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

Deathride Hitler vs Stalin The Eastern Front The German invasion of the Soviet Union on June began a war that lasted nearly four years and created by far the bloodiest theater in World War II In the conventional narrative of this war

  • Title: Deathride Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945
  • Author: John Mosier
  • ISBN: 9781416573487
  • Page: 105
  • Format: Hardcover
  • The German invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, began a war that lasted nearly four years and created by far the bloodiest theater in World War II In the conventional narrative of this war, Hitler was defeated by Stalin because, like Napoleon, he underestimated the size and resources of his enemy In fact, says historian John Mosier, Hitler came very close to wiThe German invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, began a war that lasted nearly four years and created by far the bloodiest theater in World War II In the conventional narrative of this war, Hitler was defeated by Stalin because, like Napoleon, he underestimated the size and resources of his enemy In fact, says historian John Mosier, Hitler came very close to winning and lost only because of the intervention of the western Allies Stalin s great triumph was not winning the war, but establishing the prevailing interpretation of the war The Great Patriotic War, as it is known in Russia, would eventually prove fatal, setting in motion events that would culminate in the collapse of the Soviet Union.Deathride argues that the Soviet losses in World War II were unsustainable and would eventually have led to defeat The Soviet Union had only twice the population of Germany at the time, but it was suffering a casualty rate than two and a half times the German rate Because Stalin had a notorious habit of imprisoning or killing anyone who brought him bad news and often their families as well , Soviet battlefield reports were fantasies, and the battle plans Soviet generals developed seldom responded to actual circumstances In this respect the Soviets waged war as they did everything else through propaganda rather than actual achievement What saved Stalin was the Allied decision to open the Mediterranean theater Once the Allies threatened Italy, Hitler was forced to withdraw his best troops from the eastern front and redeploy them In addition, the Allies provided heavy vehicles that the Soviets desperately needed and were unable to manufacture themselves It was not the resources of the Soviet Union that defeated Hitler but the resources of the West In this provocative revisionist analysis of the war between Hitler and Stalin, Mosier provides a dramatic, vigorous narrative of events as he shows how most previous histories accepted Stalin s lies and distortions to produce a false sense of Soviet triumph Deathride is the real story of the Eastern Front, fresh and different from what we thought we knew.

    • Best Read [John Mosier] ↠ Deathride Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 || [Historical Fiction Book] PDF ß
      105 John Mosier
    • thumbnail Title: Best Read [John Mosier] ↠ Deathride Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 || [Historical Fiction Book] PDF ß
      Posted by:John Mosier
      Published :2020-01-15T11:46:00+00:00

    About "John Mosier"

    1. John Mosier

      John Mosier Is a well-known author, some of his books are a fascination for readers like in the Deathride Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 book, this is one of the most wanted John Mosier author readers around the world.

    751 thoughts on “Deathride Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945”

    1. John Mosier is not an academic historian, he is instead an academic contrarian. This entire book is devoted to challenging and debunking what he see's as the myths and sacred cows brought up over the years concerning the Eastern Front. Mosier, however, sets himself an impossible task: to say the final word about the war in the East. There will possibly never be a final word and those who think they've done so are fooling themselves. Mosier and David Stahel are both guilty of this and both are di [...]


    2. John Mosier's books follow a basic formula. What you thought you knew about conflict X is wrong, what really happened is Y. Here he aims to say that the prevailing idea that the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht thereby winning World War 2 is wrong, instead Stalin used propaganda to build up the story of the great Red Army which is false. The premise is surprising in that for much of popular culture, World War 2 = D-Day. In any case, I found the book an strange exercise overall, even though it is [...]


    3. Mohrenwäsche mit blinden FleckenVier Sterne für die Tapferkeit, ein Deutscher Fachhistoriker würde mit einem derartigen Buch, selbst wenn es methodisch gründlicher durchgeführt wäre, beruflichen Selbstmord begehen und könnte sich auch sonst nirgendwo mehr sehen lassen. Rein fachlich ist das Buch eine Zickzackfahrt, die gelegentlich schon mal Ein-Stern-Niveau streift oder dieselben Schauer hervorruft, wie der eklatante Spielfehler eines Pianisten oder ein verpatzter Einsatz im Orchester. B [...]


