East Front literature!

[Wodin]

All of Jason D Marks books are must haves.

Death of the Leaping Horseman, the unit history of the 24th Panzer division, immediately springs to mind. Not all good histories are first hand accounts, and not all good first hand accounts are of WW II in the east (Goodbye Darkness immediately springs to mind, WW II Pacific, if you want a standard for personal).

[Wodin]

All of Jason D Marks books are must haves.

Into Oblivion: Story of the Pioneer battalion 305 by Jason is another great read. Goes hand in hand with Island of Fire.

Death of the Leaping Horseman, the unit history of the 24th Panzer division, immediately springs to mind. Not all good histories are first hand accounts, and not all good first hand accounts are of WW II in the east (Goodbye Darkness immediately springs to mind, WW II Pacific, if you want a standard for personal).

[Vark]

Konstantin Simonov's 'Days and Nights' is a short novel about the Soviet experience in Stalingrad, not bad to get a feel for the Soviet perspective.

[76mm]

Death of the Leaping Horseman, the unit history of the 24th Panzer division, immediately springs to mind. .

Sure, Jason mark has already been cited; he's excellent but as far as I've seen he focuses exclusively on Stalingrad, and more on the German side. The amount of detail in his books is really incredible.

...and not all good first hand accounts are of WW II in the east (Goodbye Darkness immediately springs to mind, WW II Pacific, if you want a standard for personal).

With all due respect, this thread is specifically about east front, not memoirs in general. Most of the German east front memoirs I've read have not been great, and the Sov ones are worse. We have to bear in mind that many of the Sov memoirs have come out since the nineties, and the Sov publishing industry has not been flush with cash for editors, etc, so to expect western standards is not realistic. The "I remember" site that JK likes to quote is a good example--lots of interesting material, but the accounts ramble and some of the interviewees have probably gotten at least some tHinges confused in the decades since the war.

I for one am glad to hear what they have to say anyway.

[Wodin]

The Forsaken Army and Stalingrad memories and reassessments are two I have to recommend, though both on Stalingrad they are excellent memoirs.

Soldat by S Knappe is another one..though it does cover other theaters it mainly set in the East.

[JasonC]

76mm - if everyone who wrote (or at least has had translated) memoirs on one side was a rogue, a liar, or too stupid to put a sentence together and only wants to talk about potatoes, would you still read those? Next we will be reading Signal magazine propaganda and stories of the glorious shock workers because there was lots of it written...

If the reason one wants to read a certain genre is to learn something about men in combat, the theater and time are not the most important thing, honesty and insight are. If it is to learn about conditions in a theater and a time, or about the military art under these or those conditions or challenges, then the memoir form is completely irrelevant, and a good unit history by any objective historian works.

[Dadekster]

I plan to do quite a bit more reading on the East Front but for starters I was able to find The German Defeat in the East (1944-1945) by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. I am only a couple of chapters in and it seems a little bit slanted to the German side but that could just be my imagination. There is a ton of information and details in it, (which I assume to be accurate enough) especially about the division and corp commanders on both sides. I'll probably have to read it twice to wrap my head around it since it covers such a huge scope in units and locations involved. So far I am enjoying it especially since it covers the time period.

[76mm]

76mm - if everyone who wrote (or at least has had translated) memoirs on one side was a rogue, a liar, or too stupid to put a sentence together and only wants to talk about potatoes, would you still read those? Next we will be reading Signal magazine propaganda and stories of the glorious shock workers because there was lots of it written...

I guess our main difference is that I don't consider Bessonov (author of tank rider) to be a"rogue, liar, or too stupid to put a sentence together." While it wasn't great literature, I found it to be interesting and credible. As to the potatoes, probably all of the soldier-level memoirs I've read include a lot about food, or lack of it, because that's what important to them. It's part of the psckage.

If the reason one wants to read a certain genre is to learn something about men in combat, the theater and time are not the most important thing, honesty and insight are.

I don't really agree with you here--sure honesty is critical, but I can live without a lot of insight, as long as the author accurately sets down what he saw and what he thought, I've gotten what I expect out of a memoir. Moreover, I've read lots of first hand accounts from North Africa, Normandy, Vietnam, etc, and they are all very different from the east front, which was pretty unique. Reading about the invasion of Okinawa or whatever doesn't teach me much about Russia.

If it is to learn about conditions in a theater and a time, or about the military art under these or those conditions or challenges, then the memoir form is completely irrelevant, and a good unit history by any objective historian works.

Generally agree with you here, but there are few good Sov unit histories, in particular. Sure glantz does a great job of describing what happened, but not so great at conveying "conditions", or the human aspect of the war.

