Paul Carell

[V]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

But his Nazi politics and work do certainly give rise to these kinds of questions. I think that it is reasonable to question his motives as a historian. But I have not read enough of his work to say that I can judge the man's writing based soley on that.

Gold Standard, to me, implies that he would be what all other WW2 historians are to be compared to. I think the level of his involvement in the war and wartime activities makes you read his work and take it with a grain of salt. Not a good attribute for a Gold Standard writer of World War Two history.

IMHO, as always.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Keke:

What?! He wasn't the evil Nazi just distorting history, like I have read on this forum! :eek:

Ofcourse not. His writing is anglophile, but nevertheless quite objective.

The Idiots not able to listen to what a person has to say, because they have been conditioned like a Pawlowscher Hund to catch the phrases (Nazi! Fascist! Racist! ... Everyone knows the phrases that are used to avoid and suppress the free discussion about certain problems) like bones thrown at them instead of listening/reading and forming their own opinion, are everywhere. Why not here, too?

[Los]

"I lived in Germany for a time and found them to be a very pleasant people. Not what one would expect from a Nazi."

Anyone who thinks there's something singularly or biologically evil/different about Nazis should consider reading Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland

It was actually written at a time when the terror in the Balkans was just starting to come to light, and people were having a hard time grasping how the scourge of genocide could possibly be raising it's ugly head all over again.

"Browning ....He takes the readers through the horrific scenes, showing just how easy it was to succumb to the dictates being handed down through a long chain of command. Browning sees it is a fault-line that runs through humanity and is not specific to any one racial or ethnic group, but is an outgrowth of the devastating conditions of war."

As it applies to the various horrendous bombing missions which were undertaken by both sides during the war, given living in that environment at the time, locked in life or death struggle between nations, or even knowing what I know know, I would have had no hesitation in being a crew member at the time those raids on Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki were undertaken.

Los

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Keke:

I guess you judge Soviet historians based on their political careers too.

Instead of guessing, you could just ask me what I judge them on. Since I have not made any statement here on what I judge them on, you would be restricted to guessing otherwise, and that is a bit pointless, right?

Los has quite correctly identified my anger management issue.

IMO everyone is perfectly welcome to read Schmidt, believe anything or nothing that he writes, and be happy about it. If someone comes on a public forum in the way Keke did (which may well have been to pick a fight, who knows?) raising the issue again, then I reserve the right for me to point out in this public forum that there are issues with Schmidt/Carell that one should be aware of, and that he is by no means the gold standard of German military history in WW2. That is my point. Then readers of my post are perfectly at liberty to say 'oh my, Andreas is going of on another one of his crusades', or 'hey, gee, I did not know that, but I sure look out for this the next time I pick up a Schmidt/Carrell book', or 'Oh! A fluffy bunny. I like fluffy bunnies.' Whatever.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Keke:

Well...

"Carrell is far from the 'Gold standard'. That is an insult to serious historians."

Try the other possible interpretation. You are Finnish, your English should be up to it.

Originally posted by Keke:

Then he goes on presenting shortly "the best and most substantive of these works" of this 'era', including writers Alan Clark, Earl Ziemke, Paul Carell, Harrison Salisbury and Albert Seaton. The initial Carell-quote was from this chapter.

Keke - but that is the problem - Carrell is not a historian. His works are not undergoing any peer review process. He was not trained as a historian but as a propagandist. He has not gone back to primary data (e.g. KTBs) when producing his work. He did not describe himself as a historian when he was accused of abbetting murder in 1965 over the Hungarian jews issue (charge was dropped in 1971), bu as a journalist and author. To compare him with the likes of Earl Ziemke is just showing that Glantz's selection of German sources is not as good as it could be. Regarding your question of whether I ever studied history - no, but I am a trained social scientist (insofar as one can ever be trained in this). Interrogating sources is something I learned at university. I apply that here.

Los - I am sure that Col. Glantz would tell me that about the reliability of Soviet primary sources. But I am also sure that the only way to get back to basics is to use these primary sources, critically, i.e. not accepting them for face value, instead of using 3rd level accounts that are unverifiable. German primary sources are also suspect in many cases, with historians identifying serious errors even in KTBs written very close to the event.

[Andreas]

Right, I hope I managed to fix the quotes.

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

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

As for the point about Glantz - Glantz is a specialist in Soviet history. He uses primary source material for that. He is not a specialist in German history, and does not use primary source material for that either.

"and does not use primary source material for that either."

