Good books about Barbarossa / the war in the east?

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

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.

Oh don't you just love it, "Carrell"'s background can't have been hidden since people have exposed him or are telling others about his background. Circular logic at best.

But tell me what does it say on the backflap of a Carell book? "Paul Carell (real name Schmidt) was a ranking nazi officer who during the war published Nazi propaganda that was presented as interesting and readable lecture on the war."

I don't think so.

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)...

I strongly urge not to keep up this "You are a frigging delusional moron so shut up already" line of reasoning.

Have you seen those wartime Signal mag's? Do they

contain OBVIOUS nazi propaganda? No then I must be a ****ing idiot to think that the nazi propaganda machine had an agenda when they spread them in a dozen languages and enormous numbers. In fact I must be completely delusional because I think I can see right through The Nazi Propaganda campaign and guess their "hidden agenda"

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

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.</font>

[Foxbat]

Sein gleichnamiger Bestseller, der bis heute immer wieder neu aufgelegt wird, hat das Bild des Krieges gegen die Sowjetunion im Nachkriegsdeutschland geprägt: Es war ein sauberer, notwendiger und kameradschaftlicher Krieg. Ein Krieg in dem es deutsches Heldentum, aber keine Massenmorde gab. Die SS war nichts als eine kämpfende Truppe, nur einmal auf Seite 439, gibt es eine SS, die fanatisch und grausam ist: "Stalins ‚SS', Rückgrat der Staatspolizei und des Geheimdienstes (...) die NKWD-Truppen." Carells "Unternehmen Barbarossa" verliert über die NS-Ausrottungspolitik kein Wort. Seine Darstellung beginnt mit einem zweiseitigen Zitat aus Hitlers Tagesbefehl zum Angriff, in dem die Präventivkriegsthese aufgetischt wird, nach der die Wehrmacht angeblich nur einem Angriff der Roten Armee zuvorgekommen sei.

From: <a href="http://www.nachkriegsdeutschland.de/p_paul_carell.html" target="_blank">

Paul Carell alias Paul Karl Schmidt, War and Post-War career of the PR-chef of the Nazi Ministry of Foreign Affairs.</a>

Translation: "His [Carrell/Schmidt's] likenamed bestseller [Operation Barbarossa], that is being reprinted to this day, has shaped the view of the war against the soviet-union in post-war germany: It was a clean, neccesary and comraderly war. A war in which there was german heroism, rather than massmurder. The SS was nothing more than a fighting force, only once on page 439 is there mention of an SS that is fanatical and fearsome: "Stalin's SS, backbone of the statepolice and secret service (...) the NKVD-troops". Carell's "Operation Barbarossa" does not waste a word on the Nazi-exterminationpolicy. His work begins with a two-page citation of Hitler's day-order for the attack, in which the thesis of a pre-emptive war is brought forward, according to which the Wehramcht had seemingly only beaten a Red Army invasion to the punch"

Translation mine, so not entirely literal.

[Edit: I guess 'Unternemhmens Barbarossa' was translated as 'Hitler Moves East', 'Operation Barbarossa' is the photobook]

[ January 01, 2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Firefly]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

The only book on the Eastern Front I found to be worse is Stalingrad by Beevor.

I've seen you disparage Beevor a couple of times now, Berli. What are your problems with his book? I'm asking out of genuine interest as I've seen a lot of criticism of his Berlin, but very little of his previous work and Stalingrad received a lot of plaudits at the time of its publication.

[cbb]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Of course I've read Signal. Signal was an official government publication and of course it contained propaganda (just as "Stars and Stripes" and the writings of Ilya Ehrenburg contained propaganda). But we aren't talking about Signal. We're talking about books published by commercial publishing companies long after the war -- NOT government publications. "Foxes of the Desert" by Paul Carell can in no way be considered government propaganda. At most it is a view of the war by a FORMER member of a FORMER government...

His works would only become "standard introductionary works" if I, and other readers, accept them as such. I and other readers will accept them as "standard" only after: 1) reading them; and 2) reading others. If his writings are totally off-base and fly in the face of what others report, his works will never become "standard" anything...

I will state again that many, many authors use pen-names for a variety of reasons. If Carell's purpose in using a pen-name was to get his books published, then I'm glad he did it. I feel like my understanding of the war -- at least from the German point of view -- has been enhanced as a result...

I have trouble with the notion that I (or anyone else) can be "unknowingly subjected" to views contained within a book I voluntarily choose to read. Carell's books contain descriptions of military campaigns from one side's point of view. His books do not focus on the political aspects of the war; they do not focus on the underlying causes of the war; they do not focus on war crimes. They focus on battles...

