Books on the Eastern Front

[MickeeMao]

Another great book is 'The Red Army Handbook' by Zaloga. This books charts the organizational development of the Soviet Forces during WWII, as well as some brief write ups of their major ground weapons systems.

Lots and lots of TO&Es and great photos to complement the text.

Hey, CBB! Got my turn ready yet?

M.M.

[BlackVoid]

The novels of Sven Hassel are also very good.

He fought the war in a penal battallion, mostly in the east.

[Alkiviadis]

re: Sven Hassel

His books are very entertaining, and the combat sequences are visceral, however, I would say his 1st book (forgot the title)is the most accurate, the rest strike me as military grunt fantasies.

[Foxbat]

cbb, the fact that Carell's books don't carry big disclaimers saying "how zionist moneylenders backstabbed our war effort" and don't have highly overt political claims or obviously distorted descriptions doesn't make it any less propaganda, it only makes it better propaganda.

Of course Carrell doesn't come out of the woodwork outright, a covert lie works better than one that stands on it's own because you will be less likely to question -or even reflect on- it.

Therefore he shapes the impression he wants to give of of the war by providing a believeable context which covers the underlying propaganda.

For example he dishes up his "anecdotal evidence" with no source (the all-seeing eye just happened to be at that unit at the time and later reported it to Carell, or did a Signal write-up about it). He paints a picture of the Wehrmacht fighting and the SS killing, and why would you disbelieve it? The SS were nasties and the Wehrmacht common soldiers.

He pictures Stalingrad as an epic battle rather than the clusterf-k it really was and suggest that, maybe, it was for the best that 6th Armee committed mass-suicide (this was a major theme in german propaganda at the time).

Probably the boldest lie is that of the pre-emptive war. Sure there are other books that claim the same (generally to push the writer's agenda), but there is not a shred of factual evidence while there is insurmountable evidence that the german attack on the soviet-union was being considered well before it actually happened.

All in all it comes down to the fact that the reader is reading the books of a high-ranking Nazi (of which the reader is intentionally left unaware) and are accepting the picture he paints of the war. That simply doesn't agree with the idea that it could also be detailed, accurate and unbiased history.

And even if there was nothing wrong with the books it would be more than appropriate to come down hard on the author for obscuring his background, he was a high-level nazi and people should at least be aware what he was and did when they are exposed to his works.

[Michael Dorosh]

Matthew Cooper's book, recommended above, is great at discussing the evolution of German military thinking in WW II, the relationship between the generals and Hitler, and debunking many myths. Bear in mind it is old (1978) and written before knowledge of Engima among the historical community. Whether or not that is a drawback is left to the reader to decide...unless someone has an opinion here? I think we discussed Cooper once before, though.

[CuznJG14]

Gotterdammerung 1945, Germany's Last Stand in the East By Russ Schneider

One of the BEST books on the Ostfront battles of 1945. Horrific and sobering.

[lassner.1]

I find myself unable to refrain from posting on the issue of our friend “Carrell” and others who have put forth the clam that Nazi Germany was prosecuting a “preventative” war. Few if any serious scholars accept this arguement. Indeed, my doctoral dissertation “Peace at Hitler’s Price: Austria the Great Powers and the Anschluß 1932-1938” (Ohio State university 2001) dealt extensively with Nazi state policy and strategy in the Interwar Period (if you are a glutton for punishment you can go look it up all 800 pages at the OSU library). I spent over two years in European archives from London to Budapest, and so far as I am concerned there can be no talk whatsoever of the Hitler regime prosecuting a “preventative” war. What the Nazis were able to do is to use the specter of future Soviet aggression – which was, not without reason, a real concern to many European leaders – to coax some French and especially British statesmen into giving the Third Reich a relatively free had in central Europe in exchange for assurances that German armaments were, as Hitler put the matter to the British directly, directed towards the Soviet Union.

Moreover, Foxbat is quite correct when he speaks of the “covert lies” to which “Carrell” resorts. Distortion was (and remains) standard operating procedure for the Nazis who were the masters of linguistic perversion and, as George Steiner puts the matter, anti-language.

The matter of Nazi linguistic perversion with regard to the Holocaust, in particular, is dealt with extensively by such scholars as, for example, Henry Friedlander, “The Manipulation of Language,” in The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide” Henry Friedlander and Sybil Milton eds., (New York, 1980); Konrad Ehlich, Sprache im Faschismus (Frankfurt am Main, 1989); Cornelia Schmitz-Berning, Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (Berlin, 1998); Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: "Euthanasia" in Germany 1900-1945 (Cambridge, 1994); Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (New York, 1992).

But, in fact, Nazi linguistic perversion is pervasive in the German diplomatic record, to include conversations among and between Nazis and their agents, since they regularly blackmailed one another. While anti-language in the diplomatic record of the 1930s is used in the service of activities less malevolent than those of the Holocaust, it is no less distorting. From Franz Papen, to Konstantin Neurath, to Hitler, Hermann Göring and Rudolf Hess, the Nazis – including Carrell – and their agents were and have remained, pathological liars who, in addition, regularly employed euphemisms of the most insidious kind.

Carrell’s book is of extremely questionable value. Stick with Earl Ziemke, Glantz or any of the other respectable scholars that have been mentioned on this page already. BTW – much of what I wrote above goes for Manstein and Guderian.

[Michael Dorosh]

I see you mention the one on Police Battalion 101 that Goldhagen draws heavily on as a source.

How do you rate Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners"?

[ December 05, 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[lassner.1]

Michael,

Well, as you may know there is quite a fight going on between Browning and Goldhagen (at least as much of a fight as one is likely to see between scholars!). Personally, I find that Browning’s explanations as expounded in the last two chapters of “Police Battalion” (as to why ordinary men participated in state sponsored extermination) are far more convincing than those put forth by Goldhagen in “Hitler’s Willing.” I would add that the most recent edition of Browning’s book also has an extremely well argued response to some of Goldhagen’s more outlandish assertions and counter-arguments. Indeed many – perhaps most – leading Jewsish and non-Jewish academics in Holocaust studies are in disagreement with part-of/all-of Goldhagen’s thesis (see, again, the expanded edition in Browning’s book for a good starting point). These objections have been born out by my own personal discussions with Gerhard Weinberg (retired from North Carolina) and Carol Fink (OSU).

I have even begun to wonder whether Goldhagen is, in fact, anti-Christian, or perhaps just anti-Catholic, in light of his most recent work “A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair.” I would write a bit more on that tonight but I have a batch of exams that have to be graded by Monday, and I am “im Begriff” of grading. Suffice it to say for tonight that I have serious reservations about Goldhagen: there is, to my mind, much more sophisticated work that has been done. I’ll try to say more tomorrow or this weekend as time permits.

Alexander

[cbb]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

cbb, the fact that Carell's books don't carry big disclaimers saying "how zionist moneylenders backstabbed our war effort" and don't have highly overt political claims or obviously distorted descriptions doesn't make it any less propaganda, it only makes it better propaganda. Of course Carrell doesn't come out of the woodwork outright, a covert lie works better than one that stands on it's own because you will be less likely to question -or even reflect on- it.

Previously you claimed Carell's books were "horribly distorted" and now you say they aren't "obviously distorted". That leaves me scratching my head. I would think that a book that avoids "highly overt political claims or obviously distorted descriptions" and instead focuses strictly on the military aspects of the war (as Carell's books do) would be PRECISELY the sort of book wargamers would be interested in...

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Therefore he shapes the impression he wants to give of of the war by providing a believeable context which covers the underlying propaganda.

For example he dishes up his "anecdotal evidence" with no source (the all-seeing eye just happened to be at that unit at the time and later reported it to Carell, or did a Signal write-up about it). He paints a picture of the Wehrmacht fighting and the SS killing, and why would you disbelieve it?.

You are correct that Carell, like many, many authors of history, uses anecdotes in his descriptions and does not list his sources. But the images he paints do not make his books inaccurate. Rather, they make his books highly readable and that is the very reason why his books remain so popular among those interested in WWII ...

