Stalin's Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of World War Two on the Eastern Front

"Stalin's Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of WWII on the Eastern Front" focuses on what happened to the Soviet Union during the first ten days of the German invasion in WWII by looking closely at the people and personalities in key positions, particularly Stalin and the handful of his inner circle and military leaders who had survived his repeated purges. Because the author Constantine Pleshakov delves into the psychology and motivation of the military and political leaders, this book reads, at times, more like a novel than a historical recounting of the events during and leading up to the initial days of the German invasion.

The horrifying scale of human lose and suffering in Russia, much of it attributed to the inept and indifferent leadership of Stalin and his cronies, staggers the imagination, and Pleshakov uses anecdotes and stories from survivors and victims liberally.

Others have recapped the book much better than I could, and I will not attempt to add to their efforts. I would note that this book is not without its problems. First, one is left to wonder how much is speculation and how much is history, given, as the author notes, the difficulties in accessing Soviet historical documents and the added problem of figuring which of the multiple viewpoints found in those documents are accurate. Next, I would have appreciated more supplemental materials, notably more maps, additional photos (some of the choices here seemed odd to me), and an in-depth annotated list of the major figures named in the book. I struggled to keep up with the "where" and "who" at times.

No doubt there is much more to this story, and I understand why some scholars of Russian history have picked apart Pleshakov's approach, but I found his narrative hard to put down.

Stalin's Folly by Constantine Pleshakov is the readable addition to the Eastern front bibilography.However, a question was raised when I finished reading the book. Is it worth reading? Unfortunately, I conclude that it is not worth spending your time and money in spite of its immense readability . In my humble opinion,there are one main problem and two minor ones. 1) The author unfolds his argument based on a faulty premise that Stalin actually planned to invade Germany . 2)The author doesn't seem to have any technical knowledge on weaponry 3) large part of the book is no other than anecdote and lacks depth in both strategic and operational analysis.

Plekhanov's main problem is that there is no palpable proof that can supports his claim that Stalin definitely planned to invade Nazi Germany. Simply there is no document whatsoever that supports Plekhanov's claim. However, Plekhanov assumed that there must be some still classified document that could support his claim . He even mentioned recent Putin regime's tendency to stop declassifying documents. If Plekhanov writes this book after he encounters those document in person and bring that up to the public , surely this book is the groundbreaking and phenomenal work . Unfortunately, for the author there is no evidence that Stalin and his generals planned the invasion of Nazi Germany in 1941. In fact , this sort of claim is rather dangerous one.As one of the previous reviwers pointed out, the claim of Mr. Rezun (Suvorov), the author of notorious Icebreaker, was fervently welcomed by New right and Neo-Fascist group when it first hit the market but later on soundly refuted notably by Col. Glantz and Gabriel Grodetsky; In fact, German edition's preface was written by Paul Carrell , one of main myth creator. Plekhanov doesn't seem to follow Icebreak controversy closely , instead he used several recently published Russian historians' works that more or less support Icebreaker theory. The bigger problem is that Plekhanov doesn't treat Ice break theory as hypothesis ,but the definite truth. Of course , subsequent chapters are loyally based on this spurious claim and show how Stalin's folly helped German invasion. But isn't it the author himself who wrote about the debacle in the Winter war? How could the Army that barely overcame Finnish army beat one of the most professional army in the world in very next year? And, What about Non-Aggression pact?
I don't want to cavil about some minor mistake but if you read Plekhanov's previous book "Czar's last Armada" you know the author is prone to neglect technical aspects of the war, namely weaponry. Although it could be a relative minor problem or even can be construed as "Errata" , it constantly bothered me whenever I encountered preposterous claim of author.

Although anecdotes may convey both readability and reality in often dry military history books, the book clearly lacks both strategical and operational analysis. I enjoy reading the book ,but there are better books that are armed with more sound academic approach and quality information.

If your looking at this book you probably already have an interest in WWII, Russia, Stalin, or the Eastern Front. If you can answer yes to any of these things, you will love this book. Of course, it is written predominately from the Russian point of view, otherwise it would just be called The Tragic First Ten Days Of World War II On The Eastern Front. But since this book is about "Stalin's Folly" it is natural to assume this is about Russia.

This book is genuinely entertaining. It turns the historical information into a truly human drama. The figures are brought to life in a way that it easily identifiable. The book sometimes digresses from the matter at hand to individual stories, of heroism, despair, and suffering. I found this greatly entertaining and these individual stories of the common person acted as a kind of "intermission" a way to gather your thoughts and soak up the information.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in World WarII on the Eastern Front, or anyone genuinely interested in entertaining historical drama.

Pleshakov has written a very detailed and lively account of those tragic first ten days, and the events leading up to them. His style is easy to enjoy, while his knowledge of the topic is extensive.

I only have two complaints:

(1) I think the endnotes should have been flagged by numbers so that it would have been easier to follow them.

(2) His theory that Stalin wanted to attack Germany by early July 1941 is not widely accepted, and there is no hard evidence whatsoever supporting it. It is just one possible explanation of Stalin's actions (or the lack of them) before Barbarossa, and (in my point of view) not even the most likely. Still Pleshakov regards it to be fact, and although he admits the lack of evidence, some readers may believe that what they're reading is the only (or at least by far the most likely) explanation of the known facts. Well, it is not.

Still, I recommend this book for anyone who's interested in the history (and the Soviet side) of the German Eastern Front.

Just finished reading this book, interesting theory, that Stalin was going to preempt Hitler's attack on the USSR. What does Pleshakov think?, that Stalin is George Bush Jr? Clearly this theory is part of the revisionist interpretation of the facts. Stalin was a basket case and not a cunning foe of Hitler as being depicted. His commentary on the situation in Ukraine,the Ukrainian people and their representatives, the OUN, was stupid. Let me explain when the Nazis turned on the Ukrainians he called the OUN terrorists and then when the OUN fought the Soviets at the same time as they were fighting the Nazis-lo and behold-he also called them terrorists again. What?? Get your facts straight. He also called the Ukrainian trident an agressive symbol-what????? The trident is the national symbol of the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian nation-nothing more and nothing less. His commentary on Ukraine, clearly tells me that he is speaking as a Russian imperialist who has not gotten use to the reality that Ukraine is a independent nation and no longer a part of the Russian empire. I guess he is having withdrawal pains-lets give him a shot of vodka-might help him. In conclusion, this book is a revisionist study of a truly dark period in European history-a good read but you have to be selective in what you believe.