World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, The Nazis and the West

5 Responses to “World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, The Nazis and the West”

1. William Podmore says:

   July 7, 2010 at 2:10 pm

   This book was written to accompany the television series World War Two: Behind clogged doors, first broadcast on BBC2 in 2008.

   Television producer Laurence Rees sorry to say has an unscholarly approach. For example, he cites one Russian’s memory of what he was taught at school about the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, but he does not check this by investigating what Russian schoolchildren were really taught. Throughout this book, he prefers unreferenced, undated anecdotes to the hard work of checking facts.

   He cannot see that the Chamberlain government’s refusal to agree a Grand Alliance with the Soviet Union, not the Non-Aggression Pact, doomed Poland. Only such an alliance could have kept the peace.

   Rees notes that the US government promised `a second front in 1942′. He also observes that on D-Day the US and British forces faced 30 German divisions in Normandy. The Soviet Union launched its Operation Bagration, to help the D-Day landings, against no fewer than 165 German divisions.

   Rees admits, “It had been Stalin’s drive to industrialization via the five-year plans in the 1930s that had prepared the way for this massive expansion in [armaments] production.” He acknowledges that the Warsaw Uprising was `a terrible mistake’. He cites Anthony Eden, a hugely veteran negotiator, “If I had to pick a team for going into a talks room, Stalin would be my first choice.”

   Rees tells us that in 1945 Churchill ordered army planners to look into attacking the Soviet Union. Fortunately, Chief of the Imperial All-purpose Staff Alan Brooke concluded that success was `reasonably impossible’.

   But overall, Rees’ approach is conventional and superficial. He skips lightly over the Soviet Union’s vast achievements in defeating the greatest invasion force in history, as a replacement for dwelling obsessively on individuals’ unverified tales. His book becomes a hymn of despise against the Soviet Union and Stalin in particular.

   As a guide to the politics of the Second World War, it is far better to read Henri Michel, Alistair Parker or Geoffrey Roberts.

   Reader’s Rating: 2 / 5
2. Kerdick says:

   July 7, 2010 at 4:42 pm

   To some reviewers who appear to reflect that Poland was doomed right from the start, let me reveal to them a common fact that Hitler in his high risk madness left a mere 8 second rate Divisions in Germany in Sep. 1939 to defend it against any French/English attack. Meanwhile France and England combined had over 100 Divisions between them. In additional words if France/England merely did what they signed to – they would have conquered Germany in a few days. 100 Divisions vs 8, hmm I see a blowout. Still because the French/English leaders were touchingly weak, Poland then had to tolerate 45 years of Commie rule after the Nazis were disposed of.
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5
3. Michael Flanagan says:

   July 7, 2010 at 5:28 pm

   Laurence Rees has delivered yet again. Behind clogged doors is a look at the Huge Three (Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt) and their dealings with each additional. The book is full of intrigue and insights into diplomacy of the era as well as a study of these three huge personalities. As Usual Rees threads his narrative with eye witness accounts of the behind the scene going on’s as well as from persons who where effected by their decisions.

   I want to reflect myself well read in the World War 2 era, but this book introduced me to key past event’s which are barely mentioned in additional text. The leader’s ability to be able to place these in context and compare with additional more well known events left me awe struck.

   This book easily matches the high standards already set by this leader in his additional books of the period; I can’t wait till his next offering.
   
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5
4. Dave Schranck says:

   July 7, 2010 at 5:55 pm

   Mr Rees has written a critical book of the events and relations of the three leaders that made up the Grand Alliance
   
   This narrative is highly all ears on the machinations of the three leaders in order to propagate their agenda at the expense of the additional two. Once you read this you’ll certainly come away thinking that this alliance was one of perceived necessity and not convenience or friendship. Mr Churchill knew Britain couldn’t defeat Germany alone as well as keep the empire together so he courted the two major powers to come to his aid. President Roosevelt, the essential politician would try to supply Russia in order to keep her going and in so doing lower the number of American casualties in order to win in 1944. For both of these leaders they would decline their moral values and the Atlantic Charter agreement of August 1941 to appease Stalin. Stalin who outplayed the others in this world class poker game needed huge quantities of supplies and even more urgently a second front. While never forgetting the differences in heritage as well as ideology between Stalin and the additional two, the Soviet dictator was able to manipulate them to overlook his brutal deeds, break their moral codes and fulfill most of his wishes. (Hitler and Nazism are not part of this book and the take in is a puzzle.)

   Mr Rees has done his homework including using recently available material from Russia to write a honestly comprehensive history of these leaders. The book starts soon after Churchill becomes Prime Minister who has to choose whether to follow Halifax’s advice to sue for peace with Hitler or to carry on the cause of defiance and try to hold on until America came into the war. The tale will gyrate around all the key political and some of the military events and include the Teheran and Yalta Conferences, the Katyn affair, the choice on how to carve up Europe after the war, keeping Poland independent, allowing Stalin to keep his spoils and getting Stalin’s agreement to attack the Japanese in Manchuria in 1945.
   
