The Battle of Stalingrad: historical significance and impact

Critical Review of Stalingrad by Antony Beevor

There is no doubt Stalingrad was a major event in perhaps the most significant war in world history. In Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942- 1943, by Antony Beevor, it is clear that Beevor believes this to be the case because he says so. However, after reading Stalingrad, it is not entirely clear why. While Beevor puts the battle of Stalingrad in historical perspective in Stalingrad, there lacks certain emotional impact, historical narrative, and cohesion that could lend it to furthering the aims of the book. While it is clear that the book looks to put the everyday person or soldier as the significant player in the Battle and thus the War, there needs to be more connections made in order to bring to life this battle in which every brick in Stalingrad became a brick of a fortress critical to the fate of two world superpowers. Nevertheless, it is clear that Stalingrad was important for one reason; it was named after Stalin. Beevor reports that Hitler said, "I wanted to reach.... At a particular city.... By chance it bore the name of Stalin himself,"[i] which suggests that Hitler in fact did not care about the symbolism associated with the name. But to the contrary, Beevor hints that there was something about this city and its name that gave it a greater importance to both Hitler and Stalin. Yet while Hitler and Stalin are constantly referred to, usually pessimistically, they are two distant Commanders. Often portrayed as foolish, out of touch, and delusional, Hitler and Stalin according to Beevor are distant figureheads. While that may have been true to the average Soviet or German, they were in fact puling the strings and greatly influential in the ongoing war and the Battle of Stalingrad. Yet, like much of this work, Stalin and Hitler are all too lifeless, and that may be the effect that Beevor intended, but because the lifelessness permeates other areas of the work, that is not likely to be the case. But this does not mean that Stalingrad is not an effective and worthy addition to the historical literature on the famous battle. Beevor has painstakingly researched, and clearly communicated his research on the battle of Stalingrad, much of which relies on primary resource. This validates Beevor's position as a historian first and foremost and makes Stalingrad an accurate, detailed, informative, and even unique work. Drawing on much of his own research gives Stalingrad an extra special place in the literature on the war, and although Beevor does not always write proficiently enough to capture the life of the battle and it's participants, he does include many anecdotes and insight that helps the reader to get a better understanding of the life and times surrounding Stalingrad. For instance, the mentioning of that "many soldiers... deprived of vodka, resorted to desperate substitutes"[ii] is interesting in that it shows the conditions of life for the soldiers as well as the deleterious mental and health effects that they had to endure. As a particularly 'Russian' problem, this does help to illustrate the plight of those in the Red Army and all of those in Stalingrad who had to endure the brutalities of the siege. Before the battle begins, however, Beevor starts his work before the declaration of war between the Soviet Union and Germany. He finds a fitting quote, in which the Soviets warn the Germans: "You're regret this insulting, provocative and thoroughly predatory attack on the Soviet Union. You'll pay dearly for it."[iii] This, in the beginning, helps to highlight a prevailing theme throughout the work, and that is the resolve and fortitude of the Soviet people who seemingly willed their way to victory. Yet it also indicates that perhaps Soviet victory was inevitable, given the manpower and depth of their country, that despite the countless problems and terror raging in the Soviet Union, its soldiers were still willing to die for the Motherland. This is an important idea that goes beyond battlefield tactics, and while Beevor does touch on the military aspects of Stalingrad, in Stalingrad Beevor makes it clear that the Soviets were a very special people destined to do special things. Yet despite this interesting outlook on Stalingrad, the work his fairly disjointed and lacks a coherent narrative. The beginning of the book jumps into the action and jumps around before the reader can understand the implications or impact of what he or she is reading. The end of Part One also seems to be lacking as it ends with a broad statement that cannot be fully grasped by the reader after reading Part One and after continuing: "The psychological turning point of the war, however, would come only in the following winter," writes Beevor suggesting that the war was that it was a duel between Hitler and Stalin that became one of "mass proxy."