cbb
-
Posts
125 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by cbb
-
-
I've seen you disparage Beevor a couple of times now, Berli. What are your problems with his book? I'm asking out of genuine interest as I've seen a lot of criticism of his Berlin, but very little of his previous work and Stalingrad received a lot of plaudits at the time of its publication.</font>Originally posted by Firefly:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen:
The only book on the Eastern Front I found to be worse is Stalingrad by Beevor.
-
Originally posted by Foxbat:
Of course I've read Signal. Signal was an official government publication and of course it contained propaganda (just as "Stars and Stripes" and the writings of Ilya Ehrenburg contained propaganda). But we aren't talking about Signal. We're talking about books published by commercial publishing companies long after the war -- NOT government publications. "Foxes of the Desert" by Paul Carell can in no way be considered government propaganda. At most it is a view of the war by a FORMER member of a FORMER government...
His works would only become "standard introductionary works" if I, and other readers, accept them as such. I and other readers will accept them as "standard" only after: 1) reading them; and 2) reading others. If his writings are totally off-base and fly in the face of what others report, his works will never become "standard" anything...
I will state again that many, many authors use pen-names for a variety of reasons. If Carell's purpose in using a pen-name was to get his books published, then I'm glad he did it. I feel like my understanding of the war -- at least from the German point of view -- has been enhanced as a result...
I have trouble with the notion that I (or anyone else) can be "unknowingly subjected" to views contained within a book I voluntarily choose to read. Carell's books contain descriptions of military campaigns from one side's point of view. His books do not focus on the political aspects of the war; they do not focus on the underlying causes of the war; they do not focus on war crimes. They focus on battles...
Virtually every book published dealing with history arguably contains "factual, analytical and interpretational flaws (intentional or otherwise)", whether those books be authored by Carell, Ambrose, Beevor, or Solzhenitsyn. You are certainly free to criticize Carell's writings on those grounds. But that's not really what you do. You dismiss his works entirely because of his background as what you describe as a "nazi honcho". -
Originally posted by Foxbat:
Well, apparently Carell didn't hide his background or "beliefs" either since YOU seem to know all of the details about each and tell us every chance you get. Also, according to you, his "beliefs" are quite evident from his books. (But then, of course, you turn right around and say the "beliefs" expressed in his books are "not obvious", are "subtle", and are part of a "hidden agenda" -- though for some reason you seem quite capable of seeing right through that "hidden agenda" while others do not)...
A few points: 1) I've never claimed Carell's books were the "best" books on the eastern front. I've said that are very good, readable descriptions of combat on the eastern front from the German point of view. But certainly anyone wanting to know the full story of the war must study many more sources. Carell alone won't cut it; 2) Carell's books are not the most "widely read" books on the eastern front, nor do other books on the eastern front "languish in obscurity" in relation to his; 3) I would actually be MORE LIKELY to read "Archbuckle's" book if I knew his true background. I think it would be fascinating to see a former Soviet official try to defend the regime (and, in fact, there are such books). But, again, I'm not claiming that an author's background is irrelevant. I'm simply saying that an author's works should not be rejected out of hand simply because of his background. For example, Solzhenitsyn was a devoted Marxist at one time. Volkogonov was a communist. Their backgrounds do not, and should not, disqualify them from writing about some of the very things that formed their background. (One other point: Solzhenitsyn's books may arguably be "long-winded" but they are quite readable. In fact, even his non-fiction Gulag Archipelago is great literature IMHO)...
And, again, that is why you find Carell so objectionable -- the fact that he tried to "hide" his background by using a pen-name (something which many, many authors use). It is not the substance of his work to which you object -- it is his background. -
I agree.Originally posted by ichadwick:But in order to get a fair and unclouded picture you really have to read all sides including Carrell.
He also fought in the Red Army. But my point regarding Solzhenitsyn is that his writings are clearly influenced by his background (as a former prisoner under the Stalinist regime). Few would suggest that because Solzhenitsyn is not a "neutral observer", we should reject his works without even reading them. Yet that is precisely what several posters here claim regarding Carell -- that because of his background as a German officer, all of his writings about the war can only be "propaganda" in support of a "hidden agenda" and thus not worth reading.As for Solzhenitsyn - don't confuse the issue. He was a dissident writer, not one supported and promoted by the state as was Sholokhov and others. His works are, if anything, the antithesis of Stalin and the later politburo. His non-fiction was a documentary on the police state that Stalin created and others perpetuated, that led to the construction of the vast gulag system. He was prohibited from publication in his own country (as was Vasilly Grossman and Anatoly Rybakov). Personally, I prefer reading dissident authors because they look under the rug at what is hidden beneath. -
Originally posted by UberFunBunny:
I wouldn't say Erickson's books are unreadable. But they do represent hard-core military history and remind me very much of textbooks. -
If you are looking for a lengthy, hard-core STRATEGIC analysis of the eastern front from the Soviet perspective, Erickson's "Road to Stalingrad" (and the next volume, "Road to Berlin") are the books for you...Originally posted by UberFunBunny:Anyone like "Road to Stalingrad", by John Erickson? I would recommend it, but I haven't read it.
