Antony Beevor - any good?

[Sgt Joch]

Its hard to know the extent to which Germany was de-nazified after ww2.

The western Allies shut down their tribunals pretty quickly as the Cold War got under way. Many of the leaders of the postwar German armed forces until the 70s had served in ww2. Many U.S. scientists, like von Braun, had held key posts under the Nazis. On the whole, I don't think anyone was interested in digging too deeply into the background of our Cold War German allies.

The BBC produced a 6 hour documentary in the late 90s called "The Nazis" dealing with the rise and fall of the Nazis in Germany. I own the DVD. It is very interesting and includes a lot of previously unseen footage and raises some very interesting points.

The really interesting part though are the interviews of Germans who were in the 20s-30s during the war, some were soldiers, some worked in Government , some were ordinary citizens. Most of the interviews, based on the age of the participants, appeared to have been done in the mid-90s. Most of the interviewees, when pressed, still held Nazi views: Jews controlled the German economy, Jews were partly responsible for their fate, etc. Some of the interviewees had served on the eastern front and confirmed that some soldiers readily killed civilians.

My view is that de-Nazification in Germany occurred as the WW2 generation retired and died off. In Russia, the process only started 20 years ago and all the current leaders grew up in the USSR, so you can't compare the two.

[Nidan1]

A few years ago there was an exhibition here in Germany called 'Die Verbrechen der Wehrmacht' ('the crimes of the Wehrmacht').

Until then the general view on the Wehrmacht was that they 'just' did their job and weren't much involved in any war crimes. The SS and the Nazis were the main culprits.

They got a lot of media attention (unsurprisingly). They even had to pull it back for a while because they had labeled some photos wrong. But in the end it changed the view on the Wehrmacht (at least a bit) and took much of the glory out of it. The exhibition showed that the Wehrmacht was well aware of the crimes and took an active part.

No one goes unguilty out of a war.

I would be hard-pressed to believe that the Wehrmacht had no involvement in the atrocities committed in the SU during WW2.

Soldiers will blame their officers and officers will blame politicians. "befehl ist befehl" is a common refrain not exclusive to German soldiers.

Not many human beings IMO readily enjoy slaughtering their fellows, their are exceptions, but people accused of such things will often deny or point in another direction.

When war becomes total and all encompassing as did the conflict between Germany and Soviet Union, horrible things will happen. There were not a lot of like events in the ETO or earlier in North Africa, but if you read accounts of the battles between US and Japanese forces in the Pacific during the same time periods, there are similar feelings of hatred and total lack of compassion and respect among the combatants.

[Nidan1]

I found this volume, published in english with the help of David Glantz and others, written by a Soviet soldier.

With renewed interest, I have found many more memoirs by common Soviet soldiers, published in english, than I ever thought existed.

Glad I stumbled into this thread.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0700616055/ref=rdr_ext_sb_pi_sims_1#reader_0700616055

[Collingwood]

At least in terms of what the Western view of Stalin is. In Russia, the official line is that Stalin and his brutality were necessary because that was what it took to defeat Nazi Germany

...

...and in most (but not all) parts of Ukraine he's seen as responsible for genocide.

It was events before the war I was thinking of, the Ukraine in particular stands out. Was the brutality toward millions necessary during peace time - was that the only way forward ?

I think the problem facing anyone like myself (from 'the west') who grew up during the cold war is that much of what we were told about the USSR was heavily contaminated with political hyperbole.

It was good to see Grossman's 'A Writer at War' recommended. I've read 'Everything Flows' and was going to ask about it here.

[Collingwood]

Its hard to know the extent to which Germany was de-nazified after ww2.

...

My view is that de-Nazification in Germany occurred as the WW2 generation retired and died off. In Russia, the process only started 20 years ago and all the current leaders grew up in the USSR, so you can't compare the two.

I did nearly put an asterisk and footnote to 'de-nazification' saying "to what extent...." etc.

There no doubt remained unapologetic and committed Nazis (maybe not so many alive still now). My comparison is that there was a reckoning for post WW2 Germany, with very public scrutiny of what was done in the name of the regime. The nation went through much painful self examination. Not just for what they did to other nations, but to their own people.

A few years ago I read of a study that claimed over 50% of Russians (not other states) thought Stalin was a great leader. I found that startling, although I know studies can be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

[Bigduke6]

It was events before the war I was thinking of, the Ukraine in particular stands out. Was the brutality toward millions necessary during peace time - was that the only way forward ?

The answer to that pretty much depends on what possible realities you accept for the Soviet Union circa 1920s-1930s. The forced collectivizations were justified by the state as needed to break the class of citizens most resistant to Soviet rule, and to use agrarian resources to support massive industrialization. When the farm owners (I'm speaking generally) resisted, the state's response was not to negotiate or reduce its demands, but torque down on rural resisidents.

This had several effects: the resistance of rural residents wanting to hang onto their property was broken, practically all available rural resources (by and large food) was transferred to the cities and the industrialization drive, and the fiat of the Soviet state was established to be unchallengable. So, the argument goes, ten years later when the Germans invaded the Soviets had gone from a agricularural nation to an industrial power of the first order, and had in place a functional dictatorship respected (if not loved) by the strong majority of Soviet citizens.

Without industrial capacity and effective dictatorship, the standard explaination goes, the Soviet Union would have lost the war to the Germans, which would not just have destroyed the Soviet state, but reduced something like half the Soviet Union's citizens to a status of slaves, and probably subjected those people to genocide.

The means used to reach those ends, of course, caused the death by forced starvation of something between 3 and 10 million people; the heavy majority of whom were ethnic Ukrainians. It is still an open historical question whether Stalin wanted to wipe out the Ukrainians as a nation, or if he just didn't care what happened to them and had policy goals that led to their mass murder by forced starvation.

To decide whether those deaths were justifiable, you have to answer questions like "Was there another way for the Soviet Union to industrialize than by forced collectivization?" and "Could the Soviet Union's rural residents in its wealthy agricultural districts, the strong majority of whom were ethnic Ukrainians, have been coerced to cooperate with the Stalinist regime, without starving them into submission?"

Another good question is: "Was the man Josef Stalin capable of pushing policy goals by any other means except naked force or the threat of it?". This is a guy that won the power war inside the CPSU during the 1920s, defeating the likes of Trotsky in the process.

All these questions also assume that the continued existence of the Soviet state was a good thing, or at least, better than what the Germans planned to do with the territory and its peoples. There are varying opinions on all of that.

[Fenris]

A few years ago I read of a study that claimed over 50% of Russians (not other states) thought Stalin was a great leader. I found that startling, although I know studies can be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

Control of the information given to Russian citizens over the years may have done something to perpetuate that belief. Add to that, being the victors, those same citizens weren't put upon to perform any form of national introspection questioning what happened. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the overwhelming response was along the lines 'we won and (as long as it didn't impact my family) it doesn't matter how that was achieved'. But as mentioned earlier don't ask the Ukrainian's or those ethnic groups from down near the Caspian sea that were forced to move en masse to Siberia so they didn't get the idea to become rebels.

Interesting discussion.

Cheers

F

[nachinus]

Regarding the OP subject:

I really like Beevor, and I'm currently reading D-Day. I'm enjoying it, but as another poster pointed out, the subject is too broad (not only Overlord but all Normandy Campaign). So there is no detailed, deep, thorough reconstruction of combats, which I would've prefered.

My favourite Beevor book is Crete. Just because is a smaller scale operation, the details and reconstruction of events and characters are deeper. Plus is a really interesting operation, unique in the war. A little war in itself, caged in an Island.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

The forced collectivizations were justified by the state as needed to break the class of citizens most resistant to Soviet rule.

This is the key phrase, but for the state, read Stalin.

