Good books about Barbarossa / the war in the east?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Also, Carell was (if I remember correctly) a German war correspondent or something, he was working for Signal magazine, the German propaganda paper, so he met several of the persons in his books.

You remember Carrells (real name Schmidt) lie correctly. In fact he never came near the frontline, and was the Chief press spokesman for the German foreign ministry, and controlled Signal. He also joined the SA, and NSDAP in 1932, before it was required to do so for a career in civil service. When it became opportune, he joined the SS instead of the SA and rose to Sturmbannfuehrer. How much anyone wants to trust someone who lied about his previous career to such a degree I leave open to the critical facilities (or otherwise) of the readers. I think it is a fair judgement to say that Schmidts post-war career continued his Nazi career, in spewing propaganda about the "clean" war of the Wehrmacht (hey, we all know the SS were the only baddies) and later how poor Adolf just acted in self-defence when he attacked the nasty Josef in 1941.

The real Paul Karl Schmidt (in German)

German Verfassungsschutz on the preventive war (in German)

[ December 30, 2002, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

"The Russo-German War, 1941-45", by Albert Seaton, at Amazon.

This is really an excellent book, divisional level with great maps. Don't miss it.

[Andreas]

Oh, and sorry for harping on about that old Nazi liar Carrell/Schmidt. It just gets to me if someone gets away with spewing lies and propaganda beyond the grave, and also lies about his background to pass himself off as someone more believable (how many people here would believe a word he wrote if on the cover it said "The war in Russia in the words of the Nazi chief propagandist and SS Sturmbannfuehrer Schmidt"?).

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Also, Carell was (if I remember correctly) a German war correspondent or something, he was working for Signal magazine, the German propaganda paper, so he met several of the persons in his books.

You remember Carrells (real name Schmidt) lie correctly. In fact he never came near the frontline, and was the Chief press spokesman for the German foreign ministry, and controlled Signal. He also joined the SA, and NSDAP in 1932, before it was required to do so for a career in civil service. When it became opportune, he joined the SS instead of the SA and rose to Sturmbannfuehrer. How much anyone wants to trust someone who lied about his previous career to such a degree I leave open to the critical facilities (or otherwise) of the readers. I think it is a fair judgement to say that Schmidts post-war career continued his Nazi career, in spewing propaganda about the "clean" war of the Wehrmacht (hey, we all know the SS were the only baddies) and later how poor Adolf just acted in self-defence when he attacked the nasty Josef in 1941.</font>

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Anyone ever read "Panzers on the Eastern Front: General Erhard Raus and His Panzer Divisions in Russia, 1941-1945 (World War II German Debriefs)" look here? It looks pretty good to me!!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

Anyone ever read "Panzers on the Eastern Front: General Erhard Raus and His Panzer Divisions in Russia, 1941-1945 (World War II German Debriefs)" look here? It looks pretty good to me!!

Raus is another of these pop-artists of WW2. While I initially liked this particular book, I have since found another of his pieces juxtaposed with what really happened (New year 42/43 battle on the Bistraya, when he commanded 6.PD) and it bears no resemblance to reality. This stuff is, as far as I am concerned, historically based fiction.

Lt. Hortlund - you ascribed to Carrell/Schmidt the job of war correspondent. I corrected you on that. Nothing more. You may choose to use your critical thinking about someone who lied about his past, or you may choose to suspend it. That is no concern of mine.

Do I see reason to doubt Rudel? Never read him, but if I did, I probably would. The same as I see reason to doubt the memoirs of Soviet officers from WW2 that I read. Limited amount of insight, plus a tendency to paint the war in ideological colours. At least Rudel fought, while Carrell only lied, so to compare the two is actually an insult to Rudel.

[RSColonel_131st]

Okay, thanks for all the infos...

Many of the books mentioned here I couldn't find on Amazon.de

For starters I now ordered Guderian's "Achtung Panzer" which should be an interesting insight into the Blitzkrieg tactics. Also, I got myself the german "Stalingrad" DVD which has been noted to be one of the best german war movies next to "Das Boot".

I know it's quite impossiple to keep politics of these days and the german wehrmacht apart, but in regards to this game I want to concentrate on the tactical aspect of the eastern front. The moral and political judgement and learning I reserve for school and real life.

Thanks for all the book info, I'll save this thread for future reference when I have more bucks to burn.

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Andreas, you seem to know your books well. Do you have any suggestions yourself, or are you just going to be critical?

[Ex Bellator]

On a related note, I was a bit sickened to see Carrel's works heartily recommended in the back pages of the Strategy Guide.

I hope that in the reprint the recommendations will be removed, unless BFC have no problem with endorsing a high ranking Nazi propagandist.

[jmbunnelle]

Originally posted by AndrewTF:

Gottlob Biedermann's In Deadly Combat is a good memoir of a German soldier's experiences on the Eastern Front and subsequent imprisonment.

I also just finished The Volga Rises in Europe, by Italian novelist/journalist/director/intellectual Curzio Malaparte, who served as both an officer in the Alpini and the only front-line war correspondent in the Ukrainian front. He was eventually kicked out personally by Goebbels for writing realistically and sympathatically about the Russians. He later manages to get himself sent to Finland, and the second half of the book chronicles his experiences in the Finnish trenches near Leningrad on the Karelian front. A good read.

Excellent choice, Malaparte is a great writer. KAPUTT is my favorite and full of surreal and strange encounters. I'll never forget his account of walking by the frozen sea of horse heads. Great stuff but probably out-of-print in translation.

[Master Dullard aka flyingcursor]

Anything by Glantz is good.

Put "In Deadly Combat" in with Glantz's "Leningrad" and you have enough scenario material for awhile.

I just started volume 1 of John Erikson's two volume set. "The Road to Stalingrad".

Both of these cover things primarily from a Soviet viewpoint

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

On a related note, I was a bit sickened to see Carrel's works heartily recommended in the back pages of the Strategy Guide.

I hope that in the reprint the recommendations will be removed, unless BFC have no problem with endorsing a high ranking Nazi propagandist.

Have you actually read any of Carells books? What in your opinion is the worst lies he writes in his books? What is falsified? What is propaganda? Exactly what in his texts is it you object to?

Where do you draw the line between, oh I dunno Carell and Guderian? Is Guderians book ok to read? If yes, then why? Because Guderian said after the war that he was not a nazi and he was against Hitler all the time? Did Guderian say that btw? What about Manstein? Is it ok to read his books? Galland? Dönitz? Who is ok and who is not ok?

If I say "Carells book is really interesting and it gives a good view of the German perspective of Operation Barbarossa" does that mean that I'm endorsing a "high ranking nazi"? Even though there is not a hint in Carells book that would lead the reader to believe that he is "endorsing nazism" or whatever?

Please explain what you mean, because Im not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

[Nick Schieben]

Here are a couple I didn't see mentioned in this thread:

Red Storm on the Reich by Duffy

This describes the final battles from both perspectives, but with a heavier emphasis than usual from more recent soviet docments.

Ostfront 44 by Buchner

From the German perspective, a chronicle of the bitter defeats suffered during 1944.

Incidentally, I have both of Carell's books Hitler Moves East, and Scorched Earth. I don't have a problem with the author, and the books are pretty good from a German "big picture" perspective. Details can be found in works by other authors.

For example, while "Scorched Earth" finishes after Bagration, Buchner's book covers that battle and others of that year in greater depth and detail. Both books actually refer to some similar sources, and believe me, there doesn't seem to be much "Nazi trumpet blowing" as he honestly describes the grim struggles.

Regards

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

I believe Plievier was in the USSR when he wrote "Stalingrad" -- thus you will find nothing negative in that book regarding the Red Army.

So? In 'Stalingrad' he hardly writes about the Red Army. He writes about the german soldiers in Stalingrad based on personal interviews (not embelished AAR's) and captured personal documents (letters home mostly). He knew these guys, and he wrote their story.. the Red Army is treated very cursorily for most of the book, existing mostly as a force that shapes the german soldier's enviroment. The liberation/capture of the remaining germans in Stalingrad may be over the top at times but I always felt that that was the only way the book could end, it was the light at the end of the tunnel that showed that besides the path of darkness there is also a path of light (sappy but true, and in a way 'Berlin' is the anti-thesis as it shows how the paths of light and darkness converge as the Red Army's path to Liberation becomes a path to occupation).

Of course he gave his book to the censors (as was mandatory to get anything published at all) and they thought it was a good idea to publish it as-is. He later moved west and never bothered to add the missing/surpressed passages or rectify the few passages that really deal with the soviets. So I don't see that he changed his view because of 46-7.

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.

Moscow is about the Red Army hence the Red Army gets the same work-over that the german army got previously. I don't see that as related to his change of allegience, 'Berlin' OTOH...

"Berlin" is my least favorite of the three. It focuses less on military aspects. I found the story line a bit hard to follow.

Berlin is I think supposed to be about Berlin before and after the liberation, but it seems much more hurriedly written maybe he wanted to get it done before his time ran out...

[Foxbat]

Or is short: "Stalingrad" is much like "All quiet on the Western Front", except Plievier never recieved the same critical acclaim because he was 'a commie who wrote his book for Stalin' or 'a traitor who wrote defeatist literature after fleeing to the west'.. depending on which side you were on

[AP HEAD]

Ive just finished reading Westbound Tanks by A Polyakov. Its only short 100p but details actions of KV tanks. It has a fantastic story of KVs crossing the frozen Lake Ilmen on a night assault. The book does not have a print date or ISBN . Ive seen this online at second hand book stores.

[ichadwick]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Oh, and sorry for harping on about that old Nazi liar Carrell/Schmidt.

Was he the same Paul Schmidt who was Hitler's translator in 1939-41? (and maybe later)

There was also a Capt. Schmidt in the Wehrmacht, mentioned early in Hitler Moves East as a unit commander. Not the same man?

