web site hit counter Stalin's War: A New History of World War II - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

Stalin's War: A New History of World War II

Availability: Ready to download

A major new history of the Second World War by a prize-winning historian We remember World War II as a struggle between good and evil, with Hitler propelling events and the Allied powers saving the day. But Hitler's armies did not fight in multiple theaters, his empire did not span the Eurasian continent, and he did not inherit the spoils of war. That role belonged to Josep A major new history of the Second World War by a prize-winning historian We remember World War II as a struggle between good and evil, with Hitler propelling events and the Allied powers saving the day. But Hitler's armies did not fight in multiple theaters, his empire did not span the Eurasian continent, and he did not inherit the spoils of war. That role belonged to Joseph Stalin. Hitler's genocidal ambition may have unleashed Armageddon, but as celebrated historian Sean McMeekin shows, the conflicts that emerged were the result of Stalin's maneuverings, orchestrated to unleash a war between capitalist powers in Europe and between Japan and the Anglo-American forces in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the United States and Britain's self-defeating strategy of supporting Stalin and his armies at all costs allowed the Soviets to conquer most of Eurasia, from Berlin to Beijing, for Communism. A groundbreaking reassessment, Stalin's War is essential reading for anyone looking to understand the roots of the current world order.


Compare

A major new history of the Second World War by a prize-winning historian We remember World War II as a struggle between good and evil, with Hitler propelling events and the Allied powers saving the day. But Hitler's armies did not fight in multiple theaters, his empire did not span the Eurasian continent, and he did not inherit the spoils of war. That role belonged to Josep A major new history of the Second World War by a prize-winning historian We remember World War II as a struggle between good and evil, with Hitler propelling events and the Allied powers saving the day. But Hitler's armies did not fight in multiple theaters, his empire did not span the Eurasian continent, and he did not inherit the spoils of war. That role belonged to Joseph Stalin. Hitler's genocidal ambition may have unleashed Armageddon, but as celebrated historian Sean McMeekin shows, the conflicts that emerged were the result of Stalin's maneuverings, orchestrated to unleash a war between capitalist powers in Europe and between Japan and the Anglo-American forces in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the United States and Britain's self-defeating strategy of supporting Stalin and his armies at all costs allowed the Soviets to conquer most of Eurasia, from Berlin to Beijing, for Communism. A groundbreaking reassessment, Stalin's War is essential reading for anyone looking to understand the roots of the current world order.

30 review for Stalin's War: A New History of World War II

  1. 5 out of 5

    Marsha

    For those who think of World War II as that noble fight of good against evil, this thoroughly sourced book will be a rude awakening. McMeekin details the inspiration and practical tips that Stalin and Hitler got from each other, and also their many ways of collaborating and staying out of each others' way in the 1930s. Even Stalin's antisemitism rivals Hitler's. The allies thought they won by defeating Hitler, but meanwhile their fellow ally Stalin established a vast slave empire under their nos For those who think of World War II as that noble fight of good against evil, this thoroughly sourced book will be a rude awakening. McMeekin details the inspiration and practical tips that Stalin and Hitler got from each other, and also their many ways of collaborating and staying out of each others' way in the 1930s. Even Stalin's antisemitism rivals Hitler's. The allies thought they won by defeating Hitler, but meanwhile their fellow ally Stalin established a vast slave empire under their noses. Stalin was playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers. If you want to understand Putin's long-game, look no further than his patron-devil.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Biblio Files (takingadayoff)

