react – or don’t – under extreme pressure, crises – has long fascinated me.
Then there is the fact that fascist tendencies have emerged in recent years the world round, including in the USA; important to learn from history fascism’s strange journey, from the environment in which it took birth to how it was defeated. The country where I live seems to be lurching in that direction.
And then there is all this Russia bashing – done frankly even more by the leadership of the Democratic Party than even the Republicans these days. I understand it in many ways (Hillary’s failure to look at her own campaign for its failures, Russia’s refusal to simply implode in the 1990s – and its rebound outside of the influence of Washington). Most importantly there is the growing danger of a U.S.-Russian nuclear confrontation that few take seriously in this country, but I do, very much so. Part of avoiding, preventing such a conflict is to study the period when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were actually allies – almost but not quite – friends
Why? Because I still believe that that war, now over 75 years ago, continues to shape the world in which we live, no matter where we live and that the decisive effort to defeat fascism took place, there in places like Stalingrad and Kursk, on Seelow Heights over the Oder River. It ended with the liberation of Berlin, the meeting of US and Soviet troops at Torgau. The sacrifices the Soviets made – in dead, wounded, in the destruction of their country by the Nazis were unequaled.
Besides, the key turning point in WW 2 is where the Nazi armies were put on the defensive was a place then called Stalingrad (today Volgograd) on a bend of the Volga River in southern Russia.
One of the better historians of WW2 on the Eastern Front was British journalist Alexander Werth. His “Russia At War” is outstanding on the whole – despite the fact that he misread the what was Stalin’s massacre of thousands of Polish officers at the forests of Katyn – which was revealed only in the late 1980s – he wasn’t the only one to get that one wrong. But apart that – the ebb and flow of the fighting, the human element – in my view, no one does it better.
Werth – fluent in Russian – was given a great deal of freedom to interview Soviets at all levels of society. He knew the Soviets as few other Westerners did. He wasn’t an apologist – but an observer of a country at war. The Year of Stalingrad – other than its unacceptably small print – is well worth reading in these times.
I do and frequently.
There are a number of reasons. First and foremost – it is a personal act of gratitude for what in the USA is often an unappreciated – the Soviet contribution to the defeat of fascism, the monumental effort involved, the oft unappreciated human suffering and sacrifice it entailed. Watching how people react – or don’t – under extreme pressure, crises – has long fascinated me.
Then there is the fact that fascist tendencies have emerged in recent years the world round, including in the USA; important to learn from history fascism’s strange journey, from the environment in which it took birth to how it was defeated. The country where I live seems to be lurching in that direction.
And then there is all this Russia bashing – done frankly even more by the leadership of the Democratic Party than even the Republicans these days. I understand it in many ways (Hillary’s failure to look at her own campaign for its failures, Russia’s refusal to simply implode in the 1990s – and its rebound outside of the influence of Washington). Most importantly there is the growing danger of a U.S.-Russian nuclear confrontation that few take seriously in this country, but I do, very much so. Part of avoiding, preventing such a conflict is to study the period when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were actually allies – almost but not quite – friends
Why? Because I still believe that that war, now over 75 years ago, continues to shape the world in which we live, no matter where we live and that the decisive effort to defeat fascism took place, there in places like Stalingrad and Kursk, on Seelow Heights over the Oder River. It ended with the liberation of Berlin, the meeting of US and Soviet troops at Torgau. The sacrifices the Soviets made – in dead, wounded, in the destruction of their country by the Nazis were unequaled.
Besides, the key turning point in WW 2 is where the Nazi armies were put on the defensive was a place then called Stalingrad (today Volgograd) on a bend of the Volga River in southern Russia.
One of the better historians of WW2 on the Eastern Front was British journalist Alexander Werth. His “Russia At War” is outstanding on the whole – despite the fact that he misread the what was Stalin’s massacre of thousands of Polish officers at the forests of Katyn – which was revealed only in the late 1980s – he wasn’t the only one to get that one wrong. But apart that – the ebb and flow of the fighting, the human element – in my view, no one does it better.
Werth – fluent in Russian – was given a great deal of freedom to interview Soviets at all levels of society. He knew the Soviets as few other Westerners did. He wasn’t an apologist – but an observer of a country at war. The Year of Stalingrad – other than its unacceptably small print – is well worth reading in these times.
February 10, 2026
An interesting recount of the authors year in the Soviet Union during the battle of Stalingrad. the book is written like a diary and gives the Russian point of view to the story. Very long and tedious at times.
April 17, 2016
There are some very poignant passages on war and observations, not only on Stalingrad, but battles near Moscow.
Unfortunately the book is marred by very lengthy passages of the authors’ stay in Moscow. There is just too much on his attendance at the theatre and ballet, and too many academic conversations on Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and the like.
It was interesting to note the exuberance that the Soviets felt after their pushback of the German attack on Moscow in December, 1941- some felt the war was going to be over with in 1942.
Only after Stalingrad did they realize and acknowledge that it was to be a long arduous struggle.
And it must be acknowledged that Stalingrad was a Soviet victory. There was little aid at that stage that had reached from their allies. It gave them confidence in their army, their logistics and their vast civilian corps dedicated to the war effort. They now knew they could beat the Nazi war machine.
This book should have been edited. It starts off well with the authors’ depiction of his passage on an Arctic convoy from Britain to Murmansk – in fact these are some of the most astounding portions of the book. After, as mentioned, it becomes tedious; except for those sections on excursions to battle areas outside Moscow and then, Stalingrad. The author also has an annoying tendency to overlook the evils of the Stalinist system.
Also in my old edition of 1947 the print is very small.
Unfortunately the book is marred by very lengthy passages of the authors’ stay in Moscow. There is just too much on his attendance at the theatre and ballet, and too many academic conversations on Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and the like.
It was interesting to note the exuberance that the Soviets felt after their pushback of the German attack on Moscow in December, 1941- some felt the war was going to be over with in 1942.
Only after Stalingrad did they realize and acknowledge that it was to be a long arduous struggle.
And it must be acknowledged that Stalingrad was a Soviet victory. There was little aid at that stage that had reached from their allies. It gave them confidence in their army, their logistics and their vast civilian corps dedicated to the war effort. They now knew they could beat the Nazi war machine.
This book should have been edited. It starts off well with the authors’ depiction of his passage on an Arctic convoy from Britain to Murmansk – in fact these are some of the most astounding portions of the book. After, as mentioned, it becomes tedious; except for those sections on excursions to battle areas outside Moscow and then, Stalingrad. The author also has an annoying tendency to overlook the evils of the Stalinist system.
Also in my old edition of 1947 the print is very small.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews