Book Recommendations......for the East Front?

[Randl]

Have read and seen recommended, many fine books concerning the West Front and the fighting covered by CMBO.

To set the mood for CMBB what might I be reading concerning the fighting in the East?

Thanks,

--Randl

[Redwolf]

I don't want to spoil the fun, but this topic come a little too often right now, doesn't it?

The more appropriate general discussion forum had a thread going some days ago and there are dozends in the archive of the CMBO and the general discussion forum. The books available didn't change that much within the last 8 weeks. Also you didn't say which kind of book you was interested in.

Just my 2 cents...

[Andreas]

Since I don't read teh GF much:

anything by Glantz.

[Redwolf]

I hate the Glantz stuff

At least the real books, there are some downloadable papers on cmh-pg that are supposed to be better, but I didn't check them out.

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Viceroy]

Redwolf,

why didn't you just ignore the thread if you didn't want to contribute?

Enemy at the Gates: William Craig covers the epic battle of Stalingrad.

Barbarossa: Alan Clark covers 1941-45

War on the Eastern Front: James Lucas

When Titans Clashed: David Glantz

The Forgotten Soldier: Guy Sajer Great for a feeling of what it was like for an ordinary soldier.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

anything by Glantz.

With a little caveat: at least When Titans Clashed is a dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill ordinary Eastern Front history. The only distinction is it uses solely Soviet sources where as the older histories used solely German sources. There is no comparative study in the book, only the same-o same-o myopia, this time from the Soviet perspective. Which was what I would not have expected, Glantz being hallowed as the new Messiah of the Eastern Front history writing.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Viceroy:

why didn't you just ignore the thread if you didn't want to contribute?

<hr></blockquote>

Glantz annoys me more than this thread

See, if this threads turns into a Glantz-bashing thread, it actually *is* a new thing, so...

[Mr. Johnson--]

I have a Glantz book, "THe Battle of Kursk". Seems very well done. Information from German side, and Russian side. Good stuff.

[Lawyer]

A really great site that deals mostly with WWII books and videos, expecially ones not normally seen in US, is

www.rzm.com

Check it out. I've spent a lot of money there, but the books, especially the "Then and Now" series, are excellent. Many east front titles too.

[Michael Dorosh]

I feel the need to throw out my dislike of

Guy Sajer and his wonderful work of fiction, The Forgotten Soldier...

SOLDAT by Siegfried Knappe is better.

Really though, one needs to specify what they want to read about. First person accounts? Tank warfare? Grand strategy? Russian dress regulations? No one-stop shopping. East Front is a very broad subject.

[The Commissar]

redwolf,

Question: Why do you hate Glantz? Also, did you base this view after reading a single book, or several?

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The Commissar:

Question: Why do you hate Glantz? Also, did you base this view after reading a single book, or several?<hr></blockquote>

Hi, commissar, I've seen you signed up. I really hope I don't get tigers on defense

Anyway, I have "when titans clashed" and the Kharkow '42 book. Both books are very data-heavy and leave out exactly the data I am interested in.

Typically, it goes like this "unit x retreated to position y, because enemy unit a moved to position b". You find lots of positions and units and what they did.

Yeah, nice, so what? What is there about position B, that its occupation by unit A make the commander of unit X feel he is better off at position Y, so much better that he takes the risk of moving?

In other words, I am not interested in events as such, I am interested in combat mechanics. Or more specifically, I am interested in the process of decision-making. Why did commander X decided to go to A and not B or C or D.

For me, a good book presents the alternatives and the thoughts of the person. Glantz books (at least the two listed above) are even more ignorant than other books. Other books may only mention c and barely touch an explanation for b, but Glatz books don't even mention b.

As I said, I have been told that his military papers (as opposed to widly published books) are better in this respect and they are downloadable from cmh-pg.

I have no doubt that Glantz books are good for pther people, especially when making scenarios to get a look at the Soviet side.

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[bodman]

Try this one for German perspective memoir.