In the words of an old song: "It's not what you do but the way that you do it." Sure, Soviet agriculture was in urgent need of modernisation but it should be noted that the immediate effects of the collectivisation program was reduced output and a 50% reduction in the number of livestock. The peasants of course resisted and this was the most significant factor of all as resistance was seen by Stalin as far more important than trifling matters such as loss in production as his long and bloodstained history bears out.

Starvation was his chosen weapon and he engineered a man-made famine in the Ukraine by EXPORTING grain while the peasants who had farmed it were left without food. Millions died and this was in the Ukraine - the land of the black earth. Only a couple of days ago I was talking to a Ukranian lady in Yuzhnoye Butovo south of Moscow , half of whose family were lost as a result. Needless to say, Stalin is NOT one of her heroes.

Was it really necessary to murder millions of people to turn the Soviet Union from an agrarian to an industrial state? No, but as already stated, that was completely beside the point. The peasants revolted against Stalin therefore the peasants had to die.

Stalin's purges were to continue and almost resulted in complete downfall for both him and Russia. His perception that the Red Army was a source of resistance to him resulted in a purge where 30,000 soldiers were executed. This included nearly all of the Russian General Staff, highly professional soldiers, who were replaced by politically reliable party hacks. The process was completed just in time for the Germans to invade leaving the Red Army almost leaderless. The rest, as the saying goes, is history.

Russia and the Soviet Union have much to be proud of between 1941 and 1945. However their victory over Germany for reasons mentioned was much more bloody and protracted than it should have been. In my opinion, the victory was achieved IN SPITE of Stalin and not because of him. Stalin once said that a single death was a tragedy while a million deaths was a statistic. I beg to differ. A million deaths represents a million tragedies. Natasha would certainly agree.

SLR

[Spinoza]

This - http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/Germany/?view=usa&ci=9780195079036

and , I will say specifically this - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wehrmacht-History-Myth-Reality/dp/0674022130

for the sobering picture of the Wehrmacht soldier on the Eastern Front.

[Sgt Joch]

We are getting off topic, although the history of the Soviet Union after 1917 has always fascinated me.

You can blame Stalin for many things, but the real causes of the Ukrainian famine are still being debated. I always saw the causes as a combination of Soviet economic policies, natural factors and pure political powerplay.

During the civil war, the Reds let peasants take and farm their own plots. In the late 20s, Stalin brought in collective farms and everyone was obliged to participate. Those who refused were dealt with harshly. The switch to more "Statist" policies was done to consolidate Stalin's power in the Party. Trotsky had just finally been forced out and Stalin was still consolidating his support.

During the switch to collective farming, economic disruption naturally occured and food production suffered. At the same time, it appears the crop yield was poor for a few years. These problems caused a food shortage in major cities such as Moscow and Leningrad which were the political base of the Communists. The Communists "requisitioned" food from the rural areas to make sure the cities had enough. At the same time, it appears recalcitrant areas, like the Ukraine, were obliged to deliver up more food as "punishment".

All these factors lead to the famine. I dont think, although no one knows for sure, that Stalin deliberately set out to cause the famine, but once it occured, he had no problem using it for political purposes.

[Andrew H.]

Regarding the OP subject:

I really like Beevor, and I'm currently reading D-Day. I'm enjoying it, but as another poster pointed out, the subject is too broad (not only Overlord but all Normandy Campaign). So there is no detailed, deep, thorough reconstruction of combats, which I would've prefered.

I really like "Eisenhower's Lieutenants" for an overall strategic appreciation of the decisions that went into Overlord and beyond (like whether it would have made more sense for the US to be on the left and the UK on the right; and the reasons for choosing an attrition strategy).

But my eyes glaze over when history goes to the next level down, where the XXXV Corps is doing X, while the LV Corp is doing Y, and the XXXXI Panzer Corps is doing Z...meanwhile, CCB of the 395th is doing A. It just kind of all blurs together because I don't know enough about the various corps for them to be anything other than a list with little context.

