Stacheldraht

Like a truck full of free Coca Cola!

While many volumes continue to be written about the complexities of the period leading up to the conflict with the USSR and the exact reasons behind it, I think any competent historian will agree that it was the Germans and their allied forces that directly "started it." Getting into a childish shouting match over "who's the bad guy" or "who was the worst" certainly does nothing constructive, but neither should intelligent and objective investigation and analysis be pushed aside. After all, the conflict was a world-changing event that altered or eradicated the lives of millions. I'd be hesitant to make such a blanket statement: there were certainly many who sacrificed much and endured mind-boggling hardships for their survival, their homes, their family, their countrymen, or their country itself. Simply shrugging off the matter by saying everyone was bad, evil, whatever does an injustice to accurate history and, more importantly, to those involved. [ March 06, 2002, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

With all due respect, I thinks that's a dangerous line of thinking and a gross oversimplification. First of all, historians from all over have written about that particular conflict from a variety of angles. German, Russian, American historians, you name it. There's no big conspiracy to paint the Germans in particular in a bad light. Their acts simply brought the opprobrium on themselves. I don't see how someone can say that "everyone involved was as bad as the others" so easily. First of all, how does one define "bad"? Secondly, in the German-Soviet conflict, civilians suffered inordinately, though the civilians in question were hardly just limited to those within Soviet borders. The German populace suffered at Soviet hands, too. I fail to see how one can compare unarmed villagers or, say, the populace of Leningrad (yes, I know about the volunteer militia etc.), with the Nazi war machine. (And I say Nazi not because all members of the Wehrmacht were Nazis, which of course they weren't, but rather because they were in the service of the Nazi party and acted as its principle means of meting out destruction and death in repeated, unprovoked aggressive actions.) Nor were a lot of ethnic Russians for that matter. Stalin and his henchmen were monsters by any sane definition. Starvation, repression, imprisonment, torture--all par for his course, from everything I've read.

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, so my apologies if the following isn't entirely apropos. Regarding POW's, you may want to read Christian Streit's Keine Kameraden: Die Wehrmacht und die Sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen 1941-1945. On the German occupation policies in "White Russia" (Byelorussia), you may want to read Christian Gerlach's Kalkulierte Morde. You can find a long article on the Osttruppen (under "Soviet exiles at war") in The Oxford Companion to World War II (a superb reference, btw), along with a number of suggestions for further reading. This article, btw, estimates "800,000 Soviet nationals in the Wehrmacht by the end of the war." In various books and documentaries I've read/seen, general knowledge of German atrocities developed early on, though exactly what info was disseminated to whom I don't know off hand. Certainly the refugees returning to liberated villages, and the soldiers that retook them before that saw much evidence. See, for example, the Moscow counter-offensive or the Kerch operation in the winter of 41/2, whereupon the Soviets got to see the German-caused devastation and mass executions first hand. Of course, that's not the same thing as detailed knowledge of high-level German political policy. [ March 06, 2002, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Remember Burma, too. It wasn't all island hopping, though the campaign by the U.S. Marines and Army in the islands would be neat to see in CM form.

And at least some tanks too! See Oscar Gilbert's Marine Tank Battles in the Pacific and Steven J. Zaloga's Tank Battles of the Pacific War 1941-45 . Maybe some useful info here, too: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/index.html#ops And don't forget the Soviets in Manchuria in '45, for example.

I forgot to mention another useful link: http://www.feldgrau.com

Here's an easy link to the Handbook, along with other interesting documents: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945 http://www.lexikonderwehrmacht.de/ is very useful, but in German. I guess you could try to translate it with Babelfish, though I doubt it would do a very good job with all the technical terms. As for books, there's also James Lucas' German Army Handbook 1939-1945. Haven't read it myself and have heard very mixed things about it. For this with the cash and/or knowledge of German, you may want to try John R. Angolia and Adolf Schlicht's series of three books on the Wehrmacht, available in both English and German, though I believe some of the former editions may be out of print. Phillipe Masson's Die Deutsche Armee. Geschichte der Wehrmacht 1935 - 1945. is supposed to be very good. I'll probably be getting this one myself soon and let people here know about it if so. Of which, don't forget your local university library and/or inter-library loan services at your public library. [ March 04, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Thanks, John. I'll try to search those out. I already have a number of books by Hogg on artillery that I've gotten a lot of use out of.

Cool, thanks. Anyone know of any good, detailed references to WWII infantry weapons in general, with technical specs and clear photos or diagrams?

JonS, thank you very much That's exactly the sort of info I was looking for. Does anyone have similar data for German and Soviet troops?

