Books on the Eastern Front

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

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

Allow me to do the same. Censorship is defined as the act of censoring. Censoring is defined as the suppression of something objectionable. Suppression can easily and quite effectively be accomplished through criminal prosecution (or the threat thereof)...

I don't understand why you are citing the definition of "censor", the noun.</font>

Because there are no censors in germany, nad there is no real censorship.

It is merely illegal to deny the Holocaust. The censorship you talk about is nothing more than the self-righteous BS spread by neo-nazi's and revisionists to cover their odious works with the mantle of free speech.

[Foxbat]

Dr Hoffmann also worked on this book which was hit by german 'censorship', I like the Kraft durch Gas logo subtle yet revolting..

[ December 06, 2002, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by cbb:

Allow me to do the same. Censorship is defined as the act of censoring. Censoring is defined as the suppression of something objectionable.

No it is not.

From www.dictionary.com - 1: deleted b/c irrelevant.

censoring

2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances

A censor carries out censorship. Hence looking up what a censor is will tell you what censorship is too.

[ December 06, 2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

You are referring to the publisher of the English edition of Hoffmann's book in the U.S. His book was originally published in Germany by F.A. Herbig.

Doesn't it worry you that his book is crammed between "Holocaust, the lie" and "Holocaust, it never happened"?

Here is an article Hoffmann wrote for Castle Hill/VHO.org (the publishers of his book in england): Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Appendix 2 this article was published as part of a book that debunks the Holocaust -the cover of which is pictured above.

From the book: "One tends to forget that the fate of the normal Germans, soldiers and civilians, was sometimes even worse than that of the hundreds of thousands of inmates in POW and concentration camps."

[ December 06, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

The article also shows why he got into trouble with the geramn law, he claims that the figure of 6 million jewish dead was a figment of Ehrenburg's imagination.

[Foxbat]

"Herr Hoffmann, beyond the grave"

The manuscript of a lecture Hoffmann was supposed to give on in NY, it discusses not only Stalin's intended reign of terror but it "also gives the mostly unaware american historians an introduction in the measures the german federal governement takes against historians who do not bend to the leftist mind-control that is currently ruling germany."*

Enjoy!

*"sondern ist zudem für die zumeist ahnungslosen amerikanischen Historiker eine Einführung in die bundesdeutschen Repressalien gegen Historiker, die sich dem in Deutschland herrschenden linken Gesinnungsterror nicht zu beugen bereit sind."

[cbb]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Oh, okay, I see what you are saying. If you write something prohibited in Germany, there are no censors standing by to delete what you wrote. Instead, you'll simply be prosecuted, convicted, and thrown in prison...

Somehow that doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.

[MasterGoodale]

Originally posted by Richard Marchand:

Hi,

So what are good books about this historic clash?

Here are two examples:

Hitler Move East (1941-1943) by Paul Carell

This book cover the war on the Eastern front from 1941 (Barbarossa) to 1943 (end of the Stalingrad battle)

Scorched Earth (1943-1944) by Paul Carell

From the start of 1943 up to the East Prussian frontier in 1944.

Those 2 books, totalling over 1300 pages, are one of the best account of this front. From the big plans on paper to the execution in the field. From the German and the Russian side. The mistakes, the fate of fortune, the bad luck. A lot of soldiers stories.

Absolute blast to read. If you can find them, buy them

Thanks!! I have been wondering what would be a good read on this subject. I've been eager to get a book. So are there lots of first-hand accounts?? That's what I find the most moving.

[cbb]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I don't get too bent out of shape about books written by historians (and I especially don't lose any sleep over what books they may be "crammed between" on a website). I read Hoffmann's book, found his argument regarding a pre-emptive attack rather unconvincing, but definitely enjoyed his discussions about Ehrenburg. I knew very little about Ehrenburg before. But I do recall a VERY critical remark about him made by Solzhenitsyn in vol. 2 of the "Gulag Archipelago". He said:

"Ehrenburg writes [in his memoirs] that he himself 'survived [stalin's purges] by lottery.' Well, that little lottery had marked numbers. If they were rounding up your friends, you had to stop phoning them in time. If the wagon shaft turned, it was necessary to turn too. Ehrenburg heated up hatred for the Germans so insanely that Stalin had to pull him up short. If you feel toward the end of your life that you helped establish a lie, then what is required to justify yourself is not memoirs but an immediate bold self-sacrifice."

