Deathride

Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945

De: John Mosier

Narrado por: Michael Prichard

John Mosier presents a revisionist retelling of the war on the Eastern Front. Although the Eastern Front was the biggest and most important theater in World War II, it is not well known in the United States, as no American troops participated in the fighting. Yet historians agree that this is where the decisive battles of the war were fought.

The conventional wisdom about the Eastern Front 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.

Mosier's history of the Eastern Front will generate considerable controversy, both because of his unconventional arguments and because he criticizes historians who have accepted Soviet facts and interpretations. Mosier argues that Soviet accounts are utterly untrustworthy and that accounts relying on them are fantasies. Deathride argues that the war in the East was Hitler's to lose, that Stalin was in grave jeopardy from the outset of the war, and that it was the Allied victories in North Africa and consequent threat to Italy that forced Hitler to change his plans and saved Stalin from near-certain defeat. Stalin's only real triumph was in creating a legend of victory.

©2010 John Mosier (P)2010 Tantor

Need more john mosier on audible

Excellent all around - thought provoking- author has many other related books out in paper and electronic book- but really limited audio selections on audible - or anywhere else. Listening to this leaves me wanting more.

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.

too much anti-Russian bias

while no fan of Stalin, who certainly was evil to the core, I still found the author's obvious bias to be too repetitive. He succeeded in making Hitler look like a genius while Stalin was never right. Actually, everything Russian was cast in s negative light at every opportunity

Joe Neill

I found this book to be a wonderful insight. and being a military man for 21 years some of the points were very valid indeed. This book will make you think and will place so much 'coffee table' history in the bin. I would highly recommend it to any student of history looking for a strategic view point of the war in the east. Its also a great read. Well do, would recommend it to anyone.

A Great well researched book

If you could sum up Deathride in three words, what would they be?

Definitively adept book that covers the period 1941 to 1945

What did you like best about this story?

There is little left to the imagination. Mosier shows comparisons for and against strategies deployed by both Stalin and Hitler.

Any additional comments?

Mosier is great at showing both leaders attempt to get the open hand on each other politically as well as on the battlefield.

Deconstructing the Big Lie

As empires with a vested interest in controlling history fall, its becoming more and more obvious that the WW2 we is a lie. And no government has lied more than the Soviet Union. Through assiduously source data Mosier exposed life in the Soviet Union as a parallel reality, where "the future is always known, but the past is constantly changing." But this parallel reality existed only in fabricated statistics, false testimonies extracted under torture, and the mind of Joseph Stalin. As the abyssal depths of Stalinist moral bankruptcy were exposed to the world with the collapse of the decrepit Soviet Union and the opening of its archives at the end of the 20th century, it has become necessary to completely reevaluate the Soviet Union, and especially its war with Germany.

Today, as Russia wages war on Ukraine, Stalin's mythos has evolved into the de facto civic religion of Russia. It is invoked more than ever as a justification for everything from quashing domestic dissent to kidnapping children to the conquest of lost provinces. Deathride is essential to understanding Stalin's parallel reality, and the deconstruction of his myth may be the only path to freedom for the Russian people.

Very good

What made the experience of listening to Deathride the most enjoyable?

I enjoy most of Mosier's work. I find his analysis of things very compelling and it seems to answer a lot of questions that traditional history leaves unanswered. That said hard core Soviet/Stalin-philes will not like this work. I can say it bothers to answer questions that nobody thought to ask. Its a delicate walk when you are trying to analyze two of the worst human beings in history and Mosier does a pretty good job. Traditional historians don't really love Mosier and I can only speculate as to why, he does attempt to challenge the prevailing theses about the Eastern Front, and the lying and double-talk involved.

Most tend to focus on Hitler's blunders but, I can cite several specifics Mosier articulates that are generally ignored by East Front historians:

1. Soviet falsification of production numbers.
2. Inherent weaknesses in Nazi Germany's Military machine.
3. Flaws in German High Command's Strategic thinking.
4. Why Stalingrad? (It was not a symbolic pissing contest of Stalin's namesake city).
5. Hitler was a better strategic thinker than originally given credit for.
6. Stalin's military meddling/blundering was responsible for many thousands of lost Soviet troops.
7. Would the fall of Moscow have won the war with the Soviets? Probably not.
8. The critical impact of Lend-Lease and of British and American equipment transfusions into the Soviet Union.


Mosier does have a tendency to overbeat his facts and thesis, so occasionally it feels more like a sermon, than a historical work, but if you look past this flaw its a compelling work.

Overall it is well worth the listen/read.

Fascinating history of the war in Russia

Quite dense and academic, yet utterly fascinating. Highly thought provoking. The author presents a persuasive debunking of many of the myths of the Eastern front in WWII.

The tone grows wearisome after a few chapters

Any additional comments?

Any book on the subject of the Eastern Front of WWII is welcome. It's a part of WWII that for my generation (graduated college during the Cold War) was mostly ignored in history class. Yet it was the largest and deadliest theater of the war. However, Mosier's tone and pet phrases such as "You would think...but you'd be wrong", "Contrary to conventional wisdom..." gets more and more grating with each chapter.

Despite his insistence that he is speaking the truth against the official accepted history, much of his view of the Eastern Front is not unique or shocking. His scrutiny of evidence from the belligerents is biased to support his thesis (that the Germans were much closer to victory in the East, and that it was the Allied offensive in the West that compelled Germany to retreat in the East to better defend the West). Official Soviet numbers (from casualties to weapons production et al) are laboriously explained away as propaganda, but rarely is the same level of examination given to Nazi numbers. In fact, to support his contrarian view that German troops were not demoralized during their retreat Mosier refers to photos of happy German soldiers from that period. He insists without proof that they were candid and not staged, and somehow a handful of photos is a clear indicator of overall sangfroid up and down the German lines as they marched backwards through Poland.

Overall, I can't recommend this book. However, I will give Mosier credit for his insights at the end of Deathride. No single book could sum up what a tragedy the War was for the people of Eastern Europe, but Mosier's overview of the staggering human costs can be felt as it is read. His summary of the post-war consequences of Stalin is apt and thoughtful, too. The Soviet Union never recovered from the incalculable death and damage or the War, and Stalin's incompetence and ruinous policies that beat the Nazis led to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.

Outcome of the war was evident before it began?

I have always been fascinated about history and particularly events of the eastern front during the WW2. For or a person such as myself, who has already read dozens of books covering the subject you seldom come across something that has completely new information or points of views.

This book challenges some of the prevailing theories and takes the listener to whole other level in understanding the events in the eastern front. The theory that the outcome of the war was evident years before the war even began was really insightful. I'm not convinced that everything was correctly displayed or that the conclusions are 100% accurate but I liked the fresh perspective anyway. Mosier is correct when he states that history is written by the winners so in general we know only what we are supposed to know.

As long as listener remembers to be careful and objective as to what can be considered "truth beyond reasonable doubt" and what are the writers conclusion and theories this book can be considered well worth listening. It had fresh perspectives, bold conclusions and the reader managed the job well.