Ivans vs. Heinrichs
… Nazis and commies killing each other, hard to know which side to cheer for.* As the troll known as Alphie liked to observe at this site,** the Russkies did yeoman’s work as the prime meatgrinder of World War II, chewing up the Germans and themselves in the process. Contrary to the lefty story line, this was not some altruistic self-sacrifice on the part of massed Ivans, however. A new book out tomorrow, Chris Bellamy’s “Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War” (Knopf) aims to be the definitive history of the Great Patriotic War.
That’s the war the United States, Britain and others fought around the edges of, according to this account, although Bellamy notes Stalin couldn’t have done it without either the material assistance and the military pressure applied by the Allies. I’d go a little farther and suggest that without the United States, you’d still have the Wehrmacht in western Europe and the Japanese Imperial Army in much of Asia, but that’s getting a little off topic. Bellamy documents how closely – again, not due to any Soviet altruism — the United States and Britain avoided the fate of fighting a quadpartite Axis — Germany, Japan, Italy and the Soviet Union — or a tripartite Axis with the USSR sitting it out, either of which would have dramatically changed the shape of World War II. And probably would also mean that a lot of us, like those missing Russians, wouldn’t be here to talk about it.
I picked “Absolute War” up off the review pile at work a few days ago. I’m 138 pages into nearly 700 pages, and a shot hasn’t been fired yet, as Bellamy recognizes war history ultimately is as much about what happened before and after as during.
So far, details on how many Russians are missing today as a result of that war … he places it around 48 million dead and unborn as of 1950, demonstrates periodic generational birth shortfalls that can be attributed to the war, and observes the Soviet war experience not only shaped and motivated the Russian/Soviet nation post-war but also sharply limited it.
A great deal on Stalin’s ”cruel romance” with Hitler, 1939-41, as the two adversaries made nice with their fingers crossed, positioning themselves for war as they divided up eastern Europe. With access to briefly available Soviet archives, he lays out a lot of the private documentation of what public history immediately made obvious at the time. Stalin’s accommodation with Hitler was a cynical land grab that had the benefit of buying of time, and Hitler for better or worse jumped before Stalin had a chance to. He also documents Stalin’s collaboration as Russia supplied wheat and vital war resources to Germany during that two-year period that marked the fall of western Europe and the Battle of Britain, in exchange for weapons, technology and expertise. Bellamy examines the controversial theory that Stalin was on the verge of attacking in the summer of 1941 when Hitler beat him to it by a matter of days, but decides that while the possibility can’t be entirely dismissed, he doesn’t buy it.
It’s a great read. Shortcomings: Bellamy is no Beevor, and falls short of painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in quite the way Beevor does in his magnificent “Berlin: The Downfall 1945.” Granted, Beevor is dealing with a considerably shorter timespan in his 431 pages, in which he heavily relies on tight-focus first-person accounts in addition to higher level and big picture views. Bellamy, more interested in the higher-level machinations, thus far makes only sharply limited forays into ground-level accounts, and his 687-page tome would be improved by more scene-setting of the sort. Also, Bellamy’s periodic snide asides about the Iraq war are gratuitous and add nothing to anyone’s understanding of either Iraq or Russian war history.
Here’s more on Bellamy, former artillery officer, war correspondent, scholar. Iraq war jabs aside, I have no idea whether there is a political slant here. A quick google search did not turn it up, and his own scholarship suggests he is quite accommodating toward views he ultimately doesn’t agree with.
Some other Russian front reading, in addition to Beevor’s must-read. Your suggestions invited in comments:
“Thunder on the Dnepr: Zhukov-Stalin and the Defeat of Hitler’s Blitzkrieg,” Fugate and Dvoretsky, Presidio 1997. Favorably reviewed work by the somewhat controversial Fugate and a former Soviet officer also dives deep into Soviet records, suggests Germany’s debacle was not simply a matter of overreach into Mother Russia, Zhukov and Stalin knew what they were doing.
“The Forgotten Soldier,” Guy Sajer, Potomac Books. There’s a long debate about whether this is fiction or memoir. Either way, a magnificent book by someone who appears to know what he’s talking about. Starting with:
A day came when I should have died, and after that nothing seemed very important
So I have stayed as I am, without regret, separated from the normal human condition.
More artful French existentialism, or someone who’s been there, done that? You decide. An American survivor of a day like that who’s a friend of mine liked it enough to make it the lead-off quote in his own memoir. Meanwhile, enjoy the horrific, endless waves of Ivans.
* Historical essay question for today: Who’s worse, Nazis or Soviets? I’m not sure there’s a good answer. On the Nazi side of the ledger, there is the premeditated execution of the Holocaust and a war that killed more than 60 million people. On the Soviet side, there is Stalin’s own mass murder and genocide, which Bellamy touches on, before you even get to the cynical role Stalin played in engineering World War II. Both Hitler and Stalin are responsible for the murder of millions of innocents, on and off the battlefield. Neither Hitler nor Stalin did this by themselves. Once the Nazis were dispensed with, Stalin, his heirs, the nation they led and others they supported continued on a murderous path toward world domination that led to the deaths of millions more before they were ultimately thwarted. Then, there is the trauma suffered by millions of others and economic damage that continue to this day.
** before Alphie got cut off for being rude to the other guests.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:37 am on Friday, November 2, 2007
6 Responses to “Ivans vs. Heinrichs”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
I do need a good read for the upcoming winter. Mayhaps I’ll order this!
Of more immediate relevancy……there’s no question that the original Soviet-Nazi “non-aggression” pact was just an expression of mutual cynicism. Heck, I recall polticial cartoons from 1939 pointing out the not-so-minor discrepancies of that agreement.
Of course, those worshipping at the alter of their fallen god, the thankfully former Soviet Union, won’t see it that way. I suppose that fantasies do have a way of comforting the mentally ill.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
If you are interested in the details of the military operations, the best authority is David Glantz who has a series of books on the subject of the details of Soviet military operations. His “When Titans Clashed” discussed the overall question of how the Soviets defeated the Germans, other titles that drill down to specific operations and campaigns include “Zhukov’s Greatest Defeat”, “The Battle for Leningrad” and many more.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
The Nazi Soviet Pact was more than just a cynical ploy for time by Stalin, it was also a virtual colloboration with Hitler by Stalin. Not just the concession of Poland to Germany but far more key was that under the Pact the Soviet Union supplied enormous quantities of key resources that Germany could not obtain or had in short supply during the first two years of the war.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
True enough, spqrzilla, but even Stalin had to realize that, sooner or later, the two biggest kids on the block were going to fight. I doubt that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler in 1942, but I have no doubt that he planned to do so down the road.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Thanks SPQR, that’s in there in detail as well.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
I don’t know. Stalin kept hinting to Hitler that he wanted to join the Tripartite Pact, a pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan supposedly aimed at the USSR. Hitler never responded, of course, but there is every reason to think that Stalin envisaged a long period of cooperation or even alliance between Nazi Germany and the USSR. It’s ironic that the only man Stalin ever trusted was Hitler.