For everyone who recommended WHEN TITANS CLASHED

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...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!

Go take a look at some of the reviews at Amazon - that should be sufficient to refresh your memory. I haven't given mine away yet, but that's mainly because I have a strong aversion to letting go of books - eg I still have some of Leo Kesslers stuff, and Sven Hassels', as well as Sajers 'bio.' Go figure.

[Grisha]

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

Oops! My bad

Actually, you won't find it in any book. Glantz just spoke about it last year at a seminar at University of Northern Texas. The reason for the delay of Berlin was that once Stalin was assured of its possession, then he switched his forces south to take Vienna. All of this was done with the future in mind. Stalin was going for as much land as he could grab in Europe before war's end.

Of course, this is no surprise, but the fact that Berlin could've been taken in February with far fewer losses is. And that Stalin would actually delay the war for a better postwar position is also a bit of a stunner. It's interesting to think what might have happened if Berlin was taken in late February. Where were the western Allies at this point?

[ March 03, 2002, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Tero]

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.

Not really. The Soviet sources are quoted verbatim and at least the sections concerning USSR vs Finland are filled with all kinds of factual errors which would have been easily checked if some sort of cross referensing with Finnish sources had been done.

If you look very carefully the book rides on Glantz's name. There is precious little (none?) actual text by him in the book. From what I recall none of it was actual research he had done for this particular book.

That does not mean I think all his other works are PoS.

[Stacheldraht]

Regarding Glantz's use of archival sources, he explains the sources, and by extension (or perhaps implication), part of his methodology with them, on pp.309-319. As he says, access to the Soviet archives for Western scholars seems to be largely restricted atm to selected/edited compilations published in book or journal form. Glantz's endnotes refer to many of the publications repeatedly, though those are of course (thankfully) not the only sources on which he relies. And even if Glantz couldn't go rooting around in the archives proper, he still was (seemingly) able to get hold of and synthesize far more material than one might expect. And after all, how many English-language scholars a) actively write about this conflict from an academically based perspective and have a mastery of both the German and Russian languages? Precious few I'd imagine.

Re: Goldhagen: He's been blasted from various quarters in the extreme for his methodology and conclusions. I haven't read him yet and can't comment directly, but you can easily find many books and articles in multiple languages detailing the controversy.

Re: Keegan: If you ever want a great one-volume history of the war, try his The Second World War. Intelligent and eminently readable--at times even poetically elegant. A great bibliographical essay and some well-chosen photographs add to the value.

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.

I don't know: I think those things do matter in general. First, attention to detail is a mark of a good scholar, and secondly, how can someone say something intelligent about operational level actions without understanding the weapon systems, for example, that they had at their disposal? A "tank division" obviously has very different meanings throughout the war, based on the nation and nominal TO&E alone. If the scholar doesn't know the names of the vehicles or a weapon's caliber or a plane's maximum range, there's a good chance he or she doesn't know as much as he or she should about the broader topic.

[ March 03, 2002, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Grisha:

It's interesting to think what might have happened if Berlin was taken in late February. Where were the western Allies at this point?

The other side of the Rhine - the battle for the Rhineland by the British and Canadians started at the beginning of February, likewise Grenade to the south - the CW troops were just waking up from the winter stalemate, and would spend 5 or 6 weeks just getting to the river, fighting through forest and mud. Large tracts of Holland were still in enemy hands - including Arnhem, if you can believe it.

[ March 03, 2002, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Viceroy]

Dorosh,

still off thread I'm afraid but just FYI Ordinary Men Browning has a good 30 page section at the end of the book devoted to Goldhagen. I know there is no love lost between those two but you might want to check it out in your library.

I must admit I'd pretty much written off Goldhagen's work before ... guess I'll have to try and get my hands on a copy now.

[themaltese]

Hi Michael. I haven't had a chance to read the Titans... book, but I'll probably get to it some time soon. Judging by some of the discussion above, there is a lot of opinion being put forward on the opinions of authors as portrayed in their texts. I feel that it is easy to argue with authors that write on a subject, but "weren't there." It is far more difficult to argue with authors that "were there" for the simple fact that, although their point of view may or may not be biased, we (the reader) cannot argue with them because we "weren't there." Hence, on that note, here are some good readings that you may or may not enjoy, that I feel are really good:

From Normandy to the Ruhr With the 116th Panzer Division in WWII by Heinz Gunther Guderian (General Heinz Guderian's son

Tigers in the Mud by Otto Carius

Panzer Leader by General Heinz Guderian

All three of these books offer perspectives that are hard to argue with.

Cheers

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by themaltese:

Hi Michael. snip... It is far more difficult to argue with authors that "were there" for the simple fact that, although their point of view may or may not be biased, we (the reader) cannot argue with them because we "weren't there." Cheers

With all due respect, what's so sacrosanct about their writing that it has to be taken at face value? Ever hear of self-interest? Or outright deviousness or the desire to justify one's actions? How about the capriciousness of ego or the fact that even a first-person observer can get the facts wrong? I'm sorry, but I don't think that any author is above critical examination and refutation with cause.