What do you mean?

He uses primary source material for his books on Russia. For an author that you don't seem to care too much for, on Soviet history, you certainly quote him as a primary source for your scenarios extensively.

</font>

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

material for that either."

I do not accept narratives I find suspect, or where I have my doubts about the author and can not find independent verification

Schmidt's past condemns him in my eyes, and he should absent himself from the business of writing about an episode of history he was so closely involved in manipulating. IMO. I am certain there are many other professions he would have done well in. Marketing comes to mind.

I prefer first person narratives with maps, if you are asking what our preferences are.

[Michael Dorosh]

The point about the Glantz using primary documents only for the Allied side can apply equally to most of the historians writing about Canadian WW II history in the last 60 years. Probably also to British and American historians also. Most western Allied histories fail to even identify enemy formations, much less study what they were doing or why. Kind of a pity, really.

Notable exceptions would be Cornelius Ryan, for example, but his writings were at the same time sweeping (encompassing entire campaigns) and on an individual level (laced full of poignant personal vignettes). It's a pity he never picked a battalion, regiment or division and studies them in isolation, with equal attention paid to their adversaries.

Denis Whitaker seemed to include some good German stuff in his writings too, but Ambrose, Granatstein, Dancocks, Graves, and the other first line WW II historians really are lean on German research, and then rely on either secondary sources, or interviews with 75 year old English speaking men.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Now, much as I like talking about myself, maybe we can drop that, and get back to the question on whether Schmidt was a serious historian?

Umm. Put that way, I say no. He was not.

I have two of Carell's major works, 'Foxes of the Desert' and 'Hitler Moves East', and have read parts of 'Scorched Earth'.

Carell reminds me of ancient historians, such as Livy, who were more interested in telling a story than finding truth. I would not put it past Carell to invent facts or details if it added to his narritive. Just as Livy did.

But his books were among the earliest accounts of the war from the German perspective. And they make good reads. Like it or not, Carell is an important part of the WW2 historiography.

[V]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

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

Now, much as I like talking about myself, maybe we can drop that, and get back to the question on whether Schmidt was a serious historian?

Umm. Put that way, I say no. He was not.

I have two of Carell's major works, 'Foxes of the Desert' and 'Hitler Moves East', and have read parts of 'Scorched Earth'.

Carell reminds me of ancient historians, such as Livy, who were more interested in telling a story than finding truth. I would not put it past Carell to invent facts or details if it added to his narritive. Just as Livy did.

But his books were among the earliest accounts of the war from the German perspective. And they make good reads. Like it or not, Carell is an important part of the WW2 historiography. </font>

[Andreas]

I think it is billed as serious history.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The point about the Glantz using primary documents only for the Allied side can apply equally to most of the historians writing about Canadian WW II history in the last 60 years. Probably also to British and American historians also. Most western Allied histories fail to even identify enemy formations, much less study what they were doing or why. Kind of a pity, really.

This really can not be repeated often enough. For whatever reason, be it ignorance, language, inaccessibility of documentary evidence due to cost and distance, far too many historians ignore the other side of the hill. They either ignore it totally, like Ambrose, or partially, by using lesser quality sources, for one side, rather than the other, like Glantz. In the latter part I find that excruciatingly frustrating because the evidence is there, even in the US, where the KTBs are kept at the National Archives. I don't really care much about Ambrose, because US oral histories send me to sleep immediately.

That failure to use both sides is a grave failing in trying to achieve an understanding of what went on, in reality. A very good study looking at both sides, using interviews and documentary evidence is 'Churchill's Folly'. Another good one looking at documentary evidence is Ben Ariel 'Monte Cassino 1944'. A good German divisional history that uses secondary Soviet sources to place the actions of the division in an operational context is the history of 21. ID.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Keke - but that is the problem - Carrell is not a historian.

I think it is quite safe to say that Carell is an amateur historian, and quite influential one whether you like it or not. Speaking of which, Andreas, what's your opinion on Alexander Werth?

[Andreas]

Never read him.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Keke:

As Glantz wrote in the article:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Beginning on the early 1960's, an increasing number of able historians began producing accounts of war and operations on the German Eastern front. Although these works were more thorough than those of their predecessors, since they were based on primarly on German sources, they did not achieve requisite balance between the German and Soviet perspectives.

