Top Tens – History: Top 10 History Books (7) Peter Heather – The Fall of the Roman Empire

Cover 2007 paperback edition published by Oxford University Press – the edition I own

 

 

(7) PETER HEATHER –

THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: A NEW HISTORY OF ROME & THE BARBARIANS (2005)

 

Once again it’s the titular fall of the Roman Empire, that “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, retreating to the breath of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world”.

As I said in the previous entry, the usual discourse or debate over the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is as to which of those two predominate – that is, whether it was more a matter of internal decline or external fall. Proponents of the latter have been dubbed the Movers – tracing “the collapse of the Western Roman Empire to external migration” – to be contrasted with the former as the Shakers, tracing “the collapse to internal developments within the empire”.

Heather falls squarely in the camp of the Movers.

“Heather contends that it was the movements of “barbarians” in the Migration Period which led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. He accepts the traditional view that it was the arrival of the Huns on the Pontic steppe in the late 4th century which set these migrations in motion. Heather’s approach differs from many of his predecessors in the late 20th century, who have tended to downplay the importance migration played in the fall of the Western Roman Empire…According to Heather, the idea that the invading barbarians were peacefully absorbed into Roman civilisation “smells more of wishful thinking than likely reality”.

In a nutshell, Heather’s thesis is that the barbarians did it. Well, perhaps not quite the barbarians the Romans knew them, as his thesis is that the barbarians had changed to match Rome in military capacity.

“Centuries of imperialism turned the neighbors Rome called barbarians into an enemy capable of dismantling an Empire that had dominated their lives for so long… Europe’s barbarians, transformed by centuries of contact with Rome on every possible level, eventually pulled the empire apart…the Huns overturned the existing strategic balance of power on Rome’s European frontiers, to force the Goths and others to seek refuge inside the Empire. This prompted two generations of struggle, during which new barbarian coalitions, formed in response to Roman hostility, brought the Roman west to its knees… the Roman Empire was not on the brink of social or moral collapse. What brought it to an end were the barbarians.”

With this nutshell comes eye-opening nuggets. There’re those new barbarian coalitions with their capacity to mobilize critical masses of military force that were able to match those of the Romans – and which in a perfect storm of a combination of critical masses outmatched and overwhelmed the empire. It’s always intrigued me how the barbarians, with such tiny populations in proportion to the empire, were seemingly able to punch so far above their weight.

I also gained a new appreciation of the resilience of the western Roman empire, particularly in the ability of the strongmen who actually ruled it in the fourth and fifth centuries to repeatedly stabilize the chaos that invariably ensued from the collapse of the previous strongmen – although it was something of a ratcheting down effect, as each successive stabilization lost that little bit more.

Heather also persuaded me that the eastern empire was not entirely supine sleeping through the fall of the western empire, as it did lend military aid at more points than I had sneered at it for, but I stand by it was not much more – and with poor effect, luck or timing – such that it mostly slept through the fall of the west, particularly under the emperor Theodosius II.

That’s right – the Theodosian dynasty, the dynasty I love to hate, the dynasty in which the only good members (Constantius III and Marcian) married into it.

 

RATING:

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 History Books (8) Kyle Harper – The Fate of Rome

2018 hardcover edition – the edition I own

 

 

(8) KYLE HARPER –

THE FATE OF ROME: CLIMATE, DISEASE & THE END OF AN EMPIRE (2017)

 

“We are only mortal

but being mortal

can defy our fate.

We may

by an outside chance

even win!”

 

Or maybe not in the case of the Roman Empire, although it gave a good red-hot go of it with one of humanity’s best pre-modern winning streaks, for a couple of centuries at least.

Although as this book points out, while the Roman Empire’s winning streak was impressive, it is less impressive than it might have otherwise seem given that it coincided perfectly with the optimal environmental circumstances for it – the warm climate period literally named for it as the Roman Warm Period and the absence of high mortality pandemics that were the most lethal invasions of the Roman Empire by far.

While I’m quoting poetry – aptly enough William Carlos Williams’ The Ivy Crown, although it would be more apt as The Laurel Wreath – I’m fond of quoting Matthew Arnold’s Dover Beach for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, as that “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, retreating to the breath of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world”.

And rarely have I felt that roar to be so melancholy or overwhelming as in this book, as indeed the fate of the empire. The usual discourse or debate over the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is as to which of those two predominate – that is, internal decline or external fall.

This book falls (heh) on the fall side of the decline vs fall argument but so distinctively as to open up an entirely new third front, a fall to adversaries entirely different and far more destructive than its human ones – the adversaries of natural environment, climate, and pandemic.

“How devastating viruses, pandemics, and other natural catastrophes swept through the far-flung Roman Empire and helped to bring down one of the mightiest civilizations of the ancient world…how the fate of Rome was decided not just by emperors, soldiers, and barbarians but also by volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, climate instability, and devastating viruses and bacteria…from Rome’s pinnacle in the second century, when the empire seemed an invincible superpower, to its unravelling by the seventh century, when Rome was politically fragmented and materially depleted.”

On the role of pandemics, the book is essentially a tale of three plagues, each of which recurred or reverberated for extraordinary lengths of time – the Antonine Plague (hypothesized as smallpox) and which strained the empire’s resilience to breaking point on the eve of the Crisis of the Third Century, the Cyprian Plague (something akin to Ebola) and which fuelled the Crisis, and the Justinian Plague (bubonic plague) which ended the Roman superpower of antiquity (albeit the Eastern Roman Empire endured as a “Byzantine rump state”)..

 

RATING:

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 History Books (9) Walter Scheidel – Escape from Rome

Cover of 2020 ediition – the edition I own

 

 

(9) WALTER SCHEIDEL –

ESCAPE FROM ROME: THE FAILURE OF EMPIRE & THE ROAD TO PROSPERITY (2019)

 

Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the fall of Rome.

 

Playing on Monty Python’s Life of Brian, what has the Roman empire ever done for us? This book gives its answer – fall and go away.

Or perhaps more precisely, fall and never come back – not just the Roman empire but any empire with the same extent of predominance in Europe.

Although at least that did impress me with the unique achievement of the Romans – that no one else, before or since, have ever been able to replicate their empire in Europe (or the Mediterranean). Even for the Romans it arose from applying their distinctive strengths at a unique, and limited, window of opportunity in time and place.

And that’s a good thing. In short, the thesis of this book is that the fall of Rome led to the Great Divergence – that divergence of “political, economic, scientific, and technological breakthroughs that allowed Europe to surge ahead while other parts of the world lagged behind”. Essentially, that’s because of “competitive fragmentation”, both within states and perhaps more fundamentally between them, with “the enduring failure of empire-building” and no single state ever able to rise Rome’s imperial predominance in Europe. The main contrast is with China as polar opposite, with its consistent unitary imperial states, with the other Eurasian civilizations between them geographically also falling between them on this political scale.

Half of my top ten are entries for books about the fall of Rome but this one made me feel good about it!

However, unlike the other entries for the fall of Rome in my top ten, this book intentionally skirts any analysis of the fall itself. Its analysis is much broader – of the factors for the rise of Rome and why no state was able to replicate it, the factors for “competitive fragmentation” arising from the fall of Rome and contrast with China or the rest of Eurasia, and how that competitive fragmentation gave rise to the Great Divergence.

 

RATING:

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 History Books (10) Barry Strauss – Jews vs Rome

Cover of the 2025 hardcover edition – the edition I own

 

 

(10) BARRY STRAUSS –

JEWS VS ROME: TWO CENTURIES OF REBELLION AGAINST THE WORLD’S MIGHTIEST EMPIRE (2025)

 

No surprise here for my wildcard tenth place entry for best of 2025 – this book has a fascinating subject written in an engaging style.

The Roman Empire has been argued to be the greatest empire in history, not least by me in my Top 10 Empires – a superpower that was almost unchallenged for the two centuries or so of its peak extent. Almost unchallenged, that is, as it faced revolts even at its peak and none more so than those of its Jewish subjects, with not just one but three revolts between 66 AD to 136 AD – two in the province of Judea itself and the third among the wider Jewish Diaspora outside the empire.

“No other people in the empire – and there were many other rebel nations – had such a record”.

The Great Revolt or Jewish War from 66 AD to 74 AD was the big one – at least in the historical record it left behind, primarily by the contemporary Jewish historian Josephus, a combatant on the Jewish side before swapping sides to the Romans, although also casting a shadow as far as the Gospels with their foreshadowing of Jerusalem’s doom.

After that came the Diaspora Revolt – or more precisely, Diaspora Revolts – from 116 AD to 117 AD, and then the other big one, the one in which Roman emperor Hadrian literally wiped the province of Judea off the map, the Bar Kokhba Revolt from 132 AD to 136 AD.

This book was an eye-opener, revealing the Jewish revolts to be more than the minor road bumps for the Roman Empire I had perceived them to be, albeit major for the Jews. The Romans took the revolts seriously indeed, terminating them with extreme prejudice – not only for the challenge the revolts themselves posed, but even more so for the bigger challenge that loomed behind them, the Parthian Empire, “the sole empire remaining in Rome’s orbit that could challenge its power”.

“The rebels of 66 CE humiliated the Roman legions. They first threatened, then succeeded in contributing to a Roman defeat at the hands of the only rival empire that Rome still feared. They cost the legions a huge expenditure in blood and treasure before finally the rebellions were put down”.

As this book points out, Rome committed an incredibly large proportion of its imperial armed forces to putting down revolts in a small province.

Here the book had further revelations – the Jewish revolts always seemed hopelessly doomed and self-destructive but this book illustrated the strategic and tactical calculations of the rebels that lent the revolts better prospects that one might have thought, albeit even if only from completely hopeless to mostly hopeless.

Only to shift back to completely hopeless again, from failure to play to their strengths and better prospects of guerilla warfare, but even more so from the fundamental disunity of the revolts, as the war against Rome was also a Jewish civil war.

In the end, the Jewish revolts amounted to something akin to a ghost dance – indeed, what I have dubbed half the Bible elsewhere, the great messianic ghost dance – but which contributed to the rise of a ghost dance that actually won, Christianity.

 

RATING:

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 History Books (Revamped): Introduction

Marble bust of Herodotus, the “Father of HIstory” – public domain image donated to Wikimedia Commons as part of a project by the Metropolitan Museum of Art

 

TOP 10 HISTORY BOOKS (REVAMPED)

 

That’s right – I’m revamping my top ten history books, with no fewer than six new entries! Although one of those is a new wildcard tenth place entry for the best history book of 2025…

 

History repeats itself – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

History does not repeat but sometimes it rhymes.

History is just one damned thing after another.

 

Ah yes, history – and three of my favorite quotes about it.

The first is paraphrasing an actual quote by Karl Marx – often overlooked by people, even Marxists, as someone who could be quite the capable prose stylist when not bogged down in denser prose or theory.

The second is often attributed to Mark Twain – someone who is widely acknowledged as a capable prose stylist, except that he doesn’t seem to have actually said it.

The third quip is often quoted from historian Toynbee – correctly but somewhat misleadingly because firstly, it was adapted from a preceding popular saying about life, and secondly, he was using it to criticize historians who simply sought to chronicle history rather than analyze it. Toynbee definitely fell in the latter category – a historian whose central theme was identifying, well, the themes of history, its cycles and patterns, its plot and rhythm (or history rhyming if you will).

History has been a subject that has fascinated me since childhood, when I read it avidly – and still does as I read it now, hence my Top 10 History Books.

“History is an academic discipline which uses a narrative to describe, examine, question, and analyze past events, and investigate their patterns of cause and effect. Historians debate which narrative best explains an event, as well as the significance of different causes and effect. Historians debate the nature of history as an end in itself, and its usefulness in giving perspective on the problems of the present.”

I’m not here to seek to resolve any of these debates, if such a thing is even possible – I’m just here to read books on history and, you know, live in it. To adapt my own quote of living in a mythic world, I live in a historic world. We all do.

That said, what I will do is clarify my tastes in history books. I definitely lean more towards Toynbee’s concept of history as themes or patterns, preferring history books that are more analysis than chronicle.

I also tend to have a preference for military history – put bluntly, the history of wars and empires. Two of my top ten books are general histories of war and warfare – and I’d argue for my top spot as a third such entry, not so much military history of itself but a historical treatise of military strategy as a lens with which to view history in general and military history in particular.

To which I might add a fourth entry – which is also literally the fourth entry in my top ten – as my favorite military history of the Second World War, which I often dub my bible of that war. So that’s four of my top ten books as military history in one way or another.

Following on from the history of wars and empires, it might be cliched but foremost among my subjects of preference is the Roman Empire and indeed six of my top ten books have that as their subject – with five of those looking at the proverbial decline and fall of the empire, being my particular focus within that subject of preference. So that’s six of my top ten books as histories of the Roman Empire, with five of them being histories of its decline and fall in one way or another.

I also can’t invoke capable prose style in my introduction without noting my preference for a good or even literary prose style in my books of history – some historians or historical writers are definitely better than others.

So here are my top ten books of history. You know the rules – this is one of my deep dive top tens, counting down from tenth to first place and looking at individual entries in some depth or detail of themselves. Tenth place is my wildcard entry for the best entry from the previous year (2025).

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Nazi-Soviet Wars / Nazi-Soviet War Iceberg (Complete)

German advances during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa from 22 June 1941 to 25 August 1941 – public domain image map by the History Department of the US Military Academy

 

 

TOP 10 NAZI-SOVIET WARS / NAZI-SOVIET WAR ICEBERG

 

The Nazi-Soviet war – fought from commencement of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941 through to German surrender on 8 May 1945 – was the top entry in my Top 10 Second World Wars.

However, the concept behind that list – one of my tongue-in-cheek top ten lists I look at a subject which has a fundamental continuity but which also can be demarcated into distinct parts in their own right – can also be applied to the Nazi-Soviet War given its primacy and scale, as I noted in its entry.

If you prefer, you can think of this as a Nazi-Soviet war iceberg meme. To be frank, it can’t be so clearly demarcated into distinct or effectively separate parts as the Second World War, given the more far-flung scale and span of the latter. The components of the conflict which I identify as ‘wars’ within it for entries in this top ten are mostly much more overlapping and difficult to separate from the conflict as a whole.

Even so, I think looking at them as separate components of or ‘wars’ within the conflict – in the form of this top ten list or iceberg – can be instructive and potentially offer new perspectives on the conflict as a whole.

However, reflecting that most of the entries are much less distinct parts of the conflict as a whole than in my Top 10 Second World Wars, this will be more one of my shallow dip top tens – with shorter entries – than the deep dive of the latter. Essentially, almost all entries have a focus on particular combatants within the war. A few entries effectively repeat entries from my Top 10 Second World Wars so will be mostly abbreviated to links or references to that top ten.

 

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

(1) NAZI-SOVIET WAR

 

Well, obviously. My top entry has to be the baseline of the conflict itself as a whole, which I look at in more detail as the top entry in my Top 10 Second World Wars. It might also be considered not just as a baseline but also as the superstructure of war between two ideological regimes – Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union – in the Second World War that overlaid the similar conflict between the two imperial states of Germany and Russia in the First World War.

In many ways, they were similar conflicts or even the same conflict. As German historian Fritz Fischer proposed in the so-called Fischer thesis (or Fischer controversy), Germany had the same fundamental aim in both world wars. That aim was to forge Germany as a world power (and pre-empt the rise of Russia as one) by the German domination of Europe (Mitteleuropa) and the annexation of territory, particularly from Russia itself.

The ideological conflict between the two regimes just added another layer to this German aim in both world wars – in large part heightening the brutality of the conflict (particularly towards civilians) as well as the much higher casualties of the Second World War compared to the First.

Ironically, despite their deadly ideological opposition, the two regimes had many traits in common, as indeed they were to find in their brief rapport with each other that enabled Germany to fight its British and French opponents first – and also which in effect had each regime feed off the other in developing their own regime or power.

 

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

(2) RUSSO-GERMAN WAR

 

Wait – what? Didn’t I just do this in my previous entry for the Nazi-Soviet war itself?