    This book was provided free by the publisher as a review copy. In 2017 Professor Sean McMeekin published The Russian Revolution: A New History, and his new book is just as interesting, telling the story of World War II—or, more accurately, the world wars engineered by Iosif Stalin. More than anything, Stalin's wars were about spreading the Terror to the rest of Europe. The Spanish Civil War is often considered a trial run for the world war, and Sean McMeekin shows that having political control was This book was provided free by the publisher as a review copy. In 2017 Professor Sean McMeekin published The Russian Revolution: A New History, and his new book is just as interesting, telling the story of World War II—or, more accurately, the world wars engineered by Iosif Stalin. More than anything, Stalin's wars were about spreading the Terror to the rest of Europe. The Spanish Civil War is often considered a trial run for the world war, and Sean McMeekin shows that having political control was more important than achieving military victory. Stalin's overall strategy was always to encourage the two capitalist blocs (Germany on one hand and France and Britain and their Allies on the other) to fight each other. Stalin's goal wasn't winning, but prolonging. Even in Asia, Stalin kept the Chinese Civil War going. After the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on May 3, 1939, Stalin ordered Soviet Jews purged from the Foreign Ministry, apparently as an approach to Hitler. Pictures of Gestapo officers shaking hands with the NKVD after the Great Terror sent chills down some people's spines. McMeekin does stress the point that no war is inevitable however. The United States might have stayed out of the war. Right up until Pearl Harbor, FDR was promising to keep America out of the war. He—or his successor—might have kept that promise. Stalin was worried that if he seemed to the Allies to be getting on too well with Hitler, they might attack the Soviet Union. This became a distinct worry after Stalin invaded Finland and installed a puppet government. World public opinion was on the side of the Finns and would have supported military action against the Soviet Union. Politruks—political commisars under the supervision of Stalin's henchman Lev Mekhlis of the Red Army Political Department, spent hours a day lecturing Soviet troops and distributing propaganda newspapers aimed at the Finnish speaking population. Control detachments threatened Soviet troops who retreated with execution. Then Stalin rounded up Polish elites after blackmailing the Poles into allowing Soviet bases on their territory. Stalin didn't care, but he appeared to much of the world an aggressor like Hitler. Mussolini almost declared war against the USSR because Stalin had attacked Finland. This would have caused a split between Nazi German and Fascist Italy. Captured Soviet troops were shocked by the decency with which the Finns treated them (according to interviews with Russian-speaking British officers). On February 22, 1940, there were secret talks between the Turks and the Allies. The possible target was oil in Baku. On October 9—19, 1944, the conference in Moscow between Churchill and Stalin codenamed “Tolstoy” was famous for Churchill offtering Stalin a cynical division of the Balkins written on a napkin that Stalin seemed to accept, but it's difficult to know how serious Stalin took the offer. Stalin had refused to travel very far to meet Roosevelt and Churchill. Sean McMeekin quotes Churchill that if they spent ten years looking for a place to hold a conference, they could find nowhere worse than Yalta to meet. FDR and Churchill seemed to be trying to exceed Stalin in threatening violent treatment of Germans in the postwar period. In McMeekin's opinion American officials like Harry Dexter White in the Treasury Department, and Harry Hopkins, FDR's closest political advisor for most of his administration and chief Lend-Lease negotiator, were agents of influence who helped Stalin's cause. McMeekin says the fates of Yugoslavia, Poland, and China were settled at Teheran. Stalin convinced FDR and Churchill to (1) allow him to seize German industry, (2) use enemy soldiers as slave laborers, and (3) take revenge against captured Soviets. The simple fact was in the postwar the Allies let Stalin build a slave labor empire. World War II is often considered the most violent conflict in history, and at the same time one of the few necessary wars. McMeekin comes to some uncomfortable conclusions. If the point of the war was to save western Europe, that could have been achieved at less human cost in negotiations. If the point was to save eastern Europe, it failed. If the war in Asia was over Manchuria, the conclusion of that war just handed that territory to Stalin. Sean McMeekin is sure that Stalin was the victor in Europe and Asia.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Xiang Li