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

I don't get too bent out of shape about books written by historians (and I especially don't lose any sleep over what books they may be "crammed between" on a website).

Sure I'm getting all worked up only because a historian wrote some book that tries to minimize the Holocaust, deflect critisism away from the germans towards the evil russkies. That said historian also picks an actively revisionistic publisher to publish his book and helps the publisher out by writing an article for a book that 1) "debunks" the Holocaust 2) tells us that at least the concentrion camp voctims didn't have to suffer to the same extent as the german population did and 3) has "KRAFT DURCH GAS" on it's front cover is even less to get "bent out of shape".

If I should get angry it should be with the evil german governement that censors offensive neo-nazistic holocaust denial literature!

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by cbb:

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

Oh, okay, I see what you are saying. If you write something prohibited in Germany, there are no censors standing by to delete what you wrote. Instead, you'll simply be prosecuted, convicted, and thrown in prison...

Somehow that doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.</font>

Do you have any idea how many historians who have accidentely written something "prohibited" have been thrown in jail? A thousand? Six million?

And more importantly, how many came out alive?

[Strontium Dog]

'Berlin - The downfall 1945' by Antony Beevor is a superb read covering the last few months of the war on the eastern front. It covers the establishment of bridgeheads across the Oder and the battle for the Seelow Heights, the Baltic coast, Pomerania, etc. and the final battle for Berlin itself. Its a gripping read which graphically illustrates the total defeat of Germany in 1945. The book is a great insight into the end of WWII and the events which shaped much of the latter part of the 20th century.

[cbb]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

I have a big problem with putting anyone in jail for expressing views on history (no matter how strongly I may disagree with those views). But that's not the only harm. A bigger question is: how many views (good and bad) are being suppressed because of the fear of prosecution? Society as a whole suffers when the freedom to exchange ideas, thought, and opinions is restricted. If Carell or Hoffmann or Ehrenburg or anyone else writes erroneous history, they should simply be rebutted -- not jailed ...

I'm not sure how we got off on the topic of censorship. I'm certain there are others here who are far more knowledgable about that issue than am I. But returning to the topic of this thread, I will conclude by saying that I have read all five of Carell's books and I believe them to be quite valuable for anyone interested in the German military point of view in World War II, particularly those who play CM ...

And with that I'll shut up!

[Sgt. Steiner]

Just got "In Deadly Combat: A German Soldier's Memoir of Combat on the Eastern Front" by Gottlob Bidermann. So far, it has some gripping first-person accounts of infantry action. Any comments on this one?

[Foxbat]

"My just war - The memoir of a Jewish Red Army Soldier in World War II" by Gabriel Temkin. From Polish refugee, through labour battalions, a german internment camp, a soviet internment camp into infantry and ultimatly the reconiassance detachment. A completely differnt view of the war.

"Commanding the Red Army's Shermans" The memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza.

Tank stuff obviously, a collection of short stories placed in chronological order to form a more-or-less continues story as Loza and his tankers fought from russia, through eastern europe and finally into Manchuria. Great stuff, and one of the few first-hand accounts of soviet use of lend-lease equipment.

[Magick]

Another title to consider is 'Hell's Gate, The Battle of the Cherkassy Pocket, Jan - feb 1944' by D E Nash. A good read and a beautifully produced book..

[Richard Marchand]

[peering out of my foxhole]

Woooo, my first thread, and already 4 pages of heavy artillery :eek: I didn't thought it would come to this. I was only hoping to come up with more book to read

[going back in foxhole before another mortar barrage]

[PJungnitsch]

It is always a good thing to keep in mind that all people have their bias's, and academics can be worse than most in this regard, in my experience. Plus sometimes people can just get things wrong.

