The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate ... (ISBN 140015507X)

Moscow; The Titanic Struggle between Hitler & Stalin:
The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle for Moscow That Changed the Course of World War II Many people think Stalingrad was the turning point in WWII in the East, but I think Andrew Nagorski is right that Hitler's failure to take Moscow set the stage for the Soviets to be able to recover and drive the Germans back. It all hinged on Stalin being able to call up his reserves from the Far East, the Siberians. Once Stalin was convinced the Japanese were moving South and wouldn't attack him, he could call up these important reserves. These troops and the Russian winter stopped the Germans. This book is easy to read and well researched. Andrew Nagorski points out that the Great Terror unleashed on the Red Army in the late 1930s weakened the military leadership and coupled with the Red Army's poor showing against Finland these factors convinced Hitler that the Soviet Union would collapse once attacked. Stalin regained his nerve, used very brutal tactics against troops that surrendered and deserters, and recognized the talents of capable commanders like Zhukov. The battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, and Leningrad got a lot more attention in the war chronicles of this mighty struggle, but the saving of Moscow enabled the Soviet Union to recover and fight back to victory! This book tells this story very well and it will hold your attention as you read it. The narrative moves very quickly.

Good but not great:
Does this book break any major new ground? No, but what do you expect over 60 years after the events described? Am I on the lookout for a deeper and more authoritative account of the struggle for Moscow? Yes. Does this book give a good general overview of the Battle of Moscow, along with some rather interesting reminiscences from its survivors? Yes. But still, I wonder about the honesty of the historical publishing industry towards their customers when I see them churn out book after book like this that simply revisit well-worn subjects and rearrange the same old information, except with a different set of pictures and a new author. I get most of my books from the library, so it's no skin off my nose, but I imagine a lot of people must snatch up these retread histories retail if the industry keeps perpetrating this scam. What's even worse are the gimmicks; I see a book out now that presents an intertwined biography of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, purporting to find some previously unknown cosmic connection between their lives, of which we must all now be aware. Well, if we don't want to waste our time reading mediocre books and publishing gimmicks, I guess we need to rely on our fellow amazon reviewers in order to really separate the wheat from the chaff. In my judgement, don't settle for this one. If you really want to learn about the Battle of Moscow, I'm sure there have been better books written, even if I don't know what they are.

The True essence of WWII, not a delayed US involvement:
US media and book publishers like to glamorize the US much delayed involvement. The whole WWII major battles and major fronts were not in Africa, not in the Pacific, and obviously not even a D-Day. The WWII outcome was designed by the soviet army in the most vicious battles at Moscow, Battle of Kursk, and of course the biggest of all Battle of Stalingrad. WWII battleground was in east europe. This is where it started and this is where it eneded. US had very little part in this, but the american media is loaded with more and more books small and big, 90% of which is the stories about pacific, africa and d-day. These fronts were very minor compared to what the soviet army had to face, and where millions and millions of troops were killed and many more millions injured. In comparison, US suffered only a few thousand killed in only a couple of years of involvement. Any logical proportion here...?! ...and what about not willing to bomb the concentration camps for 3 years, having more than enough information about the nazi killing machine slaughtering millions of Jews,Russians, Gypsies and others...??? This is an obvious mis-education in american schools, and mis-information for American public.

The Greatest Battle:
For true historians this might not be the greatest story about the WWII fight for the Nazi war machine to overwhelm Moscow. However, for casual readers such as myself--with a mild interest in history--this was an eye-opener. The author mainly points out how both Hitler and Stalin tried to outdo their own generals. Don't forget that Stalin killed off many of his pre-war generals and took over too much of the directions himself. Had the battles been left to the proper knowledgeable officers, the final outcome might have been different. Hitler's thought was that if Germany "owned" Moscow, he would expect a complete collapse of Russia. Then, in turn, he would once again go after Britain. Stupid fool, however, delayed his initial Panzer attacks for a month so as to take care of some not-so-important areas. Thus, the German army fought not only the poorly-equipped Russian soldiers, but the fall and winter weather. The German armies became overwhelmed by heavy rains turning many roads into massive mud piles, and then, when the snows arrived, they weren't equiped with adequate antifreeze and clothing. Many troops froze to death. Stalin, running low on men and materiel, brought troops (conscripts, of course) from Siberia. These poor souls were better clothed and not weary from the constant fighting. When Hitler finally accepted that he couldn't take Moscow, it marked the true beginning of the end of his regime. Charles A. Reap, Jr., author, "Devil's Game," and "My Friend Sam."

Moscow is an underrated battle in WW2:
Moscow is an underrated battle in WW2. If Moscow had fallen, the political, military and social outcomes both in Russia and the world would have been huge. While reading the book, I was surprised to discover that Moscow was also the biggest battle of the war. The book is more a social history of people around the battle and the political conflicts then the battle. The military plans, the air conflict, troop movements etc are all badly covered. Also I am not sure the German army had the logistics to take Moscow in August also whether the German army could leave the Russian army in the South before striking for Moscow. These are major controversial issues among experts. On this the book says nothing. Overall the book itself has an enormous amount of new material. It is well presented. It is a great read for someone interested in the battle.