David Glant video on the Eastern Front

[STURM]

For those interested in the Eastern Front in WW2, here is a 1 hour video on a talk done by David Glantz. In the video, Glantz debunks a few common myths assoiciated with the Eastern Front and provides an interesting overview of the campaign. Glantz in his books, mentions that most of what we know about the Eastern Front is due to several books written by people, in the first 2 decades after 1945, such as Guderian, Mellenthin, Manstein, etc, who all claim that if only Hitler had allowed his generals a free hand, to conduct a war of maneuver, the end result might have been different. Glantz however is of the opinion that, the end result, irrespective of whether Hitler had allowed his ablest Generals a free hand, would have been the same - a defeated Germany.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg"]The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Firn]

For those interested in the Eastern Front in WW2, here is a 1 hour video on a talk done by David Glantz. In the video, Glantz debunks a few common myths assoiciated with the Eastern Front and provides an interesting overview of the campaign. Glantz in his books, mentions that most of what we know about the Eastern Front is due to several books written by people, in the first 2 decades after 1945, such as Guderian, Mellenthin, Manstein, etc, who all claim that if only Hitler had allowed his generals a free hand, to conduct a war of maneuver, the end result might have been different. Glantz however is of the opinion that, the end result, irrespective of whether Hitler had allowed his ablest Generals a free hand, would have been the same - a defeated Germany.

The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities - YouTube

Glantz has helped indeed to change perceptions in the Soviet-German war and to shift the focus, relying heavy on mostly secondary Soviet sources and quite little on primary and secondary German ones. Sadly the primary Soviet (Russian) ones are far from easily accessible and the secundary sources suffer from a long period of party line. So while he has enriched the discussion by trying to provide a balance to the post-war literature he clearly views the conflict from the Soviet side based on secondary material. Thus as usual one has to be very careful.

Said that if we consider the situation considering resources and manpower, their potential and their industrial use (efficiency, effectivness) of the two opposing blocks it is quite impossible to imagine a victory of the Axis in 1942. The ideological motivated and disruptive micromanagement by key Nazi personal had of course a heavily negative influence in strategy, operational leadership even tactical decisions as well as causing havoc in the war industry. But of course the biggest tragedy of all was to initiate ideological wars for aims like the smashing of the 'Jewish-Bolshevist system' and the destruction of selected 'subhumans'.

 

[STURM]

So while he has enriched the discussion by trying to provide a balance to the post-war literature he clearly views the conflict from the Soviet side based on secondary material. Thus as usual one has to be very careful.

Why? Most of what we know about the campaign is due to books written by Germans, about their experiences and from their perspectives. The use of Soviet archives, and documents from the NKVD from the Stalingrad period that were used for his book on Stalingrad, give us a more ''complete'' picture and better enable us to understand what happened and why it happened, in a more balanced and objective manner. It is due to the fact that the Russians have opened up their archives, that we know why they did what they did, why they when along with some myths, why they totally ignored certain periods of the campaign, etc.

Similarly, it is because of new documents being made available, that certain books like ''Bloody Streets'' [Hamilton] and ''Blood, Steel and Myth'' [Nipe], that contain a lot of information that was unknown previously, can be written. How many of us know that during Kursk, it was raining almost everyday, and that this played a huge effect on the movement of the Germans?

But of course the biggest tragedy of all was to initiate ideological wars for aims like the smashing of the 'Jewish-Bolshevist system' and the destruction of selected 'subhumans'.

Yes but as a whole, the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, unlike that fought against the U.S. and Britain or even Japan, was ideological from the start. A mistake it may have been but for both countries, it was largely ideological.

 

[Firn]

Why? Most of what we know about the campaign is due to books written by Germans, about their experiences and from their perspectives. The use of Soviet archives, and documents from the NKVD from the Stalingrad period that were used for his book on Stalingrad, give us a more ''complete'' picture and better enable us to understand what happened and why it happened, in a more balanced and objective manner. It is due to the fact that the Russians have opened up their archives, that we know why they did what they did, why they when along with some myths, why they totally ignored certain periods of the campaign, etc.

I think I tried to be clear on that point. The use of primary Soviet sources is an excellent thing, sadly access is far from unfettered and Glantz relied heavily on secondary Soviet sources, with all the well known implications. The primary German material, even if not complete due to damage suffered during the war, is far more accessible. So while primary Soviet sources can greatly help the understanding of the historical events, secondary Soviet based on the party line and with implicit propaganda can distort them. To a lesser degree this can be said for secondary German literature, even if it was written in a liberal democracy without a need to stick to a single line determined by a single party.

Similarly, it is because of new [quality] documents being made available, that certain books like ''Bloody Streets'' [Hamilton] and ''Blood, Steel and Myth'' [Nipe], that contain a lot of information that was unknown previously, can be written. How many of us know that during Kursk, it was raining almost everyday, and that this played a huge effect on the movement of the Germans?

Yes but as a whole, the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, unlike that fought against the U.S. and Britain or even Japan, was ideological from the start. A mistake it may have been but for both countries, it was largely ideological.

There are also ideological elements in those other theaters, however I agree overall with your comments. The German attack was driven by the ideological worldview of Hitler and for the Soviet system it was an ideological fight against fascism.

 

[STURM]

I think I tried to be clear on that point. The use of primary Soviet sources is an excellent thing, sadly access is far from unfettered and Glantz relied heavily on secondary Soviet sources, with all the well known implications.

In recent years, official STAVKA documents, detailing unit movements, strategy, casualty rates, etc, has been released. Glantz has also made great use of papers from STAVKA, various Fronts and Army's. Indeed as you pointed out - sadly access is far from unfettered - but it's a far cry from only a few years ago.

 

[Firn]

In recent years, official STAVKA documents, detailing unit movements, strategy, casualty rates, etc, has been released. Glantz has also made great use of papers from STAVKA, various Fronts and Army's. Indeed as you pointed out - sadly access is far from unfettered - but it's a far cry from only a few years ago.

And it is good that way. I have read quite a bit of Glantz and quite sure that he refers mostly to secondary sources, but of course he was at a disadvantage compared to more recent authors. On the other hand it would be nice to see more primary research in Germany, Austria and Italy on those military matters. Even if far easier access the ground work is still time-consuming and does seldom make for flashy books.

For example chapters like anti-partisan operations of the Italian forces in Russia are hardly covered while the retreat of the Alpini in 1942 has been told and retold.

 

[STURM]

And it is good that way. I have read quite a bit of Glantz and quite sure that he refers mostly to secondary sources, but of course he was at a disadvantage compared to more recent authors.

Another author who has done a lot of research on the Soviet side is John Erickson.
BTW, a recent book which IMO is worth getting is ''Battleground Prussia'' [Buttar].

For example chapters like anti-partisan operations of the Italian forces in Russia are hardly covered while the retreat of the Alpini in 1942 has been told and retold.

I wasn't aware that Italian forces were engaged in anti-partisan ops in Russia .
Was this during the pre-Stalingrad era?

 

[Firn]

I wasn't aware that Italian forces were engaged in anti-partisan ops in Russia .
Was this during the pre-Stalingrad era?

Well smaller anti-partisan ops were undertaken mostly by German military/police forces with relative old men, locally recruited units led by German NCOs/officers or not, mostly ethnic minorities and allied (axis) forces. Italian units among them, for example bersaglieri. Their effectivness differed as well as their brutality. In the end inhuman behavior is also too often human.