    4. In this book, John Mosier settles the Russian legends of winning the war on the Eastern front and instead states that Hitler came very close of winning the war in 1942 and 1943.In Mosier's view, Stalin was planning to attack Hilter at the first opportune moment. He contradicts a long established Stalinist legend and at the same time explains Hitler's motivation: that the attack on the Soviet Union was a preemptive strike. This explains why the Red Army was positioned so close to the border and w [...]


    5. I've read three of Mosier's books and while I disagree with much of them, his earlier ones make some interesting points. Unfortunately, he's now become a polemicist or Contrarian; that means starting with the answer, then working backwards, while presenting opposing views as at best gullible dupes. This requires less effort (or 'research') but undermines the value of his views.Most historians agree US economic power was vital to Allied victory in 1945, so nothing new in that; sometimes that cont [...]


    6. I have like all of Mosier's books that I have read to date. Having read WWII history for about 50 years, and walked many WWII battlefields in both Europe and the Pacific, I can say that what gets on the written page often bears little resemblance to the truth, especially when the keepers of the facts and the historians have an agenda. Moiser sets out to gore sacred cows and he is quite effective at it. Even at a youngish age, I could sense when a history didn't seem right. I read Martin Caidin's [...]


    7. this is not a book review but an angry response to insincere historical booke Author tries in this book to claim that victory in the second world was made possible by Western Allies and that if not western allies helped the soviets in stopping and turning the tide against the Wahermacht the soviets would be defeated to their unsustainable losses by in thei battles with German armywhat this German author excludes intentionally si that German armies were stopped in the outskirts of Moscow by the r [...]


    8. It's ironic to think that the West may have fallen victim to Russian propaganda more than Russians themselves. Stalin, like many of his Authoritarian predecessors and successors, was a master of twisting events to always make events look like they were victories and intentional. By doing this often and loud enough he even convinced the West of "Russia's Greatness' which was more smoke and mirrors than anything else because it was all made up. Stalin's successes were almost all Pyrrhic. Sadly, hi [...]


    9. After reading this book I thought it was too bad both Hitler and Stalin couldn't both lose. The total lack of concern for the lives of his Russian troops were appalling. Over 40 months of fighting the Soviets lost more men per day than the US has lost in 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. The author considers Hitler to a better general than normally credited. He shows how the Germans nearly won the war against the Russians and would have won had not England and America provided help to the Soviet [...]


    10. I couldn't bring myself to finish this one."The German generals were wrong, Hitler was right, Stalin was an idiot, here's one fact to back me up, and the survivors got to write the history." Lather, rinse, repeat. That's pretty much the theme of this book. I don't have the time to research all of this, so back it goes. I wish there had been more put into it, but I can't parse it out now.


    11. It is always interesting reading comparative history and to read something that argues against the predominant thesis can be enlightening. I think the author came up with some fantastic evidence for his thesis, which was essentially that Germany never really lost on the Eastern Front. Stalin was so evil, corrupt and untruthful that the received history that was concocted by the Bolsheviks during and after the war cannot be taken as truth. However, I was not convinced. The author was so polarised [...]


    12. A really interesting book with some glaring flaws. In the end, it reads a bit too much like an anti-communist (socialist?) polemic that happens to use the Great Patriotic War as its principal example. I really wish the main contention--that Soviet forces were almost fatally diminished--wasn't so sloppily argued. Mosier's point that loss ratios were disproportionate is compelling, but it's never tied to the overall force pool (other than the population comparison, which is so vast and vague as to [...]


    13. I listened to this book while operating a large zero-turn lawnmower. I felt like I was one of the tank drivers. This may have influenced my rating. Mosier does a good job of debunking the Great Patriotic War. His books are very well foot marked so all the people complaining about poor research are either biased or lazy in as much as they do not provide any examples from his copious notes. Mosier is very repetitive throughout all his works and if you liked this one then you can probably read half [...]


    14. The author shows with statistic that the Heer was a efficient killing machine, that the killing ratio between the Red Army and the Heer(german land army) was in favor of Germany even in 1945. The author mentions that even if the soviet weapons were better than the Germans one the German were able to use more efficiently theirs weapons than the soviets. Where the book is weak is the author spend less time on the effect of lend lease on the Soviet Union.


