Rating: 
Summary: [not so good]
Review: biased and full of historical mistakes.Its a shame because I found Stalingrad to be such a great work. Beevor has lost his touch and had to follow this piece of junk up with something very good if he wants to save his career. check out john erickson's works which are much more pro-soviet but is acurately based on hard fact and have a compelling narrative.
Rating: 
Summary: A title that matches it's content
Review: Even though the atrocities of the book seem to have been highlighted by critics and other reviewers of this book. The main theme and content of this books is more-or-less the events leading to and surrounding the fall of Berlin. Army movements and actions as well as the actions and correspondents of what generals/top officials were saying and doing are, for the most part, the bulk of the book. The atrocities are put in there because the author tries to give an accurate picture as possible surrounding the fall of Berlin without toning down his language regardless of politics or of unforseen criticism. This isn't a book soley about atrocities (in fact, many atrocities that I found on the web as well as in TV documentaries are not even mentioned in here). Just some atrocities are mentioned to give a rough picture of what happened without making the book too long or lengthy to handle. Those people that like pictures and maps might be a little dissapointed in this book since there are comparatively few of these as compared to other books of this genre (although there are still a couple of photographs).
Rating:
Summary: Riveting History
Review: The Fall of Berlin by Antony Beevor is a riveting history of the end of the Second World War. Beevor does an excellent job of describing the troop movements and deployments that led to the fall of Berlin as well as the final destruction of the Nazi Army. If for no other reason the book is worthwhile.However, as important as the strict military history is, the heart of the book is the political and human side of the equation. What becomes clear is that the difference between Stalin and Hitler was slight at best; both were willing to sacrifice whoever was needed to achieve their personal goals. This is not to say that Stalin motive for the mass murder of his enemies was racial, but millions died none the less. However, as military leaders, Stalin, after the disaster of the invasion, learned that he had to defer to his generals. Hitler, thankfully never learned that lesson. There were also similiarities between the two armies. While not on the same scale as the Germans, the Russian Army was no benign conqueror. The needless destruction, looting, murder and rape would have made the army of Genghis Khan proud. At times one is forced to hope that both sides lose. Contrary to some of the other reviews, Beevor is simply not being anti Russian. His history of Stalingrad, which is also excellent, makes that clear. He also goes a long way to explain that the average Russian soldier was conditioned by the wanton destruction visited on thier homeland and the Russian people by the Nazis. It is not hard to understand the thurst for revenge, but as Beevor points out, this does not explain the rape of women who were taken from Russia as slave labor. This book is a worthwile read and it is highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Berlin, from the east.
Review: The book nearly seems suspended in mid air, starting as it does at the close of a long-evolving, complex story. I found it readable and entertaining, with ample research and little bias detectable on the part of the author (to be more honest, I'd have to call his mildly pro-Yank view refreshing). I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me that the story is about 80% Soviet; the French, Brits, Americans & even the Germans are relegated to supporting roles in this story. Clearly, the Russians (i.e. Stalin) knew that getting to Berlin first would be their best defense in claiming it as a base for the post-WWII Europe they hoped to master. I read the book as a last chapter in my review of WWII. Instead, it should be read as the opening work on the Cold War.
Rating: 
Summary: Gotterdammerung of the Reich
Review: This is an excellent book written about the last several months of WW II, with the emphasis on the Eastern Front and the Red Army assault on Berlin. From the author of "Stalingrad", which I found also well-written, I expected no less, and he did not disappoint. As usual, there is the broad tactical sweep of the battles, with the names and numbers of units going by so quickly that sometimes the eyes glaze. Intersperced, however, are the small, personal stories of the combatants, and the civilians, on both sides. We also look in on the chaos and make-believe world of the Fuehrerbunker, with its own version of reality while the world around it was crumbling. There are many excellent books on this most devastating war, and this one deserves to rank up with the best of them.
Rating:
Summary: Those mean ol' Russkis
Review: Those mean ol' Russkis sure gave those poor Germans a hard time at the end of WW2. They were also devious political adversaries to those earnest and forthright Western Allies. And finally they fought dirty and actually killed their own men sometmes during a battle! There- I just summarized this book for those who don't want to waste their time. No credit at all is given to the Red Army or Joe Stalin for destroying the Wehrmacht and winning the ground war in Europe. Stalin is a caricature like Dr Evil who secretly fights the Battle of Berlin to gain atomic secrets and foil the good guys (us). Those poor Germans are noble victims of the bumbling yet viscious Mongol-like invaders from the East. A book like this on D-Day would be 10% about the actual battle and 90% a diatribe about rascism in the US Army, the hideous officer/enlisted caste system, the squandering of lives during Operation Tiger, the high proportion of deaths caused by "friendly fire", the bungled landings on Omaha and on and on. The reader would get the impression that D-Day was a failure. So it is with this book and the Battle of Berlin.