Well, not exactly. As I emphasized, that entry reflected the ideological conflict between the two regimes in the Second World War that overlaid the more traditional contest between their two states continuing on from the First. The war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was both a Nazi-Soviet war and a Russo-German war, the latter with a fundamental continuity of purpose and conflict from the First World War.

It also illustrates two important distinctions, one on each side.

Firstly, on the Axis side, Germany was not the only combatant, something which seems to be often forgotten, particularly by those counting up casualties on each side to somehow demonstrate German military “excellence” or “superiority” and usually overlooking the other Axis combatants to only tally up German casualties against all Soviet casualties.

Yes – Germany may have been the predominant combatant on the Axis side, without which the other Axis combatants, with two limited exceptions, could not have fought and did not fight the Soviet Union separately, but it remains that Germany did have other Axis allies fighting alongside it. The most substantial of these essentially comprise other entries in this top ten, although that does not include more minor combatants such as Slovakia or the approximately one million or so foreign volunteers or conscripts fighting with Germany against the Soviet Union – including from the Soviet Union itself, such as dissident ethnic groups or the Russian Liberation Army under General Vlasov.

Secondly, on the Soviet side, Russia itself was only a part, albeit the most substantial part, of all Soviet forces – which also drew, often critically, on the forces from the Soviet republics other than Russia or from the ethnic groups other than Russians within the Russian republic itself.

 

(3) NAZI-SOVIET PARTISAN WAR

 

The war between Axis forces and Soviet partisans behind Axis lines deserves to be considered in the highest tier of Nazi-Soviet warfare, even if it remained subordinate to and could not have achieved victory without the primary Soviet war effort.

Although in some cases, partisans were not subordinate to the Soviet war effort, fighting both the Axis and Soviet forces in turn.

And in others, those ethnic groups or Russians that actively allied themselves with Germany against the Soviet Union as noted in my previous entry might effectively be considered partisans on the Axis side, albeit ones that did not so much fight irregular partisan warfare as such but within conventional German military forces.

 

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

(4) SOVIET-JAPANESE WAR

 

Japan is one of the two limited exceptions for Germany’s Axis allies that could and did fight the Soviet Union separately from Germany, albeit not too well.

Indeed, that was the issue for Germany, that its strongest ally Japan fought its strongest enemy, the Soviet Union, entirely separately from Germany itself – before and after Germany’s own war with the Soviet Union (with the former mostly before Germany even invaded Poland to commence the war in Europe).

Hence, Japan was conspicuous in its absence from the Nazi-Soviet war, so the impact of this entry is more one of omission than commission. Not that Germany particularly sought out Japanese involvement in its war against the Soviet Union – at least not until Germany’s initial victories began to wane to the point that Germany considered it might need Japanese involvement after all, by which point it was too little too late.

Japan had signed the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact on 13 April 1941, a little over two months before Germany invaded the Soviet Union – reflecting how little Germany had coordinated with or even informed Japan with respect to its intentions.

In large part, that reflected the defeat of the Japanese army by the Soviets in war between them in 1939 that both combatants mostly kept secret from others – a war which also underlay the Soviet reasons to divert war with Germany away by the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Given the weakness of the Japanese army against the Soviets, particularly in mechanized and armored forces, I am not sure whether any Japanese involvement in Germany’s war against the Soviet Union would have actually made any difference to the outcome, even in 1941 when it was most optimal for Japan or Germany.

Both the Soviet-Japanese war and the war in my next entry were also entries in my Top 10 Second World Wars.

 

(5) SOVIET-FINNISH WAR – WINTER & CONTINUATION WARS

 

Finland is the other of the two limited exceptions for Germany’s Axis allies that fought the Soviet Union separately from Germany, although it was more the Soviet Union that was allied to Germany than Finland at the time of the Winter War and it was not Finland’s choice to fight the Soviets as the latter invaded Finland.

The Winter War has quite the notoriety within Second World War history, primarily for the obvious Soviet expectations of a walkover only to be undone by the Finnish underdog against the odds, although ultimately Finland had to negotiate while they still had the means to avoid worse defeat.

That prompted Finland to participate in the German invasion of the Soviet Union in what the Finns called the Continuation War to reverse the losses of the Winter War, although it tried to do so as separately from Germany as possible. Finland held itself aloof from Germany, even to the extent of identifying as co-belligerent rather than ally and not signing the Tripartite Pact. Finland also refused to advance beyond certain points and had to demobilize part of its army from economic necessity in 1942.

Finland was also the first to see the logic of German defeat if Germany could not secure a quick victory, attempting to start peace negotiations with the Soviet Union as early as autumn 1941.

As a result, both of fighting as separately as possible and following the logic of German defeat as well as its successes in its own defence and Allied sympathy, Finland alone of Germany’s allies (and Germany itself) in the wider Nazi-Soviet war avoided occupation.

As noted in my previous entry, not only were the Soviet-Japanese war and the Soviet Finnish war both those two limited exceptions to Germany’s Axis allies fighting the Soviet Union separately, but they were both also entries in my Top 10 Second World Wars.

 

(6) ROMANIAN-SOVIET WAR

 

Now we come to the first of three active Axis combatants allied with Germany against the Soviet Union that, unlike the limited exceptions of Finland in the Winter War or Japan, were obviously subordinate to the German war effort and otherwise could not or did not fight the Soviets separately.

At first glance, it is somewhat surprising that Romania was first and foremost of these Axis combatants, given that Italy was Germany’s major ally in Europe. However, the primary theater of combat for Italy was always the Mediterranean, where Romania shared a border with the Soviet Union.