An exception to this are most BotB histories, since the actions of platoons and companies really did have a huge effect in the first few days of the attack.

[Gamer58]

Beevor's writing and gewgaw mawkish stories and reasoning do not sit well with me. I would say that he is overrated. He for example thinks that McArthur is the most overrated commander in WWII simply because he disagreed with McArthur's strategy and methods. That's a nonsense assessment right there. So a country like China with ten times the population of Japan couldn't budge them an inch, and yet McArthur (with the Aussie generals) managed to GSD - ie win the war against Japan - the same war everyone thought would take 20 years to win - in 3 and a half years.

Beevor is an armchair critic, even if he was in the military.

[JonS]

Hmm. I think Nimitz &c. (and the Aussies) might disagree with that assessment.

[Michael Emrys]

If you really want to know about MacArthur, you might start with William Manchester's biography of him. The General was a complex man, to say the least. By which I mean that he did some things very well and some other things very badly. As far as winning the war goes, I think the Navy led by Nimitz gets the lion's share of the credit for that.

Michael

[Gamer58]

Of course Nimitz did a lot (more than Halsey) but it was also a ground war - MacArthur's decisions re New Guinea were actually useful, if expensive. The Aussie generals didnt always like his showy style - who did? - but agreed with the idea - NG was actually Aus. territory at the time. It is only the second largest island on earth after Greenland, and the IJA committed a lot to it, and lost in the region of 100-200K men there counting all the islands (New Britain etc). Operation Cartwheel was a success. Mac GSD! Beevor just sold books to people who want to be entertained.

Inchon was also brilliant. Time will only tell whether his call on nuking the Chikes when we had the chance was the right one.

Beevor is just another fart in the history of the world. MacArthur won a 20 year war in 4 years. Against a country twice the population of Germany and nearly as advanced. Beevors books add nothing to the subject IMHO. But I'm sure he sells a lot of them books. He reminds me of Niall Ferguson, pablum for the masses.

[JonS]

What are you talking about? Twice the population? Nearly as advanced? 20 years? Of course Nimitz did more - he was Halsey's boss! Where is this stuff coming from?

The Pacific was primarily a naval (and air) war, not a ground war. Sure there was ground fighting, but it was in support rather than the main action. Calling the Pacific a ground war would be like calling Normandy a naval war because most of the Allied forces arrived by ship.

The Aussies were highly peeved about the way they were being (mis)used in 1944-45 - shunted off to a nothing campaign for pointless objectives. "Useful, if expensive" isn't really a ringing endorsement.

I'm not a Beevor fan, but you're making no sense at all.

BTW, I think NG might be third after Australia and Greenland. Besides, NG might be big but only a very very tiny fraction of NG was militarily significant, or fought over (and the same is true of Greenland - sure, it's big, but ... who cares? :confused: ).

Time has already told regarding nuking China: 60 years later we can say, unreservedly, that MacArthur was wrong.

[Gamer58]

Absolutely not true. And even if it were true, it doesn't make Beevor correct about MacArthur.

There were many campaigns that people were peeved about. Iwo Jima. Tarawa. Peleliu. And as I recall the latter was ordered by Nimitz over the objections of Halsey.

Tarawa, we took it and then left. But the experience gained was invaluable for later missions. You say that that wasn't a ground campaign? Shaking my head at that. What did those Marines do? Shoot the IJA from starships? It was a ground war (yes with an amphib landing - it's an island sure). And the J command never thought it could be taken "by a million soldiers in a thousand years" - we proved them wrong and they lost confidence = shorter war. Iwo Jima was necessary because there were no other islands between Marianas and Japan for emergency stops. Peleliu was costly but protect Mac's flank in the drive to Manila. Intelligence was not used correctly, and the operation lasted a lot longer than we thought it would. Carthwheel, Mac's plan, was actually one of by passing strong points on the New Guinea coast - but permanent neutralization was key. The Aussies (and Marines, Army, Navy and the rest of the world) didn't like costly operations - who does? But Cartwheel was a success. Naval war you say? NG not significant? Milne Bay, Rabaul, Coral Sea, Lae and northern coast, which means bases, supply route, airfields - and it was allied territory (Aus and Dutch) - are you serious? Yes, expensive, all of it was and useful too.

