For everyone who recommended WHEN TITANS CLASHED

[Michael Dorosh]

For everyone who recommended the book WHEN TITANS CLASHED, I just wanted to say thanks. I found it in the University library and just read the intro; looks to be quite interesting.

I was wondering if any of the Russian Front grogs could tell me what "new" discoveries or conclusions the authors of this book have been able to draw, now that Russian archival material is more freely accessible. Is there anything jaw-droppingly amazing in here?

What are the strengths of this book, and what are the weaknesses?

Enquiring minds want to know. More than a few of you have recommended it, I am genuinely curious to know why.

[Redwolf]

I found it to be just boring.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I found it to be just boring.

By that, you mean too scholarly?

[Mr. Johnson--]

I'm reading it now, also from the libary, after reading The Battle Of Kursk by Glantz.

Its slightly less dense than Kursk as it has to cover the time leading up to war and the whole big showdown. But so far I'm enjoying it. Glantz and House don't just give 3 reasons for Russia's failure, they give like 15 reasons, and the reasons inside other reasons. But I don't know if reading about mid-43 to 1945 is going to be that fun to read. Just a huge essay on how the Russian's learned to kick ass and the Germans repeatedly waste their slim resources.

[gunnergoz]

Personally, I find Glantz to be a pleasant read. The Kursk book mentioned is really only his translation of a Russian study of the campaign...very detailed but plodding and groggish. Glantz' own work is very interesting because he gets deep into Russian archival stuff that few others do. I'd give him a try, and BTW his book "When Titans Clashed" was excellent IMHO.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Glantz' own work is very interesting because he gets deep into Russian archival stuff that few others do.

Thanks for the answers thus far - but in connection with your point above, the original question still stands - what was he able to draw from Soviet archives that really changes the perspective he has of the war in the East? Has this really been a big deal? Don't know, which is why I ask.

[Viceroy]

Dorosh,

I would especially draw your attention to p56-7.

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

I'm also currently reading "When Titans Clashed" from my library. I read the first two chapters thus far and have enjoyed it immensely. I think I read too many Ambrose books and really missed out on the facts.

As a side note, I finnally found "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian and that looks to be a good read. So glad I got my library card.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Viceroy:

Dorosh,

I would especially draw your attention to p56-7.

Oh God, Bartov again. This is where he draws his sources for this, not the Soviet archives. He also credits Erickson,Halder and Guderian - not Soviet sources.

What are you referring to?

EDIT - Viceroy, what on earth does anything on those two pages have to do with new interpretations of the war on the Russian Front, as guided by fresh access to Soviet archives. I think you missed the point of this thread - the stuff you point to is all from the German point of view. What does it have to do with my question?

EDIT FURTHER - if this is some lame attempt to get me to say "wow, gee, Viceroy was right in that earlier thread, Germans were all guilty as sin", it is not going to happen. I objected in that earlier thread to Bartov's work, and the work of the Hamburg Institute, and I still object - just because someone else uses him for a reference does not make him any better a historian. He is simply the only one who has attempted to quantify and of this stuff on German barbarization and atrocities. And it is still irrelevant to this thread; post about it at the Third Reich Forum and I will join you there.

I am not saying German atrocities never happened, of course they did and in disgusting excess. I am saying Bartov does a lousy job of proving things.

It is probably one of those things that is best left unquantified - I took Bartov's two books out of the library and have been going over them in recent days. Lots of leaps of logic and sweeping statements with no way to ratinalize them.

It is like saying "Madmatt is a real meanie." You can say it and everyone will believe it. But the second you try and qualify it with data - in this case, going through the posts - you are on shaky ground and at the end of the day, you get a different picture of Madmatt. He is still a meanie, but you haven't been able to prove it, and have simply made yourself look foolish in the process for making the attempt.

So it is with qualifying Bartov's stuff - he says that 33 percent of Division x (out of 400+ divisions) were Nazi Party members, so 1/3 the German Army were dedicated Nazis and thus murdered people wantonly.

Well, maybe they did murder people wantonly, but the percentage of party members in one division of several hundred isn't proof one way or the other, sorry.

