Another excellent peice of WWII scholarship that would not have possible during the Cold War. Merridale interviewed numerous vets and the result was this work. Catherine Merridale, Ivan's War, the Red Army 1939-1945, London: Faber and Faber, 2005, 396 pages.
JeffinMNUSA
PS. HOPEFULLY there are others out there recording what the former Frontoviks might have to say.

Read it over a year ago. I found the book very informative on the views and attitudes of the common soldier. Not all were the hard core Communists that some think. Alot were just common people defending their homeland. It does show how much the Soviets were really unprepared for the war. And how flawed their military was.The author includes both Communists and Non-Communists from all parts of the Soviet Union. People who loved Stalin and those who hated him. Male and female. It includes people from many walks of life. But it gives the view from the common soldiers life in the Red Army.One of the things I also liked about the book is that it showed some of the reasons why "Revenge" was important to some of the soldiers and how the Soviet propaganda machine played a part in fanning it. I also found interesting the story behind the "shtrafniki",the members of the punishment units. To see that not all had the same reasons to fight besides just getting away from the penal system even though it was considered just another type of death sentence..

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

I'm the "Confederate with a pipe"!! LOL

Yes, great book. Never mind what the Generals say but what the ordinary soldiers eat, think and do in the front line. Very interesting views and you cannot know if you don´t read the book. Not many from the Red Army side so far so even more important!

__________________

Over a year ago I posted about this book on another WWII forum when I bought the book. What was funny is that even before reading it or knowing what it was about it was called into question as to how good it was or accurate and was called "Crap" by a couple of people who claimed to be of Russian origin. One was even offended by the title LOL . "American Propaganda" it was called. Even though it was written by a non-American LOL.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

I'm the "Confederate with a pipe"!! LOL

One of the most touching final lines I´ve met:

A very touching end to the book Ivan´s war by C Merridale

"What do the old men talk about when they come back to remember?" I asked the curator of the museum at Prokhorovka, Russia´s greatest battle.
"They don´t talk much" she answered. " They don´t seem to need to. Sometimes they just stand up and weep."

__________________

After reading that book I'm not surprised by the above quote. You clearly have to pick a side when reading this book about who you're going to believe, and I choose to believe the author. I was amazed by how little the veterens(and many of the civilians) would talk about events and how even in this day they take the party line. Sorry to those who are offended by this, but I do believe that the collective memory was completely shaped by the party. This was actually the most educational aspect of the book for me. Thats my 2 cents.

Great book

And now I prepare myself to be slapped by Ivan

amnp;
I don't think that it's a revelation that terrible things happen in war-but some people certainly want to pretend it isn't so. And the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War was the most horrific in history between the two most terrible tyrants the world has ever seen? Add two and two on this one and you can only conclude that the darkest of the Merridale accounts are probably pretty mild stuff compared to what else is out there. And the Partisan War was no doubt the darkest and bloodiest corner of the GPW with atrocities being committed all around (I will really have to get the "COme and See" DVD so as to catch it all at once; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMKwMzLj8Ow ). This probably goes a ways in explaining as to why Russians are reticent on the subject of the Partisan Wars. ALSO; if the Partisans got great press during the GPW ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN_SB7_Cozc ) it certainly quieted down afterwards. WHY? Just a guess here but I think it might have had something to do with the anti Soviet guerrilla wars raging in Ukraine and other parts of the expanded Red Empire. Generally Merridale takes a sympathetic view of "Ivan" and his struggles (the greatest comeback story of all time, really)-I guess I find it surprising that some people could take issue. Ah well...
There are things so terrible that people do not want to discuss them at all. My dad once told me of a guy in his hometown who came back from WWII Pacific War with some dark whisperings about his doings there? It seems he captured a Japanese sneaking about searching for food and tortured the man to death. "A creep!" Dad shuddered, "just the type of guy you could see doing something like that!" At any rate the torturer was a pariah for years in his hometown though nobody would discuss just why.
JeffinMNUSA

Crap, my long reply deleted when I hit send. Here's my simplified reply

I don't believe it's simply the horror of the event that keeps them silent. It appears to me that it's systematic, organised almost, and ingrained. From my casual observance the other side talks of their own atrocities far more frequently as do those who fought on the side of the Soviets but lived elsewhere after the war. I hope you realise that I'm only commenting on the recollections and retelling and not judging any of the actions of either side at that horric time and place.

Maybe we have to agree to disagree about this. Cheers

Amnp;
Oh I don't think we disagree at all; the Frontoviks were given a long list of things they could not talk about upon demobilization and some of them remained true to their oaths until this day. The Soviet government had an official version of the GPW that remained communist gospel and was enforced by the arm of the state. The rest of the story? Well it is only leaking out in bits and pieces since the end of the Cold War.
JeffinMNUSA

I read "Ivan's War" a while ago. Overall, I'd thought it would be better and found it a mediocre book. Merridale really downplays Soviet brutalities but stresses German brutalities, giving a rather unfair view. It also failed to really bring to life the war of the front soldier.
In contrast, one of my favorite memoirs, Mansur Abdulin's "Red Road from Stalingrad," really gave me the best "first hand" war experience of the Soviet soldier. In fact, Mansur's book is probably one of my favorite WWII books out there.