[BletchleyGeek]

I plan to do quite a bit more reading on the East Front but for starters I was able to find The German Defeat in the East (1944-1945) by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. I am only a couple of chapters in and it seems a little bit slanted to the German side but that could just be my imagination. There is a ton of information and details in it, (which I assume to be accurate enough) especially about the division and corp commanders on both sides. I'll probably have to read it twice to wrap my head around it since it covers such a huge scope in units and locations involved. So far I am enjoying it especially since it covers the time period.

It is indeed somewhat slanted, but he doesn't do it in a very consistent way. He is pretty much in every chapter commenting on particular episodes dealing with treatment of prisoners, civilians, etc. judging Red Army soldiers behavior as barbaric and uncivilized, and not commenting so much on how barbaric and uncivilized were the retreating German soldiers. I think that's probably because he was using mostly German accounts: who didn't really delve too deep into the ugliness of their own side. There are also a few political comments and remarks here and there that seemed to me misplaced in a historical work.

<SNIP>

Besides that, I find it a work which is clearly derivative from Ziemke's Stalingrad to Berlin - the structure is strikingly similar - but offering more detail by identifying accurately German units identity, locations (and their timing) and general plans and postures. In that regard is useful. Again, since he's using German documentation, very often the information he gives about names, places and timings about Soviet units and actions are quite wrong (as wrong as the German intelligence estimates). He gets right what Front was pushing in what direction, and not much more.

[MengJiaoRedux]

Besides that, I find it a work which is clearly derivative from Ziemke's Stalingrad to Berlin - the structure is strikingly similar - but offering more detail by identifying accurately German units identity, locations (and their timing) and general plans and postures. In that regard is useful. Again, since he's using German documentation, very often the information he gives about names, places and timings about Soviet units and actions are quite wrong (as wrong as the German intelligence estimates). He gets right what Front was pushing in what direction, and not much more.

A lot of later work is based on Ziemke's work. -- Even Glantz (who of course footnotes his sources very well). There are at least three good things about Ziemke:

1) it is based on a close reading of German Army-level war diaries, so it is accurate about German readings of the enemy, German communications, German intentions and squabbling.

2) The basic analysis is good for somebody writing almost 50 years before the Wages of Destruction came out

3) Ziemke writes very well and has a wicked sense of dark humor that is entirely appropriate for an account based almost completely on unpublished German Manuscript/microfilmed original documents

[MengJiaoRedux]

Sure glantz does a great job of describing what happened, but not so great at conveying "conditions", or the human aspect of the war.

Glantz's real problem is that he doesn't write very well. He conveys insights by cumulative impact. If you just keep reading and re-reading Glantz, eventually the conditions and human side comes through -- not that Glantz makes that easy -- but he puts in so much that sooner or later you begin to see a lot. My favorites are all the STAVKA comes to visit and where are you? Stories -- Phone calls, teletyping, Army Commanders not at their HQs etc.

[Wodin]

Haven't got this one myself but it's in my wish list.

Ivan's War: The Red Army at War 1939-45: Inside The Red Army, 1939-45 by C Merridale

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ivans-War-Army-1939-45-Inside/dp/0571218091/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Also this is in my wish list.

Through the Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War on the Eastern Front, 1942-1945 (Modern War Studies) by forward by Glantz author Boris Gorbachevsky

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Maelstrom-Soldiers-Eastern-1942-1945/dp/0700616055/ref=pd_sim_b_7?ie=UTF8&refRID=0QABK6ZAZ02ANTK9MZ7Z

[76mm]

Don't get Ivan's war; it Doesn't really have anything to do with military history, more like social history--you'll be disappointed!

I've got "through the maelstrom" but haven't read it yet.

[James Crowley]

Don't get Ivan's war; it Doesn't really have anything to do with military history, more like social history--you'll be disappointed!

I would have to agree with that; you won't learn anything of tactics or anything related to CMRT generally. A well written social history, though.

[Wodin]

OK it's been booted out of my wish list;)

[Collingwood]

Glantz's real problem is that he doesn't write very well. He conveys insights by cumulative impact. If you just keep reading and re-reading Glantz, eventually the conditions and human side comes through -- not that Glantz makes that easy -- but he puts in so much that sooner or later you begin to see a lot. My favorites are all the STAVKA comes to visit and where are you? Stories -- Phone calls, teletyping, Army Commanders not at their HQs etc.