[ March 02, 2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Grisha]

One of the more recent findings by Glantz was that Berlin was originally planned to be taken in February 1945, and there is nothing in his research that doubts it could very well have happened - and with far fewer Soviet losses too. The fact that the Berlin operation didn't occur until May was due to political maneuverings by Stalin. The Yalta talks were in Februrary, which is exactly when the Vistula-Oder operation was finally halted.

The gist is that originally Berlin was to be taken by mid-February per Stalin's orders. However, with Yalta Stalin realized he could get a guarantee from the West that the Soviets would have Berlin. Once Stalin had this assurance, he rescinded his Berlin order, then redirected forces for the taking of Vienna. Once Vienna was taken, Stalin then resumed planning for Berlin. This gave the Germans 3 months to fortify the Oder line. Zhukov, Konev, and Rokossovsky(all front commanders in the Berlin direction) were quite angry with the halt on Berlin in February, since the loss of life for the Soviets three months later was much higher.

Of course, this is just Glantz' word right now, but he bases this on archival and unexpurgated Soviet sources. I look forward to a published work on this, though nothing is in the works right now.

[ March 02, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Stacheldraht]

Having read When Titans Clashed and having read bits of Glantz's Stumbling Colossus so far, here are some hopefully relevant impressions:

When Titans Clashed is clear and concise most of the time, considering the enormity of the topic. Glantz details the current state of access to Soviet archives and relies on these extensively, if his massive endnote section is any indication.

His treatment of large-scale strategic concerns is perhaps the most useful aspect of the book, if only for its seeming even-handedness and clarity. Much of the book delves into operational concerns and thereby devolves into painfully dry and forgettable sections of "And then X Division moved east and met heavy resistance." That sort of description means little without further details of the units involved and detailed maps, and the book definitely lacks the latter (it has maps, but they aren't very useful), and arguably lacks a enough of the former, too.

There's precious little focus on tactical concerns, individual "personalities," the conflict as experienced by the "average" soldier or individual, etc. A blurb on the dustjacket says the book "puts a human 'face' on the 'faceless' Soviet army," which is laughable. For that read Alexander Werth's fine Russia at War: 1941-1945. (He was a Russian-born English journalist who was in the USSR throughout most of the conflict and gives a memorable description of the events in diplomatic and "human" terms, while also detailing some of the fighting.)

To answer your initial question, afaik, there are no stunning discoveries to be had, merely a well-researched overview. But based on what he does offer, particularly in conjunction with Stumbling Colossus, it's pretty clear Glantz doesn't buy into the "preventive strike" (Präventivschlag) hypothesis which has been the subject of many, many books in German at least. (I.e., the assertion that the Germans fought a war of aggression against the USSR, but the latter was on the verge of doing the same.) That's still a huge matter of debate in European historical circles, from what I gather.

Ditto the Wehrmachtsausstellung to which I believe you allude. There are many books available, particularly in German, that argue the merits of that project/exhibit as well as many books along the lines of Bartov's, at least in subject matter. Which Bartov piece were you referring to in particular, The Eastern Front, 1941-45 : German Troops and the Barbarisation of Warfare, Hitler's Army : Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich, or one of his articles?

***

I found it to be just boring.

By that, you mean too scholarly?

One can be both scholarly and entertaining. Titans is the former but hardly the latter.

[ March 02, 2002, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Claus B]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I was wondering if any of the Russian Front grogs could tell me what "new" discoveries or conclusions the authors of this book have been able to draw, now that Russian archival material is more freely accessible. Is there anything jaw-droppingly amazing in here?

What are the strengths of this book, and what are the weaknesses?

It can be a somewhat boring read if you try swallow it all in one go. After all, describing such a complex event in one book will tend to be superficial and only deal with the "big picture".

Also, there are some errors in detail, possibly copied from Soviet sources, like Panthers with 88mm guns (p.160), repetition of the old myth of the "Porsche Tigers" and their missing machine guns at Kursk (p.162)and the SU-152 being labelled a "tank-destroyer" (p.162).

I think the strong point of this book is that you get a good factual account of the Soviet perspective in compressed form.

Whether your jaw will drop or not depends on whether you are up to date on 1990ies "discoveries" about the eastern front.

When I first read the book, I found Zhukows complete and utter failure in Operation Mars and its relationship to the Stalingrad offensive quite interesting.

Also, remember to check the notes, a lot of the interesting stuff is actually found there, like the discussion of Rezun/Suvorov on page 327. Also, the notes to the chapter about Operation Mars on page 347 is interesting regarding Zhukows premature commitment of his armoured forces and the comparison with his conduct in the attack on Berlin.

Claus B

[Stacheldraht]

It is probably one of those things that is best left unquantified

Not to drag this thread too much farther afield, but I don't know if that's necessarily the case. A lack of quantification often implies a lack of research, too. I.e., it would be too easy to people to just make broad or blind assumptions based on hearsay, received historical "wisdom," a few photos they saw, etc. The extent of the crimes of WWII (of which hardly just Nazi Germany and/or the Wehrmacht were guilty, of course) probably should be quantified and catalogued. One runs the risk of turning human suffering into dry and numbing lists and figures, but that's probably better than either forgetting or making sweeping generalizations about the perpetrators and victims.

[ March 02, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Stacheldraht]

Also, remember to check the notes, a lot of the interesting stuff is actually found there, like the discussion of Rezun/Suvorov on page 327.

See the preface and intro of Stumbling Colossus for much more on that topic.

[JasonC]

"The Kursk book mentioned is really only his translation of a Russian study"

This is a common misunderstanding. Glantz does have a translation of the Russian staff study on Kursk, co-edited with Orenstein, and another like it on the Operation Bagration campaign in 1944. But he also has his own volumes of analysis, including one on Kursk, co-written with House. They are not the same.

[ March 02, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks to all for their replies. Stadeldracht, I was referring to Hitler's Army and also to German Troops and the Barbarization of Warfare. As well as the Hamburg Institute exhibit I believe you are referring to. I am not intimately familiar with the latter, but remarks I have heard made about it in passing seem to jive with the same sorts of criticisms regarding the two books I just mentioned.

You probably do have a point that it is necessary to try and quantify the enormity of war crimes, whatever one decides that those are; a particularly hard thing to do on the Eastern Front. It is popular for us in the west to think that killing a German soldier in a bunker on Omaha Beach is somehow less disgusting than shooting an unarmed teenage girl in a Russian village. In the end, it is all disgusting, no matter what moral defence you assign to it (and yes, I do believe we were right in killing Germans, including men, women and children - it was unfortunately the only means to the end, and ultimately the way to save more lives than were lost).

But I digress; I am not sure I follow the logic behind the delay in taking Berlin; my skim of that section of the book shows that the Russians lost opportunities like that in two previous wars - losing what seemed a sure victory, and were bound and determined not to do so again. They also estimated 1 million Germans under arms in and around the capital - but I will go back and read the chapter again and sort myself out.

Thanks to all for the replies thus far. I must admit, having given the entire book a quick scan, it is a little dry and I agree that there is little discussion of personality. I thought British and Canadian commanders were colourless, but I realize this is only because of the way historians have chosen to present them. Finding a good historian able to dig and find the interesting bits changes all that; I guess we still have to wait for someone to do that for the Russians (in the English language?)

[Stacheldraht]

As well as the Hamburg Institute exhibit I believe you are referring to. I am not intimately familiar with the latter, but remarks I have heard made about it in passing seem to jive with the same sorts of criticisms regarding the two books I just mentioned.

That's the one I meant. It's commonly called the "Wehrmachtsausstellung" (Wehrmacht Exhibition) but is formally entitled "Vernichtungskrieg: Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944" (War of Annihilation: Crimes of the Wehrmacht). A brief overview of it and the controversy, in German: http://www.nachkriegsdeutschland.de/wehrmachtsausstellung.html (I've only had time to skim it myself.)

The English edition of the book tied to the exhibit is The German Army and Genocide: Crimes Against War Prisoners, Jews, and other Civilians in the East, 1939-1944, translated by Scott Abbott, edited by the Hamburg Institute, and with a foreword by Bartov. I believe the original German edition is Verbrechen der Wehrmacht. Dimensionen des Vernichtungskrieges 1941 - 1944. I think one of the biggest criticisms of the exhibit is that, it's argued, a number of photos are inaccurately captioned or misleading. The whole thing created a huge uproar in Germany, unsurprisingly, and even some difficulties in the U.S.

You probably do have a point that it is necessary to try and quantify the enormity of war crimes, whatever one decides that those are; a particularly hard thing to do on the Eastern Front.