IN DEADLY COMBAT by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann.

It is available a amazon.com

I have read the forgotten soldier by Guy Sajer also. I loved it but according to some educated sources it is a work of fiction. A shame because it is a very good book. I could Hardly put it down. I know of a site online that is an excellent source of material from the Russian side. It is http://history.vif2.ru/index.html

Hope this helped

Bodman

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I go with the fans of Glantz. In my view, clearly others differ; David Glantz is the number one guy in this field. His two best books, again, clearly others will differ, are the two written with Jonathan House. They are also his two biggest sellers.

When Titans Clashed, and, The Battle of Kursk. By David Glantz and Jonathan House.

It is worth remembering that for many years David Glantz headed up the US Army’s department that studied the Soviet Army. Jonathan House is also a direct product of the US Army training/education establishment. Some may not be keen on operational history, but I have never really found the accusation that David Glantz is “biased, pro-Soviet” credible. The fact is that David Glantz’s views have simply changed as the recently opened Soviet archives have shown evidence that was not known in the west before. Just to give one small example.

In the mid 1980s it was David Glantz’s view that the Red Army, in 1944, outnumbered the Germans by 4-5:1. We now know, and this is recorded in David Glantz’s more recent books such as When Titans Clashed , that the actual figure was 2.7:1. Given that German losses on the Eastern Front in 1944 have been know since the detailed studies done by the US Army in the early fifties, this means that we now know the Red Army, in 1944, was twice as effective as had been believed from German accounts written in the fifties and sixties. The overall picture that emerges is that the Soviets were as “tactically unsound” in 1941/42 as the Germans claimed, but as “tactically sound” in 1944/45 as the Soviets always claimed.

Anyway, it has never seemed credible to me that the top guys in the US Army studying the Soviets should be pro-Soviet. The US Army certainly approves of their work.

We will never all agree, all good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. For the German view of the war on the Eastern Front, I would go for Panzer Battles by Von Mellenthin. A great book. Really good read too.

[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

[Redwolf]

I think the Sajer-doubter are a little too overwhelming in this thread.

Not that there is anything wrong with doubting an author, however, after reading the material available on the net (and I think most if not all is), the impression I formed weights more towards "forgotten soldier" to be true (but military-wise inprecise, of course, noone doubts that).

I highly recommend forming your own opinion. People are always too easy to jump on imputations like these.

[Fenris]

The best book I have is called

"Small Unit Actions During the German Campaign in Russia"

It's a Department of the Army (US) Pamphlet No20-269 dated July 1953 reprinted in 1995 but Eastern Front/Warfield books.

It was produced, as the Preface states, to be a guide and incite into the conditions of the Russian front based on the experience of the German army during WW2.

It has detailed descriptions of small actions by all branches of the German army during the campaign including maps.

Very interesting.

Publisher:

Eastern Front/Warfield Books

37734 Pelham

Philmont, VA 22131

(540) 338-1972

Regards,

Fen

[Andreas]

Glantz has done some really interesting stuff - 'The initial period of war', 'Zhukov's greatest defeat' are two very different books that do a lot of justice to the stuff they cover. 'When Titans clashed' is good because it brings out the Soviet perspective and is a nice work, very accessible (compared to e.g. Ericksson) and bringing a fresh look at something far too many people know only from reading Carell. Glantz also inspired Adair to give Bagration the full works in 'Hitler's greatest defeat', another must read.

Yes his books are data heavy, but they are quite thorough, and his initial work is informed by the perspective of how to combat the Red Army, and shows a lot of respect for it, which is what makes 'The initial period of war' such an interesting read. None of the 'It was a walkover' school of Barbarossa study in there.

'In deadly combat' is very good too. I would also download the Wray work on German defensive tactics.

Mellenthin is good, but has his problems - quite clearly showing that a lot of German officers did not understand what actually hit them in the east from 1943 onwards, blaming their defeats alternatively on Adolf or human wave tactics.