The reality is that the navy didn't want to go anywhere that was not in range of land based bombers. The same land based bombers that brought Japan to its knees and won the war. You cannot fly a B29 off a carrier, try as you might. Unless you think that we should have gone ahead with Operation Downfall, which by the way is a land invasion - you still think you can take Tokyo using ships?

SMH. :confused:

And Inchon = masterful. Beevor = douchebag.

PS Wait another 20 - 50 years to see how the Chikes act before assessing whether Mac was right about using the H Bombs.

[JonS]

What is that line from Storm? "firing off cliches, with startling precision. Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition"

you still think you can take Tokyo using ships?

Can you take Tokyo without ships? Can the Japanese defend Tokyo without ships?

Oh, wait ... we already know the answers to all three of those questions;"yes, no, and of course not! Crack open a history book, dilly brain, and read up on 1945!"

edit: 20-50 years? WTF? That takes us to about a century after MacArthur's wrong headed bit of egomania. A century. In the last century Russia has gone from being a friend to an enemy to a friend to an enemy to a sort of friend to a sort of frenemy. Imagine if the US had nuked Russia in 1919, or 1939. Oops. In that same century Germany has gone from being an enemy to a thingy to an enemy again to a sort-of friend to a friend to an ally. France has gone from being a world leader to a world class joke. And, in that same century, the US has gone from an after thought on the edge of the civilized world to sort of important to irrelevant to really important, and is now on it's way back to being an afterthought on the edge of the civilized world. Over the span of a century countries change. A lot. Less than a century ago China was a really important ally. In less than a century from now I'll wager they'll be a really important ally again. Or, rather, you'll be a really important ally of theirs. Claiming that MacArthur was some sort of clairvoyant who could see 100 years into the future ... meh. That's just more bollocks to load into your magazine.

[Gamer58]

What is that line from Storm? "firing off cliches, with startling precision. Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition"

Can you take Tokyo without ships? Can the Japanese defend Tokyo without ships?

Oh, wait ... we already know the answers to all three of those questions;"yes, no, and of course not! Crack open a history book, dilly brain, and read up on 1945!"

Of course you can't do anything without ships if you are a country like Japan was/is dependent upon international trade/water/minerals/oil. Few countries can survive without imports, although the US and other continental countries like Aus could do better than most simply because of the vast tracts of farming land and fisheries.

The point is that people actually had to dig the IJA from their bunkers, and as see at Saipan, Guam, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other campaigns no amount of naval fire or air attack could do that (Okinawa had something like 2 weeks of bombardment). That means boots on the ground. Land based air won the war against Japan. Naval air/carriers/surface forces helped that happen but wasnt enough. The killing blows were all delivered by land based air attack - B17s and B29s.

edit: 20-50 years? WTF? That takes us to about a century after MacArthur's wrong headed bit of egomania. A century. In the last century Russia has gone from being a friend to an enemy to a friend to an enemy to a sort of friend to a sort of frenemy. Imagine if the US had nuked Russia in 1919, or 1939. Oops. In that same century Germany has gone from being an enemy to a thingy to an enemy again to a sort-of friend to a friend to an ally. France has gone from being a world leader to a world class joke. And, in that same century, the US has gone from an after thought on the edge of the civilized world to sort of important to irrelevant to really important, and is now on it's way back to being an afterthought on the edge of the civilized world. Over the span of a century countries change. A lot. Less than a century ago China was a really important ally. In less than a century from now I'll wager they'll be a really important ally again. Or, rather, you'll be a really important ally of theirs. Claiming that MacArthur was some sort of clairvoyant who could see 100 years into the future ... meh. That's just more bollocks to load into your magazine.