Originally posted by Foxbat:

He pictures Stalingrad as an epic battle rather than the clusterf-k it really was and suggest that, maybe, it was for the best that 6th Armee committed mass-suicide (this was a major theme in german propaganda at the time).

I have Carell's book "Stalingrad" and I don't get that impression at all. I didn't find what he described as being that much different from what was described by Beevor or Craig...

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Probably the boldest lie is that of the pre-emptive war. Sure there are other books that claim the same (generally to push the writer's agenda), but there is not a shred of factual evidence while there is insurmountable evidence that the german attack on the soviet-union was being considered well before it actually happened.

Any discussion of the "pre-emptive war" issue by Carell in "Hitler moves East" comprises only a miniscule part of the book. (But I would encourage you to read Dr. Hoffmann's book before making up your mind that there is "not a shred of factual evidence". Dr. Hoffmann has a PhD in history and served as a military historian in the Bundeswehr from 1960 to 1995. His book was approved by German censors for publication in Germany in 1995) ...

Originally posted by Foxbat:

All in all it comes down to the fact that the reader is reading the books of a high-ranking Nazi (of which the reader is intentionally left unaware) and are accepting the picture he paints of the war. That simply doesn't agree with the idea that it could also be detailed, accurate and unbiased history.

And even if there was nothing wrong with the books it would be more than appropriate to come down hard on the author for obscuring his background, he was a high-level nazi and people should at least be aware what he was and did when they are exposed to his works.

What you are saying is that because of his background (i.e. his connection with the German military), Carell is automatically disqualifed from writing about the war -- "even if there was nothing wrong with the books." If that's the case, then shouldn't Guderian, Manstein, and Mellenthin be disqualified as well? In fact, if background is the key factor, can't it be argued that NO participant from any side during the war can be trusted? After all, how can any participant be truly unbiased?

[onodoken]

Originally posted by lassner:

Carrell’s book is of extremely questionable value. Stick with Earl Ziemke, Glantz or any of the other respectable scholars that have been mentioned on this page already. BTW – much of what I wrote above goes for Manstein and Guderian.

Indeed, Ericson, Beevor, Clack and Glantz are much better sources. However In my very personal opinion, and based on the readings of Panzer Leader and other articles, Guderian was a tactician at heart. His political involvement was limited to presenting and advocating his tactics to OKW and OKH officers and to Hitler himself when necessary. Indeed it is well documented that Hitler was at times enraged when Guderian did not yield to Hitler's points of view. Guderian was nontheless and advocate of war and did not make any apologies for it in his writings.

[cbb]

Originally posted by lassner:

Carrell’s book is of extremely questionable value.

If you are interested in the Anschluss, the interwar period, linguistics, the holocaust, or the German diplomatic record -- all of the issues listed in your post -- then Carell's books are of no value. That is because Carell deals with none of these issues. But if you are interested in combat on the Eastern Front (as I would think most players of CMBB would be), then Carell's books are quite valuable.

[cbb]

Originally posted by onodoken:

Indeed, Ericson, Beevor, Clack and Glantz are much better sources.

Keep in mind that Erickson's books are written almost entirely from the Soviet viewpoint (which, in one sense, is refreshing considering that so many books focus on the Germans but if you are looking for a German or dual viewpoint, then Erickson is probably not for you). Also, Erickson's books tend to be a bit dry IMHO, focusing almost exclusively on strategy and operations (and definitely containing none of those tactical-level "anecdotes" that foxbat decries). It strikes me that his works are far more relevant for a wargamer who plays TOAW than for one who plays CMBB.

[_Axe_]

None of this is, of course, terribly new. There has been debate for years in philosophy circles about the intrinsic "value" of Martin Heidegger's work because of his Nazi Party connections.

It all comes down to a single question really -- can a person's work ever be considered separate from their life?

Being born in 1972, I labored under the New Criticism school of literature; the one that says each artifact -- whether it be a text, painting or sulpture -- has an intrinsic meaning you have to get at. The artist's biographical information is, on the whole, unreliable as a way at getting at the work's true meaning.

Shows you how badly non-post secondary education lags behind academia. We were studying the literary criticism of T.S. Eliot when he had already been killed, buried and had his grave danced on by post modernism!

Cheers,

Jason

P.S. GRRRARGGAGAGARRARAGGGGAR :mad: :mad: :mad: (Just to lighten up this pedantic post)

[lassner.1]

Onodoken,

I must, respectfully, disagree with you most profoundly. It has well documented that Guderian, Manstein, Rommel and other leading Generals of the Third Reich either knew about the extermination activities taking place in their sectors and did nothing, or purposefully turned a blind eye to the fact that this was taking place. I suggest reading some of the numerous articles/books by Gerhard Weinberg on this subject, for starters. These three in particular, among others, received millions of Reichmarks in payoffs from the Nazis.

cbb,

In fact I am very well read and interested in the Eastern Front and I remain of the view that “Carrell” is a liar, propagandist and untrustworthy source on the war in the east.

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by cbb:

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

Carrell’s book is of extremely questionable value.

If you are interested in the Anschluss, the interwar period, linguistics, the holocaust, or the German diplomatic record -- all of the issues listed in your post -- then Carell's books are of no value. That is because Carell deals with none of these issues. But if you are interested in combat on the Eastern Front (as I would think most players of CMBB would be), then Carell's books are quite valuable.</font>

[cbb]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

[QB}

the thing about 'pre-emptive strike' was - if i recall - mainly in an intro for 'scorched earth'; the intro itself written in 1989 or somefink... a bit about info released from long-secret kgb archives...

i would have to think though that the soviets really were not ready to attack in '41... they didn't have the trucks and politically it would have been suicide... i think such a campaign itself would have gone badly for them...

[/QB]

Volkogonov, in his superb biography of Stalin, states that Stalin knew war with Hitler was inevitable and, furthermore, that Stalin was preparing for it. But Stalin knew that the Red Army was not ready for war in 1941 and he desparately (and blindly) hoped that he would have until at least 1942 before having to fight.

[cbb]

Originally posted by lassner:

cbb,

In fact I am very well read and interested in the Eastern Front and I remain of the view that “Carrell” is a liar, propagandist and untrustworthy source on the war in the east.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your view (which I indeed respect). But after having read five of Carell's books, I hold a contrary view. I do not find anything in his books that remotely constitute lies or propaganda. And I am unwilling to dismiss an author as "untrustworthy" based solely on his background.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

Previously you claimed Carell's books were "horribly distorted" and now you say they aren't "obviously distorted". That leaves me scratching my head. I would think that a book that avoids "highly overt political claims or obviously distorted descriptions" and instead focuses strictly on the military aspects of the war (as Carell's books do) would be PRECISELY the sort of book wargamers would be interested in...

Yes, that is EXACTLY the book I would like. One that has presents a view of history that is warped in such a way that it's content is acceptable to me while I unknowingly also take in the author's ideological viewpoints.

I guess the issues of Signal itself are also great books for wargamers since they "focus strictly on the military aspects", just because the political issues are not at the surface doesn't mean they're not there..

You are correct that Carell, like many, many authors of history, uses anecdotes in his descriptions and does not list his sources. But the images he paints do not make his books inaccurate. Rather, they make his books highly readable and that is the very reason why his books remain so popular among those interested in WWII ...

Rezun has the same annoying habit, what's worse people tend to quote these anecdotes as factual occurences.

I also don't think it is a good thing that bad books are readable and thus remain the main sources for people's incorrect ideas on the war

Any discussion of the "pre-emptive war" issue by Carell in "Hitler moves East" comprises only a miniscule part of the book.

So? As long as it ingrains itself as a credible option in it's readers it doesn't have to be the majority of the book.

(But I would encourage you to read Dr. Hoffmann's book before making up your mind that there is "not a shred of factual evidence". Dr. Hoffmann has a PhD in history and served as a military historian in the Bundeswehr from 1960 to 1995. His book was approved by German censors for publication in Germany in 1995) ...