Indeed, the Romanian-Soviet border was a border across which Germany had ceded territorial concessions from Romania to the Soviet Union in the Nazi-Soviet Pact – the Romanian territory of Bessarabia, to which the Soviets also added Northern Bukovina and some islands in the Danube.

It was also a border across which Germany launched a major part of Operation Barbarossa, with Romania as allied combatant against the Soviets – both on land and in naval warfare on the Black Sea. And as combatant, Romania committed more troops to the Eastern Front than all of other Germany’s allies combined – with Romania apparently having the third largest Axis army in Europe (after Germany and Italy) and fourth largest in the world (after Japan as well).

Notably, like Italy and Japan, Romania switched sides from being on the Allied side in the First World War. Indeed, Britain had extended the same guarantee it made to Poland to Romania (and Greece) on 13 April 1939, prompted by the Italian invasion of Albania – such that Romania was effectively a potential ally to Britain until joining the Axis on 23 November 1940.

Romania’s significance in the Nazi-Soviet war and indeed to Germany in the Second World War was not just its military contribution, but also (and probably even more so) its economic contribution – primarily its oil, which saw Romania bombed by the Allies in their strategic bombing offensive against Germany.

Ultimately, as the tide of war turned against Germany, the war came to Romania itself in what has been dubbed the Battle of Romania – where the Soviets defeated German and Romanian forces before Romania surrendered and defected to the Allies, declaring war against Germany after a Romanian royal coup d’etat against the fascist government of Antonescu.

As historian H.P. Willmott observed, the German Sixth Army, reconstituted after the destruction of its predecessor at Stalingrad, eerily found itself replaying that destruction – as it was encircled and destroyed for a second time by Soviet forces when Romanian resistance crumbled (as before on its flanks at Stalingrad).

Romania then committed a substantial number of troops – which suffered substantial casualties – as combatants allied with the Soviets against Germany, not that either prevented the Soviet occupation of and installation of a subordinate communist state in Romania.

 

(7) ITALIAN-SOVIET WAR

 

Not surprisingly, as Germany’s major ally and only other Axis claimant to great power status in Europe, however inflated, Italy was also an active combatant allied with Germany against the Soviet Union.

Italy initially committed an expeditionary army corps, subsequently expanded into an army, to Germany’s campaign against the Soviet Union. Both saw action in the southern part of the Eastern Front – most notoriously in the fighting around Stalingrad, where Italian forces covering the German flank at the Don River bore the full brunt of the Soviet offensive to encircle Stalingrad.

Historian H.P. Willmott observed that the Germans considered the Italians the best of their allied combatants on the Eastern Front, although the competition for that accolade was not particularly fierce.

Almost all Italian forces were withdrawn from the Nazi-Soviet war as Italy’s primary theater of operations in the Mediterranean loomed larger with the Allied threat to Italy itself. Ultimately, that saw Italy as the first of Germany’s Axis allied combatants to surrender and defect to the Allies in 1943, although even then some residual Italian forces remained in the Eastern Front (serving on behalf of Germany’s puppet government installed in Italy).

 

(8) HUNGARIAN-SOVIET WAR

 

Hungary is the last of what I identify as the substantial Axis combatants allied to and participating in the German war against the Soviet Union – the others being Finland, Romania and Italy. Bulgaria was an Axis ally of Germany, but it was a special case as it did not declare war against the Soviet Union and remained neutral in that part of the Second World War. There were other Axis combatants that fought alongside German forces against the Soviets, but they were either small – at a divisional level or so – or consisted of volunteer forces rather than official participation, or both.

Hungary is also notable enough for its own entry, as it was also the last of Germany’s Axis allies to remain allied with Germany – albeit not so much by its own choice but because it was the subject of Germany’s last successful military occupation of the war in Operation Margerethe.

As such, Hungary itself became one of the last battlefields of the Second World War in Europe, with German and Hungarian forces fighting against the Soviets there into 1945, most notably in the Siege of Budapest. While the Ardennes Offensive or Battle of the Bulge was famously the last substantial German counter-offensive of the war, Germany did launch counter-offensives after that – with the last one that could be described as major in Hungary, the Lake Balaton Offensive in an attempt to secure Germany’s last source of oil and to prevent the Soviets from advancing towards Vienna.

 

(9) SOVIET-BULGARIAN WAR

 

And now we have the first of two wars that were effectively separate from the Nazi-Soviet war but connected to it.

Bulgaria was an Axis ally of Germany but was careful not to declare war against the Soviet Union and to remain as neutral as possible in Germany’s war with it, although Bulgaria was very much involved as a Germany ally against Greece and Yugoslavia.

I say as neutral as possible because the Bulgarian navy did participate in Axis convoys in the Black Sea as well as skirmishes with the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. Bulgaria also sent delegations of high-ranking officers, including the Chief of General of the Bulgarian Army, to German-occupied territory in the Soviet Union, as demonstration of its commitment to the alliance.

However, Bulgaria’s stance of official neutrality towards the Soviets did not save them from Soviet occupation or installation of a communist government, despite Bulgaria scrambling at the last moment to declare war against Germany. The Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria, such that on 8 September 1944 Bulgaria “was simultaneously at war with four major belligerents of the war: Germany, Britain, the USA, and the USSR”.

Of course, of those four belligerents, only one counted – the Soviet Union, which invaded Bulgaria the following day without resistance by Bulgaria.

 

(10) HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN WAR

 

The second of two wars effectively separate from the Nazi-Soviet war but connected to it – although the term war is overstating the hostility between them, which did not break out into actual war, at least while both were allies of Germany. Cold war might be a better term.

There was a Hungarian-Romanian war but it was in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, from 13 November 1918 to 3 August 1919. Not surprisingly, Romania won, given that Hungary was one part of the dual monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that had gone down to catastrophic defeat by the Allies.

During the First World War however, it had been Romania that had gone down to catastrophic defeat on the Allied side, although it had a reversal of fortune from the final Allied victory.

That saw Romania gain the longstanding source of hostility between it and Hungary – Transylvania, which had a majority Romanian population but which had been controlled by Hungary, either as a kingdom of itself or as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Another Hungarian-Romanian war loomed as Hungary sought to reclaim Transylvania, but Germany “arbitrated” the cession by Romania to Hungary of Northern Transylvania in August 1940 – obviously favoring Hungary as an ally as opposed to a Romania that was still nominally a British ally by Britain’s military guarantee to Romania (in much the same terms as its guarantee to Poland).

Romania became a German Axis ally under the new fascist government of Antonescu on 23 November 1940 but remained hostile to Hungary, such that Romanian troops in the Soviet Union could not be stationed alongside their Hungarian counterparts for fear of them fighting each other.

Romania under Antonescu apparently considered a war with Hungary over Transylvania an inevitability after German victory over the Soviet Union. As it was, Romania got its war with Hungary as well as Northern Transylvania back – not under Antonescu or as a German ally but on the Allied side fighting alongside the Soviets against the Germans and Hungarians from September 1944.

 

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Nazi-Soviet Wars / Nazi-Soviet War Iceberg (Part 4: 9-10)

German advances during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa from 22 June 1941 to 25 August 1941 – public domain image map by the History Department of the US Military Academy

 

 

(9) SOVIET-BULGARIAN WAR

 

And now we have the first of two wars that were effectively separate from the Nazi-Soviet war but connected to it.

Bulgaria was an Axis ally of Germany but was careful not to declare war against the Soviet Union and to remain as neutral as possible in Germany’s war with it, although Bulgaria was very much involved as a Germany ally against Greece and Yugoslavia.

I say as neutral as possible because the Bulgarian navy did participate in Axis convoys in the Black Sea as well as skirmishes with the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. Bulgaria also sent delegations of high-ranking officers, including the Chief of General of the Bulgarian Army, to German-occupied territory in the Soviet Union, as demonstration of its commitment to the alliance.

However, Bulgaria’s stance of official neutrality towards the Soviets did not save them from Soviet occupation or installation of a communist government, despite Bulgaria scrambling at the last moment to declare war against Germany. The Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria, such that on 8 September 1944 Bulgaria “was simultaneously at war with four major belligerents of the war: Germany, Britain, the USA, and the USSR”.

Of course, of those four belligerents, only one counted – the Soviet Union, which invaded Bulgaria the following day without resistance by Bulgaria.

 

(10) HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN WAR

 

The second of two wars effectively separate from the Nazi-Soviet war but connected to it – although the term war is overstating the hostility between them, which did not break out into actual war, at least while both were allies of Germany. Cold war might be a better term.

There was a Hungarian-Romanian war but it was in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, from 13 November 1918 to 3 August 1919. Not surprisingly, Romania won, given that Hungary was one part of the dual monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that had gone down to catastrophic defeat by the Allies.

During the First World War however, it had been Romania that had gone down to catastrophic defeat on the Allied side, although it had a reversal of fortune from the final Allied victory.

That saw Romania gain the longstanding source of hostility between it and Hungary – Transylvania, which had a majority Romanian population but which had been controlled by Hungary, either as a kingdom of itself or as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Another Hungarian-Romanian war loomed as Hungary sought to reclaim Transylvania, but Germany “arbitrated” the cession by Romania to Hungary of Northern Transylvania in August 1940 – obviously favoring Hungary as an ally as opposed to a Romania that was still nominally a British ally by Britain’s military guarantee to Romania (in much the same terms as its guarantee to Poland).

Romania became a German Axis ally under the new fascist government of Antonescu on 23 November 1940 but remained hostile to Hungary, such that Romanian troops in the Soviet Union could not be stationed alongside their Hungarian counterparts for fear of them fighting each other.

Romania under Antonescu apparently considered a war with Hungary over Transylvania an inevitability after German victory over the Soviet Union. As it was, Romania got its war with Hungary as well as Northern Transylvania back – not under Antonescu or as a German ally but on the Allied side fighting alongside the Soviets against the Germans and Hungarians from September 1944.

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Nazi-Soviet Wars / Nazi-Soviet War Iceberg (Part 3: 6-8)

German advances during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa from 22 June 1941 to 25 August 1941 – public domain image map by the History Department of the US Military Academy

 

 

 

(6) ROMANIAN-SOVIET WAR

 

Now we come to the first of three active Axis combatants allied with Germany against the Soviet Union that, unlike the limited exceptions of Finland in the Winter War or Japan, were obviously subordinate to the German war effort and otherwise could not or did not fight the Soviets separately.

At first glance, it is somewhat surprising that Romania was first and foremost of these Axis combatants, given that Italy was Germany’s major ally in Europe. However, the primary theater of combat for Italy was always the Mediterranean, where Romania shared a border with the Soviet Union.

Indeed, the Romanian-Soviet border was a border across which Germany had ceded territorial concessions from Romania to the Soviet Union in the Nazi-Soviet Pact – the Romanian territory of Bessarabia, to which the Soviets also added Northern Bukovina and some islands in the Danube.

It was also a border across which Germany launched a major part of Operation Barbarossa, with Romania as allied combatant against the Soviets – both on land and in naval warfare on the Black Sea. And as combatant, Romania committed more troops to the Eastern Front than all of other Germany’s allies combined – with Romania apparently having the third largest Axis army in Europe (after Germany and Italy) and fourth largest in the world (after Japan as well).

Notably, like Italy and Japan, Romania switched sides from being on the Allied side in the First World War. Indeed, Britain had extended the same guarantee it made to Poland to Romania (and Greece) on 13 April 1939, prompted by the Italian invasion of Albania – such that Romania was effectively a potential ally to Britain until joining the Axis on 23 November 1940.

Romania’s significance in the Nazi-Soviet war and indeed to Germany in the Second World War was not just its military contribution, but also (and probably even more so) its economic contribution – primarily its oil, which saw Romania bombed by the Allies in their strategic bombing offensive against Germany.

Ultimately, as the tide of war turned against Germany, the war came to Romania itself in what has been dubbed the Battle of Romania – where the Soviets defeated German and Romanian forces before Romania surrendered and defected to the Allies, declaring war against Germany after a Romanian royal coup d’etat against the fascist government of Antonescu.

As historian H.P. Willmott observed, the German Sixth Army, reconstituted after the destruction of its predecessor at Stalingrad, eerily found itself replaying that destruction – as it was encircled and destroyed for a second time by Soviet forces when Romanian resistance crumbled (as before on its flanks at Stalingrad).

Romania then committed a substantial number of troops – which suffered substantial casualties – as combatants allied with the Soviets against Germany, not that either prevented the Soviet occupation of and installation of a subordinate communist state in Romania.

 

(7) ITALIAN-SOVIET WAR

 

Not surprisingly, as Germany’s major ally and only other Axis claimant to great power status in Europe, however inflated, Italy was also an active combatant allied with Germany against the Soviet Union.

Italy initially committed an expeditionary army corps, subsequently expanded into an army, to Germany’s campaign against the Soviet Union. Both saw action in the southern part of the Eastern Front – most notoriously in the fighting around Stalingrad, where Italian forces covering the German flank at the Don River bore the full brunt of the Soviet offensive to encircle Stalingrad.

Historian H.P. Willmott observed that the Germans considered the Italians the best of their allied combatants on the Eastern Front, although the competition for that accolade was not particularly fierce.

Almost all Italian forces were withdrawn from the Nazi-Soviet war as Italy’s primary theater of operations in the Mediterranean loomed larger with the Allied threat to Italy itself. Ultimately, that saw Italy as the first of Germany’s Axis allied combatants to surrender and defect to the Allies in 1943, although even then some residual Italian forces remained in the Eastern Front (serving on behalf of Germany’s puppet government installed in Italy).

 

(8) HUNGARIAN-SOVIET WAR

 

Hungary is the last of what I identify as the substantial Axis combatants allied to and participating in the German war against the Soviet Union – the others being Finland, Romania and Italy. Bulgaria was an Axis ally of Germany, but it was a special case as it did not declare war against the Soviet Union and remained neutral in that part of the Second World War. There were other Axis combatants that fought alongside German forces against the Soviets, but they were either small – at a divisional level or so – or consisted of volunteer forces rather than official participation, or both.

Hungary is also notable enough for its own entry, as it was also the last of Germany’s Axis allies to remain allied with Germany – albeit not so much by its own choice but because it was the subject of Germany’s last successful military occupation of the war in Operation Margerethe.

As such, Hungary itself became one of the last battlefields of the Second World War in Europe, with German and Hungarian forces fighting against the Soviets there into 1945, most notably in the Siege of Budapest. While the Ardennes Offensive or Battle of the Bulge was famously the last substantial German counter-offensive of the war, Germany did launch counter-offensives after that – with the last one that could be described as major in Hungary, the Lake Balaton Offensive in an attempt to secure Germany’s last source of oil and to prevent the Soviets from advancing towards Vienna.

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Nazi-Soviet Wars / Nazi-Soviet War Iceberg (Part 2: 4-5)

German advances during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa from 22 June 1941 to 25 August 1941 – public domain image map by the History Department of the US Military Academy

 

 

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

(4) SOVIET-JAPANESE WAR

 

Japan is one of the two limited exceptions for Germany’s Axis allies that could and did fight the Soviet Union separately from Germany, albeit not too well.

Indeed, that was the issue for Germany, that its strongest ally Japan fought its strongest enemy, the Soviet Union, entirely separately from Germany itself – before and after Germany’s own war with the Soviet Union (with the former mostly before Germany even invaded Poland to commence the war in Europe).

Hence, Japan was conspicuous in its absence from the Nazi-Soviet war, so the impact of this entry is more one of omission than commission. Not that Germany particularly sought out Japanese involvement in its war against the Soviet Union – at least not until Germany’s initial victories began to wane to the point that Germany considered it might need Japanese involvement after all, by which point it was too little too late.

Japan had signed the Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact on 13 April 1941, a little over two months before Germany invaded the Soviet Union – reflecting how little Germany had coordinated with or even informed Japan with respect to its intentions.

