Been reading - trying to read - Joh Erickson's The Road to Stalingrad these past few weeks - well, 8, now. I'm slogging my way through it - I knew it would be a road - but I'm about @ March 1942 and finally the Germans are gearing up to make the actual drive on that city. Very dry book. AFter reading Overy's more lively book on the Russian Front - well, it was more lively, lets just say. and that's ok.
I was trolling* for newish books that would give me new insights into the German Russian war, and I think Erickson has given me one!! Forever, we in America were taught that the Russians were totally incompetent through the whole war. This was a reflection of Cold War ideas - the former Nazis were now our allies, and our formenr allies the Russian now had to be vilified and made fun of. SO, we got a steady diet of postwar propaganda on how the Russian were evil and faceless automatons (wait, and the NAZIS WEREN'T??) and the Germans were - yes, evil , but also - plucky, outnumbered, fighting the REAL MODERN EVIL of TODAY = Communism, and often - wait for it - the Germans were the heros. Because of this, post war histories often treated the Gernmans as heroes and the Russians as the rotton ones. Certainly the Russians did a lot of evil - trust me, as an American reading about the war, there was all sorts of evil done and reported by them - but the Nazis were just about as bad as it gets**. So, almost every book I've ever read had it that the Germans should have put all of their mite against the Russians - instead of the Americans and English etc... - when they were trying to fite on two fronts. Because they didn't, writers blame them for the Iron Curtain - or @ least, the amount of territory behind the curtain.
But - Erickson - and whats new to me?? The effect of the Russinan counterattacks Decenber 1941- that's what. But first- to Western readers the Soviets were always portrayed as hopelessly inneffective - the only reason they won the war -v- the Nazis was that the Americans gave them so much aid and that the Russians had so many people fed into the war as cannon fodder they just overwhelmed the Germans. It wasn't that the Russians actually had a good army - the Americans write - they just had more 'stuff' and overwhelmed the Nazis. Overy's was the first book to really accuntuate that the Russians actually really learned - and learned well - the battlefield lessons the Germans had been doin go thtem the first 3y of the battle. Don't get me wrong - even the most right wing Cold War histories had the Russians learning somthing - but the after 1990 writers are giving the Russins mor credit.
But the Moscow counter attacks in December 1941 - Erickson has really given another view of @ least the capabilities of the Russain army early in the War. In Western books, it was always known that the final failed German attack on Moscow - and the Russian counteroffensive that followed - really fucked up the Nazis. But it wasn't so much the Russians that inflicted the defeat - rather it was always the WINTER and that the GERNMANS HAD TOO EXTENDED THEIR LINES - NOT that the Russians had a great deal to do with the GErman repulse and retreat. Erickson has it, however, that the innsessent Russain attacks - most of them bloated , uncoordianted, and badly run - were really the good trick in turning the Nazis back from Moscow and then gave Moscow breathing room. nOw, remember, Erickson was writing this volume in 1975 - the Cold War still on - but since he worked really well w/ the available sources - and many interviews w/. people who were involved - he's given me @ least a somewhat alternative version from what I've been reading since, say, October 1984.
S0 - I went into reading Overy and Erickson this year - and not, say 1984 - to recalibrate my views on that conflict. SO - hey, success. I'm still on it, too - and then the 700p second volume this summer.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
*= we have a friend who - when we were out - would go after women after women after woman. When he slipped into this mode, he was 'trolling' for women. "Up - first one don't gimmie no play / On to the next one!!" I'm not certain he knew his rep. He's exactly where he wants to be now, though - tied up good.
**= very obvious yes, but also read The Third Reich: A New History by Burleigh - my revies is somewhere in this mess of a blog.
I was trolling* for newish books that would give me new insights into the German Russian war, and I think Erickson has given me one!! Forever, we in America were taught that the Russians were totally incompetent through the whole war. This was a reflection of Cold War ideas - the former Nazis were now our allies, and our formenr allies the Russian now had to be vilified and made fun of. SO, we got a steady diet of postwar propaganda on how the Russian were evil and faceless automatons (wait, and the NAZIS WEREN'T??) and the Germans were - yes, evil , but also - plucky, outnumbered, fighting the REAL MODERN EVIL of TODAY = Communism, and often - wait for it - the Germans were the heros. Because of this, post war histories often treated the Gernmans as heroes and the Russians as the rotton ones. Certainly the Russians did a lot of evil - trust me, as an American reading about the war, there was all sorts of evil done and reported by them - but the Nazis were just about as bad as it gets**. So, almost every book I've ever read had it that the Germans should have put all of their mite against the Russians - instead of the Americans and English etc... - when they were trying to fite on two fronts. Because they didn't, writers blame them for the Iron Curtain - or @ least, the amount of territory behind the curtain.
But - Erickson - and whats new to me?? The effect of the Russinan counterattacks Decenber 1941- that's what. But first- to Western readers the Soviets were always portrayed as hopelessly inneffective - the only reason they won the war -v- the Nazis was that the Americans gave them so much aid and that the Russians had so many people fed into the war as cannon fodder they just overwhelmed the Germans. It wasn't that the Russians actually had a good army - the Americans write - they just had more 'stuff' and overwhelmed the Nazis. Overy's was the first book to really accuntuate that the Russians actually really learned - and learned well - the battlefield lessons the Germans had been doin go thtem the first 3y of the battle. Don't get me wrong - even the most right wing Cold War histories had the Russians learning somthing - but the after 1990 writers are giving the Russins mor credit.
But the Moscow counter attacks in December 1941 - Erickson has really given another view of @ least the capabilities of the Russain army early in the War. In Western books, it was always known that the final failed German attack on Moscow - and the Russian counteroffensive that followed - really fucked up the Nazis. But it wasn't so much the Russians that inflicted the defeat - rather it was always the WINTER and that the GERNMANS HAD TOO EXTENDED THEIR LINES - NOT that the Russians had a great deal to do with the GErman repulse and retreat. Erickson has it, however, that the innsessent Russain attacks - most of them bloated , uncoordianted, and badly run - were really the good trick in turning the Nazis back from Moscow and then gave Moscow breathing room. nOw, remember, Erickson was writing this volume in 1975 - the Cold War still on - but since he worked really well w/ the available sources - and many interviews w/. people who were involved - he's given me @ least a somewhat alternative version from what I've been reading since, say, October 1984.
S0 - I went into reading Overy and Erickson this year - and not, say 1984 - to recalibrate my views on that conflict. SO - hey, success. I'm still on it, too - and then the 700p second volume this summer.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
*= we have a friend who - when we were out - would go after women after women after woman. When he slipped into this mode, he was 'trolling' for women. "Up - first one don't gimmie no play / On to the next one!!" I'm not certain he knew his rep. He's exactly where he wants to be now, though - tied up good.
**= very obvious yes, but also read The Third Reich: A New History by Burleigh - my revies is somewhere in this mess of a blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment