In the final months of World War II; with the Allied forces streaming into Germany on two fronts; a major decision had to be made: where to draw a stop line to prevent an accidental clash between the Russian and the Anglo-American armies. Behind this decision lay another. Whose forces would be the first to reach Berlin? General Dwight David Eisenhower; supreme commander of the British and American armies; chose to halt at the Elbe River and leave Berlin to the Red Army. Could he have beaten the Russians to Berlin? If so; why didn't he? If he had; would the Berlin question have arisen? Would Germany have been divided as it was? Would the Cold War have assumed a direction more favorable to the West? In a narrative of steady fascination; Stephen E. Ambrose describes both the political and the military aspects of the situation; sketches the key players; explains the alternatives; and considers the results. The result is a sharply focused light on an important question of the postwar world. This paperback edition features a new introduction by the author. Maps
#119606 in Books 1992-01-17Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 7.80 x .70 x 5.30l; .65 #File Name: 0393308251368 pages
Review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. reads like; and is; a disseration-turned-bookBy Robert J. CrawfordThis is a very academic book intended for a limited audience and was relevant for a certain time; in the beginning of the 1970s. The writer was a young academic out to smash a "paradigm"; the "progressive version" of how Americans became revolutionaries. The idea is very simple (and is expressed with perfect clarity in a new introduction): the old interpretation was that poor upstarts opposed the conservative rich; who supported the British Crown; the upstarts mobilized the "mob" with whatever means they could; including republican rhetoric (which was ill-defined); which was ignited by the stamp protests. Maier argues that protest was a long and accepted tradition and that the process of radicalization was gradual; beginning with the success of getting the Stamp Act revoked and then getting sharper with repeated failures and ham-handed rebuff by George III. That is it for the ideas. The rest of the book is one long academic proof of this; in unbelievably turgid detail.I am sure this is a worthy academic book; but it is not fun to read and would be barely of interest for for non-academic lovers of popular history. I skimmed it; and wondered why; since I am not an undergraduate; I was doing so. OK; it is a good review of the events; the interpretation is definitely of merit; and I feel like turning to other sources for a better narrative account (i.e. it did not kill my interest). But it conveys little feeling and it certainly never fascinated me. If I had know it was so academic; I would never have bought it.3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. A major historian's maiden voyageBy VirgulePauline Maier was a wonderful historian. This is her first book; developed from her dissertation and it shows. That's not in any sense a criticism; but the style is rather academic and the footnotes prolific. By the time of; say; American Scripture her style was more relaxed and fluid. This is a fine book; a careful study of the intellectual and social issues that led to the revolution and made it almost inevitable1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to BritainBy Kim Burdick.I always get a kick out of reading books written by Maier's generation of scholars. The lens of "radicalism" was so real; so up close and personal to adults and students living through the Sixties and Seventies that the Revolution intuitively made sense.In my own research related to 18th century Delaware Valley history; I have often thought that the Irish Quakers and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians pouring into 18th century Philadelphia brought their hostilities and animosities against each other and against England with them. I was very pleased to find that Maier's book confirmed my observations.This is a good and carefully researched book but it is a little dry. An excellent resource for a PhD candidate or political scientist; this is definitely not a book for the casual Revolutionary War buff.Kim BurdickStanton; Delaware