In large part, that reflected the defeat of the Japanese army by the Soviets in war between them in 1939 that both combatants mostly kept secret from others – a war which also underlay the Soviet reasons to divert war with Germany away by the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Given the weakness of the Japanese army against the Soviets, particularly in mechanized and armored forces, I am not sure whether any Japanese involvement in Germany’s war against the Soviet Union would have actually made any difference to the outcome, even in 1941 when it was most optimal for Japan or Germany.

Both the Soviet-Japanese war and the war in my next entry were also entries in my Top 10 Second World Wars.

 

(5) SOVIET-FINNISH WAR – WINTER & CONTINUATION WARS

 

Finland is the other of the two limited exceptions for Germany’s Axis allies that fought the Soviet Union separately from Germany, although it was more the Soviet Union that was allied to Germany than Finland at the time of the Winter War and it was not Finland’s choice to fight the Soviets as the latter invaded Finland.

The Winter War has quite the notoriety within Second World War history, primarily for the obvious Soviet expectations of a walkover only to be undone by the Finnish underdog against the odds, although ultimately Finland had to negotiate while they still had the means to avoid worse defeat.

That prompted Finland to participate in the German invasion of the Soviet Union in what the Finns called the Continuation War to reverse the losses of the Winter War, although it tried to do so as separately from Germany as possible. Finland held itself aloof from Germany, even to the extent of identifying as co-belligerent rather than ally and not signing the Tripartite Pact. Finland also refused to advance beyond certain points and had to demobilize part of its army from economic necessity in 1942.

Finland was also the first to see the logic of German defeat if Germany could not secure a quick victory, attempting to start peace negotiations with the Soviet Union as early as autumn 1941.

As a result, both of fighting as separately as possible and following the logic of German defeat as well as its successes in its own defence and Allied sympathy, Finland alone of Germany’s allies (and Germany itself) in the wider Nazi-Soviet war avoided occupation.

As noted in my previous entry, not only were the Soviet-Japanese war and the Soviet Finnish war both those two limited exceptions to Germany’s Axis allies fighting the Soviet Union separately, but they were both also entries in my Top 10 Second World Wars.

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Nazi-Soviet Wars / Nazi-Soviet War Iceberg (Part 1: 1-3)

German advances during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa from 22 June 1941 to 25 August 1941 – public domain image map by the History Department of the US Military Academy

 

 

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

(1) NAZI-SOVIET WAR

 

Well, obviously. My top entry has to be the baseline of the conflict itself as a whole, which I look at in more detail as the top entry in my Top 10 Second World Wars. It might also be considered not just as a baseline but also as the superstructure of war between two ideological regimes – Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union – in the Second World War that overlaid the similar conflict between the two imperial states of Germany and Russia in the First World War.

In many ways, they were similar conflicts or even the same conflict. As German historian Fritz Fischer proposed in the so-called Fischer thesis (or Fischer controversy), Germany had the same fundamental aim in both world wars. That aim was to forge Germany as a world power (and pre-empt the rise of Russia as one) by the German domination of Europe (Mitteleuropa) and the annexation of territory, particularly from Russia itself.

The ideological conflict between the two regimes just added another layer to this German aim in both world wars – in large part heightening the brutality of the conflict (particularly towards civilians) as well as the much higher casualties of the Second World War compared to the First.

Ironically, despite their deadly ideological opposition, the two regimes had many traits in common, as indeed they were to find in their brief rapport with each other that enabled Germany to fight its British and French opponents first – and also which in effect had each regime feed off the other in developing their own regime or power.

 

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

(2) RUSSO-GERMAN WAR

 

Wait – what? Didn’t I just do this in my previous entry for the Nazi-Soviet war itself?

Well, not exactly. As I emphasized, that entry reflected the ideological conflict between the two regimes in the Second World War that overlaid the more traditional contest between their two states continuing on from the First. The war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was both a Nazi-Soviet war and a Russo-German war, the latter with a fundamental continuity of purpose and conflict from the First World War.

It also illustrates two important distinctions, one on each side.

Firstly, on the Axis side, Germany was not the only combatant, something which seems to be often forgotten, particularly by those counting up casualties on each side to somehow demonstrate German military “excellence” or “superiority” and usually overlooking the other Axis combatants to only tally up German casualties against all Soviet casualties.

Yes – Germany may have been the predominant combatant on the Axis side, without which the other Axis combatants, with two limited exceptions, could not have fought and did not fight the Soviet Union separately, but it remains that Germany did have other Axis allies fighting alongside it. The most substantial of these essentially comprise other entries in this top ten, although that does not include more minor combatants such as Slovakia or the approximately one million or so foreign volunteers or conscripts fighting with Germany against the Soviet Union – including from the Soviet Union itself, such as dissident ethnic groups or the Russian Liberation Army under General Vlasov.

Secondly, on the Soviet side, Russia itself was only a part, albeit the most substantial part, of all Soviet forces – which also drew, often critically, on the forces from the Soviet republics other than Russia or from the ethnic groups other than Russians within the Russian republic itself.

 

(3) NAZI-SOVIET PARTISAN WAR

 

The war between Axis forces and Soviet partisans behind Axis lines deserves to be considered in the highest tier of Nazi-Soviet warfare, even if it remained subordinate to and could not have achieved victory without the primary Soviet war effort.

Although in some cases, partisans were not subordinate to the Soviet war effort, fighting both the Axis and Soviet forces in turn.

And in others, those ethnic groups or Russians that actively allied themselves with Germany against the Soviet Union as noted in my previous entry might effectively be considered partisans on the Axis side, albeit ones that did not so much fight irregular partisan warfare as such but within conventional German military forces.