If you want anything else (such as a readable narrative with graphic descriptions of small unit actions), Erickson's books are definitely NOT for you...
In terms of wargames, Erickson's books strike me as being a lot more relevant to TOAW than to CMBB.
-
Originally posted by Foxbat:
In fact, most of Solzhenitsyn's works ARE fiction (e.g. One Day in the Life, Cancer Ward, First Circle, August 1914, November 1916). But regardless, how can he be trusted when, according to you, a person's background can be cause to reject their writings in toto? Again, Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in Gulag. Perhaps he is bitter. Perhaps he exaggerates. Perhaps it wasn't really all that bad. After all, he's not an "English historian" who is a "neutral observer" (the credentials you seem to believe are the only ones which are reliable). -
Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:
Sounds to me like you are more focused on NOT reading than reading. Personally, I think it is very rewarding to read books containing points of view with which I may not agree or which I do not otherwise believe correct. Heck, I even read the North Korean website. Yes, it's propaganda (and rather crude propaganda at that) but you can still gather a lot of insight from reading it. -
I hate to jump back into this fray, but...
Originally posted by Foxbat:
You are making two incredible assumptions here. First, despite your repeated claims that Carell's supposed "propaganda" is "not obvious", is "subtle", and contains a "hidden agenda", YOU seem remarkably astute at knowing precisely what Carell's "goals" were. In fact, what you are really doing is simply ASSUMING what his goals were based upon your dislike of his background. Secondly, Carell's "goals" (as you imagine them to be) are only achieved if the reader accepts the views that you believe Carell is attempting to advance. I can assure you that after reading all of Carell's books, I was in no way inspired toward sympathy for Hitler, the SS, Nazis, or the Wehrmacht. What I got from his books were readable accounts of combat during the war from the German point of view and nothing else...
Solzhenitsyn does the precise same thing. And he does it on idealogical grounds. Should we reject all of his writings as well? After all, he served eight years in Gulag. Perhaps he has a "hidden agenda" too. -
I believe Plievier was in the USSR when he wrote "Stalingrad" -- thus you will find nothing negative in that book regarding the Red Army. Soon thereafter he became disillusioned with Comrade Stalin's "worker's paradise" and fled to the west where he wrote "Moscow" and "Berlin". "Moscow" is written mostly from the Russian viewpoint and the author enjoys more freedom to cast the Red Army and the USSR in a negative light. "Berlin" is my least favorite of the three. It focuses less on military aspects. I found the story line a bit hard to follow.Originally posted by Foxbat:[QBIt wasn't Schmidt but Theodor Plievier, a commie rather than a Nazi. You'd never goes from the books though, probably because life in eastern germany shortly after the war soured him on Stalinism somewhat.
[/QB]
-
Very nice!
-
I hate to get into another drawn-out debate about books but allow me to say this:Originally posted by Rob Murray:I'd take anything Patrick Agte writes with a grain of salt. I have Michael Wittmann & the Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte. I've read it & I found that the book is very pro-German ( almost to the point of being pro-Nazi in places ). Plus, the North American publishers ( won't mention the name: don't feel like being sued ) of the book are extremely pro-German. I got one of their catalogues a couple of years ago & the blurb for French McLean's The Camp Men went something like this: " purports to show the relationship between the Waffen SS & the men who staffed the concentration camps ". This put me right off buying anymore of their books.
I have both Agte books (Wittmann and Peiper). They are superb works, packed with details about the men and their units and containing hundreds of great photographs. Neither are remotely "pro-Nazi" (nor are they "ALMOST pro-nazi", whatever that means)...
I don't know what you mean by saying the publisher is "pro-German". The publisher certainly publishes a lot of very high quality books on the German military in World War II (most translated into English from original German works) with a focus on armor. (They also sell modeling kits and supplies, again with an emphasis on armor). If that's what you consider "pro-German", then so be it but that shouldn't in any way cause someone to take Agte's books "with a grain of salt." ...
As for a "blurb" from the publisher's catalogue two years ago that, in describing a book by French McLean, went "something like ...", I cannot fathom how such a "blurb" should cause anyone to question the accuracy of a book written by Agte. (And, by the way, I don't dispute your recollection of that "blurb" from two years ago. McLean's book does indeed purport to show a relationship between the Waffen SS & the men who staffed the concentration camps. Whether he succeeds or not in showing that relationship is up to the reader. Obviously that supposedly "pro-German" publisher thought enough of McLean's work to list it in its catalogue and offer to sell it).