    It's ridiculous to see the hurrahs for the book. I've read more books on the WW2 origins than most people and have a large collection of books on the topic (I would recommend Bell, Taylor, Overy, Watt and Buchanan as best of the bunch). I can assert that no serious historians would attribute the WW2 origin to Stalin (he might has his share of blame for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but that is just one of many events leading to the outbreak). The role of Stalin/Russia in the summer of 1939 has be It's ridiculous to see the hurrahs for the book. I've read more books on the WW2 origins than most people and have a large collection of books on the topic (I would recommend Bell, Taylor, Overy, Watt and Buchanan as best of the bunch). I can assert that no serious historians would attribute the WW2 origin to Stalin (he might has his share of blame for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but that is just one of many events leading to the outbreak). The role of Stalin/Russia in the summer of 1939 has been well researched by Jabara Carley in his "1939: The Alliance That Never Was" - and he put more blame on the Britain for the failure of a British-France-Russia alliance which sure would stop the war.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Jean-Luc

    Sean McMeekin's Stalin's war is a lengthy but thoroughly fascinating revisionist analysis of the Russian dictator's role and responsibilities within the gigantic spiderweb of WWII. It is unquestionable today that Josef Stalin was the lone actor who allowed Hitler to unleash his powerful military firepower upon Europe in 1939 after signing the Brest-Litovsk non-aggression pact, allaying the latter's fears of a possible war on two fronts. There is no doubt that Stalin was as much to blame as Hitler Sean McMeekin's Stalin's war is a lengthy but thoroughly fascinating revisionist analysis of the Russian dictator's role and responsibilities within the gigantic spiderweb of WWII. It is unquestionable today that Josef Stalin was the lone actor who allowed Hitler to unleash his powerful military firepower upon Europe in 1939 after signing the Brest-Litovsk non-aggression pact, allaying the latter's fears of a possible war on two fronts. There is no doubt that Stalin was as much to blame as Hitler was for setting the house on fire. But by early 1940, Josef seemed to have been taken unawares by the speed of the German successes and he started to doubt Russia's abilities to control the Teutonic firewall raging across the continent. Unfortunately he had only himself to blame. If Stalin hadn't purged the top Russian military ranks in the 30s, his armed forces would have been better prepared to deal with the catastrophic situation Hitler created. His actions before the war definitely weakened Russia's abilities to mount any sweeping operations against Germany worth writing home about. The tide only changed when the Germans were stupid enough to invade Russia with all the tragic consequences we all know so well... It's only after the Hitlerian debacle in Russia that Stalin finally emerged as a powerful player to be reckoned with. He started to put forward his grand diplomatic vision for a postwar Soviet Union and its place among the winners. From the 1943 conference in Theran to Yalta & Postdam two years later, he never stop to put forward a bullying diplomatic approach that Roosevelt & Churchill had to eventually accept. It definitely secured an important place to the Soviet Union on the world stage after 1945 and paved the way towards the Cold War. Stalin won the day. This book is a brilliant study about Russia during WWII and a well researched look at world diplomacy at the end of the conflict and the chaotic birth of a new world order. Muchas Gracias Mr. McMeekin for the wonderful hours I spent with your book👍👍 Many thanks to Netgalley and Basic Books for giving me the opportunity to read this wonderful book prior to its release date

  5. 5 out of 5

    Grouchy Historian

    This is also one of those rare books that I would give 6 stars if I could. Like Richard B. Frank’s Tower of Skulls it will totally change your perspective on World War 2. If you thought Stalin and the Soviets were a bunch of lying, murderous, opportunistic bastards, this book will definitely confirm that. But evil is not stupid and Stalin was a master manipulator and geo-strategist. Read this book. Do it. Even if you think you know a lot about World War 2. It will make you go-“Ah. Now that (inse This is also one of those rare books that I would give 6 stars if I could. Like Richard B. Frank’s Tower of Skulls it will totally change your perspective on World War 2. If you thought Stalin and the Soviets were a bunch of lying, murderous, opportunistic bastards, this book will definitely confirm that. But evil is not stupid and Stalin was a master manipulator and geo-strategist. Read this book. Do it. Even if you think you know a lot about World War 2. It will make you go-“Ah. Now that (insert event) makes sense.”