I agree with this. For some time I wondered if I could ever cope with Glantz's denser works, but I kept at it, kind of like medicine - yes it tastes terrible but it's good for you

While waiting for CMRT I've been reading his latest Stalingrad books - I'm now into the 2nd volume. Third/fourth is on pre-order but not released yet. Either he is becoming better at writing or I'm getting better at reading Glantz. I'm certainly gaining a greater understanding of what went on and why.

Like you I enjoy those Stavka exchanges, and that he included much more information about the German side than some of his previous work, this feels like the most balanced (in terms of presenting the dispositions of both sides clearly) eastern front history I've read. The two Smolensk volumes were good too.

[Ssnake51]

Generally agree with you here, but there are few good Sov unit histories, in particular. Sure glantz does a great job of describing what happened, but not so great at conveying "conditions", or the human aspect of the war.

Maybe I'm just too damn old, but at this stage of my life I have almost zero interest in the 'human aspect' of war. It seems to be the same in all wars: it was like hell on earth.

Am much more interested in what happened and why it happened.

[BletchleyGeek]

A lot of later work is based on Ziemke's work. -- Even Glantz (who of course footnotes his sources very well). There are at least three good things about Ziemke:

1) it is based on a close reading of German Army-level war diaries, so it is accurate about German readings of the enemy, German communications, German intentions and squabbling.

2) The basic analysis is good for somebody writing almost 50 years before the Wages of Destruction came out

3) Ziemke writes very well and has a wicked sense of dark humor that is entirely appropriate for an account based almost completely on unpublished German Manuscript/microfilmed original documents

Too bad that he's a bit of a German 'fanboi'. He makes a lot of sharp criticism of the conduct of Soviet operations which is sometimes deserved, sometimes undeserved. He's a man with a thesis, and he'll put his head inside an oven if he needs to.

For instance his insistence on how 'retarded' - or words to that effect - were the Soviets by operating on broad fronts in the offensive. "Broad" front offensives were meant to prevent the German counterstrokes: who were masters of the art of killing with 'backhand blows'. I doubt very much he would have heaped so much scorn on Ike - who was the mastermind behind the broad front approach, I think, in the Western front - as he did on senior Soviet generals.

[Vark]

Often though, what happened and why it happened is inextricably linked to the human aspect of war.

[Wodin]

I do like a narrative in my military history books. When they are very dry it feels more like work. The vast majority of my books are memoirs or rely heavily on first hand accounts.

[LukeFF]

How are Vasily Grossman's works? I have two of his books on my Amazon wish list.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Vasily Grossman is quite a good read but then he was 'officially approved' so there are limits to his horizons. But none the less he is quite readable and paints a good picture of the war in general.

Probably a better bet for your interests is Alexander Werth who was a war correspondent for the Daily Mail who spent most of the war in Russia, an undoubted Soviet apologist, none the less he had the British journalists keen eye for detail and none of theSoviet restrictions on reporting.

As far as David Glantz is concerned try his Siege of Leningrad book for human detail.

A good free source that needs a translating browser such as Chrome is http://militera.lib.ru/ which has a huge amount of Soviet and post Soviet memoirs. Similarly the "I remember" site is a good one for Soviet side personal accounts.

Loza "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman tanks" is readable and quite informative. Jack Kagan's "Fighting with the Soviet Jewish Partisans" is good albeit concerned with the partizan war.

A cheap way to study the RKKA is either to buy the Xenephon edition of TM-30-130 for $20 or read any of Walter S Dunn's books. They are getting dated now and often have mistakes but the Stackpole editions are very cheap and accessible for the price.

There are two articles you read though both by David Glantz which you can get here:

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/rzhev/rzhev2.html The Failures of Historiography: Forgotten Battles of the German-Soviet War (1941-1945)

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/rzhev/rzhev1.html How were Soviet blocking detachmanets used

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/e-front.html American Perspectives on Eastern Front Operations in World War II

which will help point out some of the difficulties even today of studying this war. But one should not take the idea that this is a particularly Soviet problem, many German accounst are as ideological and flawed as the Soviet ones.

[Wodin]

A Writer at War is a good read.

I found his novel Life and Fate abit of a struggle to get through.

How are Vasily Grossman's works? I have two of his books on my Amazon wish list.

[Xenophile]

I thought Zitadelle by Mark Healy was excellent. Seemed thorough, well-written, with enough background, detail and good maps (although no book ever has enough maps) to let me understand the battle.

[dsf]

Anyone read Russian? Goncharov's book ОПЕРАЦИЯ «БАГРАТИОН» (ISBN 978-5-9533-5544-5) has tons of information on the battlefield(s), opposing forces, and the course of the operation.

Regards

Scott Fraser