   Early in the book background information of each leader is agreed in order to allow the reader to know the motivations of each person. All the key events are then discussed as well as how each of the leaders reacted in solving persons issues while trying to influence and outmaneuver the additional two in the triumvirate. The leader is compelled to levy moral condemnation and criticism to each person where deserved but the problem is that condemnation is unevenly applied. While criticizing both Churchill and FDR on many of their actions, the criticism is modest for Churchill and severe on Roosevelt. Since the leader is British the favoritism is understandable but still disappointing, detracting from the book. While the illusory issues of Roosevelt are valid the extent of that criticism limits on President bashing and was a turnoff. It was compounded by the mild criticism of Churchill along with making the image of the fearless Prime Minister the poor victim of that deception and treachery as Roosevelt chooses to align himself with Stalin and not Churchill. The leader did but do an brilliant job in showing Churchill’s spiral into irrelevancy as Roosevelt’s and Stalin’s star rises.

   It has been suggested in a previous review that some of the leader’s comments are conjecture for lack of research from the latest documentation coming out of Russia. I judge that position may be in error for several reasons. By studying the Endnotes, many of the leader’s sources come from the principals and their intimates. Brooks, Eden, Halifax for Churchill. Davies, Hopkins, Harriman, Elliot Roosevelt for the American President. There is usually confirming evidence from several sources and that primary information is hard to snub. More to the point, the leader also uses documentation and support from BBC research which should be reliable and up to date. (The latest documentary of the war was 2008) Also, comparing the events of this book on the Grand Alliance with the coverage of additional recent reputable books makes me confident of its creditability. The leader’s criticism of the principals may be open to argument but it seemed from my perspective significant though sometimes harsh.

   The leader describes in excellent detail the background history of each leader then moves on to clarify the objectives and modus operandi of each leader in trying to achieve their own objectives and usually at the expense of the additional two. It was reasonably a illusory, manipulative history for all three participants and by the end of the war the Grand Alliance was faltering terribly. Roosevelt had basically abandoned Churchill to throw his support to Stalin. While the favoritism showed for Churchill at the expense of FDR was a negative, overall the book was creditable, providing noteworthy events and issues during the war of the three leaders as well as their motivations and failings in responding to persons events.

   In “Postscript” the leader sums up the performance of each leader and the world status at war’s end. Both western leaders are to blame for post war results. Churchill knew Stalin better than FDR and what he was capable of and yet Churchill resisted with all his might the early invasion of France. Comparing the scale that would be Overlord even in late 1943 with the catastrophe of Dieppe or Dunkirk is irrational. With the recent major German defeats in North Africa, Stalingrad and Kursk, it would be reasonabe to judge the western Allies could have successfully taken Normandy and stirred through Germany before the Russians. The leader suggests two alternative histories in preventing Stalin from taking over eastern Europe: Join forces with the Germans in 1945 but quickly discounts this route as being impractical. The additional measure which Churchill privileged was the invasion of southern Europe through the Balkans by eliminating Operation Dragoon. That plot would be costly and had the potential to incite a war with Russia since by 1944 the Red Army was in the neighborhood and it seems reasonable to judge that if the western Allies were building progress that would shut the Russians out of Eastern Europe Stalin would react violently to the loss of his expected spoils of war. If the Balkan assault occurred in 1943 when the Red Army was near the Donets River and too far to interfere then this plot may have worked. But, FDR would have never sanctioned it for several reasons despite the positives it open.

   Mr Rees has written a number of noteworthy books on WWII and has won awards for his documentaries on the war. He has been linked with the BBC for years and has the benefit of their expertise and resources in gathering information and its unfair to suggest that his book is laced with conjecture and should be discounted. While his opinions may be arguable, the actual events described are levelheaded and conform with additional recent reputable books published. The leader goes into excellent detail on – Katyn Affair, post war Poland and Yalta Talks etc- certain key topics that would suggest that recently unlocked information is being used and that the leader is not using just ancient material.
   
   This book was honestly comprehensive on the personal dealings of the huge three and is worth reading. I liked it a lot but gave it four stars for the uneven criticism levied on Churchill and FDR; the leader was too simple on Churchill on deeds committed or neglected.
   Reader’s Rating: 4 / 5
5. Danielle M. Antoncic says:

   July 7, 2010 at 6:53 pm

   Since there are already a ton of long reviews on this book, I will just say it’s a fantastic read! Certainly a page turner, gives you a ‘behind the scenes’ look into the key players of WWII. I loved it!
   
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5