For example Glantz has come under a lot of heat in the TDI forum here at the moment for inaccuracies in the 'The Battle of Kursk'. Twenty-six disagreements in the first seventeen pages.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

It is always a good thing to keep in mind that all people have their bias's, and academics can be worse than most in this regard, in my experience. Plus sometimes people can just get things wrong.

Every book should ccome with a "Reader Beware" about the author:

For Glantz it should probably be 'author uses primarily soviet sources, german sources mainly used for illustration you are advised to by a book about the other side too. [Grog alert! author doesn't know a 8-8 from a 75L48 if it hit him in the face]"

For Carrell "Author was head of a nazi propaganda department and published his books under an assumed identity... make of that what you will"

etc

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

For example Glantz has come under a lot of heat in the TDI forum here at the moment for inaccuracies in the 'The Battle of Kursk'. Twenty-six disagreements in the first seventeen pages.

While Glantz certainly isn't infallible a lot of the heat I've seen so far is nitpicking though eg:

Page 7, paragraph 3: "In its previous campaigns in 1939-1940, the Wehrmacht had developed blitzkrieg (lightning war) from a propoganda theme into a practical set of tactics."

This is a very odd statement.

It's an "odd statement" mostly in the sense that the wording is a bit quaint, but there is no denying that it wasn't until 1939 that the "Blitzkrieg" found a practical application (yeah I know they didn't call it Blitzkrieg themselves which makes the passage a bit odd too).

Page 7, paragraph 4: "The highly centralized German maintenance system, which relied upon returning vehicles to the factory for major repairs, could not keep pace with the demands of the Russian campaign."

I believe the Germans had forward repair capability.

A big issue is then made about the fact that forward repair capability did exist even though the two statements are not mutually exclusive*.

Conclusion so far is: If you want a 100% accurate rendition of Kursk from the german side steer clear of Glantz.

* The post by Rich points out that "[..] the German system utilized long-term repair vehicles in the field as both a method of parts warehousing (similar to the "hanger queens" common in air forces) and to reduce the strain on the transportation system. [..] In essence that meant that in US practice all of the vehicles held for repair in a unit were usually repairable in under 48-hours, while in German practice "short-term" repair meant that it was repairable in under two weeks. As a result, American operational readiness for tanks was typically often over 90 percent, and sometimes as high as 95 percent, while German operational readiness typically appears to hover at around 60 percent."

[ December 07, 2002, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

I said it before, but we are again discussing Zetterling vs Glantz so I'll say it again. Having these massive tomes that can justifiably be regarded as more-or-less final accounts on the minutea of the fighting as seen from the opposite sides is great. No will someone please stand and make oone combined (and preferably readable) book on the basis of these accounts? Maybe Zaloga could be persuaded to do the Osprey booklet

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

Every book should ccome with a "Reader Beware" about the author:

For Glantz it should probably be 'author uses primarily soviet sources, german sources mainly used for illustration you are advised to by a book about the other side too. [Grog alert! author doesn't know a 8-8 from a 75L48 if it hit him in the face]"

No. It should be `when writing about the Axis side, the author tends to use secondary Soviet sources, and presents the views as "truth" with no word of doubt´.

[ December 07, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

...author doesn't know a 8-8...

Neither do I. Is that a kind of locomotive?

Michael

[Foxbat]

Ok, I see that further on the TDI forum Zetterling essentially urges us to NOT read Glantz and that the idea that anything written from the soviet pov/material could be worthwhile should be tossed on the ashheap of history. He then tops that off by saying that:

"Furthermore, the causes behind the eventual Soviet victory in WWII belittled by Dick [adverse climatic conditions, the sheer size of the USSR, overwhelming Soviet numbers, Hitler’s mistakes -foxbat] seem far more plausible than his own statements. Also, as far as I can see, what has come out of Soviet archives since 1990 supports the notion that the Red Army overwhelmed the Germans by numbers and not by skill"

So the soviets sucked ass, gen winter won the war for the germans and Glantz and Erickson are a pro-soviet nasties who are damaging history writing!

We've indeed come full-circle

[Keke]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

So the soviets sucked ass, gen winter won the war for the germans and Glantz and Erickson are a pro-soviet nasties who are damaging history writing!

Yeah, right.