Virtually every book published dealing with history arguably contains "factual, analytical and interpretational flaws (intentional or otherwise)", whether those books be authored by Carell, Ambrose, Beevor, or Solzhenitsyn. You are certainly free to criticize Carell's writings on those grounds. But that's not really what you do. You dismiss his works entirely because of his background as what you describe as a "nazi honcho".

[cbb]

Originally posted by Firefly:

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

The only book on the Eastern Front I found to be worse is Stalingrad by Beevor.

I've seen you disparage Beevor a couple of times now, Berli. What are your problems with his book? I'm asking out of genuine interest as I've seen a lot of criticism of his Berlin, but very little of his previous work and Stalingrad received a lot of plaudits at the time of its publication.</font>

[Nick Schieben]

I enjoyed both of those books on Stalingrad, but definitely enjoyed Craig's more. I think it was that he focussed on a group of people and wove it well into the historical background. Beevor's effort was more of a chronicle, and didn't seem to have much new info to offer, but was a good read nonetheless.

OTOH War of the Rats (it wasn't an history, but was sold as a novel) was quite horrible, focussing on a couple of pages from Enemy at the Gates and adding an American heroine into the Streets of Stalingrad to boot. I think if I wanted to slam an author, and discourage people "with lesser moral values and sense than I" I would say don't read this book, and if it's on your shelf destroy it immediately. Tongue firmly in cheek here.

Paul Carell's books were pretty good too IMHO. They just turned me onto other books to get more details and more info and perspectives from other writers as well as the other side. And the reading sure as hell wasn't as dry and dull as the military history books by Glantz or Erickson. No harm in that!

Regards

[ January 01, 2003, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Nick Schieben ]

[Olaf]

Maybe already mentioned, but what the heck:

Small Unit Actions During The German Campaign In Russia . Printed by the US Army Center of Military History in 1953,1944, and 1988.

The chapters cover the following subjects: Infantry, Armor, Engineers, Fighting in Talga and Tundra, Russian Operations at River Lines, Forest Combat, and Antipartisan Warfare.

The chapters have dozens of informative articles with such titles as: Company C Counterattacks during a Snowstorm, The Struggle for Shelter, Russian Mine-clearing methods, A unique underwater bridge, German and Russian combat tricks, and Attack on a Partisan headquarters.

Lots of tactical maps and pictures are included. Very impressive small unit tactics, techniques, and combat descriptions.

US Army Center of Military History

This great book and many others can be purchased from Uncle Sam.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I have had many a discussion on the Eatern Front where the other side put down the russians or glamourised (or worse, excused) the Wehrmacht and quoted Carrell to support a viewpoint or bit of information that was demonstrably false. I find that rather telling.

I think this is the kernel of the problem right here, and it is not with Carrell only, although he presents an outstanding example of it. A lot of people will pick up a book on a historical subject and because it is well or movingly written will clasp it to their bosom as the gospel on that subject. They will then quote from it and refer to it as the authority on that subject. Therefore, the problem is not with readers who read Carrell critically and are willing and able to place his writing in some kind of framework that permits something approaching objective evaluation. Rather it is with the naïve, impressionable, and lazy reader who never takes the next step of comparing him to other sources. Given that this seems to happen with writers like Carrell and Ambrose a lot, it seems only fair to warn less experienced readers of a known danger.

Michael

[pcpilot]

One of the most fascinating books I ever read was "Enemy at the Gates, the battle for Stalingrad" by William Craig, published by Konecky and konecky. It is till being published some 30 years after its initial entrance onto the market. It tells the story of the battle from both sides using eyewitness accounts from the survivors. It is a horrible, gruesome portrait of war, and most compelling. You will never look at your board and computer games the same.

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Rather it is with the naïve, impressionable, and lazy reader who never takes the next step of comparing him to other sources.

Ah, yes, the idjit argument. Fortunately, these are the people who also tend to forget what they've read and why they read it in the first place.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Rather it is with the naïve, impressionable, and lazy reader who never takes the next step of comparing him to other sources.

Ah, yes, the idjit argument. Fortunately, these are the people who also tend to forget what they've read and why they read it in the first place.</font>

[Belaja smert]

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone of you has read or knows of this book:

ARMY GROUP NORTH. THE WEHRMACHT IN RUSSIA 1941-1945

HAUPT W

ISBN: 0-7643-0182-9

SCHIFFER PUBLISHING LTD

Any insight concerning the readibility and or content would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Belaja

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Belaja smert:

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone of you has read or knows of this book:

ARMY GROUP NORTH. THE WEHRMACHT IN RUSSIA 1941-1945

HAUPT W

ISBN: 0-7643-0182-9

SCHIFFER PUBLISHING LTD

Any insight concerning the readibility and or content would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Belaja

Soso - Haupt is one of the 'Vielschreiber' about the war with the Soviet Union. It is a semi-decent start to the topic. Gives you an overview, and accuracy is not too bad.