Scan barcode
A review by speesh
Red Inferno: 1945 by Robert Conroy
3.0
The 'What if?' premiss of Red Inferno is a good one and given the state of affairs in the final months of WWII, one that was entirely possible.
What if, Conroy wonders, while they rushed to capture Berlin, hopefully capture Hitler alive and at the same time exact the maximum possible revenge for the atrocities committed against them - both real and imagined - the Russians had decided the chance and opportunity was there to continue on past Berlin? What if they had decided to continue the war past the shut-off date we all know and continue onwards to take the whole of Germany, then continue on even further into Holland, Belgium and ultimately France? What if they had decided the Eastern European countries they captured were not enough of a buffer zone and that the chance was actually there to 'export' the Communist revolution to the whole of Europe? How might that have unfolded? What might have happened to the (mostly) US forces who were already a long way in to Germany at the time (even though their leaders were duped by Stalin into holding back from a full-power rush to Berlin themselves)? How might the US have reacted and how might the Russians have been stopped (presuming of course, our sympathies lie with the West here, shall we say)?
That's the set-up and a good one it is at that.
However, while I enjoyed reading the book and at no time found it poor reading, I did feel that it was one of missed opportunities. One which, in better hands could have been a lot more satisfying. Conroy is an entirely competent writer, it seems, but the story deserved someone better. He shows the broad picture, the big plans, the leaders and the generals deciding policy, but he also manages to focus in on the soldiers and the (German) civilians caught at the sharp end and paying in their own blood, the price of the generals' broad strategic sweeps.
As I say, there's no shortage of interesting ideas, but perhaps my problems with the book can be pretty much traced back to the fact that it just isn't long enough. This can't be a short story and with so many different elements necessarily having to be involved, it really needed to be (at least) twice as long to fully do the story justice. To fully develop the ideas, possibilities (and not least) the characters, but also the ethical questions raised and the psychological possibilities he begins, but hasn't space or possibly ability, to develop properly. So, not deep enough, not broad enough and not long enough. A 'what if?' alternative history that was entertaining enough, but left me wondering 'what if, it'd been written by Max Hastings or Anthony Beevor?'
What if, Conroy wonders, while they rushed to capture Berlin, hopefully capture Hitler alive and at the same time exact the maximum possible revenge for the atrocities committed against them - both real and imagined - the Russians had decided the chance and opportunity was there to continue on past Berlin? What if they had decided to continue the war past the shut-off date we all know and continue onwards to take the whole of Germany, then continue on even further into Holland, Belgium and ultimately France? What if they had decided the Eastern European countries they captured were not enough of a buffer zone and that the chance was actually there to 'export' the Communist revolution to the whole of Europe? How might that have unfolded? What might have happened to the (mostly) US forces who were already a long way in to Germany at the time (even though their leaders were duped by Stalin into holding back from a full-power rush to Berlin themselves)? How might the US have reacted and how might the Russians have been stopped (presuming of course, our sympathies lie with the West here, shall we say)?
That's the set-up and a good one it is at that.
However, while I enjoyed reading the book and at no time found it poor reading, I did feel that it was one of missed opportunities. One which, in better hands could have been a lot more satisfying. Conroy is an entirely competent writer, it seems, but the story deserved someone better. He shows the broad picture, the big plans, the leaders and the generals deciding policy, but he also manages to focus in on the soldiers and the (German) civilians caught at the sharp end and paying in their own blood, the price of the generals' broad strategic sweeps.
As I say, there's no shortage of interesting ideas, but perhaps my problems with the book can be pretty much traced back to the fact that it just isn't long enough. This can't be a short story and with so many different elements necessarily having to be involved, it really needed to be (at least) twice as long to fully do the story justice. To fully develop the ideas, possibilities (and not least) the characters, but also the ethical questions raised and the psychological possibilities he begins, but hasn't space or possibly ability, to develop properly. So, not deep enough, not broad enough and not long enough. A 'what if?' alternative history that was entertaining enough, but left me wondering 'what if, it'd been written by Max Hastings or Anthony Beevor?'