Debunking the Glantz myth

[swkuh]

Well, glad I am that this discussion has become more reasonable. [:)]
[:-] Still, I'm surprised that there's so much angst over different historical views.

[&o] As I read the forums for game playing insights, not philosophy of history, I wonder if any who follow alternative historical representations would offer some remarks about how this game should be changed because of their different analysis.

[X(] In fact, be nice to know how one understands the historical POV of the WitE game. Let's see, Germans went East and the Soviets went West. Think I'm safe about that and agree with WitE. Hmmm... at what point does WitE offer questionable details?

[marcpennington]

I would probably take with a grain of salt anything Beevor says about Glantz and particularly Operation Mars. The New York Review of Books savaged Beevor's Stalingrad for among several factors not taking into account Glantz's work on Operation Mars as well as such omissions as minimizing Vasilievsky's role. In a series or letters afterwards, Beevor defended himself and came off as rather a twat... I'm sure he has been waiting for the first opportunity to take a pot shot at Glantz in further retaliation. Any one who has ever been around academia knows the drill.

So that said, I would look directly to what these "Russian historians" have said about Operation Mars and what their sources were, rather then Beevor's interpretation of them. Beevor strikes me as a fine writer but one whose historical interpretations are hardly of the most analytical variety. I haven't looked at his survey of WW2, but from the reviews of it I've read it sounds like more along the line of his previous books. As Flavius mentioned above, an excellent analytical overall history is Weinberg's A World at Arms, particularly for the diplomatic and intelligence side of the war, even if it can be a bit maddening in its repetitiveness.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
But to summarise. Glantz concludes that Mars was a coequal offensive conducted simultaneously with Uranus.

The evidence that Beevor presents makes it very clear that Mars was a diversion to aid in the success of Uranus.

Its not just a simple mistake of fact on Glantz's behalf. Its a totaly wrong conclusion drawn from inadequate research of the material available. This kind of failing, IMO brings in to question his work overall.

A totally wrong conclusion? The difference between a "coequal offensive" and a "diversion" is largely ambiguous, and very much open to interpretation. A simultaneous offensive on another part of the front is by its very nature diversionary, whether or not it's actual intent is to divert. That's part of the whole point of launching multiple attacks/offensives...

Debate on this kind of strategic level is always open to interpretation as the players involved (commanders, politicians) often want to make sure that history views them in a certain light, so actual actions can vary from documented or intended/planned actions, or vice versa.

To condemn (or praise) an author for a position that typically requires a certain degree of interpretation and hold that condemned or praised 'interpretation' as unequivocal fact, is IMHO reactionary and narrow minded. Relying on a single author/source (whoever or whatever that may be) is not good history/research anyways...

Beevor's new interpretation may be good for debate and get the creative juices flowing, and that's what some of us history buffs like to look for. But to sh*t on a guy for one issue like this, is a bit much Michael.

PS: I'm neutral on Glantz. I only got 'Clash of Titans' a few months ago (my first Glantz Book), so I don't know much about the guy.

[danlongman]

"I don't give a rats about other writers. There is a weird Glantz worshiping thing at this site. Here is some proof Glantz is sloppyI read one of his books. Won't be wasting my time reading anymore.
Its a totaly wrong conclusion drawn from inadequate research of the material available. This kind of failing, IMO brings in to question his work overall.
But it just cemented what I already thought about Glantz's work. "

Just a summary of a few quotes found above. I have to read MORE of Glantz' writings now....after I stop scratching my head

[Aurelian]

Troll thread.

Some people, (and they know who they are.), would rather games like this only use what was available in self serving German memoirs or from other German only sources.

I'm rereading "Absolute War" and have found some errors. Like the IL-16 fighter in 1941? (Wut?? It didn't come out til 1945, and was a scaled down IL-10). Should I suspect the entire book? There's even some pages where proof reading was needed. So should I?

Operation Mars is open to interpretation. But to claim that Glantz and all his works are open to question because another author has a different conclusion indicates an agenda.

IIRC, it isn't even in Liddel Hart's "History of the Second World War." So I guess the entire book is suspect.

Is this suspect? http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Battle ... onmars.htm

"Named after the Roman God of War, Operation Mars formed the centrepiece of Russian strategic designs in the autumn of 1942. Its scale and ambitious strategic intent made Operation Mars at least as important as Operation Uranus and likely more important."


Would you really use your best general on a diversion?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

In truth this business about Mars is open to interpretation; the Soviets (now Russians) have always claimed it was diversionary in intent and achieved its goal....

Maybe because the operation really was a failure and tarnished the otherwise brilliant career of Zhukov?

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Glantz, after some fairly exhaustive OOB analysis concludes otherwise....

Yup. I have his Mars book and pages 373-377 summarize the OOB's for both operations as well as a few others in that time period. The numbers for Mars and Uranus look pretty even to me. I don't have the Beevor book but artillery ammo alone, even if the numbers he cites are correct, certainly wouldn't tell the whole story. More likely it's just a further attempt by Russian "historians" to cover for Zhukov.
[/quote]

[Flaviusx]

Well the question of intent is a squishy one, Lee, and we don't have any smoking gun here. Glantz has strong circumstantial evidence. But it is circumstantial. It looks a lot like a main effort, but once again I point to Tolbukhin's Mius offensive in 1943. That was pretty real looking, too...and yet turned out to be a fairly elaborate piece of maskirovka. (So elaborate that Tolbukhin himself didn't realize he was being used as a diversion. Now that's deep. Crazy Ivan is crazy.)

On balance I think Glantz is probably right, because it's hard to believe the Soviets would go so far for mere maskirovka and could probably have achieved similar results with less cost in blood and treasure. But you can never really be sure.

And it almost doesn't matter. The ex post facto justification (if that's what it was) does work here -- Mars did lock down AGC and to that extent did aid Uranus, and Uranus was so decisive -- the decisive operation of the entire war, full stop -- that it excuses a lot. Some kind of demonstration by AGC probably was a good idea, even if that wasn't the actual intent.

[Klydon]

Michael is right about Glantz and this site. Read enough of the threads around here and Glantz is held up above all others by some posters as the be all to end all authority of the eastern front.

I don't necessarily agree as far as going for a "troll" thread or that Glantz is worthless (I would disagree with that), rather Glantz should be like other sources/authors and that is confirmation from other sources is a good thing, especially if something seems to be way out there. (Panthers with 88's.. heh).

[Flaviusx]

Klydon, it's a troll thread. When somebody pulls a single passage from a single book and claims that this invalidates a full body of work consisting of literally dozens of books, all but one of which have nothing to do with the cite, that's a crashing non sequitur in the service of a troll.

Michael hates Glantz. To an irrational extent.

A useful and interesting conversation can be had about Mars, there's genuine controversy about it, but that's not the conversation that Michael started here.

[turtlefang]

Many of you have raised some interesting and very valid points. As a WW2 historian for over 35 years - and one who reads and speaks Russian (poorly but with great determination) - the opening up the Russian achieves in 1991 caused major re-writes in how we understood the Eastern front.

1) Glanzt, despite anyone's opinion, is recoginized as the one of the foremost living authories on the WW2 Eastern front in North America. He's challenged and caused many theories to be re-written in the last 20 years and open new insight in that area.
2) As with any historian, Glanzt has developed his POV and sometimes it blinds him to other views on a subject. This is the single most common failing of any historian, and, IMO, most human being. A gentleman earlier in this discussion pointed this out and he's right on target.
3) Beevor doesn't have the same body of work or primary research that Glanzt has yet. And he hasn't added the same new insights that Glanzt has added to the Eastern Front debate. He's a creditable source, but simply doesn't have the same stature that Glanzt has yet.

4) On Mars, we will never "know" the answer. Too many records either aren't avaliable, or have been altered. But based on the operational planning records that have been released, we know the following about the operation:

a) It was originally planned to jump off 30 days before the Uranus operation. Due to logistics delays, it actually jumped off two days AFTER the Uranus operation.
b) It was to consist of approximately 1.5 to 1.8 million troops - counting reserves - in the offense. The defensive battles at Stalingrad, combat losses, and logistic strains kept reducing this number. The final offense resulted in approximately 500,000 to 600,000 troops - and very few if any reserves were committed.
c) The 30 day delay in the start date resulted in the offense taking place in terrible weather conditions, creating an inability of to supply the troops, and no break out occured.
d) The entire Soviet front suffered from a sever heavy artillery ammo shortage during this period - and ammo was diverted constantly from one part of the front to Stalingrad and, later Uranus as it become successful, from other parts of the front.

So, based on this information, you can literally make a case that both Glanzt and Beevor are both right. Glanzt because the operation was originally plan as a major offensive; Beevor because operationally, the Soviets simply couldn't execute two major offensives of this scale at the same time. Or, that both are wrong depending on how you want to picture it.

And, as another gentleman pointed out, you need to read multiple POVs to get a good grasp of what happening - and different, creditable POVs are best. Most of want to believe that history not subject to differences of opinion and its black and white - unfortantely, most history is more in the shades of gray. So I would recommend taking as many views as possible and measuring them against each other - it's usually interesting at the same time.

[Michael T]

I don't hate Glantz. I hate that people at this site think he is the be all and end all aurthority on the war in Russia. The reponces to this thread prove the point once again. So funny that one guy accuses me of being narrow minded yet I am one who reads widely and doesn't base all my opinions on one writer. Go figure.

The point of the thread is to point out to the Glantz groupies and to others that he is not infallible and you should not base your views on just one source, such as his. Read more widely is the message. Simple as that.

[Flaviusx]

Michael, you have, by your own admission, read one book by him, absolutely refuse to read any others, and have taken this Mars business as proof positive that Glantz is worthless. That looks pretty over the top to me.

You're right that his book on Mars is open to dispute and if you'd just left it that, then there wouldn't be an issue. But this sweeping dismissal is something else, and the thread's title is plainly troll bait.

You can't ignore Glantz. Right or wrong he looms large on the scene; it's impossible to stay current on Soviet WW2 scholarship without taking into account his work. He's this generation's John Erickson (who I am still very fond of, even if dated. Erickson was a much better writer, too. Glantz's wooden prose is one of his weak points...)