Rating:
Summary: A HARROWING ACCOUNT OF A TRAGEDY
Review: "Few things reveal more about political leaders and their systems than the manner of their downfall," states military historian Beevor (Stalingrad, not reviewed, etc.), a sturdy thesis abundantly supported in his chronicle of the Third Reich's last days. Beevor musters a powerful array of evidence: documents, diaries, interviews, books in English, German, and Russian. He begins this riveting account during Christmas 1944. Berlin, experiencing round-the-clock bombing from American and RAF crews, was a city in ruin. Its leaders were hunkered down in bunkers, its people reduced to the most severe austerity. Beevor focuses much of his attention on the Soviets advancing from the east-after all, they were the first to enter the city-but moves easily from their forces to the Allied camps in the west to the Nazis. Along the way, he displays a dazzling command of fact and facility with detail, describing in one incredible sentence the motley Soviet forces advancing in tanks, on horseback, and in Lend-Lease Studebakers and Dodges. Beevor notes that the Soviets were interested not just in defeating but in harshly punishing the Nazis for their ferocious invasion of Russia four years earlier; they wanted, as well, to capture and whisk back to Moscow those German nuclear scientists and rocket experts who might help the USSR close the atomic-bomb gap. Terror was perpetrated by all the war's participants, the author reminds us. He describes the Danzig Anatomical Medical Institute at which Nazi technicians made soap and leather from human beings, the liberation of Auschwitz, widespread looting and destruction by the advancing Americans, and-in compelling and excruciating detail-the brutal rape of tens of thousands of German women and girls by the Soviets. Nor does he neglect a thoughtful examination of the author of it all, Adolf Hitler, whose mad refusal to surrender cost countless lives on all sides. Richly detailed, gracefully written: a wrenching reminder that evil wears a human face. (16 maps, 49 b&w illustrations, not seen)
Rating:
Summary: A good book about the Battle of Berlin
Review: This battle just fascinates me to no end. Some 75,000 German soldiers, policemen, and Hitler Youth attempt to hold off over 1-million Soviet soldiers. I was originally turned on to the subject by a book called "Tale of a German Sniper." It's also quite good.
Rating: 
Summary: Sloooooooow
Review: I guess mine is a minority opinion, but I found this book very slow going, often just plain dull. Certainly the fault is not in the story, which is of abiding interest. But Beevor just failed to ignite in me the excitement that these events merit. Inevitably I compared it to John Toland's "The Last 100 Days," which treats the same period in a much more lively way (though out of date in its research). Perhaps it's the division of my interest among too many characters, some of whom (the Russians primarily) are not portrayed very vividly. Maybe it's just too many battles and not enough human interest. But as I said, mine seems to be the minority view.
Rating:
Summary: Sprechen Du Russki?
Review: 'The Fall of Berlin 1945' by A. Beevor suffers from two major maladies: an absence of thorough editing and proofreading attention complicated by an infection of overzealous German sympathizing tendencies. First, a few examples of the former. Misspelled Russian names abound--Kovakchuk instead of Kovalchuk (p. 170); Tsynbaluk instead of Tsymbaluk (p. 244); Kovaleski instead of Kovalevski (p. 306). East-West and eastward-westward are transposed (pp. 16, 256, 258-259, 328). The author demonstrates an inability to combine text fragments borrowed from diverse sources. Take, for example, the paragraph that begins "The fortunes of war still favored . . ." (bottom of p. 238). What have dirty weapons to do with the rest of that paragraph? Another lapse: Soviet Ambassador V. Dekanozov returned to the embassy just after dawn on 22 June 1941, not 1942, as the author states (p. 304). Finally (sadly not least), a bibliographic snafu: Nikolai Vasiliev is listed twice--initially under his first name (p. 471), then under his surname (p. 474). Taken individually, perhaps, these errors could slide under the editorial radar as "minor" oversights. Collectively, however, they bespeak gross journalistic and historical neglect. So much for accuracy. The book's more damaging weakness lies with Herr Beevor's flagrantly biased German sympathizing. (No, not Nazi sympathizing, Gott behüte!) Clearly the book is written from the German point of view. In a (token?) nod to journalistic balance, perhaps, the author mentions atrocities committed by SS and Wehrmacht on occupied Soviet territories. But wait, read more carefully: The SS "liberated" a town "occupied by" the Red Army. Katyusha strike was "akin to shooting hostages in response to a partisan attack" (p. 321)--excuse me? Here's another bit of objectivity that missed its mark: French POWs were "reluctant to work" and were "escaping their camps, usually to visit German women" (p. 179). (Those Frenchmen, what one can expect!) It gets better: Zhukov didn't care about Hitler's birthday (p. 255). Why should he--to send a postcard? And better (or worse): Who cares what dress Eva Braun was wearing or whether Adolf gave her a big sloppy kiss? Coincidentally (??!) all German names are spelled correctly. Dankeschön! Unfortunately, it seems Mr. Beevor failed to do what his beloved Germans call Quellenkritik (that is, criticizing the source). Take the above-cited passage about the French prisoners. It sure sounds like somebody's personal opinion, spell that s-t-e-r-e-o-t-y-p-e. (Frenchmen are lazy and think of nothing but you-know-what.) By invoking such a prejudiced view, the author further casts his bias into sordid relief. Does he really believe such allegations? Does he have evidence to support such rumors (police reports, for example)? Even if true, why should French prisoners work enthusiastically for their captors? The author's compassion seems clearly aligned with those courageous and virtuous Frenchmen from the "Charlemagne" SS division. Here we have true representatives of the Arian race, indeed! No doubt Communism should have been stopped . . . but with SS?! Sadly, the author appears overdosed on Zhukov's "memoirs," and, consequently, overrates his popularity after the war. In another anti-Russian diatribe, Mr. Beevor obsesses over looting and rape committed by the Red Army. Indeed, Soviet soldiers were no knights in shining armor. But then, neither were American, British and French soldiers. (Only once does he allude to looting Americans.) Were no German women raped in the West part of Germany? (Haven't you heard about the incidents of NATO-led peace force soldiers in Kosovo accused of rape?) On the other hand, what gave Americans cause for revenge in 1945? Germany neither invaded the United States nor bombed Washington, D.C. But, again, what about the Brits and the French? Overall diagnosis of 'The Fall of Berlin'? It's not the work of a historian but, rather, the misbred product of a biased journalist. The whole book could be summarized by its single quote: "My God!" said a companion of Kee [the British POW]. "I'll forgive the Russians absolutely anything they do to this country when they arrive. Absolutely anything" (pp. 41-42).
|