  6. 4 out of 5

    Rkka

    Looks like McMeekin is still upset that Adolf didn't get to conquer all of Poland in '39, which was no military barrier to a German attack on USSR. The German General Staff, Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, the head of the British military delegation to the August 1939 Anglo-French-Soviet military staff talks in Moscow, and the Deputy Chiefs of Staff of the British Armed Forces all agreed that Polish army would be quickly cut to pieces by a German attack, without immediate Soviet military assistance, Looks like McMeekin is still upset that Adolf didn't get to conquer all of Poland in '39, which was no military barrier to a German attack on USSR. The German General Staff, Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, the head of the British military delegation to the August 1939 Anglo-French-Soviet military staff talks in Moscow, and the Deputy Chiefs of Staff of the British Armed Forces all agreed that Polish army would be quickly cut to pieces by a German attack, without immediate Soviet military assistance, which the Polish government would not even discuss accepting. And it was it was, before the Red Army moved an inch.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Руслан

    Definitely a book that needs to be read. I read it in advance, but I believe it will arouse great interest. The very idea of presenting World War II through the face and strategies of Stalin is something new in the field in the way developed by the author. I also believe that the book will provoke mixed reactions, including negative ones, as Stalin has supporters even in the 21st century who are gaining visibility.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Dan

    My thanks to NetGalley and Perseus Books for an advanced copy of this book. Stalin's War by Sean McMeekin offers a new and different take for the origins of the Second World War. What if the grand megalomaniac who wanted and needed the War to further his aims of world domination was not in Nazi Germany, but further to the east in Soviet Russia. Using new research from Russian, European and American sources the author posits that the seeds of the war started further to the East and in the Pacific, My thanks to NetGalley and Perseus Books for an advanced copy of this book. Stalin's War by Sean McMeekin offers a new and different take for the origins of the Second World War. What if the grand megalomaniac who wanted and needed the War to further his aims of world domination was not in Nazi Germany, but further to the east in Soviet Russia. Using new research from Russian, European and American sources the author posits that the seeds of the war started further to the East and in the Pacific, way before Adolf Hitler was even in power. Stalin wanted a world in chaos and at war to further his own dreams of one world!d under Communism, and worked with anyone he could even stated his enemies. There is much blaming of the West both for appeasing and building up the Soviet forces to fight and later allowing them territory stretching from a divided Berlin to the Pacific. Call it a reassessment or revisionist history, the book is well written and heavily researched. The ideas might not be to all readers liking, but good history books should always make a reader want to know more and to think about things in different ways. A nice gift for Father's Day or a graduation gift that could lead to some interesting conversations.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Urey Patrick

