Most Helpful Customer Reviews
46 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A very interesting story of the often-forgotten pivotal Battle of Moscow, October 2, 2007
For some time, the Battle of Moscow has been forgotten and at times disregarded by scholars and others who have argued that the Battle of Stalingrad was the key battle and turning point in the war against Nazi Germany. Andrew Nagorski has written a very interesting and highly accessible book on the months leading up to the near-takeover of Moscow by the Germans, the battle itself, and its aftermath and consequences, demonstrating that the Battle of Moscow was larger in scale than any other battle during the war and may have played an even greater role in the survival of the Soviet Union and the ultimate defeat of Hitler. "The Greatest Battle" is highly enjoyable because it focuses not just on military minutiae, but because it also draws a fabulously rich and detailed picture of the horrors of the Nazi invasion of Russia, the battles leading up to Moscow, and the senseless death and destruction wrought not just by Hitler but also by Josef Stalin, who, as Nagorski takes pains to show, played a key role in the deaths of millions of Russians because of his cruelty and military/strategic negligence.
Nagorski does a great job by weaving in personal stories from various Russian soldiers, workers, doctors, would-by-spies, and others who are still alive and took part in the Battle of Moscow and other events surrounding the June 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. These vivid accounts that Nagorski unearthed for the first time add rich detail and help establish the incredible magnitude of destruction of the Battle of Moscow. I for one, had no idea that there were millions of casualties in the Battle of Moscow, far surpassing Kurst, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, for example.
Beyond that, Nagorski does well to establish that the Battle of Moscow has often been disregarded, particularly in Russia, because it is filled with many unseemly chapters and stories that Stalin and his successors never wanted to come to light: namely, that Moscow was gripped by complete panic and mass exodus as the Germans closed in, that nearly everyone believed Hitler's capture of the capital city was inevitable, and that Stalin himself was to blame for the Germans' lightning quick advance across Russia from June to October 1941. Indeed, because Stalin had purged many of the nation's great military leaders prior to the war, the army had no real leadership when Germany invaded, leading to early Nazi routs and the near-collapse of Russia in 1941. Nagorski contends that on many levels, Stalin's brutality against his own people was no worse than Hitler's cruelty, but that in the end Russia survived in large part because the Soviets who initially welcomed the Germans as liberators in hopes that Hitler would oust Stalin, quickly turned on the invaders when it became apparent that the Nazis were no better than Stalin's thugs. Indeed, the Russian victory at Moscow thus does not fit neatly within the accepted framework of the Great Patriotic War, as it was incredibly ugly, destructive on an almost unimaginable scale, and won despite the criminal recklessness by Stalin.
"The Greatest Battle" does not give the author's opinion as to whether or not a German victory at Moscow would have ensured that Hitler would have won the war. He does note, however, that besides the massive industrial and strategic rewards Moscow would have provided to Hitler, more than anything else the capture of the Soviet capital would have been a devastating psychological blow to the Soviets. Further, Nagorski does a good job analyzing how Hitler's late invasion of Russia and stalled drive on Moscow -- William L. Shirer labeled the former Hitler's greatest blunder -- contributed heavily to the Nazis' eventual defeat on the outskirts of the capital and in the war itself
If nothing else, "The Greatest Battle" is a great tale of one of the key battles that turned the tide against Hitler, and is much more readable than other excellent studies of the Russian-German war, such John Erickson's "The Road to Stalingrad: Stalin's War With Germany", and R.H.S. Stolfi's "Hitler's Panzers East" (a very good examination of the Battle of Moscow written mostly from the German perspective). It delves into rare, vivid personal accounts of the Battle itself which are invaluable and fascinating (such as how Stalin ordered the evacuation of Lenin's body from Moscow as the Germans closed ub, the great and then-ignored work of Russian master spy Richard Sorge who may have single-handedly saved Russia in 1941 with his intelligence reports, and other superb nuggets), and gives a great appreciation of the terrible scale of the Nazi invasion of Russia and how Stalin's monstrous leadership just barely let Russia escape being conquered by Hitler. "The Greatest Battle" is a quick read, and even casual students of World War II should enjoy it.