Ian

[ichadwick]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

What in your opinion is the worst lies he writes in his books? What is falsified? What is propaganda? Exactly what in his texts is it you object to?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by ichadwick:

Well, mostly he's a staunch apologist for the Nazis and ignores all of their abuses, war crimes and the Holocaust, while he paints a singularly heroic picture of every German on the front. Not that there weren't heroes or that all soldiers were Nazis. But Carrell was a member of the team, a player in the Nazi sandbox. His comments aren't free of their taint.

You can read him, but do so with a jaundiced eye. He has a lot of info in his works about small unit situations that are worthwhile for our game, but his comments about the war in general and the politics are about as unbiased as the official Soviet history. He was a Nazi. His perspective is skewed.

Ian

Yes, I agree. Not to say that I think every book about ww2 written by a German must have a chapter on the Holocaust or warcrimes, but I do agree that given his background one should be careful with any comments from him trying to justify the war or whatever. I cant remember reading any comments from Carell about politics or "the war in general" like that though. Hence my question.

[Andreas]

Quick one, I am on a computer where I have real trouble reading this board due to colour failures. When I get back home next week I will post some more.

Suggestions: Bidermann is an excellent choice. I quite like anything from the "Wehrmacht im Kampf" series, although that is only available in German for the most part. Some of the suggestions here (e.g. Glantz) are extremely weak and dubious on the German side (which was what was requested initially). Duffy does a good job on showing both sides during the last months in 45. I would have a wide range of suggestions for German speakers.

Regarding Carrell/Schmidt - I do not see it as my life calling to provide a literary/content critique of his work. I read it many years ago when I was young and gullible (now I am only gullible). The guy was a propagandist for the 3rd Reich and a committed Nazi, who on the dustjackets of his books lies about his past. That is all I need to know. As I said before, if you want to believe what he says, that is not my problem, you are free to do so. If you want to believe what he says about his war service, you will have to live with me pointing out that he lied about it. It is that simple.

As for Guderian, Manstein, Hoth and all the others. Again, at least these people did fight in some position or other. In their memoirs, they grind axes galore. If you are aware of that, these memoirs are superb primary sources. Which means you have to read them critically. The same goes for memoirs like von Luck and Mellenthin, although it is not the personal axe problem, but one of insufficient understanding of their opponents actions. These memoirs are not historical analysis, as should be obvious to anyone who read them. That analysis is provided by people like Duffy, or can be done by yourself, if you are aware of the pitfalls. The problem with Carrell/Schmidt is that as a professional liar (spin-doctor would be the modern word) and committed Nazi, he will try to spin things much more subtly than e.g. Hoth does in Panzeroperationen.

Got longer than I planned. Never mind...

[ichadwick]

I've been looking for a source of the official Soviet history of the Great Patriotic War and can't find one. Sold mine years ago. Can anyone suggest a reliable source?

Used to be published by Progress out of Moscow but I can't find out if they're still in business (short of phoning the Russian embassy in Ottawa).

I'm also looking for memoirs of Chuikov. I can't seem to find out if he wrote any. Anyone know for sure? Most of the other Soviet generals and marshals did. Why not him?

Ian

[Ex Bellator]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

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

On a related note, I was a bit sickened to see Carrel's works heartily recommended in the back pages of the Strategy Guide.

I hope that in the reprint the recommendations will be removed, unless BFC have no problem with endorsing a high ranking Nazi propagandist.

Have you actually read any of Carells books? Blah blah blah....</font>

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Where do you draw the line between, oh I dunno Carell and Guderian? Is Guderians book ok to read? If yes, then why? Because Guderian said after the war that he was not a nazi and he was against Hitler all the time? Did Guderian say that btw? What about Manstein? Is it ok to read his books? Galland? Dönitz? Who is ok and who is not ok?

Hmmm... let's see, Guderian, Manstein, Galland and Dönitz didn't change their names and lie about their background. Seems to me that their credability is a bit less tarnished than Carell's

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Where do you draw the line between, oh I dunno Carell and Guderian? Is Guderians book ok to read? If yes, then why? Because Guderian said after the war that he was not a nazi and he was against Hitler all the time? Did Guderian say that btw? What about Manstein? Is it ok to read his books? Galland? Dönitz? Who is ok and who is not ok?

Hmmm... let's see, Guderian, Manstein, Galland and Dönitz didn't change their names and lie about their background. Seems to me that their credability is a bit less tarnished than Carell's</font>

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

I am at a bit of a loss why I should have to state what I find objectionable as it seems blindingly obvious to me. Perhaps it's called 'doing the right thing'. Blah blah blah

So, "doing the right thing" in your world means that anyone wanting to research world war two must rely on secondary sources or worse. Because reading a book written by someone fighting on the German side would be wrong. And apparently, so would reading a book written by someone fighting on the Soviet side (Stalin ruled the Soviet union back then).

Lets just say that we have different approaches to historical research you and me, and leave it at that.