    The Soviet record in WWII has been thoroughly mythologized... and the deplorable actions of the Soviets/Communists have been white-washed out of existence, often for the political advantage of the Western policies and leaders that enabled and camouflaged the nature of Soviet Communism... a hagiography that haunts us still. Communism deserves the same opprobrium as does Nazi-ism, for all the same reasons. Between 1939 and 1941, Hitler’s Germany invaded and conquered seven countries. So did Stalin The Soviet record in WWII has been thoroughly mythologized... and the deplorable actions of the Soviets/Communists have been white-washed out of existence, often for the political advantage of the Western policies and leaders that enabled and camouflaged the nature of Soviet Communism... a hagiography that haunts us still. Communism deserves the same opprobrium as does Nazi-ism, for all the same reasons. Between 1939 and 1941, Hitler’s Germany invaded and conquered seven countries. So did Stalin’s Soviet Union. Hitler was executing and enslaving conquered peoples by the tens of thousands – so was Stalin (as he had done prior to the war and would continue to do for years after the war). Stalin literally provided the aviation fuel used by the Luftwaffe to bomb London during the Battle of Britain, among a long list of other war materiel and resources that flowed from Russia to Germany until June 1941. Stalin’s neutrality pact with Germany set the stage for Hitler’s aggression, beginning with Poland... and by design – Stalin intended to incentivize war between the Western capitalists and Germany, weakening them, bleeding them out, and sustaining his own expansionist policies. His neutrality pact with Japan did the same thing – facilitating Soviet Far Eastern expansionist ambitions while promoting war with the same capitalist powers in the Pacific arena, for the same long term Soviet goals. And while the West was at war with Japan, Stalin scrupulously was not – arresting and interning Allied flyers who came down in Soviet territory as POWs, for example. Soviet agents, and representatives, were seeded throughout the Roosevelt administration, a number at very high influential levels (Harry Dexter White, for example) and acted on behalf of the Soviet Union as a higher priority than the interests of the United States and Britain. The personal hubris and inexplicable naïveté with which FDR confronted Stalin from 1941 to his death in 1945 only made things easier for Stalin, and significantly worse for the US and Britain. While the US provided literally millions of tons of war supplies, entire factories, food stuffs and strategic materials to the Soviet Union, all at US expense (while Britain had to go bankrupt paying for Lend/Lease materials that were arguably more urgently needed, and yet provided in grudgingly lesser amounts), Stalin refused to reciprocate in any way, at all. Western observers were not allowed inside the Soviet Union. Soviet intelligence was not shared. No attempt was made to use Lend/Lease or war support as leverage to negotiate more favorable prospects for Allied policies and priorities – the Soviet Union was pandered to, and Stalin’s incessant, and increasing, demands for priority supply and recognition of Soviet policies and intentions were accepted at face value. It is a damning account – almost unbearable from the perspective of “what might have been” – “how the war might have been ended sooner” and “what lives might have been spared.” It is an account of consistently morally repugnant actions and inexplicable incompetence by the political leaders of the day that have been purposely promoted and embellished ever since. Some of the areas in which the author claims outsized influence by Stalin are, I think, exaggerated within the circumstances – although much of it is not. For one example, the author argues that the Allies shifted from the campaign up the Italian peninsula to the invasion of western France in large part because Stalin did not want Allied troops anywhere near the lands north of Italy that he intended the Red Army to liberate (and occupy) – but the reality is that the Italian campaign and the mountainous terrain north of Italy through the Alps were not suitable for the grand sweeping assault on fortress Germany necessary to end the war. Although it did indeed suit Stalin’s strategic purposes for the Allied land effort to shift west to France, it was also the strategically correct thing for the them to do independently of Stalin’s plans. The other aspect of this book that can get monotonous is the diligent listing of stuff sent by the US to the Soviet Union – in detail. It is important, but it is so extensive, and so well detailed, that it becomes tedious in the reading – unavoidable, but exhaustive and thus mind-numbing to an extent ... and little to none of which was ever acknowledged by the Soviet Union. Stalin – as with all totalitarian governments, consistently practiced the policy of “deny everything – make counter-allegations” and it worked, time and again – and it is still working. This book is hopefully the first serious refutation of the mythology of Soviet actions in WWII, and the detailed, exceptionally well-sourced, refutation of all the “counter-allegations” that have become so much conventional wisdom ever since. Definitely an indispensable addition to the WWII historical record, and a necessary book to read!