Therein, I suppose, lies the rub: defining war crimes or atrocities in a "total war" (a term that applied particularly to the German-Soviet war). One needs to draw lines somewhere, though, I would hope. It's bad enough that some people excuse armed soldiers killing each other, but when we start excusing the killing of unarmed civilians, of children--well, something's very wrong.

It is popular for us in the west to think that killing a German soldier in a bunker on Omaha Beach is somehow less disgusting than shooting an unarmed teenage girl in a Russian village.

People want their justifications or moral comforts, naturally, whether right or wrong. I suppose many people want to paint all of Nazi Germany as utter evil incarnate so that all the terrible loss and suffering and sacrifices somehow make sense after a fashion or seem to have a purpose in the grand scheme. Others, of course, want to minimize the horrors committed by Germany or other combatants for numerous reasons. Lots of military history fans seem to do that with regard to Germany out of barely hidden admiration for the German military, which is pretty creepy considering the use to which it was generally put. (Not to excuse the Soviets or Western Allies from some of their acts, of course.) A soldiers' technical skill means little if it's applied to dishonorable or immoral ends--though defining those terms is thorny at the very best.

I guess we still have to wait for someone to do that for the Russians (in the English language?)

Some of the major Russian figures of the period wrote memoirs and histories, but it seems even some of the ones that made it into English are out of print, like Chuikov's book on Stalingrad. And of course, many of those were written under the censor's watchful eye. I suppose the chances of the Soviets' ever fully getting their due, so to speak, for what they went through and accomplished are rather slim. Of course, when you consider general historical illiteracy, all the focus on the Western allies in the popular media, and Stalin, Beria, the pre-war pact with Germany, etc., what can one expect?

[ March 02, 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Viceroy]

Dorosh,

Stacheldraht said:

Others, of course, want to minimize the horrors committed by Germany or other combatants for numerous reasons. Lots of military history fans seem to do that with regard to Germany out of barely hidden admiration for the German military, which is pretty creepy considering the use to which it was generally put.

That's exactly how I feel.

But he made another good point when he said I suppose many people want to paint all of Nazi Germany as utter evil incarnate so that all the terrible loss and suffering and sacrifices somehow make sense after a fashion or seem to have a purpose in the grand scheme.

BTW Dorosh, maybe you should try The Desert Generals C.Barnett and/or Churchill's Generals Keegan as they are both interesting and the British Generals described are far from colorless in these books.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

When Titans Clashed is clear and concise most of the time, considering the enormity of the topic. Glantz details the current state of access to Soviet archives and relies on these extensively, if his massive endnote section is any indication.

Please take a look at the list of actual sources used in When Titans Clashed (I tried WTC for short but that does not really work ).

In this particular book the predominant sources are Soviet era histories, not primary source archives. There are several glaring factual mistakes at least concerning USSR vs Finland.

I have seen reviews that say the book brings the Soviet POV to the western reader and it does just that, unabridged, unedited, warts and all. I have not had time to read other books by Glantz but this particular book does not epitomize scholarly study and source critique. IMO it is just a compillation of Soviet histories on the subject and should be treated as such.

[ March 03, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Viceroy]

Tero,

this particular book does not epitomize scholarly study and source critique.

So what historians do you suggest then? I mean, perhaps your criticism is justified as is Dorosh's of Bartov. But it does seem to be a feature of the BTS forum that NO historian is worthy of the name. Maybe it's a grog thing.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Viceroy:

Dorosh,

Stacheldraht said:

Others, of course, want to minimize the horrors committed by Germany or other combatants for numerous reasons. Lots of military history fans seem to do that with regard to Germany out of barely hidden admiration for the German military, which is pretty creepy considering the use to which it was generally put.

That's exactly how I feel.

But he made another good point when he said I suppose many people want to paint all of Nazi Germany as utter evil incarnate so that all the terrible loss and suffering and sacrifices somehow make sense after a fashion or seem to have a purpose in the grand scheme.

BTW Dorosh, maybe you should try The Desert Generals C.Barnett and/or Churchill's Generals Keegan as they are both interesting and the British Generals described are far from colorless in these books.