[iv] This statement is almost alone on an island, with little connection to the words before and after it and while it may be true, Beevor does not adequately connect his points to the facts in a way in which the reader can fully grasp what he is trying to say. Then Beevor gets into the battle of Stalingrad and his details are surely accurate. But that is all that can be said as though the battle is covered in depth, it is not effectively portrayed and it is at times poorly written. An interesting dialogue between Voronov and Paulus after the surrender should be intriguing; at the very least a good piece of writing that will stand alone as a story by itself. But Beevor leaves the reader lacking for more as he merely and dryly details the story often relying on the words of the primary source to tell the story for him. It fails to do so. "In this 'tormented pose,'" writes Beevor of Paulus in his depression as, "only the tic in his face indicated his thoughts."[v] The stories cannot stand alone and they do not heighten the emotional impact of Stalingrad to the reader. With the aforementioned vodka incident, while it is a worthy inclusion, it could be improved. Perhaps some analysis, drama, or commentary could help to bring the history to life as a narrative as Beevor writes the stories as if they were fact sheets. A reading of the original source would surely be more interesting. This may be too harsh on Beevor as Stalingrad is an informative look at the famous battle, but one reads Stalingrad and can only think there could be so much more. It fails to live up to the front cover hype as a "compelling narrative" creating a "terrifying montage of catastrophe and hardship" that is an "apocalyptic vision."[vi] It is doubtless that the battle was as hard as described, but it is up to the reader to envision the hardships for him or herself. The short, simple, and straightforward sentences leave much to be desired: "In such a hopeless situation, discipline was starting to break down,"[vii] writes Beevor of the decimated Germans. But the connection is not made by Beevor; instead it is left up to the reader. What was hopeless? How did hopelessness lead to a lack of discipline? The events are merely described and not brought to life. The historical narrative is lacking. Of course simplicity and clarity are of paramount importance in historical non-fiction, but so should also the writing as it is up to the author to effectively relay the information he has researched. Perhaps one of the greatest achievements of Stalingrad, is the portrayal of the ineffectiveness of many of the leaders of those that would suffer from the conflict. For instance, the miscalculations by both Hitler and Stalin are mentioned and they occur on numerous occasions which makes for an interesting outlook on history in which the two dictators are critiqued and the mistakes are clearly demonstrated. For example, it is dead on and an important point when Beevor notes that the "Stalin still desperately hoped for a last chance of conciliation and was reluctant to allow his troops to strike."[viii] Points like this help to illustrate Stalin's misreading of the situation, and help to shed light on the bigger picture and all the factors that lead up to Stalingrad. Thus Beevor does have good points and information to contribute to Stalingrad and this cannot be overlooked. In one of his most effective parts of the work, Beevor accounts for the horros of the first attack on Stalingrad: "The model city of which they were so proud, with its gardens along the high west bank of the Volga and the tall white apartment buildings which gave the place its modern, cubist look, became an inferno."[ix] This comparative illustration of the damage done to the beloved city connects the damage to the people and creates a sort of emotional impact that is lacking in much of the book and furthers Beevor's aim of showing that Stalingrad was a battle of the people who lived it and not just a chess match for the numerous Officers who lead their men to their death. Without outside knowledge of Stalingrad, it is unlikely that a reader of Stalingrad by Antony Beevor would truly grasp the impact and unreal brutalities of this conflict. Watching a ten second black and video of the battle being waged in the streets of the decimated city would more effectively help one understand the nature of Stalingrad. Beevor is unable to capture the reality for the reader and this is only one area where Stalingrad falls short. It falls short also by the lack of portrayal of the bigger picture. Sure Beevor depicts the events leading up to Stalingrad, and he has researched and writes about why the battle was fought where it was fought. But these are all technical aspects that Beevor accomplishes, but the emotional aspects are lacking. This would be fine, if it was not for the fact that Beevor does seek merely to relay the facts but to depict the distance and mistakes of two egotistical and often maniacal dictators. The influence of the Soviet people on the outcome of the war, and the undying, unwavering, refuse to surrender Red Army soldier is one area that Beevor does accurately and effectively depict his point. It is therefore without a doubt that Beevor understands this conflict to the fullest. There are many interesting anecdotes, stories, and effective primary research. It is in the way that Beevor relates his knowledge and understanding where he falls short, and while this detracts from the readability and emotional impact of Stalingrad, it does not completely ruin the effectiveness of the comprehensive and in depth look at one of the most significant battles of the 20th century.