  10. 4 out of 5

    Haskell Ber

    This is another magisterial volume from McMeekin. Stalin's War aims to change our preconceptions about the diplomatic dynamic of WWII, in particular, about Soviet foreign policy aims in the West and the East in the late 1930s--early 1940s. Stalin, according to McMeekin, aimed to exploit the conflicts in Western Europe and in China and the Pacific, with the view of striking both in Europe and Asia when other powers are sufficiently weakened. The ultimate goal was world domination, achieved by mil This is another magisterial volume from McMeekin. Stalin's War aims to change our preconceptions about the diplomatic dynamic of WWII, in particular, about Soviet foreign policy aims in the West and the East in the late 1930s--early 1940s. Stalin, according to McMeekin, aimed to exploit the conflicts in Western Europe and in China and the Pacific, with the view of striking both in Europe and Asia when other powers are sufficiently weakened. The ultimate goal was world domination, achieved by military might in an old fashioned divide and conquer way. There are two major tracks in McMeekin's narrative. One is the detailed and meticulous description of the Soviet policies. Backed up by numerous archival and academic sources, it is designed to establish the expansionist, calculated, and frankly sinister ambitions of the Soviet regime. Russian readers are in fact familiar with the main ideas of this argument from Mark Solonin's pioneering research. Here, they are brought to the next level by the greater scope and sophistication of the discussion. The other track is the account of naivete and gullibility of the Western powers and, somewhat unexpectedly, Japan. McMeekin draws an especially damning portrayal of the American officials. Some of them come out as incompetent Realpolitik craftsmen. Others are stooges of the Soviet regime. And the thirds are its agents of influence. President Truman is an exception, described as a capable statesman with a strong moral backbone. Remarkably, in this 800 page book on a subject I know very well, I haven't been able to locate more than a few infelicities and minor factual inaccuracies. Among the latter: Purkayev is described as 'Marshal', whereas in fact he didn't rise above the Army General. I also have a methodological issue. McMeekin sometimes writes as though Stalin was the only agent in charge of Soviet policies. Now, it may be that he *was* in fact the only source of agency and power in the USSR by the late 1930s (see Khlevniuk's research). Still, this can't be literally true in every case. Even if Stalin signed off on procurement and similar decisions (did he? McMeekin's evidence, while usually solid, is sometimes ambiguous on individual procurement decisions), he had to follow the advice of his military officials who initiated the moves in the first place, too. Which brings us to another large question: could we credit Stalin with a conscious, coherent formulation of a strategic plan, as McMeekin and Russian historians like Solonin would have us believe? Or was there rather mostly vague thinking and opportunistic moves, enabled, no doubt, by the frequent bouts of incompetence (or worse) of Western leaders, Hitler, and internal rivals? McMeekin's narrative, despite the way it is framed (or advertised) as a big provocative argument, suggests a mixture of strategy and accident. Stalin had plans, which sometimes came off, sometimes not, and when they did it was often owing to the incompetence of his enemies---and his supposed British and American Allies. In a world governed predominantly by chance and not human design, it is harder to craft riveting narratives like this one. Grand plans like Stalin's, to expand tne boundaries of Communism, or Hitler's (eg invading the USSR or perpetrating the Holocaust) are more contingent and improvised than premeditated, and when there are such plans, they are often opaque and not always followed through according to conscious design, anyway. Instead, opportunism, leavened by cruelty, incompetence, happenstance and sheer bureaucratic momentum, drive events. This leaves less room for a coherent narrative and moral judgement. And history, when told in this rich but contradictory way, is less useful for understanding the present and predicting the future. I guess we are left with more questions than answers, but this is what one wants from a good book.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Shane DiGiovanna

    Who Won WWII? This book argues that Stalin was the main orchestrator, manipulator, villain, and victor of the Second World War. It presents a lot of evidence and definitely changed my perspective on the war, and for that it gets 3.5 (rounded up to 4) stars. Why not 5 stars? There’s a difference between presenting an unbiased analysis and argument with evidence, and writing a biased, ideologically slanted argument. Don’t get me wrong, the author backs everything with evidence and makes a very pers Who Won WWII? This book argues that Stalin was the main orchestrator, manipulator, villain, and victor of the Second World War. It presents a lot of evidence and definitely changed my perspective on the war, and for that it gets 3.5 (rounded up to 4) stars. Why not 5 stars? There’s a difference between presenting an unbiased analysis and argument with evidence, and writing a biased, ideologically slanted argument. Don’t get me wrong, the author backs everything with evidence and makes a very persuasive argument, but it was not as independent as it should be. The author is very biased against FDR (and Truman and Churchill to a much lesser extent) as a naive, incompetent fool who got played by the communists. The author doesn’t seem to understand the complexity of the Western leader’s position, and instead paints FDR with a broad and unfair brush. Stalin was indisputably one of the two victors of the war (the other is the USA), and this book does a great job of explaining how and why that happened. I’m just not sure FDR and the rest of the West were the incompetent, blind fools he portrays them as. 3.5/5 stars