Regarding Glantz's use of archival sources, he explains the sources, and by extension (or perhaps implication), part of his methodology with them, on pp.309-319. As he says, access to the Soviet archives for Western scholars seems to be largely restricted atm to selected/edited compilations published in book or journal form. Glantz's endnotes refer to many of the publications repeatedly, though those are of course (thankfully) not the only sources on which he relies. And even if Glantz couldn't go rooting around in the archives proper, he still was (seemingly) able to get hold of and synthesize far more material than one might expect. And after all, how many English-language scholars a) actively write about this conflict from an academically based perspective and have a mastery of both the German and Russian languages? Precious few I'd imagine. Re: Goldhagen: He's been blasted from various quarters in the extreme for his methodology and conclusions. I haven't read him yet and can't comment directly, but you can easily find many books and articles in multiple languages detailing the controversy. Re: Keegan: If you ever want a great one-volume history of the war, try his The Second World War. Intelligent and eminently readable--at times even poetically elegant. A great bibliographical essay and some well-chosen photographs add to the value. I don't know: I think those things do matter in general. First, attention to detail is a mark of a good scholar, and secondly, how can someone say something intelligent about operational level actions without understanding the weapon systems, for example, that they had at their disposal? A "tank division" obviously has very different meanings throughout the war, based on the nation and nominal TO&E alone. If the scholar doesn't know the names of the vehicles or a weapon's caliber or a plane's maximum range, there's a good chance he or she doesn't know as much as he or she should about the broader topic. [ March 03, 2002, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

That's the one I meant. It's commonly called the "Wehrmachtsausstellung" (Wehrmacht Exhibition) but is formally entitled "Vernichtungskrieg: Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944" (War of Annihilation: Crimes of the Wehrmacht). A brief overview of it and the controversy, in German: http://www.nachkriegsdeutschland.de/wehrmachtsausstellung.html (I've only had time to skim it myself.) The English edition of the book tied to the exhibit is The German Army and Genocide: Crimes Against War Prisoners, Jews, and other Civilians in the East, 1939-1944, translated by Scott Abbott, edited by the Hamburg Institute, and with a foreword by Bartov. I believe the original German edition is Verbrechen der Wehrmacht. Dimensionen des Vernichtungskrieges 1941 - 1944. I think one of the biggest criticisms of the exhibit is that, it's argued, a number of photos are inaccurately captioned or misleading. The whole thing created a huge uproar in Germany, unsurprisingly, and even some difficulties in the U.S. Therein, I suppose, lies the rub: defining war crimes or atrocities in a "total war" (a term that applied particularly to the German-Soviet war). One needs to draw lines somewhere, though, I would hope. It's bad enough that some people excuse armed soldiers killing each other, but when we start excusing the killing of unarmed civilians, of children--well, something's very wrong. People want their justifications or moral comforts, naturally, whether right or wrong. I suppose many people want to paint all of Nazi Germany as utter evil incarnate so that all the terrible loss and suffering and sacrifices somehow make sense after a fashion or seem to have a purpose in the grand scheme. Others, of course, want to minimize the horrors committed by Germany or other combatants for numerous reasons. Lots of military history fans seem to do that with regard to Germany out of barely hidden admiration for the German military, which is pretty creepy considering the use to which it was generally put. (Not to excuse the Soviets or Western Allies from some of their acts, of course.) A soldiers' technical skill means little if it's applied to dishonorable or immoral ends--though defining those terms is thorny at the very best. Some of the major Russian figures of the period wrote memoirs and histories, but it seems even some of the ones that made it into English are out of print, like Chuikov's book on Stalingrad. And of course, many of those were written under the censor's watchful eye. I suppose the chances of the Soviets' ever fully getting their due, so to speak, for what they went through and accomplished are rather slim. Of course, when you consider general historical illiteracy, all the focus on the Western allies in the popular media, and Stalin, Beria, the pre-war pact with Germany, etc., what can one expect? [ March 02, 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

See the preface and intro of Stumbling Colossus for much more on that topic.

Not to drag this thread too much farther afield, but I don't know if that's necessarily the case. A lack of quantification often implies a lack of research, too. I.e., it would be too easy to people to just make broad or blind assumptions based on hearsay, received historical "wisdom," a few photos they saw, etc. The extent of the crimes of WWII (of which hardly just Nazi Germany and/or the Wehrmacht were guilty, of course) probably should be quantified and catalogued. One runs the risk of turning human suffering into dry and numbing lists and figures, but that's probably better than either forgetting or making sweeping generalizations about the perpetrators and victims. [ March 02, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Having read When Titans Clashed and having read bits of Glantz's Stumbling Colossus so far, here are some hopefully relevant impressions: When Titans Clashed is clear and concise most of the time, considering the enormity of the topic. Glantz details the current state of access to Soviet archives and relies on these extensively, if his massive endnote section is any indication. His treatment of large-scale strategic concerns is perhaps the most useful aspect of the book, if only for its seeming even-handedness and clarity. Much of the book delves into operational concerns and thereby devolves into painfully dry and forgettable sections of "And then X Division moved east and met heavy resistance." That sort of description means little without further details of the units involved and detailed maps, and the book definitely lacks the latter (it has maps, but they aren't very useful), and arguably lacks a enough of the former, too. There's precious little focus on tactical concerns, individual "personalities," the conflict as experienced by the "average" soldier or individual, etc. A blurb on the dustjacket says the book "puts a human 'face' on the 'faceless' Soviet army," which is laughable. For that read Alexander Werth's fine Russia at War: 1941-1945. (He was a Russian-born English journalist who was in the USSR throughout most of the conflict and gives a memorable description of the events in diplomatic and "human" terms, while also detailing some of the fighting.) To answer your initial question, afaik, there are no stunning discoveries to be had, merely a well-researched overview. But based on what he does offer, particularly in conjunction with Stumbling Colossus, it's pretty clear Glantz doesn't buy into the "preventive strike" (Präventivschlag) hypothesis which has been the subject of many, many books in German at least. (I.e., the assertion that the Germans fought a war of aggression against the USSR, but the latter was on the verge of doing the same.) That's still a huge matter of debate in European historical circles, from what I gather. Ditto the Wehrmachtsausstellung to which I believe you allude. There are many books available, particularly in German, that argue the merits of that project/exhibit as well as many books along the lines of Bartov's, at least in subject matter. Which Bartov piece were you referring to in particular, The Eastern Front, 1941-45 : German Troops and the Barbarisation of Warfare, Hitler's Army : Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich, or one of his articles? *** One can be both scholarly and entertaining. Titans is the former but hardly the latter. [ March 02, 2002, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