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
The point of the thread is to point out to the Glantz groupies and to others that he is not infallible and you should not base your views on just one source, such as his. Read more widely is the message. Simple as that.

If the above were true, you could have worded your original post far more constructively. And using the term 'Glantz Groupies' simply continues to inflamme the issue, not diffuse it. Perhaps next time choose less inflamatory language and you'll get less inflamatory responses...

Instead, your post was interpreted by many as a troll-like indictment of Glantz. One (debatable) error and suddenly his whole line of work is (in your opinion) discredited.

So funny that one guy accuses me of being narrow minded yet I am one who reads widely and doesn't base all my opinions on one writer. Go figure.

I didn't accuse you of being a narrow minded person (and how should I know what you do or don't read...). I accused your indictment of an author (not even Glantz specifically, it could be any author in any situation) based on one (debatable) error of being narrow minded.

Interesting also, that you chose to write the above response that you did, rather than engage and refute the thoughtfull responses of others with your own reasoned counter-arguments, which again indicates to me your original intention was not to stimulate a reasoned and constructive debate.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
...Glantz is held up above all others by some posters as the be all to end all authority of the eastern front.

Oddly, these posters don't seem to appear on my version of the forum, could you please post some quotes?

I see lots of people referencing him, which I guess is not surprising since he is one of the more prolific historians of this front, but don't see anyone saying he is the "be all to end all authority.".

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
So, based on this information, you can literally make a case that both Glanzt and Beevor are both right. Glanzt because the operation was originally plan as a major offensive; Beevor because operationally, the Soviets simply couldn't execute two major offensives of this scale at the same time. Or, that both are wrong depending on how you want to picture it.

Interesting post, thanks. Isn't history messy?

[lycortas]

If some hot babe tells me that Hitler and Stalin were gay lovers i will believe that over Glantz since she is hotter than him. Glantz sucks due to his lack of hotness.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Klydon
...Glantz is held up above all others by some posters as the be all to end all authority of the eastern front.

Oddly, these posters don't seem to appear on my version of the forum, could you please post some quotes?

I see lots of people referencing him, which I guess is not surprising since he is one of the more prolific historians of this front, but don't see anyone saying he is the "be all to end all authority.".

Take this however you want, but I am not going to cut and paste a bunch of quotes to call people out on it. They know who they are. With the search feature disabled, it would make it even harder to go digging. I know when I first posted something I had someone else throw Glanz in my face. I had not even heard of him before and when I said something to the effect of "who is this guy and why should he be put above so many other sources" I got lectured by several posters.

I don't dismiss Glanz outright, but he is one source and he has made mistakes like anyone else has. That Michael posted about it as well means I am not the only one that feels Glanz is given way too much credit/benefit of doubt on all things eastern front on this board.

[Zonso]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

You can't ignore Glantz. Right or wrong he looms large on the scene; it's impossible to stay current on Soviet WW2 scholarship without taking into account his work. He's this generation's John Erickson (who I am still very fond of, even if dated. Erickson was a much better writer, too. Glantz's wooden prose is one of his weak points...)

Actually I don't find Erickson dated at all, been rereading his two Road to works and he is bang on even without the 'new' access to archives that Glantz has. And as you aptly pointed out, Erickson is soo much more readable. I recall he made specific references to having to filter the different and 'coloured' Soviet histories to get the real story, something that applies to the amateur historian as well I imagine.

[turtlefang]

Klydon -

I can understand why someone would point out who Glanzt was if you indicated you didn't know him. He's one of the most influencial modern sources on the Eastern Front in the last 20 years.

But, as you pointed out, he has one point of view and a good researcher should look at multiple points of view. Glanzt is very good but he's not not infalliable, he has some theories, and he he's aggressive about pushing his POV.

Glanzt has done more to advance Western understanding of the Eastern Front by doing original research as the Soviet archieves have opened up than any other single person to date.

But, if the achieves stay open (a big if), the surface is barely touched. And as other researchers dig in, I suspect other finds will happen, some of Glantz's theories or information will be modified, and our views of WW2 will - or should - change again.

And, as much as I respect him and his body of work, he's build a set of theories now and it's going to be very hard from him to change his POV even when new information comes out. And that's because he's human and he has a lot invested in that POV now.

So people should take him seriously, review his work but always take his - and anyone else's historical work - with a grain of salt. Look at multiple points of view, sources, and positions of respectable historians and weight them, the evidence and come to your own conclusions. They might not be right, but they will at least be informed, and probably as right as anyone else's.

[Flaviusx]

Klydon, Michael dismisses Glantz outright. He has stated so directly and in multiple ways. This isn't reasonable skepticism, is flat earthism. He has done this on the basis of reading a single book by him, and now this citation from Beevor. I don't really see how you can possibly defend this attitude. I'm calling him out on it because it's time to stop giving him a pass on this.

No historian is infallible. But a number of people on this forum have developed a positive persecution complex about Glantz, who they refuse to engage with at all.