Four stars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
77 of 83 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Moscow is a city that has much suffering ahead of it", September 28, 2007
Anton Chekhov was certainly prophetic when he wrote that line, perhaps no more so than in connection with the titanic clash between the USSR's Red Army and Germany's Wehrmacht in the opening months of the war on the east front in 1941/1942. Andrew Nagorski's "The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle for Moscow that Changed the Course of World War II" is a compelling, well-written examination of an epic and bloody battle for survival.
Winston Churchill once wrote that "history is written by the victors". Nagorski takes the view here that sometimes history also is not written by the victors when that history doesn't serve the victor's purposes. At the outset of the "Greatest Battle" Nagorski points out that while much has been written of the battles of Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Kursk for example the battle that ended on the outskirts of Moscow has been subjected to far less scrutiny by historians. Nagorski suggests that a primary reason why Moscow has received less historical scrutiny is the fact that the victor, in this case Stalin's USSR, had little to gain by promoting a battle that would cast Stalin in a less favorable light than Stalingrad or Kursk. Documents locked in NKVD/KGB archives stayed locked well past Stalin's regime. However, since the fall of the USSR a great amount of previously uncovered records has led both Russian and western historians to take a new look at the battle for Moscow.
Nagorski has done an excellent job here in amassing a tremendous amount of research material and presenting it in a way that can be appreciated by readers with either a general or specific interest in the subject matter. One of the great strengths of the book is Nagorski's wide-ranging approach to the battle. He does not rely on the old chestnut that it was simply the winter that stopped Hitler's armies. Rather, Nagorski spends a good deal of time (productively) setting out a whole range of interconnected decisions that had an impact of the course of the battle. For example, we see how Stalin's horrific purge of the Red Army in 1937 and the army's disastrous campaign in the Russo-Finnish war helped lead Hitler to conclude that a war in the east would be nasty, brutal, short and victorious. At the same time Nagorski points out how a good showing by the USSR's soldiers against Japan in Mongolia in 1939, led by Georgy Zhukov, was most likely a factor in Japan's decision not to support the German invasion by attacking Russia in the east. This decision allowed the USSR to rush 250,000 Red Army soldiers from Siberia, equipped with winter clothing, to join in the defense of Moscow. As Nagorski points out their arrival was critical to successful defense of Moscow.
Nagorski also does a good job of weaving individual stories into his `big-picture' narrative. This adds a bit of real flavor to the story he is telling and also avoids the trap of writing solely from the actions of the large players on the stage. I would note, however, that "Greatest Battle" is not really what I would call a military history. You won't see an order of battle or a narrative detailing military strategy. This is not a criticism as much as it is a notice to readers that this is an excellent general overview of the first seven months of the war in the east and was not intended to be a military treatise in the style of the incomparable David Glantz.
Last, there are three books that would serve as an excellent complement to "Greatest Battle". Nagorski makes favorable mention of the writing of Vasily Grossman a wonderful journalist and writer. His book Life and Fate (New York Review Books Classics)is a classic account of the great war as any I have read. Grossman's war reporting for the Red Army newspaper is mentioned by Nagorski often and can be found in - A Writer at War: A Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945. Last, Nagorski did an excellent job in connecting the fateful decisions made by Hitler, Stalin, and others. Ian Kershaw's Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World, 1940-1941really compelements what Nagorski has done so admirably in his Greatest Battle.
Highly recommended. L. Fleisig
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
23 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Yes, But Where's the Battle?, February 13, 2008
The book would be better titled, "The political background to the greatest battle." With its actual title, you expect to learn of the movement of divisions and street-to-street fighting, but the author spends more time on Stalin's dacha's water pipe leaks, secret police machinations, and the preservation of Lenin's body. He's good at describing the mindless terror that Stalin perpetuated on his own people, but the book is terribly mis-titled and misleading in its promotion. There are interesting details about the desperate provisions of the Russian strategy to save the city, and of Stalin's foolish refusals to believe that Hitler would attack him in the first place. But, as a saga of battles for great cities, the book can't begin to compare with the likes of "The 900 Days" about the siege of Leningrad, just as one example. It's an average read, not outstanding, and not what you'd think you'd be reading about.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