[Michael Dorosh]

I would agree that a book written by an academic isn't automically less valid than one written by a soldier or commander who "was there." Many of the best historians have never served in the military - Keegan, whom we have talked a little about in this thread, was one of them IIRC.

On the other hand, the most decorated US soldier of the Korean War, Anthony Herbert, wrote a self-admittedly bad book about his experiences in Korea - and his book about battalion command in Vietnam has been controversial (though most of the criticisms I have read have been by soldiers of his brigade who quibbled about small errors of fact attributable to human memory).

Again, I can't speak to the Russian Front with any authority, but I have pointed out in the past that the really good regimental histories regarding Canadian regiments in WW II have generally been written in the last 10 years, by persons not yet born in 1945. The rash of regimental histories written in the 15 years after WW II were usually by former serving officers - these books tended to be dry, written for fellow soldiers and not the general public (meaning they were rife with abbreviations and references to jargon and practices with which the reader would have no way to identify unless he was a super-grog), and tended to avoid criticism of fellow officers, since many were still alive.

[themaltese]

Hi guys. I never stated that any author is beyond critique. Nor did I state that authors that were actually present during a particular conflict are better in any way. I did state that, in my opinion, it is more difficult to put forth an argument against those that "were there". Their writings may or may not contain bias, and may or may not disguise self-interest in their books' folds. However, name any book on military history that is 100% accurate. Those historians that labor so hard to accurately portray an event, usually get rewarded by having the ability to write a book from a multitude of perspectives, and then present such to us the reader. There is nothing wrong with that if the author presents us with an untainted view, but it is physically impossible for anyone to get everything that happened exactly right. Some authors actually do a good job by presenting as many facts and vantage points in their writing as possible to deliver as close to the truth as possible (Toliver, Constable, Fraser, to name a few). But I'm one to put together my own assessment of an event by reading as many books by authors who were actually there on both sides of this great conflict. There is an adage that states, "The truth is like a triple edged sword. There's our side, there's their side, and then there's what really happened." Going with this adage, I will not argue against historical authors who go through the trouble of doing this for us, but I hope that you agree that, putting together what really happened from the perspectives of both sides, is a lot more interesting.

But getting back to the point of your thread, Michael, I agree that the Russian Front has been quite the problem for getting a true perspective from the Russian side. There are a multitude from the German perspective (Carius' Tigers in the Mud definitely made me feel like I was there. Hopefully, as more information becomes available to us from the Russians, more writings from the Russian perspective will come forth. Hence, once we are able to compare notes from authors on both sides, it will be very interesting to put together how certain events actually transpired.

Cheers

[Stephen Smith]

I'm in the middle of When Titans Clashed right now, and my observations are similar to several others. Strangely, when reading it, I feel like I'm reading the summary of a book rather than a complete book. Its almost like Glantz puts in enough operational detail to give a rough background, but not enough operational detail to really understand what's going on. And it shares a flaw with several military histories-it references places that are not on any map. For the reader, its essentially meaningles to learn that '16th Panzer division was thrown back to Lvov' without any knowledge of where Lvov is, for instance. I have long thought that military histories should be obligated to refer in text only to places that are identified on an included map.

Thus far, I feel that the book is probably a reasonable overview of the Russian front, and suggests that after about winter 1942/maybe summer 1943, the Germans were both outmanned and outfought. So its interesting to see the Russian perspective on the war. But it really is so quick, it merely gives a taste of the conflict- I will probably go to the Erickson books in the future to see more.

Incidently, my favorite military historian is Carlo D'este- see his books on Normandy, Anzio, Sicily, and Patton to really enjoy and understand a battle).

steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

For the reader, its essentially meaningles to learn that '16th Panzer division was thrown back to Lvov' without any knowledge of where Lvov is, for instance. I have long thought that military histories should be obligated to refer in text only to places that are identified on an included map.

I sympathize completely. I know only too well how frustrating that can be. I own a stack of atlases, and that sometimes helps, but I have not yet taken the plunge and purchased the West Point Atlas of World War II, which I really should do. Agreed that all military history books (and magazine articles, for that matter) should be accompanied by sufficient maps to be able to follow the action in its entirety.

Michael

[Claus B]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

Incidently, my favorite military historian is Carlo D'este- see his books on Normandy, Anzio, Sicily, and Patton to really enjoy and understand a battle).

But if D'Este was to cover the entire war in the West and Mediterranian in the same way he covers Normandy, Anzio and Sicily, it would be a 10 volume set of 10,000 pages

"When Titans Clashed" is an overview, a very compressed version of the Soviet view on the conflict. Glantz has done battle studies like D'Este, his Kursk book for example, but that is, in my view, a different genre all together.

That said, D'Este is certainly more readable than Glantz, regardless which book we are talking about. I dont think Glantz will ever write a book that will really capture the reader...

Claus B