  12. 4 out of 5

    Ashley Tyler

    Thank you NetGalley, author Sean McMeekin, and Basic Books for giving me a free E-Arc of this book in exchange for an honest review. All thoughts and opinions are my own. 3 stars This book is an in-depth account of the events that led up to the rise of the dictator Stalin as well as his role during WWII. This book was well researched and had gave the reader another insight into the inner workings of Stalin's battle strategies and designs in the Asian theater. The author used a lot of evidence to a Thank you NetGalley, author Sean McMeekin, and Basic Books for giving me a free E-Arc of this book in exchange for an honest review. All thoughts and opinions are my own. 3 stars This book is an in-depth account of the events that led up to the rise of the dictator Stalin as well as his role during WWII. This book was well researched and had gave the reader another insight into the inner workings of Stalin's battle strategies and designs in the Asian theater. The author used a lot of evidence to allow the reader to draw certain conclusions by going through the events that lead up to, during and the aftermath of WWII from Stalin's actions and Russia. Many authors use Hitler as the pinnacle player during WWII and often write their books from the German battle strategies and actions and give little insights into Stalin's involvement. This book was a fresh insight into WWII and other major people and events. Overall, this book was kept my interest and I am interested to see how this book will be received by other historians!

  13. 5 out of 5

    Charles Coffin

    Outstanding book. Exceptionally researched. The author's use of source material is very inconvenient to FDR jocksniffers. I expect many 1 star reviews in the coming days as The Leftist Hivemind begins to realize how devastating this book is to one of their most beloved sacred cows. The information on Harry Hopkins is stomach turning to say the least. Not to mention the NYTimes involvement in selling the Soviet cause. It's no wonder the modern day Leftist relies so heavily on paranoid projection Outstanding book. Exceptionally researched. The author's use of source material is very inconvenient to FDR jocksniffers. I expect many 1 star reviews in the coming days as The Leftist Hivemind begins to realize how devastating this book is to one of their most beloved sacred cows. The information on Harry Hopkins is stomach turning to say the least. Not to mention the NYTimes involvement in selling the Soviet cause. It's no wonder the modern day Leftist relies so heavily on paranoid projection over Russian influence in America. They are merely running cover for their generational devotion to promoting the so called Collective. This book will be on The Left's Ban List very shortly. Read it before you can't.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Dave Collier

    Author has an incredible intellect and his style is so modern and captivating. As a reader of many World War II history books and books on politics in general of the timeframe 1930s and 40s this one is special because it’s fresh. No pop culture diatracting stuff just clarity and insight flowing from a very strong mind. The theme of Stalin being the arch enemy has been too crowded out by Hitler and his despicable crimes. But Stalin was the greater murderer. It’s important to know this because tot Author has an incredible intellect and his style is so modern and captivating. As a reader of many World War II history books and books on politics in general of the timeframe 1930s and 40s this one is special because it’s fresh. No pop culture diatracting stuff just clarity and insight flowing from a very strong mind. The theme of Stalin being the arch enemy has been too crowded out by Hitler and his despicable crimes. But Stalin was the greater murderer. It’s important to know this because totalitarians and communists can’t resist murdering on a vast scale for long. It remains relevant for our age.

  15. 4 out of 5

    roger f harrison

  16. 5 out of 5

    margaret handy

  17. 4 out of 5

    David L Gray

  18. 4 out of 5

    John McCauley

  19. 4 out of 5

    Rupert McNally

  20. 4 out of 5

    Tasos Droulias

  21. 4 out of 5

    Dustin Boas

  22. 5 out of 5

    Jayson Bowers

  23. 4 out of 5

    Warren

  24. 5 out of 5

    David Garfinkle

  25. 5 out of 5

    Minato

  26. 5 out of 5

    christopher leigh

  27. 4 out of 5

    George

  28. 4 out of 5

    Gino Manzon

  29. 5 out of 5

    Eric Wishman

  30. 4 out of 5

    Hang On

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.