    15. I thought that the books premise was good. I had to skim over some of the book towards the end of the book because it got repetitive but the premise is valid.



    16. I liked it, but it had some real flaws that caused it's demotion. Anyways, I liked Mosier's thesis regarding the eastern front, his careful plodding through the events of the back and forth, while illuminating, really bogs down. I had to really force myself to push through his bland, too-academic writing style the whole time. My interest in the subject matter, and the unique nature of Mosier's thesis gave me the drive to push through, but it was tough at times. One big complaint was the lack of [...]


    17. What I learned from the book is that great American historians of WWII, David Glantz and likes, spoiled me rotten, and I have to be more selective in the future and do more research before buying military history books. Other than that, nothing positive I can say about the work of John Mosier. I started to suspect that I made a mistake early on, when Mr. Moiser mentioned untimely death of Walter Wever, the father of German long-range bomber program, and sub-sequential cancelation of the program, [...]


    18. Another excellent scab of truth about WWII ripped off by the author concerning the charnel house of the Eastern theater. A fantastic and revealing case is made that things were not as the official "histories" wanted them to be. Special attention is given to personalities and new thinking that brought decisions to their painful catastrophic conclusions, and no quarter is given for the massive and vast incompetence that Stalin and Hitler delivered to their people.WWII, especially the abattoir of t [...]


    19. Mosier never met an icon he didn't want to bring down, and the Soviet version of the "Great Patriotic War" is no exception. Drawing mainly on published secondary sources, he systematically deconstructs the Soviet narrative of surprise attack, desperate defense, brilliant defensive victories, and triumphant offensives. Mosier bases much of his criticism of the Soviet war effort on his analysis of casualties, which shows that only on very rare occasions did the Germans fail to inflict disproportio [...]


    20. After listening to this I have to wonder if we shall ever truly know the depths of the depravity to which Stalin (and many of his henchmen) had sunk to carry out their schemes on the people of Eastern Europe. I think the author is careful in staying away from eulogizing Adolf in any way, but there are a few passages where comparing the two dictators gives the nod to Hitler over Stalin for rational thought. It's an intriguing story, and probably only opens up more avenues for questions, which the [...]


    21. It's interesting that this is considered a controversial revisionist work when the primary premise is that Stalin continuously and consistently through his people into the meat grinder of war. It's hardly implausible considering the Soviet purges in which he slaughtered so many of his own people. It's a fascinating look at history, but the premise is somewhat overstated. Nonetheless, I found it interesting enough and would recommend it to anyone fascinated by this era of history.


    22. Not sure if I should give it 3 or 4 stars. It's an interesting book, showing a new perspective on a number of general accepted "truths" about the barbarossa operation. Sometimes though I think the author stretches things a bit trying to defend his thesis, and loses some objectivity. Still, gave 4 stars for the authors courage to row against the flow.


    23. Mosier is, by his own admission, a historical contrarian rather than a historian: therefore, we can't expect a straightforward retelling of anything when he's at the keyboard. And so it is here, in his enjoyable and provocative account of the slaughterhouse Eastern Front battles of World War Two. I thought it was great, myself.


    24. The bulk of WW2 was the Eastern Front, the fighting between the Nazis & the Soviets.This book really makes you informed about World War 2.After you finish this, read Beevor, The Fall of Berlin 1945, to know the 2d half of this story.


    25. I buy into most of Mosier's thesis with the exception that I think he underrates the German generals a little and overrates Hitler's strategies.But his opinions on Stalin's conduct during the war and the Soviet system in general are right on.


    26. If you don't already have a good idea of the battles and geography of the war on the Eastern Front, this will be very boring very quickly. For those who DO have this knowledge, though, the emphasis on the all-or-nothing, total war by both sides is fascinating.


    27. Mosier takes on the myths of the Eastern Front, makes some good points about how many historians accept Stalin's distorted history as truth, and generally provides a good read. He does wander quite a bit however, and the book overstays it's welcome towards the end.


    28. The number off Russian soldiers killed during WWII is staggering. The book is a little dry. The narrator reads a little like 50's newscast. But, the topic has interested me for a while, and its a good interesting read.



    Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *