Good books about Barbarossa / the war in the east?

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

So it is the author you object to and not what he writes?

No, actually, I object to both. The two books of his that I've read (Hitler Moves East and Scorched Earth) are terrible books. As a historian, I find him to be on par with Ambrose. The only book on the Eastern Front I found to be worse is Stalingrad by Beevor.

[Hortlund]

Examples?

[momishuli]

Unless one reads both sides, how is it possible to have an understanding of the "real" picture? Carell maybe a Nazi, so what? So were 80 million people in Germany during those days. Everyone was cheering and welcoming Hitler, for it was the "in" thing to do then. Seeing their point of view only improves one's understanding of the WW2. Reading their(Nazi/ex-Nazi Authors) books does not make one a Nazi, yet it certainly helps one understand what really happened. Did you read any works of Rommel? He sure wasn't a Nazi, but he helped a lot to the Nazi cause by succesfuly commanding Hitler's Armies. It should not be difficult to weed out propaganda elements and pick out facts from Nazi sources. Infact, Allies made great use of Nazi records/sources after the war.(field manuals, operation reports, organization techniques of civil and military units etc)

I assume, you only read Anglo-American authors? (Since you say you refuse to read Soviet authors too). If that is the case, then I seriously doubt if you have any idea about what really happened during 1939-1945; that is other than what your Anglo-American sources tell you (only one side of the story).

I am afraid, you probably think of me as another Nazi symphatisan for saying all this, which is far from truth it can possibly be. The reason I wrote this is to state the fact: Always know both sides. Otherwise you know nothing.

Ofcourse, I respect your position that you do not wish to support Nazi writers' by purchasing their books. That is your choice; I rather know what really happened.

respectfuly

[Master Dullard aka flyingcursor]

In all my years of studying history I have never seen any historical work that does not, even in the smallest way, the ethnic/cultural/social/political bias of the writer. Or whether they were on the winning or losing side. No matter how sincere the author, there is always a slant. Even if that slant is merely their personal approach to history.

That doesn't pertain to only to secondary sources.

Read the trials of Joan of Arc. Who wrote them?

US Civil war OR's, or AAR's from any other war.

The bias can be even more pronounced in the case of defeat where the writer rarely wants to take the blame.

Consider two authors who write about the first two years of the Great Patriotic War. Author A asks "Why did the USSR suffer such catastrophic early setbacks?" Author B asks, "How did the USSR turn early catastrophic setbacks into ultimate victory?"

Each of these authors is going to emphasize those things which will best answer their respective questions.

In the case of high ranking officer memoirs I never ever accept them as gospel. That doesn't only apply to German/Soviet authors either. Omar Bradley, Eisenhower and Patton all single handedly won the war.

In fact there are books that are utter nonsense.

For example "The Canvas Falcons". But I dismiss it not because of any political affiliation of the author but because it doesn't match facts as evidenced in numerous other pieces of material.

Just take a look at the difference in the style of writing between WWI, WWII and Vietnam. Look at the style of post WWI German authors and post WWII. Notice the similarity between German post WWI writing and US post Vietnam.

That's my two cents.

BTW

One of the best books I've read about the influence of culture on historical war writing is "The Great War and Modern Memory" by Paul Fussell.

[Foxbat]

Ok short summary so far: Carrell hid his background in orther to decieve us into thinking that he did not have an agenda, he also hid his agenda well and there are no obvious references to endorsing nazism.

People who object to that are attacking the pesron not his work, thus they are bigots.

I would write more but I'm off studying the war by reading Signal magazine, Signal doesn't have any obvious nazist connotations and rather convincingly brought as 'the real picture of the war' so it can't be wrong, or nazist (not that that is a bad thing, I guess...)

[ December 31, 2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Examples?

IIRC Carrell says that Rotmistrov was fired because of his defeat at Kursk, that is just a small example of something slightly twisted to add an air of veracity to the gist of his story. His descriptions of small unit actions are also often either pure fiction, or "inspired by" Signal stories (which in turn were based on embellished after-action-reports) and again used to add an air of truthfullness to his pov. As propaganda goes it is relatively subtle, but it does achieve his goals.

Now I expect you are going to ask me what his goals were, well for one thing he is saving what could be saved by turning Hitler in the SS into scapegoats for every mistake/massacre in the war thus drawing fire away from the Wehrmacht, the OKH and the glory of the army's successes. He also paints a rather dark picture of the bolshevik hordes, again on idealogical grounds..

Now you would expect such stances from a german officer or a member of the nazi bureacracy, but an english historian is obviously a fairly neutral observer

[ December 31, 2002, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[cbb]

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.

[cbb]

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.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

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.

Yeah I really distrust that guy, after all he has tried to hide his identity and background from us and he wrote his books based on fictional accounts of what happened in the Gulag.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

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.

So if it doesn't say NAZIST PROPAGANDA, INCLUDING THE LIE THAT THE WEHRMACHT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF RUSSIA on the cover I could never know.. heck I must have imagined it all. In fact I reckon I should reread every book I ever read and take everything literaly from now, otherwise I'm just projecting my assumptions on someone else's writing.

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.

So I guess Carrell's propaganda work in ww2 is just as harmless as his later books? After all the goals I imagine Nazi propaganda had is only achieved if the reader accepts it.

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...

Fictional accounts, that paint a schewed picture of the war. Of course it is not important to know that to evaluate the book, after all that would make it important to know who wrote it.

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 guess you missed it, but it was already commented that the memoirs of Guderian et al are just as schewed, but that that is a lesser evil as you know who they were. In your case I assume the North Korean propaganda was not published as "New York Weekly - the US's first and foremost weekly magazine".

[cbb]

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).

[UberFunBunny]

Anyone like "Road to Stalingrad", by John Erickson? I would recommend it, but I haven't read it.

[cbb]

Originally posted by UberFunBunny:

Anyone like "Road to Stalingrad", by John Erickson? I would recommend it, but I haven't read it.

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...

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.

[UberFunBunny]

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...

This sounds like what I am interested in.

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...

If it's not readable then I don't think I'll buy it. An unreadable book can be a real problem.

[cbb]

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.

[ichadwick]

I wouldn't tell anyone not to read Carrell or any other author, but I do believe it is worthwhile to warn readers that there are potential pitfalls in the accounts of some authors.

Knowing Carrell's background as a Nazi doesn't necessarily invalidate his data, but does beg questions about his commentary. He does, in fact, give some unique descriptions of events and meetings based on his position in the Nazi media, with access to individuals including generals at the front. He is less accurate and knowledgable about the Soviet side. But in order to get a fair and unclouded picture you really have to read all sides including Carrell.

With the same caution one can read the memoirs of the Soviet generals and marshals, and the official Soviet history. They too have a bias (for example, it wasn't until after Glasnost that any former Soviet official would acknowledge that the NKVD with help from the Red Army slaughtered 15,000 Polish soldiers at Katyn in 1939). But for an insight into the events and activities on the Soviet side, they are indispensible.

History, Napoleon said, is a fable penned by the victors. In the last century it was also manufactured by the media and the PR people.

So read, by all means, but don't depend your understanding on any one author or source. And try to look past the obvious political agendas. The best sources for insight into the events at the level of CMBB are still the people who were there, regardless of which side they served on.

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.

Ian

[cbb]

Originally posted by ichadwick:

But in order to get a fair and unclouded picture you really have to read all sides including Carrell.

I agree.

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.

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.

[Ex Bellator]

Oh hell, some of you guys are very forgiving. I reckon those 'ex' Nazis or those only-pretending-to-be-Nazis-'cos-they-made-me Nazis would have little grin if they could read your comments.

I noticed a lot of excuses (including it's all in the name of historical veracity) listed for Carrell and others. Well, I guess they win after all.

FWIW it strikes me as quite poignant that I end up taking flak for attacking a Nazi. Hmmm, he was obviously a better man than me, but if it helps I will publish an article in tommorows local rag advising death to all Jews, gypsies, and anyone who doesn't look good to me.

Yes, I'm taking the Michael....

[Edit] You should have seen the first post!

[ January 01, 2003, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

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?

? I assumed that you brought up Solzhenitzin because of his desciption of the Gulag archipello :confused:

Anyway, the point is Solzhenitsin does not hide his background or beliefs.

Again, Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in Gulag. Perhaps he is bitter. Perhaps he exaggerates. Perhaps it wasn't really all that bad.

Now imagine the following: a book comes out by John F Archbuckle on the Gulag that shows things in a much better light, in fact shows that all those construction works were a good thing, most guards cared for the men put in to their custody and that all bad things that happened were caused directly by stalin and a small number of NKVD hardliners. Assume also that this book is the most widely read book on the Gulag while Solzhe's books are languishing in obscurity (oh and Archbuckle's real name is Ivan Schlapusnivik, former head of the departmnent of the interior). Would you think that situation would be objectionable? Would you think it would be a good thing that people were recommending Archbuckle as the bbest book on the Gulag? Would you yourself recommend the readable Archbuckle book over the often long-winded and "unreadable" Solzhenitzin books?

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).

I guess you missed the reference, the reason Schmiddt calls himself Carrell is to create the impression of distance and relative neutrality.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by UberFunBunny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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...

If it's not readable then I don't think I'll buy it. An unreadable book can be a real problem.</font>

[UberFunBunny]

Readable is relative, if readable means 'History Lite' with lots off graphic (and occasionaly fictional) descriptions of small unit action then no higher-level Erickson rates as unreadable. Just as any " lengthy, hard-core STRATEGIC analysis of the eastern front from the Soviet perspective" would be

I'll decide if it's unreadable or not after I've read it.

But you might want to pick up a copy of Glantz's 'When Titans Clashed' which covers much the same ground as Erickson using newly available data and in a shorter, faster-moving format (Still operational level though).

Thanks. I'll check it out.

[ichadwick]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

Oh hell, some of you guys are very forgiving. I reckon those 'ex' Nazis or those only-pretending-to-be-Nazis-'cos-they-made-me Nazis would have little grin if they could read your comments.

Not forgiving at all. My parents fought on the Allied side, my uncles, my aunts... I lost some of them to the Nazis. Many of my ex-wife's family were interned in the concentration camps and some died there. I know all too well about what people went through in the death camps.

But that doesn't stop me reading because reading all perspectives improves my understanding of what happened and gives me the information required to balance the often conflicting claims. I don't have to agree with any, support any viewpoint or forgive anyone to read them.

I am very aware of the status of Carrell as a Nazi official and propagandist. Knowing that allows me to read his works without any misconceptions that he was a neutral observer or even consistently factual. I read the former Soviet marshalls with the same awareness. I don't have to forgive him to read him.

You can read History & Dialectic Materialism by Stalin and Mein Kampf by Hitler without becomeing enchanted by either. If you don't read them, you will not know the roots of their actions or their intent. In fact, if more people had actually read Mein Kampf early on, they might not have allowed Hitler to get away with as much pre-war.

Ian

[cbb]

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.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by ichadwick:

I am very aware of the status of Carrell as a Nazi official and propagandist. Knowing that allows me to read his works without any misconceptions that he was a neutral observer or even consistently factual. I read the former Soviet marshalls with the same awareness. I don't have to forgive him to read him.

Now that is the main problem with "Carrell", he has kept his identity and background hidden. He has in fact actively fostered the idea that he was a neutral observer.. no it could all be in my mind but I can only assume that the reason for that is to prevent people from reading his books with that awareness.

[SgtMuhammed]

I don't know why everone is getting so worked up about bias. I am studying to be a historian and I can tell you for a fact that there has never been anything written that does not contain bias no matter how objective the author claims to be. Even combat reports of the battle themselves are slanted to make the unit look good (The phrase "The enemy launched an unforseen attack on our flank" often means that either security was not out or someone was asleep). The slant of such primary material is only made much worse when it is turned into secondary material by the various authors after the fact. Unless you can assume a god's eye view you will never know what "really" happened, all you can do is weigh the evidence and decide what you believe.