-
There is a far better book on Peiper: "Jochen Peiper" by Patrick Agte. It's very expensive but is much, much better than Reynolds' book. It covers Peiper's life in great detail and provides a very different picture of Peiper (in marked contrast to the standard "bloodthirsty nazi" view so prevelant in other books).Originally posted by Jaws:Read the book "THE DEVIL'S ADJUTANT" "JOCHEN PEIPER, PANZER LEADER" from Michael Reynolds and you get a good picture of Peiper.
On one site you must have respect for him (friend and foe) on the other site he did exactly those terrible things you can expect from a SS leader.
-
I believe it is 00005010.wavOriginally posted by Terrapin:One question: To replace the opening music with another, what file is the original music? (in the folder)?
-
Or how about the crew in "Das Boot" singing "It's a long way to Tipperary"?Originally posted by Sgt. Steiner:Yeah, I like "Lilli Marleen" a lot too. Those loudly singing soldiers in "Rosemarie" seem a little more appropriate as intro music though..
-
Just downloaded the Badenweiler Marsch posted to the cm mod database by pakfan. Sounds great! No more "Night on Disco Mountain" or whatever that original opening music was called!
Thanks!
-
Same here. I get nervous when I hear people say: "It's impossible to program a really good AI so let's just leave it out altogether." ...Originally posted by Cameroon:Unlike Lt. Bull, I play almost exclusively vs the AI for various reasons.
Even if the AI forever remains inferior to a human opponent, my hope is that Battlefront will continue to improve the AI. I think with improvement to the AI (scripting, waypoints, whatever), scenario designers will be able to design human vs. AI scenarios that are fun and challenging.
-
Originally posted by Foxbat:
I have a big problem with putting anyone in jail for expressing views on history (no matter how strongly I may disagree with those views). But that's not the only harm. A bigger question is: how many views (good and bad) are being suppressed because of the fear of prosecution? Society as a whole suffers when the freedom to exchange ideas, thought, and opinions is restricted. If Carell or Hoffmann or Ehrenburg or anyone else writes erroneous history, they should simply be rebutted -- not jailed ...I'm not sure how we got off on the topic of censorship. I'm certain there are others here who are far more knowledgable about that issue than am I. But returning to the topic of this thread, I will conclude by saying that I have read all five of Carell's books and I believe them to be quite valuable for anyone interested in the German military point of view in World War II, particularly those who play CM ...
And with that I'll shut up!
-
Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:
Eicke did not survive the war. He died in a plane crash in February 1943. -
Originally posted by Foxbat:
I don't get too bent out of shape about books written by historians (and I especially don't lose any sleep over what books they may be "crammed between" on a website). I read Hoffmann's book, found his argument regarding a pre-emptive attack rather unconvincing, but definitely enjoyed his discussions about Ehrenburg. I knew very little about Ehrenburg before. But I do recall a VERY critical remark about him made by Solzhenitsyn in vol. 2 of the "Gulag Archipelago". He said:"Ehrenburg writes [in his memoirs] that he himself 'survived [stalin's purges] by lottery.' Well, that little lottery had marked numbers. If they were rounding up your friends, you had to stop phoning them in time. If the wagon shaft turned, it was necessary to turn too. Ehrenburg heated up hatred for the Germans so insanely that Stalin had to pull him up short. If you feel toward the end of your life that you helped establish a lie, then what is required to justify yourself is not memoirs but an immediate bold self-sacrifice."
-
Originally posted by Andreas:
Oh, okay, I see what you are saying. If you write something prohibited in Germany, there are no censors standing by to delete what you wrote. Instead, you'll simply be prosecuted, convicted, and thrown in prison...Somehow that doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.
-
You are referring to the publisher of the English edition of Hoffmann's book in the U.S. His book was originally published in Germany by F.A. Herbig.Originally posted by Foxbat:To clarify: Theses and Dissertatioons Press is a small publisher that publishes books debunking the Holocaust, Hoffmann's book was published by them
-
Originally posted by Andreas:
Allow me to do the same. Censorship is defined as the act of censoring. Censoring is defined as the suppression of something objectionable. Suppression can easily and quite effectively be accomplished through criminal prosecution (or the threat thereof)...I don't understand why you are citing the definition of "censor", the noun.
-
Originally posted by Foxbat:
That's pretty much Volkogonov's view -- at least for 1941. Of course, Volkogonov's book was written in the late '80s during the glasnost period but before many of the archives were open. Perhaps there are new documents available which shed light on the issue. (Volkogonov died of stomach cancer in the mid-90s I believe).
CMBB scenario packs: here (no more)
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Here's my view:
I find the scenario depot somewhat cumbersome to use. If the mood strikes me that I want to play a historical, axis vs. AI, late-war scenario, I'd almost rather play a QB or design my own scenario rather than spend the time bumbling through the scenario depot trying to find something close to what I want...
So if your scenario is presently available only at the scenario depot, chances are I will never play it. If, on the other hand, there is a mechanism whereby I can download "packs" of scenarios organized in such a way that I can easily identify what I am interested in, then the chances of me playing your scenario are greatly increased.