Russia isnt the same as the Chikes. Not at all. If you think that they are so well intentioned and that it's 'over' then why not go over there and work for the party. You need to understand that history timescales differ with a nation like that one.

And it's not even 20-50 years from now. I guess you missed this little story http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html

BTW, nice way to avoid my analysis of the island hopping. Mac GSD. Beevor can sell his books to grannys and armchair amateurs. But forgive me if I don't want to purchase his latest tome.

After all this thread is about Beevor. Beevor says MacArthur was an overrated leader. Beevor is British and it probably irks him that his empire is finished and he is living in a white trash ridden, poor, riot ridden country with no significance except for tourists who like old buildings and the Square Mile and that MacArthur comes from a country that GSD. MacArthur - and men on the ground - won the 20 year war in 4 years, whether you like it or not. MacArthur was an effective leader. We did win that war, didn't we?

Beevor is wrong.

[Gamer58]

Did I mention Inchon? MacArthur took Kimpo - by the way that is a land airbase - the most important one in the whole campaign - in two days. He took Seoul back too.

Beevor is massively wrong about MacArthur.

[John Kettler]

I highly recommend HSU Dmitry Loza's other book, FIGHTING FOR THE SOVIET MOTHERLAND, which is an amazing read. His combat career was diverse, making for a splendid time. Where else can you read of the Lend-Lease Matilda II in combat, including dismounted raids by the crew, operation as a barrier detachment, M4A2 ops in Austria and seeing BT-7s in August Storm, together with Shermans being towed up the Great Khinghan mountains by T-34s? Be it Shermans ice skating, the relative survivability of lying underneath a burning T-34 as opposed to a Sherman, even being in a tank which tips over?

STALINGRAD TO PILLAU is a wonderful read in a little covered subject area among us English readers. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the details right now! I do remember he was involved with the 76.2mm regimental short barreled gun. This is not to be confused

with the divisional 76.2mm ZIS-3.

Leonov's brutal BLOOD ON THE SHORE may be thought of as detailing the genesis of Naval Spetsnaz, and Leonov redefines tough. So tough was he that he merited an exceptionally colorful page about him here. The actions in the book cry out to be made into CM scenarios.

No kiddies at link, please.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/leonov.html

Am not sure quite what happened (server meltdown?) , but I believe both Battlefield.ru and IRemember.ru used to have a LOT more English content. Even so, the accounts and histories in what remains are marvelous.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Publius]

I've read some of Beevor's stuff and liked it. He puts a fresh enough take on subjects that have already been covered by the likes of Cornelius Ryan that his books are still interesting reads.

I am not familiar with Beevor's criticisms of MacArthur; however, I just finished David Halberstam's "The Coldest Winter" which just savages MacArthur and his staff not only for mismanaging the drive to the Yalu but also for the general culture surrounding his headquarters. I have never read a book more critical (so critical it came across as biased, even if well supported by the facts) of a military commander.

[LukeFF]

Naval air/carriers/surface forces helped that happen but wasnt enough. The killing blows were all delivered by land based air attack - B17s and B29s.

The Silent Service had a role as well, as I recall. Japan was entirely blockaded by 1945 in large part to their efforts.

[John Kettler]

LukeFF,

Don't know where that quote originated, but I know of NO B-17 attacks on Japan, for the very good reason the B-17 lacked the range. The bombers may've been flashy and were certainly hurtful in their attacks on Japanese cities, but the defeat of the Japanese was ultimately a mathematical certainty because of submarine warfare and the wholesale use of sea mines dropped by B-29s. That's what RAND concluded. Without food, fuel and other essentials the blockade denied them, the Japanese were doomed to an agonizing slow death.

Regards,

John Kettler