I guess Dr Hoffman researched the time-warp device the soviets would have used to get their forces battle-ready, equipped and in place before 1942-3.

Originally posted by Foxbat:

And even if there was nothing wrong with the books it would be more than appropriate to come down hard on the author for obscuring his background, he was a high-level nazi and people should at least be aware what he was and did when they are exposed to his works.

What you are saying is that because of his background (i.e. his connection with the German military), Carell is automatically disqualifed from writing about the war -- "even if there was nothing wrong with the books." If that's the case, then shouldn't Guderian, Manstein, and Mellenthin be disqualified as well? In fact, if background is the key factor, can't it be argued that NO participant from any side during the war can be trusted? After all, how can any participant be truly unbiased?

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying.. apart from the disqualifying and participant in the war bit.

Carell/Schmidt was the head of a nazi propaganda department. That's information I'd like to know when reading a book.

In fact I like to know something about any author I read. Background tells me what biases the author is likely to have, so I can be aware of them in advance.

But in this case it's a little worse than that. Carell was a ranking nazi and he has done his utmost to hide his real identity from us so as to get us to approach his works less critically.. that's propaganda 101 again. Of course there is no reason for these lies, the secrecy and the deception that's just a coincdence that happened while he was writing otherwise perfectly unbiased history books.

btw: your selection is quite interesting Guderian, Manstein and Mellenthin all published memoirs that offer a very distorted picture of the war in the east. That sweep the real defeats under the table, focus on the local victories while intentionally ignoring the big picture and point away the blame for any failure away from themselves. I'm not sure about v Mellenthin but the others at least also use their memoirs to wash their hands of the blood of the innocents.

[ December 05, 2002, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

was taken aback at first how he was 'rooting' for the germans but began to kind of appreciate it, being that i grew up on 'hitler evil fdr good' type of thinking which is so prevelant in america...

FDR had his faults (and that's putting it mildly), but at least he did not set up death camps etc [i'd put a smiley here, but I don't think it's really appropriate]

if you want objectivity, look elsewhere or at least balance carell with the likes of say, the ambroses of the world...

Agreed, except the Ambrose bit of course.. but at least everything about Ambrose just screams pro-american bias

[Sgt. Steiner]

I've noticed that none of Franz Kurowski's books have been mentioned. I recently read "Panzer Aces", and am currently reading "Infantry Aces". Both books seem to be very good accounts of infantry and tank combat. I was unaware of Carrell's background; is Kurowski similarly discredited?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Foxbat:FDR had his faults (and that's putting it mildly), but at least he did not set up death camps etc [i'd put a smiley here, but I don't think it's really appropriate]

He did intern the Japanese and steal their property though...(smiley similarly deleted).

Not that I mean to compare AH with FDR, naturally...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Bear in mind it is old (1978) and written before knowledge of Engima among the historical community.

Eh? Enigma and its role began to emerge in the historical community in 1972 or thereabouts. I think I first read about it in 1974 without making any special effort to dig it up.

Michael

[Simon Fox]

How delighted I am to see those two brilliant authors of historical fiction Sven Hassel and Paul Carrel mentioned so appropriately in almost the same breath. Just for Mike I should mention that the first Hassel book wasn't actually written by him.

One wouldn't read Guderian or Manstein with an uncritical mind in the expectation of a full and frank account of events, would one? At best one would expect an insight into the mind of an individual bent upon self justification and content to assign responsibility to the conveniently dead. However, one might expect to get a reasonably accurate indication of the authors motivations during their most brilliant successes. As for the rest, a number of outright lies and curious omissions have been well documented in both books.

As a counterpoint to the portrayal of the valiant and unblemished Heer battling in the East one might want to peruse the first four chapters of Michael Burleighs "Ethics and Extermination" which deal with their gallant deeds against those nasty "Jewish Bolsheviks".

[ December 06, 2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Bear in mind it is old (1978) and written before knowledge of Engima among the historical community.

Eh? Enigma and its role began to emerge in the historical community in 1972 or thereabouts. I think I first read about it in 1974 without making any special effort to dig it up.

Michael</font>