Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Use of memoirs as a historical source, March 19, 2003
By A Customer
The memoirs, called 'reminenscences and reflections' is an odd kind of memoir. Written in 1969 post Krushchev - Zhukov has endured both political exile under Stalin to the Odessa Military District and by Krushchev who, like Stalin saw him as a potential threat, possessing both the military support and popular backing to oust Krushchev's faultering regime from power.Under both Krushchev and Stalin - Zhukov could do little but endure the maelstrom of histrorical criticism - made worse by the 'cult of personality' and myth that had built up around his actions. Historys under both regimes were re-written so as to exclude him entirely, don't mention his part in the defence of Moscow, and portray him as a incompetent meddler in the Battle of Berlin. Having used this source as my primary source in an A-Level history coursework to evaluate the memoir's historical usefullness. I have concluded that the memoirs do undoubtably give an interesting first hand account of events - accompanied by some very astute observation. However Zhukov omits as much as he includes (NB operation Mar's details are limited to a number of pages only), his answering of critics is selective, he passes the buck a lot and is typically no more usefull than the many other politically motivated memoirs of the Soviet Cold War Era. Firstly this isn't a pick up and read book - but if you are interested in Zhukov, it charts his life from a child, to October 1917 and throughout the course of WWII. However the memoirs should be analysed in reference to many other sources then it can be seen the controversies and debates that Zhukov vails in a shroud of supposed historical objectivity. The memoirs perhaps give as much an indication of the post-war historiographical debates as they do the events of the war. To be honest - unless one is studying Zhukov, Harrison.E.Salisbury provides a condensed and explained version of Zhukov's account which is a fascinating read should one wish to hear Zhukov's account - including explanantions of the many obscure references and remarks.
|
|
|
1 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
WW II's greatest general tells how he remembers it, September 1, 2003
By A Customer
There a couple drawbacks to this book. First, Zhukov grossly distorts the events of 1941-1942. He essentially reports that Germany did not dominate the Red Army at any point of the war. Second, there is the influence of the cold war. Because of the Soviet-US animosity that followed the WW II, Zhukov is obligated to twist his interpretation of the war and its events to downplay England and America's role. "It [America's contribution] did not amount to much"? Georgi Konstantinovich... True, the tanks we sent the USSR were not nearly as good as their own. The same could be said about most of the military equipment we sent them. President Truman's renouncement of a lot of FDR's Lend-Lease activities made us look bad also. But the truth remains that the Red army may well have starved to death if it weren't for western contributions. And Studebakers served their troops better than they EVER did our own populace. Zhukov is clearly at odds with what occurred because while we PAID for (a good deal of) the war, the Soviets FOUGHT (most of) it. It really exemplifies the blue collar vs. white collar struggle that the Cold War represented. Given the date of publication of this book (1960's), I can understand the disparaging statements Zhukov makes about the United States. He directly blames us for Vietnam (!!). By reporting things as such (clearly distorted and/or false), Zhukov argues from a position of inferiority. That is outrageous; it essentially downplays the Soviet Union's role (!!), which is very, very sad. This book is still outstanding, however. It is the testimony of the war's greatest general, and hence is invaluable.
|
|
|
1 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Zhukov is a great commander, March 16, 2004
By A Customer
While the US assistance to the Soviet Union was enourmous, the US has no moral obligation to even mention that assistance. Because if the Soviet Union avoided the war or was easily defeated, the US and its allies would get the most of the damage and it is not known whether US alone could beat Hitler.Secondly, the Soviet Union did not get the 20 bln. dollar reparations from Germany thanks to the US pressure. By doing so US straightened the USSR's financial obligation before the US and made them even. Zhukov is the greatest of all commanders and if he, and not Stalin, was the leader, Zhukov would have spared many more lives, especially, when taking Berlin and before the war, when the 3/4 of the officer corps was executed.
|
|
|
|
by Heinz Guderian
