Customer Reviews

The Road to Berlin: Stalin`s War with Germany, Volume Two

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Before colonel Glantz started producing its fine string of books devoted to the Eastern Front, John Erickson's two volumes (this one and "The Road To Stalingrad") were THE source for anyone seriously interested in the topic. Also, professor Erickson had the incomparable merit to write using loads of (painfully) researched Russian sources,giving to his work far more balance than any earlier book on the Great Patriotic War (as WWII is known in Russia), that usually were inaccurate or awfully biased towards the German point of view. It's not by chance that the same col. Glantz (another rare bird as historian) always states that his own work is just an update of what Erickson did in the 70's and the 80's. Actually, "To Road to Stalingrad" & "The Road To Berlin" arent' particularly dated, and still convey not only the finest "big picture" of this titanic conflict (whose dimensions are often difficult if not impossible to grasp) but also a stream of invaluable details on the (near) death and unexpected resurrection of the Red Army (and the Soviet State) in its struggle against a ruthless, vicious and powerful enemy. Yes, there are no maps (a minor complaint, given the wealth of Historical Atlas available on the market) but in any case, if you're into the subject, this is the book to buy.

John Erickson, may he rest in peace, wrote a hisotrical work on the most savage war in the history of mankind in a way that has yet to be surpassed. When one looks at the war in the east from 1941-1945 all the other fronts of the war, except for China's struggle between Communist partisans led by Mao against the Japanese, look like trivial sorry excuses for war. D-day was nothing....a puff of dust, even the ferocious fighting in the Pacific pales in comparision with such titanic actions as Kursk, Operation Bagration, East Prussia, the firey assualt on Budapest. Erickson did not say this flat out but as you read it becomes quite apparent that the war was fought and won by the Russians. This very unconventional but compeling work beats anything Steven Ambrose wrote. Even the scientific battle analysis of david glanz does not come close to this masterwork. John Erickson, you were the best....

All written accounts of the war of the eastern front are exhaustive in detail, and tough to envision. By the sheer fact that the the soviet union was so vast, with seemingly hundreds of cities, towns, and villages. And a battle probably occured in almost every one. Well, at least in the western soviet union. And this book is no different. One cannot possibly memorize all of the actions led by all of the different soviet tank divisions, tank armies, tank corps, rifle armies, shock armies, cavalry divisions, artillery divisions, etc., without going mad. But the book does give you the bigger outcomes of these monstrous engagements in a well written, concise way. The complex political aspect of the forces behind the war are also examined. The only complaint i have is the gross lack of maps to trace the battles. At more than one occasion, i had to break out my atlas to see where the hell everything was happening. In conclusion, a well written, mostly unbiased account of the second half of the war in the east.

this is my favorite work on the great patriotic war. it is superior to alexander werths tome due to its meticulous detail and tough narrative.... This is the only book that shows the east prussia operation in all its ferocity.

The Road to Berlin and its sister book, the Road to Stalingrad, have sat on my bookshelves for 10 years under the "too difficult" heading. Only when I recently started travelling to Russia and saw the names of famous battles spread all over the map, was my interest reignited.

And after reading this marathon, with its twists and turns, the endless fighting (only a three month break in 4 years), I am full of awe for the beligerents : yet also of endless questions and "what ifs". When exactly did Germany lose its ability to win the ware and how did it ever intend to defeat Russia in the first place ? Having failed to lose, when did Russia overcome possible stalemate on the Ostwall and become the inexorable winner ? Could Churchill and Roosevelt secured a better post war settlement ?

The enormity of the campaign, described in a free flowing narrative exclusively from the Russian perspective, unfolds over the pages and makes real the menacing characters of Hitler or Stalin, always at the end of a phone to their commanders.

So after the last page, I am left wanting to see more of the places, to know more of the soldiers on the ground to understand more. Beware, this book will begin an obsession !

A very good acedemic study of the Russo German war of 1941-45 (2nd volume) exhaustive in detail and an intriguing study of the Red Amry command structure and decision making process. Only problem is the lack of detailed maps to illustrate some of the battles. Also a good reference on some of the political maneuvering that led to the iron curtain

If you are looking for a general overview or even a general military history of the Great Patriotic War, this is not for you. Erickson was writing for military professionals who are intimately familiar with the political and military course of the War in the East and who sought a then-groundbreaking synthesis of Soviet military records that Erickson gained access to in the 70s.

This means that the level of writing is both dry and technical. General Oublensky transfers several regiments to support General Borisov's front reserve formation. General Dimitriov decides to order an elevated alert level for rear area anti-air defense despite Stalin's directives to avoid provocation. General Bulgarov requests new models of paper clips to support bulkier document files in Third Shock Army's records center. Etcetera etcetera. Most readers who do not themselves do this for a living will not find this edifying. Even battles are described in mostly arid bland institutional language that could well have been used to describe how one branch of a cosmetics company sold more shampoo than a competitor did. Erickson is clear and complete, but offers little insight and less elegance.

Erickson also does not bother with biographies or background. If you don't know Zhukov's and Stalin's earlier lives or careers, you will not find them here. if you want to know about the history of the Soviet Army in the 20s and 30s, you will not find it here. If you do not know why the T-34 was better than the Panzer Mk IV, you will not learn that info here.

You also will not find virtually any maps. You will need a separate atlas, online research, or a photographic memory to figure out where the various actions described are occurring. Vol II has a few ugly poorly done maps, Vol I none at all.

Finally, Erickson has more or less adopted the institutional perspective of the archives he used and the view of his Soviet military hosts. Everything that went wrong with the Soviet Army was Stalin's fault, not the fault of the political or economic system underpinning that Army. Basically Khrushchev's view circa 1960, this perspective has seen more than a little criticism in recent decades.

So what was/is the big fuss about these books? Erickson was the first English language historian to be granted significant access to the Soviet military archives. The view he presents contradicts and corrects what was the standard Western view from the 50s to the 70s, which was that the Russians won through quantity, and / or that Germany was defeated mainly by Hitler's stupid mistakes and the Russian winter. Erickson (quite rightly) presents in his unglamorous tedious way an important contrary theory; mainly that the Soviet Army won by tactical and strategic excellence, by superior resource management, and by the competence and experience of its generals. This is undoubtedly closer to the truth than the defensive self-justifications for failure presented by German generals in their memoirs after the war that was the initial source of the Western view of the conflict. Truth is ultimately vital, and Erickson's efforts, flawed as they were, did more to reveal and propagate this significant historical truth than any works on the subject before or since.

By way of comparison, as we can all agree the Model T was a brilliant historical paradigm changer, few of us would want to drive around in one today. Same deal here. The research presented by Erickson has been assimilated, amplified, and synthesized with other sources by a more modern generation of historians. These successors are also generally more readable, provide better background material, and even have lots of maps. Those wishing a general history of the conflict can look to Overy's "Russia's War". A superlative military history of the conflict can be found in Glantz's "When Titans Clashed". And further access to the newest generation of Soviet records can be found in "Absolute War" by Chris Bellamy. All of these, especially Glantz, are both better written and offer a full synthesis of Erickson's material in less mind-numbing picayune detail. All of them provide better background and biographical info on key figures in the war. They all have better maps. And finally, they all focus on other more modern sources from German and SSR sources above and beyond the archives used by Erickson. They are all considerably briefer as well - Overy and Glantz clock in at less than 350 pages, and Bellamy is at about 800 pages.

Who need to read Erickson? Graduate students writing theses on related subjects, officers in training seeking in-depth analysis of staff and command systems in the Eastern theater, completists, insomniacs. Most other readers can bypass these weighty tomes and read the other surveys mentioned above. That option will take less time, will give a more complete "horizontal" picture of the conflict, and will have a lesser chance of boring you to sleep than these historically significant though clunky shelf holders.

Very good. Highly recommend to everyone who wants to know the truth. John Erickson is a true historian. Bravo!