Product Description

Michael K. Jones's new history of Stalingrad offers a radical
reinterpretation of the most famous battle of the Second World War. His
compelling account combines eyewitness testimony of Red Army fighters with
fresh archive material to give a dramatic insight into the thinking of the
Russian command and the mood of the ordinary soldiers. He focuses on the
story of the Russian 62nd Army, which began the campaign in utter
demoralisation, yet turned the tables on the powerful German 6th Army which
Hitler claimed could storm the gates of heaven itself. As he recounts the
course of the battle and seeks to explain the Red Army's extraordinary
performance, the author uses a novel approach - battle psychology,
emphasising the vital role of leadership, morale and motivation in a
triumph that turned the course of the war.
Former deputy commander of the Warsaw Pact, Colonel-General Anatoly
Mereshko fought throughout the battle as staff officer to the 62nd Army's
commander, Chuikov. As one of the principal surviving witnesses to events,
he has worked extensively with the author. Much of Mereshko's testimony is
entirely new - and will astonish a western audience. It is backed up by
accounts of other key veterans and the recently released war diary and
combat journals of the 62nd Army. These show that the oft-repeated
descriptions of Stalingrad's two critical days of fighting - 14 September
1942, when the Germans broke into the city, and 14 October, when they
launched a massive attack on the factory district - disguise how desperate
the plight of the defenders really was. In their place is a far more
terrifying reality. Grasping this, we come to see Stalingrad as more than a
victory of successful tactics - rather, as an astounding, improbable
triumph of the human spirit.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #29690 in Books
• Published on: 2007-04-19
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 224 pages

From the Publisher
`Michael Jones' book...represents a milestone in the treatment
of the battle.... Jones is able to zero in on the psychological state of
Red Army combatants and successfully determine just what motivated them to
fight and endure as they did in such extreme circumstances....The result is
highly effective and utterly captivating. Previous accounts have been
unable to fully convey the desperate ferocity of the battle. Now we see it
in all its horror - and better understand the courage of Stalingrad's
defenders. This is the finest history of its type published to date.'

David M. Glantz, from the Foreword

Customer Reviews

Ground breaking new study
Few battles can have been so written about or, on the face of it, be as well known as the battle of Stalingrad. It is our ostensible familiarity with the events on the Volga in the autumn and winter of 1942 that makes this new book on the battle the more remarkable. Michael K. Jones, already recognised as one of the most innovative of current military historians from his work on the battles of Agincourt and Bosworth, had applied his fascination with `battle physcology' to understand how the Red Army overcame incredible odds to turn the tide of the war on the Eastern Front. The author has used new testimony from Red Army veterans, particularly Anatoly Mereshko, an officer on the staff of the Soviet commander, Chuikov, to draw a very different picture of the battle, one in which the position of the 62nd Army (the defenders of the city upon whom the battle concentrates) was even more desperate than has previously been thought. Jones' ability to cut through the Soviet rhetoric and bring out the authentic voice of Stalingrad's defenders, and what motivated them to perform acts of superhuman courage and determination, makes for compelling history. Key points in the battle - the defence of `Pavlov's House', the German assault of mid-October, and the development of the sniper movement among the defenders - are reinterpreted in the face of this new evidence. This is not just another book on Stalingrad: it rewrites the story of the battle and the picture that emerges is even more extraordinary than the one with which we are familiar. This is military history at its best: innovative, original and highly readable.

A staggeringly good read
This is a defining book that opens up a whole new way of considering that awful conflict in the East: From the individual Russian soldiers point of view, first hand, on the ground, from the source and without communist rhetoric or dubious translation. It is sure to become a classic.

Professor Richard Homes was once the master of telling the story of the ordinary soldier at war, the baton has clearly now been passed to Michael K Jones. Jones takes this type of narrative prose to an all new level having been able to obtain accounts from veterans whilst actually touring the battlefield with them and having access to both their private papers and actual contemporary combat records.

The book sets the scene for the overall conflict then comprehensively takes us through the battle detailing all the key events. The details of the 14 September and 14 October when the Red Army all but collapsed are chilling. The narrative is compulsive; Jones clearly knows the terrain like the back of his hand so that you get a real sense of being there. The pictures from the battlefield as it is today are somehow unnerving as they draw the whole story into reality. The book is not over long and wont be half read and left on a shelf.

Just how Jones managed to get access to so many veterans to tell their stories is a mystery to me. How do you get an ageing ex Deputy Commander of the Warsaw Pact or a revered War Poet to meet you and travel with you?

This book sets the standard and is a comprehensive work, I hope Jones will be able to bring his unique approach to the other major areas of the War in the East, hopefully this book will be the first in a series.

Any chance of Kharkov, Sevastopol or Leningrad?

A stirring account of what so many suffered and so few survived

At the outset, I feel obligated to acknowledge that I am unqualified to determine to what extent Michael J. Jones's and Antony Beevor's accounts of the Battle of Stalingrad are...and are not...accurate, nor have I read any of Beevor's books. The remarks that follow focus entirely on Jones's book and explain why I hold it in such high regard. Briefly, here are some facts that help to establish the context for the account that Jones provides. After Germany and the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 and advanced deep into Soviet territory, they suffered a series of defeats and failed in their drive to conquer Moscow. The United States had by then declared war on Germany and Hitler wanted to end the fighting on the Eastern Front or at least minimize it before the U.S. became deeply involved in the war in Europe.

Hitler was determined to invade and occupy Stalingrad because it was a major industrial city on the banks of the Volga River (a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and northern Russia) and its capture would secure the left flank of the German armies as they advanced into the Caucasus with large oil deposits, desperately needed by the German army. Also, the city bore the name of Hitler's nemesis, Joseph Stalin, and capturing it would be an ideological and propaganda coup. Stalin also had an ideological and propaganda interest in defending the city but there were severe constraints in terms of time and resources. The Red Army, at this stage of the war, was less capable of highly mobile operations than was the German Army. Stalin's strategy was to have his troops engage in combat inside the city, an area that could be dominated by short-range small firearms and artillery rather than armored and mechanized tactics. The Battle of Stalingrad began in August of 1942 and continued until February of 1943. Estimates vary but most military historians agree that the combined casualties were at least 1.5 million and probably more. Jones examines the 65-day period during which the German forces began their siege of Stalingrad and took the battle into the city until the Russians launched a counter-offensive that eventually trapped and destroyed the German Sixth Army and other forces around the city.

There are several reasons why I think so highly of his book. Here are two. First, I was fascinated by the leadership style of Lieutenant-General Vasily Chuikov, Commander of the 62nd Russian Army. As Chuikov later wrote, "The most important thing I learnt on the banks of the Volga was to be impatient of blueprints. We constantly looked for new methods of organizing and conducting battle, starting from the precise conditions in which we were fighting." According to Jones, "Making a stand in such terrible conditions required absolute ruthlessness. Chuikov demanded the utmost of his men, insisting that they hold their lines come what may. It was a pitiless edge of steel behind Stalingrad's defenders."

Jones also quotes Anatoly Mereshko, a 20-year-old lieutenant, who served on the HQ staff of the 62nd Army, working directly under Chuikov. According to Mereshko, "Yuri Bondarev, in his film Hot Snow, did not hide the fact that one of his heroes, General Bessenov, was almost an exact prototype of Chuikov. The words he used when necessary to stop the German advance are virtually the same: `I allow no right of withdrawal. Not a step back! The present lines must be held to the last man. For everyone, without exception, there can b only one justification for leaving their position - death.'" Whenever necessary, Chuikov, could be - and was - merciless. But eventually under his leadership, the Russian forces prevailed.

Having already seen the film Enemy at the Gates, I was especially interested in what Jones shares in Chapter Eight concerning "The Birth of `Sniperism.'" In the film, the Russian sniper (Vassili Zaitsev portrayed by Jude Law) becomes involved in what amounts to an on-going duel with his German counterpart (Major König portrayed by Ed Harris). Both in the film and in reality, the snipers are caught up in the Battle of Stalingrad but there are significant differences that Jones cites, notably Beevor's claim that Zaitsev originated "sniperism." Jones's research suggests that this "is a wonderful myth - but nevertheless propaganda rather than truth. Zaitsev was a skilful teacher [who served with distinction in the 1047th Regiment of Colonel Nikolai Batyuk's 284th Rifle Division, killing more than 200 German soldiers] but he did not initiate the sniper movement." Proper credit should be given to Alexander Kalentiev who served in the same regiment. Be that as it may, Jones provides a wealth of information about the "tough, self-reliant hunters" whose singular temperament and talents as snipers are juxtaposed with the massive forces of two great armies engaged in perhaps the bloodiest combat throughout the entire war.

When concluding his account, Jones quotes Mereshko's observation that "Stalingrad was a smithy for commanders and many of those who distinguished themselves in battle went on to lead armies in their own right." Today, many of those commanders are buried on the Mamaev Kurgan, the hill that dominated the battle for the city. Vasily Chuikov is buried there. "Somehow in the burning hell that was Stalingrad, Chuikov created an army able to withstand everything the Germans threw at it. Their heroic story has struggled hard to come to life, caught between the propagandist clichés of the communist state - insinuating everyone at Stalingrad was heroic, and that the city would never have fallen to the enemy - and Western cynicism, which believes that Red Army heroism was only created at the barrel of a gun. Neither suffices. This terrible fight took Chuikov and his troops to the very limits of human endurance, and their testimony, now finally recovered, possesses a universal significance and power." In November of 1942, on and around Mamaev Kurgan, approximately 300,000 soldiers of the Wehrmacht, Axis allies, and Hilfswilligers were encircled and destroyed in a massive Soviet counter attack.

Even after reading this book, I find it incomprehensible that any of the Russian forces who defended Stalingrad and any of their opponents survived 65 days of being in the "burning hell" until finally, Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst Paulus surrendered on January 31, 1943, a day after he was promoted to the rank of Generalfeldmarschall by Adolf Hitler. I am grateful to Michael K. Jones for helping me to understand and appreciate "the universal significance and power" of what so many suffered and so few survived.