Hello,
We can buy this book now in Spain.
I read years ago the book "Stalingrad" of the same writer.
I´m impressed with Stalingrad,
I´m thinking in buy "Berlin The Downfall, 1945", but if someone has read it, could post his own impressions of the book.
And tell if is a good book to purchase.
I have read both his books,Stalingrad and Berlin. Stalingrad is much better, but Berlin is wel lworth buying. possibly the best book i have read on the subject,just not as well written as Stalingrad was. If you can afford to buy it i would say do so:)
I would have to recommend this Berlin also. I read it as soon as it came out, and was very impressed. The book has a human feel to it which makes reading it an enjoyment.
Al Carter
Death solves all problems - no man, no problem. ~Joseph Stalin~
Hola Santiago,
Cuidado con el libro! Tiene una cara buena y otra mala...
This is what I wrote elsewhere when I read the English version:
I do not know your opinion on this book, but my review of it should by titled: 'I found it disapointing'.
I have just finished it, and I find it a failure and not much better -an in many aspects worse- than earlier books (Toland, Ryan, Le Tissier...)
-This is not really a book on the battle for Berlin. It's main subject is, by far, the sufferings of civilian population, and specially the often atrocious behaviour of the Red Army, gang-rape being among the most frequent subjects. I believe Beevor was justly acclaimed for his pages on the terrible realities of War in 'Stalingrad'. Now he has overdone it.
-His treatment of tactical operations is at best perfunctory. He jumps from the operational level (at Front ot Army level) to the 'worm's eye'views of soldiers or civilians. So, do not hope to see any real discussion of what happened at tactical level at Seelow (apart from Beevor's plain opinion that Zukhov paid for his mistake with the blood of his soldiers -more or less literal-. Le Tissier is much, much better at this.
-Not very detailed on small units, or even at divisional level. You won't find much on Muncheberg PZDiv, and nothing at all on, for example, the Spanish SS units fighting in central Berlin to the very end.
-Rather superficial in political aspects too. I'd rather have Toland's 'The last 100 Days', or Ryan's than this one for the overall picture. He is rather strong, however, when correlating political and military matters (the day after Stalin said this, Zukhov did that, and so on).
-True, he uses new archival material, but he uses it mostly for the anecdote, 'à la Ryan'. But however, IMO he does not manage to use these personal accounts for a really interesting view of the military aspects of the battle. While Le Tissier's cites, for example, are always useful for the understanding of different tactical or military points, Beevor's are 80% to prove that war is hell, something we already knew. 'Rape' is probably the most often cited word in the book (well, perhaps I exaggerate a little bit).
-Illustrations: Maps are completely dissapointing. Clearly designed for the complete layman, they only show units at army level, and concentrate on those in certain operations. Very limited and utterly uninformative.
-Appendixes: None. Does not even include an Order of Battle (even at Army level), something he did in his 'Stalingrad'.
-Narrative: Gripping. Very well written. In comparison Le Tissier is rather dull.
-Overall: For the interested military buff or amateur historian, not to mention the professional, this is a rather dissapointing book, much worse than 'Stalingrad' (that paid much more attention to the actual battle). Obviously meant for the VERY general public, nothing really new, not very detailed in military matters.
PS: Now I read the whole tirade again, it looks as if I think this is a bad book.
No, it is not. It ios a great book provided you take it as it is, and acknowledge it is not a manual of tactics.
I personally found it disapointing because it did not fulfill my expectations. But it is a great book from many points of view. Problem is, I read it after Le Tissier's, and found it wanting in military detail. But it is otherwise a good book: over 400 pages, you cannot leave it once you begin reading, and it is full of anecdotal material. Cheers
What we do in Life echoes in Eternity.
No quisieron querer a otra Bandera,
no pudieron andar otro camino,
no supieron morir de otra manera.
Hola Frindolin.
¡¡Tendré muy presente tu advertencia!!.
Thanks Frindolin.
Your answer is much better than i expect.
Thanks for your time, and for the rewiew that you post about your personal impressions.
Yes, i brought the book yesterday in the afternoon.
As i can see, you are right with the maps... I really prefer maps with more level detail, not only a few arrows, that means few to me.
And as i could read the third chapter in spanish in one web, i could see, that the civilians, and the rapes are more present than the military movements.
I visited the related urls of the book (http://www.antonybeevor.com), and i found less information that i´m suppose to find as i could read in the book.
But, for me is to earlier to give my opinion, i´m only starting to read it.
Let me to talk about it, when i finish it!!.
The Fall of Berlin 1945
by Antony Beevor
Hardcover: 490 pages
Dimensions (in inches): 1.73 x 9.44 x 6.34
Publisher: Viking Press; (May 9, 2002)
ISBN: 0670030414
First, I must say that no wonder this book has won many prizes. No wonder for it is so poor and propagandistic.
One has to read the preface twice to believe what Boovor writes. It isn´t far fecthed to read that because "there are young people who admire Hitler this book had to be written". Yes, he admits to have written the book for political purposes.
Beevor is supposedly a former soldier. Hard to believe since his prose is so politically slanted and especially in his inaccuracy of describing various military matters, such as weapons and units.
The book contains no analysis. For example, his quotes numerous examples of Red Army atrocities, yet failes to analyze the reasons for them. A good writer could have widened his horizons and examined Russian Army behaviour in previous conflicts, such as WW One. But of course that would have meant sacrificing his agenda which is to blame Germany for every misery in the world.
He also fails in tactical, strategic and operational analysis.
His sourcing is also problematic. He quotes a lot of from a diary of a fiction author, Vasili Grossman. And guess on which source his description of Hitler´s state of mind he mostly bases his work? Guderian´s memoirs! This is the easy way out.
Basically the book contains lots of details here and there, useless at best and dubious at most. He fails in analysis. There was a chance to examine some key personnel´s failures in depth (e.g. Himmler) but he only retorted to political slander, even when there would have been plenty of factual data to do that. But then, his project was corrupt from the beginning by his political agenda.
Not worth the paper it´s printed on.
Uncle Joe wrote:
He also fails in tactical, strategic and operational analysis.
Not worth the paper it´s printed on.
I agree. The book is poorly written. I did not found above mentioned analysis, which is pity.
There are some interesting passages, but that's it, you can't find almost any valuable information if you read some books on that period.
For me Beevor tries to be Cornelius Ryan of our time, but he fails, exatcly like he failed with his book on Stalingrad.
Not worth the paper it´s printed on (which was very costly for me).