Redwolf, since you like bashing Glantz, what do you read for operational stuff on the GPW? If you like to read at that sort of level.

[Randl]

Thank you very much to all of you that have made recommendations from your personal reading lists. Making comment on the books you have liked best has been very helpful. The input has made finding an intelligent starting point a little easier. I apologise for restarting a previously hashed over topic. Thanks again for the help.

My best to you all,

--Randl

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Redwolf, since you like bashing Glantz, what do you read for operational stuff on the GPW? If you like to read at that sort of level.<hr></blockquote>

Bashing... I pointed out that Glantz has a certain focus in his books that is uterrly useless for interest like I have.

Obviously, I read more small-units material. For operational works, I liked some memoirs, like Manstein's, who definitivly falls under the same problem as Mellenthin for you. The Alexander autobiograhoy I just picked up seems to be good as well, although not in theatres I like reading about now.

I also like "the german generals talk" and "the rommel papers", excellent material with mechanism explanations, or rather, explanations how people see and like their mechanism understanding understood in the public. Anyway, the Rommel papers also have more than Rommel material, I was positivly surprised.

That is pretty German-centric, I would be grateful for pointers to Allied or Russian material. I tried Bradley's a soliers story, which is too boring and had a quick glance at Montgomery's memoirs, which didn't appeal to me either.

I like Charles B. MacDonald's bulge book, though, although it hasn't quite as much choices description as I liked. Hastings "Overlord" has some good stuff as well, but is bloody inprecise on many points.

Also promising was the book about the Russian interrogations of GFM Paulus, which turned out to be free of military stuff :-/

However, I like autobiographical material more (as you might have guessed from my post).

[Nowotny]

Maybe someone mention it already but 'The history of the Panzerkorps; GroßDeutschland'(3 vol's) by Helmuth Spaeter is excellent reading.

Or 'Barbarossa' by Alan Clark that touches on many units/divisions, etc throughout the Ostfront.

[Doghouse Reily]

If you are looking for a different book on the Russian Front, may I recommend "Barbarossa The

Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45" by Alan Clark.

MR. Clark was secretary of State while Margart(the iron lady)Thatcher was Prime Minister of

Great Britian.

You be able to find it on a bargain table at a

used book store. I found it on the free table.

If you do get it be ready for a different spin Hitler.

[rogue male]

"'When Titans clashed' is good because it brings out the Soviet perspective and is a nice work, very accessible (compared to e.g. Ericksson) and bringing a fresh look at something far too many people know only from reading Carell. " Would Carrell works on the EF be a decent juxtaposition for Glantz's? Also wondering if Micheal D has a special sensor on his pc that alerts him to every post where someone mentions they like the Forgotten Soldier.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Adam Lloyd:

I'd love to hear if you have found anything that satisfies you in the areas you described Glantz as lacking focusing on an Eastern perspective. I might be able to scrounge a few bucks for a new book

<hr></blockquote>

"The German Generals Talk" should be that. I could look up how much eastern front material is in there if you want.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Adam Lloyd:

As someone with a very due respect for David Glantz, I have to agree with your points here. With Glantz you have to read into the data and interpret for yourself.

What must be remembered is the fact that at least When Titans Clashed was filled with unedited data from Soviet era sources. Complete with the propaganda rethorics of the era.

[Scott B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

What must be remembered is the fact that at least When Titans Clashed was filled with unedited data from Soviet era sources. Complete with the propaganda rethorics of the era.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of When Titans Clashed, but it's not really all that relevant-- that book is more the exception than the rule compared to most of his work, as it was co-written with another author and focused on the entire war rather than one specific aspect of it. Glantz's clear strengths are as an archivist, and to some extent in analysis at the operational level. By and large his stuff is rather shallow as far as analysis goes, though, but he does have quite a few good resources and as a result his work is still useful.

If you want a better picture of his work, I suggest From the Don to the Dnepr, which actually attempts to answer some important questions about wartime development of Soviet force structure and operational art.

Scott B.