Thunder on Dnepr: Zhukov-Stalin and the Defeat of Hitler's Blitzkrieg, by Bryan Fugate and Lev Dvoretsky.
Somewhat controversially, and quite persuasively, the authors make the case that Hitler had lost the war the minute he invaded Russia: and far from being unprepared the Soviet high command led Hitler into an elaborate, though costly, trap.
It's rare that you read a book that so effectively challenges orthodox history, but this one does it brilliantly.
If you are into big strategy, or alternative historical viewpoints, this is well recommended.
Thunder on the Dnepr
Moderator: Pirkka
-
Helmut Schegel
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:59 am
- Location: Burnopfield, Durham
Re: Thunder on the Dnepr
The first rule of Warfare is 'do not march on Moscow', Hitler had lost the war as soon as he attacked Russia, it did not require a machiavellian plan by the Soviets.
The Red Army had 5 million men under arms in June 1941 and a reserve army of 14 million behind them, that's what did for the Wehrmacht.
The Red Army had 5 million men under arms in June 1941 and a reserve army of 14 million behind them, that's what did for the Wehrmacht.
3 Kp./Jäger Regiment 83
" Regimenter sterben zehnmahl, aber es bleibt....das Regiment."
" Regimenter sterben zehnmahl, aber es bleibt....das Regiment."
Re: Thunder on the Dnepr
well, yes. stupid thing to attack. However history has it that stalin and co were grossly negligent in the initial stages. This book presents a very different picture. I don't know if the premise of this book is true or not, but it is a good thing to have different versions of history being written. Encourages one to make up ones own mind and not believe the daily mail!
-
Helmut Schegel
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:59 am
- Location: Burnopfield, Durham
Re: Thunder on the Dnepr
There is a thread of opinion amongst some Wehrmacht vets that the Stalingrad disaster was a carefully laid trap by the Red Army.
The evidence does not support that theory. There is also the argument that Barbarossa was a preemptive strike to forestall a Soviet attack, also nonsense.
Stalin expected an attack by Germany, but he was trying to buy more time, to enable the Red Army to complete its reorganisation. The forward positioning of the Red Army(often cited as evidence of an imminent attack), ws due to the doctrine that if Russia was attacked the Red Army would go over to an immediate offensive and the war would not be fought on Russian soil.
Despite warnings from the British and the Americans and his own spies, Stalin chose to treat them as 'provocations'(a German soldier who deserted to the Russians and warned them of the imminent attack was shot as an agent provocateur'),so the attack when it came was a complete surprise to the Red Army and Moscow's initial orders were not to return fire!
The trouble is, for historians the official Russian histories were written to present Stalin and the Party as being responsible for the victory. Western historian's access the raw records have been curtailed after a brief thaw in the '90s. They were turning over too many rocks!
The evidence does not support that theory. There is also the argument that Barbarossa was a preemptive strike to forestall a Soviet attack, also nonsense.
Stalin expected an attack by Germany, but he was trying to buy more time, to enable the Red Army to complete its reorganisation. The forward positioning of the Red Army(often cited as evidence of an imminent attack), ws due to the doctrine that if Russia was attacked the Red Army would go over to an immediate offensive and the war would not be fought on Russian soil.
Despite warnings from the British and the Americans and his own spies, Stalin chose to treat them as 'provocations'(a German soldier who deserted to the Russians and warned them of the imminent attack was shot as an agent provocateur'),so the attack when it came was a complete surprise to the Red Army and Moscow's initial orders were not to return fire!
The trouble is, for historians the official Russian histories were written to present Stalin and the Party as being responsible for the victory. Western historian's access the raw records have been curtailed after a brief thaw in the '90s. They were turning over too many rocks!
3 Kp./Jäger Regiment 83
" Regimenter sterben zehnmahl, aber es bleibt....das Regiment."
" Regimenter sterben zehnmahl, aber es bleibt....das Regiment."
Re: Thunder on the Dnepr
The rocks weren't just being turned over by westerners! A Russian friend of mine, who has researched the battles around Leningrad, told me about how, less than five years ago, the notes he made in the Russian Army archives were read carefully to make sure he was not portraying the Red Army 'in a non-laudatory light', which seemed to mean referring to any battle that the Soviets were not successful in.Helmut Schegel wrote:Western historian's access the raw records have been curtailed after a brief thaw in the '90s. They were turning over too many rocks!
I think I'm going to be long gone before the full story comes out.