You can find reviews and info on it everywhere as it's hugely popular atm. Very good game as long as you can enjoy the intense atmosphere and great gameplay and ignore the lapses in realism.

For some more info on these forces, look under "Anders' Army" and "Berling's Army" in The Oxford Companion to World War II, for a basic rundown of their history and some possibly useful references. No TO&E listings.

As a side note on the Swastika's origins and non-Nazi usage, the word "Swastika" is derived from the Sanskrit "svasti," meaning "happiness" or "well-being." It carries a number of meanings in Buddhism and Hinduism, depending on the context and religious "school" or branch. (From Schumacher and Woerner's The Encylopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion (Shambhala, 1989)). You can still see it on modern Chinese Buddha statuettes, for instance. [ February 27, 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Yeah, we all know that the only sport that really matters is that old party favorite: naked, drunken Twister Seriously, though, if anyone could point me to sources regarding my above query, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Not sure, but I bet you might be able to find more background info in these books: http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/uniformsgerman/ [ February 27, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Some RLB links with that crest/symbol or related ones and some general info, from a quick Google search: http://chrito.users1.50megs.com/uniformen/heer/rlb/rlb.htm http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/wk2/kriegsverlauf/luftschutz/ http://www.internationalmilitaria.com/lot.cfm?lotID=624 http://www.feldgrau.com/rlb.html Easy to find after the fact

Anyone have any sources detailing that info? Not that I'm questioning it; I'm just curious to find more hard data. Also, anyone know the standard ammo loadouts for Soviet WWII infantry troops, insofar as such a thing was standardized? What was the standard issue grenade count for German and Soviet troops? Thanks. [ February 26, 2002, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

For anyone wanting some detailed technical info and pics of the StuG's, you may want to read Walter J. Spielberger's Sturmgeschütz & Its Variants (Schiffer, 1993). In includes details on their original development, the various Ausführungen, and the industry behind them (with diagrams and photos of the plants, no less), production numbers, etc. (Also available in the original German version as Sturmgeschütze, from Motorbuch Verlag.)

I don't believe this was mentioned: One way to easily learn the basics, which then leads you down the path to the minutiae is to check out documentaries. You can get the 30 or so hours of the World at War on DVD, for instance, as well as others like Mein Krieg and World War II: The Lost Color Archives. Then there's Belle & Blade for all kinds of obscure war movies and documentaries. (Can't vouch for them personally, but I hear they're good.) Then, of course, there's the History Channel. Between that, A&E, and PBS, you can see WWII documentaries nearly everyday. This past week or so, I saw ones on Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Colditz, U.S. submarine actions, and last night, the fall of Berlin, with some amazing footage. A fair amount of this stuff is, relatively speaking, "history lite," but you can learn some unusual details, and images can be worth a thousand words. The frequent interviews with vets in these documentaries are often intriguing, too. And like I said, they're a great way to get interested in a topic and start learning more about it. Ditto relatively realistic/historically accurate war films like Das Boot, Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day, etc. To really delve into WWII history, it's helpful (and very rewarding in its own right), to learn the relevant foreign languages, like German if you're interested in the ETO. Then you can seek out and read the appropriate original documents as well as secondary sources in those languages. Not every historian writes in English Then there are lots of little specialist presses like Schiffer Books. A few places to get useful .pdf documents/etexts: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945 http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/Bookshelves/WW2-List.htm http://www.battlefield.ru/ http://www-cgsc.army.mil/csi/PUBS/Pubs%20Intro.htm http://www.documentarchiv.de/ http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/wwii.htm Loads of data-rich sites like http://www.feldgrau.com http://www.wk-2.de/ http://www.ww2battles.com/ http://www.gebirgsjaeger.4mg.com/ http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm http://www.lexikonderwehrmacht.de/ http://www.u-boot-greywolf.de/ http://www.stalingrad.com.ru/ As a general yet detailed print reference, I like Dear and Foot's The Oxford Companion to World War II. [ February 25, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]