- helpful votes
- Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945
- By: John Mosier
- Narrated by: Michael Prichard
- Length: 12 hrs and 50 mins
John Mosier presents a revisionist retelling of the war on the Eastern Front. The conventional wisdom is that Hitler was mad to think he could defeat the USSR, because of its vast size and population, and that the Battle of Stalingrad marked the turning point of the war. Neither statement is accurate, says Mosier; Hitler came very close to winning outright.
The tone grows wearisome after a few chapters
- By neilium on 04-24-13
Speaking the un-speakable
This book finally addresses the nagging logical questions that any amateur eastern front historian has been too embarrassed to ask. First – would the fall of Moscow really been the end to Soviet resistance? John Mosier answer is clear, logical and I my opinion correct. The Soviets would not have simply given up if Panzers were parked in the Kremlin. He also correctly asserts that Hitler’s decision to not take Moscow off the march in August/September was the strategically correct one based on the larger economic considerations and military dispositions of the Soviet Armed Forces at the time. He ties the failure to finish off the Soviets at that time was the lack of a strategic bomber in the Luftwaffe. He believes that the possession of such a weapon would have enabled the Germans to destroy the relocated factories in the Urals and any reinforcements being gathered around Moscow or Don/ Volga basin (Stalingrad). He also believes that the lack of this weapon was the reason for the loss of the Battle of Britain and probably the war. If Britain had been knocked out the US would have no realistic location to base a continental invasion.
22 of 25 people found this review helpful
The Battle for the Rhine
- The Battle of the Bulge and the Ardennes Campaign, 1944
- By: Robin Neillands
- Narrated by: James Adams
- Length: 11 hrs and 47 mins
The post-Normandy battles that the Allies fought as they struggled for seven months to advance from the Seine to the Rhine were complex and controversial. Even after 60 years, the questions remain of who was responsible for the failure at Nijmegen, the destruction of the British First Airborne Division at Arnhem, and the failure of Operation Market Garden. Could the war in Europe have been won in 1944 with better strategies?
- By Jonathan Gardner on 03-02-09
I have purchased literally 100 books from audible.com and this is the first review I have written. I felt compelled to comment on this books outrageous inaccuracies and blatant biases. This is more a work of fiction or wishful thinking then an accurate historical text. I am open-minded about the nature of military histories and that there can be several valid points of view, especially sixty years after the fact. I do not want to perpetuate national stereo types but this book is nothing more than anti-American/pro-British propaganda.
This was not an inexpensive purchase and I am regretful that I did not wait to read user reviews before I bought it. There were none available at the time because it was a new release. The author calls American historians pathologically sycophantic to American generalship and its accomplishments. I have known many British military officers and found them mostly realistic about American contribution to the Second World War in all areas of warfare (Logistics, Manpower and Generalship). This author perpetuates the perception that the British suffer delusions of relevancy. They lament the loss of empire and continually admonish the US anti imperial positions.
That said, I will try to be specific about the outrageous claims made by the author. He claims that the British planned Operation Market Garden was a failure because of the 82nd Airbornes failure to capture the key bridge in their assigned sector in a timely manner.
He claims that the British 30th Corp had to lend armor support to the 82nd to complete its assigned objectives. He states that this caused 30th Corp an unnecessary delay which led to the annihilation of the British 1st Airborne division. The amount of armor that assisted the 82nd amounted to a handful of tanks and not the entire Corp (his words). They could have easily pushed on to relive the British 1st Airborne.
10 of 11 people found this review helpful