How do you rate Clark's writings?

[Nekander]

Getting myself ready for CM:BB... Found from bookshelf Alan Clark's BARBAROSSA The Russian-German Conflict 1941-1945 .

Do you guys have any comments on that book or author? I have a Finnish version and I have noticed that editor has made many comments concerning historical accuracy on some occasions. Just have read about 100 pages.

-Nekander

[SLAP]

Hi Nekander

Alan Clark's Barbarossa was the first serious book I ever read on the Eastern Front. I have recently been re-reading it, for much the same reasons as you!

It gives a good overview of the conflict, but (deliberately) skips various areas. For example, a third of the book is about June to December 1941, and much of 1944 is skipped over.

When reading you have to bear in mind that it was written in 1965, at a time when there was very little access to the Soviet archives. So a heavy reliance on the German Generals accounts, although he cross-references these at times to get at the facts. This could account for the historical (in)accuracy?

Not sure if this is reflected in the Finnish translation, but I liked the tone of his writing. I really enjoyed re-reading it, and am still dipping in from time to time to cross-reference facts with other books.

Cheers

Dave

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Nekander:

Getting myself ready for CM:BB... Found from bookshelf Alan Clark's BARBAROSSA The Russian-German Conflict 1941-1945 .

Do you guys have any comments on that book or author? I have a Finnish version and I have noticed that editor has made many comments concerning historical accuracy on some occasions. Just have read about 100 pages.

-Nekander

Ahh. Dear old Alan Clark. He died a couple of years ago. He had been a conversative member of parliament in the UK. Most famous as a diarist - his observations and behaviour were funny, acid and scurrilous.

He was a notorious womaniser (once conducting an affair with a mother and daughter simultaneously) and apart from that his chief hobby was touring Europe in one of his vintage rolls royces. A cad, but a rather admirable cad to my mind.

As a military historian I am not sure that he will long be remembered. His 'Barbarossa' was one of the first long military histories that I read. I also had a copy of his 'Battle of Crete'.

He tells a good tale, and his persentation of a story is entertaining but he is rather lacking in analysis. Some say that his judgement is bad - which is I suppose largely due to a comment he made somewhere about 'admiring the physical vigour' of the young Waffen SS soldiers (or Waffen Grenadiers as I must refer to them as a good European).

I don't own a copy of Barabarossa and I wouldn't buy one, and I gave away the 'Battle of Crete'. Not because I am anti-Clark but just because I prefer more analysis rather than simple story telling in my military history.

Your question does however raise the real problem of what histories of the war on the Eastern Front are best. It is a difficult area that has been clouded I think by the cold war, German war guilt, and the terror, de-Stalinisation and collapse of the Soviet Union. We see it all through a glass darkly. In contrast of course on the Western Front we have some fine and commendably objective sources (the UK's official histories being a particular favourite of mine - the maps are splendid).

I would put in a good word for Robert Kershaw's 'War without Garlands - Operation Barbarossa 1941/42' (pub Ian Allan) as being a much better introduction to the subject than Clark's book. Just my thoughts.

Toodle pip!

Nigel

[Viceroy]

Nekander,

I read Barbarossa a few months ago and then read When Titans Clashed by Glantz next.

I agree with Slap that it's a great read, good value and was quite ahead of his times when he wrote it. While Glantz's work is obviously far more up to date and with much greater detail over the period 1944-45 in particular, Clarks is still worth reading as a good introduction to the EF.

[Sabotai]

One thing Clark's book has is a good discussion of the political situation inside Germany and how it affected battlefield decisions. Although Hitler had near absolute power, that power had to be constantly maintained. How he did that, sometimes at the expense of victory on the battlefield, was interesting.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Determinant:

I would put in a good word for Robert Kershaw's 'War without Garlands - Operation Barbarossa 1941/42' (pub Ian Allan) as being a much better introduction to the subject than Clark's book.

I haven't read Clark, but I would definitely agree that Kershaw's book is worth a read. While not as strong on the operational side of things as some other books, it very surely gives the flavor of the battles from the point of view of the men fighting them.

Michael

[Xenophile]

Given the time at which it was written, I think Barbarossa still stands up very well. He gets much more right than wrong, and I think his analysis is pretty sound. Too many authors get bogged in detail: Clark does look at the great 'what-ifs' of operational choice but finally dismisses them with strategic reality.

As an example, discussing Stalingrad, he goes over the dispostion of the weaker satellite forces and the misuse of the German force in urban conflict; but his conclusion is that 'In essence, though, the miscalulation of the Germans went deeper than this. The hard fact was that they were attempting too much. They were relying on entirely on superior leadership and training to compensate for material deficiencies.'

[Nekander]

Thanks for replies and suggestions!

-Nekander