Hawkmoon;
Thanks! Just ordered that one off Amazon. People who "were there" carry much more weight than any academic ever could. I read "Red Partisan" a year back and it was a great read-but I suspect rather (ahem) embellished. No matter; the "feel" of the first person accounts tells the modern reader much about the time and place.
JeffinMNUSA

__________________

Hawkmoon;
You were right, just a few chapters in and Mansour's account and it is GREAT. I think you would like the Obryn'ba book also; Red Partisan: The Memoirs of a Soviet Resistance Fighter on the Eastern Front - Book Review » Armchair General Magazine - We Put YOU in Command!
Most illuminating-and it is interesting that Mansour estimates the average career of the Soviet frontline soldier to be "a week or two."
JeffinMNUSA

__________________

Unfortunately, it's true. Our greatest problem (and even now is) our generals. They didn't have experience to command, they didn't have a gut to chose the right decision by themselves.
And they don't care about soldiers live. Just imagine- we've lost 200.000 soldiers just during Berlin operation. Without any necessity of such sacrifices.

Parasrus,
Well given that there are usually 2 or 3 wounded for every one killed then virtually every Red Army Frontovik must have been wounded.
Here are some stats from Jewish sources on Jewish Frontoviks during the GPW.
j. - Russia commemorates the role of Jews during WWII
If 200,000 out of 500,000 were killed then ALL of the survivors must have suffered disabling wounds-or multiple disabling wounds. This must also have been true of the Frontovik population at large-with the exception of the tankmen and airmen where the killed to wounded ratio would be different due to the nature of the combat.
The angelfire statistics;
</title> </head> <body bgcolor="#f5f5f5" text="#000000" link="#2f4f4f" alink="#2f4f4f" vlink="#2f4f4f"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://hb.lycos.com/hb.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://ratings.lycos.com/ratings/lycos

JeffinMNUSA

__________________

I didn't say that 200 000 died Here's official statistic - in Berlin operation (16 april - 8 may) the losses (dead or wounded) 361.367 men. Or 15.712 men/ per day. It was the highest loses during any WW2 offensive operations.

The goal of generals was to take Berlin before 1st of May (communist holiday). Zhukov in he's telephone conversation before the operation promised to do that "with any cost". The "cost" was very high
I've seen the transcribed of that conversation in archive. Finally we have possibilities to work with secret documents, but not all. There are huge numbers which still cary "Soversheno secretno" code.

Hawkmoon;
You were right, just a few chapters in and Mansour's account and it is GREAT. I think you would like the Obryn'ba book also; Red Partisan: The Memoirs of a Soviet Resistance Fighter on the Eastern Front - Book Review » Armchair General Magazine - We Put YOU in Command!
Most illuminating-and it is interesting that Mansour estimates the average career of the Soviet frontline soldier to be "a week or two."
JeffinMNUSA

Glad you like Mansour's memoir. There are so many eyeopening parts in the book. Remember the beginning how he described his families starvation periods in Siberia, how mothers envied other mothers who lost their children so they themselves could have more to eat. For a mother to think in such a way its got to be really bad. I also found that Mansour, although from a simple mining background, was really quiet an intellect. The guy was amazing. Wait till you get to the crossing of the Dnieper.

And I'll check out the Red Partisan war. I've always had interest in this side of the war as well. Funny, how partisans can be heroes or cowardly terrorists, all depends which side your on.

According to recents accounts which I have came across stated that the Red Army only consisted of about 15% communist.

interesting

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I recall in the book it was mentioned that many joined because it was the only way that your relatives would be informed if you died if you were a party member. Otherwise not. Personally I´d reckon under the circumstances joining the party would be rather obvious. So I´d think it was higher than 15% but could be wrong.

__________________

Hawkmoon;
Starvation ravaged much of Russia in the 20s and 30s and left it's mark on the Red Army. Mansour seems to have done well despite his desperate past but you have got to wonder how many others were simply not up for the rigors of war. Probably a sizeable percentage. Mansour almost casually mentions how the men of the Southern SSRs "died like flies" during the Stalingrad winter...Then from the Mansour account one can deduce that the Red Army diet was not good-mostly gruel and bread-not the high protein foods that Western Armies run on at all. But I suppose the Red Army accounted itself lucky that it got food at all. Conspicuous by it's absence is any mention of lend lease food in the Mansour account; but then again, this story was first published during the Cold War.
A part of the Obryn'ba account that will surprise a lot of people is the fact that the Red Partisans were able to hold large areas of land in the NAZI rear. The Germans simply did not have the strength to crush the Partisan, while simultaneously fighting the conventional Red Army. It is also a fact that Army Group Centre was engaged in an anti partisan sweep when Bagration fell on them like a hurricane.
JeffinMNUSA
PS. Here's an interesting looking new account; http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/?author_id=444

__________________