Howard D. Grier

This turned out to be a fascinating examination of German end game of 1944-1945 emphasizing that there was very much a coherent strategy to justify the tenacious German hold on the Baltic coast in the Baltic States and East Prussia, which even by Hitlerian standards might appear to have been a low-percentage decision. Essentially, the advanced German submarines were seen as the last potential war-changing weapon in the Reich's arsenal and without havens in the Baltic their potential could not be brought to fruition. Further, this argument was bolstered by Adm. Karl Donitz at all turns and, due to absolute loyalty to Hitler and the Nazi Order, his strategic preferences were accepted. Apart from that there are interesting side examinations of the German operational situation in the land of the eastern Baltic, the Swedish influence on German strategy, the programmatic failures to bring the Type XXI submarines online sooner, and the general psychological atmosphere in the German high command at the end of the war.… (plus d'informations)

I really enjoyed the very logical premise for this work. [author:David Grier] Grier challenges the traditional interpretation of the forgotten legions of the Third Reich abandoned in the Baltic and seeks to demonstrate the very deliberate (and possibly overly desperate) reasons that Hitler and Doenitz sought to keep control of the Northern Sea. He goes into great detail tracing the hard fought withdrawals from Leningrad into Estonia and finally Latvia and forms the tardy appearing decisions to retreat into a plausible explanation of the less appreciated strategic value placed on the Northern front by the Nazi's. He further demonstrates how leaders were chosen in this area less for operational efficiency than for political obedience, but does not suggest necessarily that this led to military disaster. In fact, the author attributes greater operational freedom to those that enjoyed Hitler's favour, even when they knowingly chose to disobey orders. Unfortunately, I found that the story arc lost some steam as the book wore on. I think this was due to the decision to proceed geographically, and thus have to jump around chronologically and the end product thus comes across as a series of more disjointed stories than a cohesive analysis of the entire theatre. This is unfortunate as I do applaud the new perspective that this work provides.… (plus d'informations)