I respect your views, Viceroy, but I just don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand - use of Russian archives and changing understanding of how we in the west view the war on the Russian Front. (For the record, and forgive my French, but I'm quite glad that we (all the Allies) beat the sons of bitches - I just don't like Bartov's methodology.) Come to that, a quick look at the index of WHEN TITANS CLASHED really is quite revealing - and Tero is exactly right. It seems like all the claims made about this book are less than truthful. Not to say it's a bad book by any means, just not what some of the "hype" has made it out to be. Then again, what does live up to its hype these days.

I am pretty picky when it comes to sources, and didn't have a chance to sit down and pick this book apart in that manner. Seems like a lot of western writers are (probably of necessity) relying on secondary sources. Anyone read FRONTSOLDATEN, which based something like 25 percent of its text on Guy Sajer, while claiming to be an intimate study of the German soldier in WW II? ugh. The guy who wrote it didn't interview a single German veteran either.

Keegan is an excellent historian, I'll definitely have to check out that one, and the other you mention, thanks for the recommendations.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Viceroy:

Tero,

this particular book does not epitomize scholarly study and source critique.

So what historians do you suggest then? I mean, perhaps your criticism is justified as is Dorosh's of Bartov. But it does seem to be a feature of the BTS forum that NO historian is worthy of the name. Maybe it's a grog thing.

Now, now, that's not fair. I am not a Russian Front scholar by any means so I can't give you a good example. But I think I can judge what strikes me as sound methodology and what doesn't.

You seem familiar with Keegan, I'd rate him highly. FACE OF BATTLE was a masterpiece, for example, in my opinion.

Daniel Goldhagen took a similar tact to Bartov in writing HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS, which was a work I greatly respected. (I almost said enjoyed, but that is obviously wrong - the book is simply sickening to read, and it took a lot of willpower to get through the very disturbing material, photos included.) Goldhagen has come under criticism too, but I think his methodology was perhaps a little more sound - but that's my opinion only and I haven't analyzed it as in-depth as the more vocal critics. Would love to discuss it with anyone, if not here then someplace more appropriate, if anyone has comments on the validity of Goldhagen's research or conclusions. I thought the book was very good, the conclusions were reasonable given the evidence he presented, and his methods of research also seemed good.

If you have seen GOD, HONOUR AND FATHERLAND, the pictorial history of GD from 1942-1944, I rate this 5 stars out of 5. The captions were brilliant, and there is a fair bit of descriptive text that made it clear the writers knew a lot - or at least, had interviewed many veterans and gone to the original documents.

Operational level stuff I'm not qualified to judge - I hated STEEL INFERNOS(?) (the one about II SS Pz Korps in Normandy) by Reynolds, for example, but general consensus here was that people loved it.

As a grog, I will admit being put off by stuff that maybe shouldn't matter - someone writing operational level stuff who doesn't have a grasp on weapon nomenclature or tank names probably isn't a big deal - but it turns me off of him nonetheless. Your comment "maybe it's a grog thing", while intended to be humourous (?) has a lot of merit to it,really.

[ March 03, 2002, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Grisha]

Wow, Michael, I'm a bit surprised you didn't find my previous reply worth responding to. Frankly, I think the whole idea of the Berlin operation being delayed for 3 months for political reasons immensely interesting - with many possible unseen angles from several national directions.

Regarding 'archival' sources and When Titans Clashed, please bear in mind that books published by Voenizdat(the Ministry of Defense publishing house) were generally classified, and thus not available until after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Finally, to my mind I can think of three people who have probably done more to balance the history of the Russian front(by presenting the Soviet point of view): Erickson, Glantz, and Zaloga. All historians have a point of view, it's just that wrt the Russian front the traditional pov has long been German. Frankly, we will need more historians from the Soviet perspective, if we're going to have any chance of balancing this tremendous conflict historically.

[ March 03, 2002, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...

Operational level stuff I'm not qualified to judge - I hated STEEL INFERNOS(?) (the one about II SS Pz Korps in Normandy) by Reynolds, for example, but general consensus here was that people loved it ...

I don't know about general consensus. I thought it was awful, and I know at least one other poster who doesn't rate it very highly.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Wow, Michael, I'm a bit surprised you didn't find my previous reply worth responding to.

But I did...see my comments re: Berlin above. I haven't had a chance to read that chapter in depth, to be honest.

JonS - glad (?) to hear others shared the same views. I gave the book away in something not-so-harsh-as-disgust, but kind of regret cause now I forget why I didn't like it!