During his 800 days of war; Nikolai Litvin fought at the front lines in the ferocious tank battles at Kursk; was wounded three times; and witnessed unspeakable brutalities against prisoners and civilians. But he survived to pen this brief but powerful memoir of his wartime experiences.Barely out of his teens; Litvin served for three years in the Red Army on the killing fields of the Eastern Front. His memoir presents an unadorned; candid narrative of the common soldier's lot in Stalin's army. Unlike the memoirs of Russian officers—usually preoccupied with large military operations and political concerns—this narrative offers a true ground-level view of World War II's deadliest theater. It puts a begrimed human face on the enormous toll of casualties and provides a rare perspective on battles that were instrumental in the defeat of the German army.Litvin's varied roles; ranging from antitank gunner at Kursk to heavy machine gunner in a penal battalion to staff driver for the 352nd Rifle Division; offer unique perspectives on the Red Army in World War II as it fought from the Ukraine deep into the German heartland. Litvin documents such significant battles as Operation Kutuzov; Operation Bagration; and the German counterattack on the Narev; while also providing unique personal observations on fording the Dnepr River under enemy fire; the rape of German women by Russian troops; and literally seeing his life pass before his eyes as he watched a Stuka's bomb fall directly on his position. And; because part of his duties involved chauffeuring Red Army generals; he also presents revealing glimpses into their personalities and behaviors.Originally written in 1962; with events still fresh in his mind; Litvin's memoir lay unpublished and unseen until translator Stuart Britton and a Russian colleague approached him about publishing it in English. Britton interviewed Litvin to flesh out the details of his original recollection and annotated the resulting work to provide historical context for the campaigns and battles in which he participated. Remarkably free of Soviet-era propaganda; this gem of a memoir provides a view of the war never seen by western readers; including photographs from Litvin's personal collection.An invaluable historical document; as well as a remarkable testament of survival; Litvin's memoir offers unique and penetrating insights into the Soviet wartime experience unavailable in any other source.
#1125728 in Books University Press of Kansas 1999-01-15Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.28 x 1.08 x 6.38l; 1.40 #File Name: 0700609210296 pages
Review
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Was hoping for moreBy Thomas McMahongiven the title of the book; I thought the author would spend a bit more time on the Battle of Williamsburg - one of Johnston's few battles he fought before his woudning sent command over to Lee.Given Williamsburg is a topic of interest I was taken aback by several very poor inaccuracies made by the author. For example the author stated on page 136 "...neither he nor McLaws knew the exact locations of all the forts (at Williamsburg)." This is a terrible inaccuracy as McLaws oversaw the building of the fortifications and had his command based in Williamsburg for 6 months form 61-62. This fact really makes it questionable Johnston pulling him out of the defensive line he constructed and knew better than any other commander in the army in lieu of Longstreet. The Author takes much of the OR reports regarding this battle - especially Longstreets at face value which is a mistake. The map included in the book is a borrowed one from anotehr publication (one on cavlary skirmishes on May 4 between Williamsbur and Yorktwon and major flaws - the 6th Cavalry moved up on the East not West side of Fort Magruder on May 4th; Emory did not move up to Williamsburg on the Hampton Road on May 4 and Grier was with Gibson's guns not separate as shown. The author does not even mention who or what Grier's force was. He credits Stuart as keeping Johnston "informed of the advance of the union cavalry;" when in actuality Stuart managed to get cut off and nearly captured. Johnston was so uninformaed that the redoubts at Williamsburg were not even manned whent eh Union vanguard arrived. With regard to Stuarts near capture and forced march through the tidal pools of the James River the author characeterizes this as being "resourceful in every extremity in detouring..." i could go on. It is details that are needed and really impact his revisionist take on Johnston and if the book contains as many imperfections as the section on Williamsburg one should read it with much caution when determine credibility.This is fast history based on OR accounts - a scratch of the surface with a new twist.12 of 12 people found the following review helpful. Joseph E. Johnson and the Defense of RichmondBy E. E PofahlProfessor Newton has written a readable account of the generalship of Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston for the period from February 1862 until General Johnson's wounding at the battle of Seven Pines on May 31;1862. The book begins with a brief discussion of (1) the deteriorating trust between Johnson and Jefferson Davis; (2) the Department of Northern Virginia; and (3) the process; including both political and military factors; used in making the decision to move Johnston's army from Centerville; Virginia to be closer to Richmond. The decision and the details of withdrawal are well documented after which the author covers the Peninsula Campaign; the Battle of Seven Pines and ends with an interesting assessment of Johnston's campaign.Some scholars and Civil War buffs have questioned the expenditure of resources to defend Richmond and speculate that a capitol located in the interior of the Confederacy would have been preferred as being easier to defend. Professor Newton outlines the strategic importance of Richmond stating that it was a critical manufacturing; transportation and financial center. The Tredegar Iron Works alone justified the defense of Richmond. In addition; the city had four major banks; had five railroads lines and was a flour-milling center . Having established the strategic necessity of defending Richmond; the writer proceeds to document General Johnston's defense of the city.The writer objectively narrates the involvement of Lee in the decisions during this period noting areas of agreement and differences between Johnston; Lee and Davis. While Professor Newton openly states ". . the tenor of this work is pro-Johnston in terms of my assessment of the general's handling of his army" he favorably reviews Joseph Johnston's performance without engaging in "Lee bashing" the approach often used by revisionist historians to support their thesis. He gives credit and/or blame where it is due in hisopinion. This makes for interesting and provocative reading.Professor Newton gives a balanced evaluation of General Longstreet's performance. Longstreet is depicted as neither a hero nor a villain. The writer may well have summed up Longstreet's Civil War career in one sentence when he wrote ". . that Longstreet; though undeniably talented; was incredibly willful; and his cooperation in operations of which he did not approve was notoriously poor."The narration of the Peninsula Campaign and Seven Pines is well worth the price of the book. Especially interesting is his description of Johnston's reaction to Federal transports reaching the mouth of the Pamunkey River and the Union gunboats ascending the York River following the Confederate evacuation of Yorktown; a situation Johnson both anticipated and feared. The author observes that at Seven Pines Johnston ". . totally abdicated his responsibility for the overall conduct of the battle when he led Whiting's division down the Nine Mile Road . ." and then makes the interestingly observation that this was a similar failing of almost all Civil War commanding generals; Confederate or Union; in their first offensive battle.The last chapter is an assessment of Johnston's campaign. Here the author states that Johnston's retreat from Williamsburg was a skillful maneuver with strategic insight. Professor Newton correctly states that Joseph Johnston did in fact successfully defend Richmond. In view of the strategic importance of Richmond in 1862 this was a significant accomplishment. The last chapter is insightful and well worth reading.The lack of a sufficient number of maps is the book's major shortcoming.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Solid; sober work.By CBreckEntertaining and educational account of Confederate General Joseph Johnston's uneven campaign to defend Richmond in 1862; with an interesting emphasis on both his inclination to do things his own way and determination to prevent Confederate President Jefferson Davis from taking over his campaign.A balanced portrayal that gives a real sense of his attributes and flaws as a commander.