Then he goes on presenting shortly "the best and most substantive of these works" of this 'era', including writers Alan Clark, Earl Ziemke, Paul Carell, Harrison Salisbury and Albert Seaton. The initial Carell-quote was from this chapter. </font>

[Keke]

Originally posted by Andreas:

BTW - just to show how wrong Glantz is about this. German military historians (e.g. Tippelskirch) started working up the war in the early 1950s, if not earlier. There are a wide range of books covering everything from historical analysis of the whole war to documenting single operations from the perspective of the commander or a staff officer involved in the operation. Most of these were never translated into English, so that is probably why they are ignored by the English-speaking world. What Glantz can at best mean is "the best and most substantive of these works" of this era" translated into English. That is already severely limiting the relevance of his statement.

Well his perspective in the article is English-speaking world, not German nor Soviet, so he is not "wrong" in that sense. There may be historiographical studies about the Eastern Front that take into account every national perspective with a God-like overview, but I haven't found one.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

A very good study looking at both sides, using interviews and documentary evidence is 'Churchill's Folly'.

Who wrote this please, Andreas?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Bump to get Andreas' attention. Hey, Andreas! [waves] [whistles] [waves again]

Michael

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

A very good study looking at both sides, using interviews and documentary evidence is 'Churchill's Folly'.

Who wrote this please, Andreas?

Michael </font>

[V]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Bump to get Andreas' attention. Hey, Andreas! [waves] [whistles] [waves again]

Michael

According to Amazon.co.uk it is written by Anthony Rogers.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0304361518/026-3900129-1978068

I don't know if there are any other books of the same title, so I assume this is the one.

[Nick Schieben]

Holy crap! I have 2 of Carrel's books: Hitler moves East and Scorched Earth. THey're not all that bad as an overview, as understood from the German point of view. I enjoyed reading them, and they pointed me in the right diection to other books that provided further details and depth, for instance Buchner's Ostfront '44.

There again, <sarcasm on> my mother was in the Hitler Jugend and this has probably influenced my warped opinions <sarcasm off>. I don't find that political correctness and East Front history really tie in all that well. Take your pick, put it in your pipe, and smoke it.

Regards

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

What do you think of S.L.A. Marshall as a historian?

He seems to run hot and cold. I have a one-volume history of WW I by him that seems okay for what it is. That doesn't make him the leading expert on the subject. I read and liked Battle at Best, which seems well researched. On the other hand, the piece that he wrote that attempted to prove that most US riflemen failed to fire their weapons—which received great notice after the war and had a great impact on training technique—has subsequently been shown to be shot through with holes, apparently due to really slipshod methodology.

Advice: Tread with care.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by V:

According to Amazon.co.uk it is written by Anthony Rogers.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0304361518/026-3900129-1978068

I don't know if there are any other books of the same title, so I assume this is the one.

Amazon US lists this one and another of the same title by a different author. I suspect this is the one Andreas means, but I want to be sure before I spend my money.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

....the question on whether Schmidt was a serious historian?

There is a dilemma in the issue. Was he serious ? Propably. Was he a historian ? He published what amounts to narratives and first person accounts. I guess you can put him in the same cathegory with Homeros and other classical historians who used the same technique when describing past events.

To us "moderns" he used the technique too early to be counted as serious history writing. I came across it when I started reading books about the Vietnam war.

Here in Finland they published a magazine "Kansa Taisteli" (which translates roughly as "the Nation Fought") which was comprised almost solely of personal first person accounts of operations and actions and it is considered today to be a valuable source of data when studying aspects of particular actions and operations. The veracity of the stories can (and is) often verified by cross referencing the narratives against official documents. These narratives give colour to the history. I have lamented the fact the Finnish history writing has been riddled by the use of first person accounts in the expence of archival data and numbers. They are captivating to read but it is a real pain to collect actual data which is sprinceled across the text rather incoherently.

Perhaps these first person accounst are a collective way for the losers to explain and depict events past the official history writing so the "real, official" history does not get contaminated by controversial issues, like personal heroism of members of NSDAP.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Keke:

Well his perspective in the article is English-speaking world, not German nor Soviet, so he is not "wrong" in that sense.

Well he is wrong, in a factual sense, if you quote him correctly, "Beginning on the early 1960's, an increasing number of able historians began producing accounts of war and operations on the German Eastern front.". The accounts were begun in the 1950s. Some accounts were translated in the 1960s into English. Yeah I know I am being anal about it. So what?

Originally posted by Keke:

There may be historiographical studies about the Eastern Front that take into account every national perspective with a God-like overview, but I haven't found one.

I am not sure what your point is.