Books on Case Blue and the soviet side of WW2

[Keunert]

Inspired by FlaviusX and others comments i am interested in buying a book or two on the subject. i read Mansteins Lost Victories and Panzer Battles by Von Manteuffel. i got tired by these personal accounts (both were of course victims in a political sense and their brilliant ideas were ignored by Hitler).

i really would like to read more and stuff writen by historians.

Any suggestions?

[Vic]

I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Vic

I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.

I second this recommendation. Glantz may be dry, but it is all there. You can read two other Glantz books to cover the whole period covered by the game: After Stalingrad (which actually covers after Little Saturn) -- which is pretty easy to find -- and From the Don to the Dneipr -- which I've only seen in academic libraries, but which gives the only complete account of Little Saturn I've ever seen.

[Keunert]

Yes Vic, it's the same mantra with Manstein, Guderian and Von Manteuffel: the Wehrmacht got hijacked, they didn't know anything, they opposed secretly the Kommisarbefehl and the defeat was all Hitler's fault. And after all as soldiers they had to obey orders, whatever they were.

[Blind Sniper]

I would suggest "Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War" by Chris Bellamy

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Blind Sniper

I would suggest "Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War" by Chris Bellamy

That one is a great read. Along with the glantz books. The new series on the battle of smolensk and his views that this was really the battle that lost the war for hitler. It was the battle that bled the germans and threw all their plans for victory by winter off course.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Vic

I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.

Nope third book is out

http://www.amazon.com/AFTER-STALINGRAD-Winter-Offensive-1942-1943/dp/1907677054/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Vic

I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.

Great book series. [:)] I'm half way into the first and own the second. IMO Glantz is the top authority on the war in the east.

Another good one I'm almost finished with is Death of the Leaping Horseman: 24th Panzer-Division in Stalingrad

[sullafelix]

I have many of Glantz's book and they are good.

But they are totally slanted to the Soviet side.

As an example in the one on Kursk. He says on one page that the luftwaffe says they shot down x number of Soviet planes but to not believe the number because it is totally inflated. Two pages later he says that the Soviets destroyed X number of German planes and pretty much says take it for gospel.

The next one from Kursk is that he says the Soviets forced the Germans to attack toward Prokhorovka but other books have Hoth's writings from before the battle and he mentions that he will be going that direction.

Too many others to cite.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: Vic

I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.

Nope third book is out

http://www.amazon.com/AFTER-STALINGRAD-Winter-Offensive-1942-1943/dp/1907677054/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

I don't think that lines up with the first two books of the trilogy. The Third book of the stalingrad trilogy should cover Uranus and the After Stalingrad book doesn't. I would hope Little Saturn would be in the Third Book as well since it isn't in the After Stalingrad book either.

[marcpennington]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: Vic

I really recommend the stalingrad trilogy (still only 2 books last time i check) by glantz. its a bit dry but a perfect compagnon for this dc game and lost victories is a nice account and definetly a must read but i was a little bit shocked by the almost complete lack of self criticism by von Manstein. When i am back home tommorow i will give a list of books i read studying case blue.

Nope third book is out

http://www.amazon.com/AFTER-STALINGRAD-Winter-Offensive-1942-1943/dp/1907677054/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

I don't think that lines up with the first two books of the trilogy. The Third book of the stalingrad trilogy should cover Uranus and the After Stalingrad book doesn't. I would hope Little Saturn would be in the Third Book as well since it isn't in the After Stalingrad book either.

Yes, After Stalingrad is actually an earlier book of Glantz's on roughly the same period--- the third volume of the trilogy is still to come.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: sulla05
The next one from Kursk is that he says the Soviets forced the Germans to attack toward Prokhorovka but other books have Hoth's writings from before the battle and he mentions that he will be going that direction.

I don't doubt that Glantz often dismisses German sources (the particular aircraft numbers probably are suspect since Russian aircraft steadily gained in strength and coordination over the Kursk battlefield).

But he may often be right to do so. For example, why would Hoth want to take a detour to Prokhorovka when the high road to Kursk is 20-30km WNW of there? Hoth may have thought before the battle that he might have to take a detour, but then that makes you wonder if Hoth thought the whole plan to get to Kursk at all was just not going to work at all.

[marcpennington]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: sulla05
The next one from Kursk is that he says the Soviets forced the Germans to attack toward Prokhorovka but other books have Hoth's writings from before the battle and he mentions that he will be going that direction.

I don't doubt that Glantz often dismisses German sources (the particular aircraft numbers probably are suspect since Russian aircraft steadily gained in strength and coordination over the Kursk battlefield).

But he may often be right to do so. For example, why would Hoth want to take a detour to Prokhorovka when the high road to Kursk is 20-30km WNW of there? Hoth may have thought before the battle that he might have to take a detour, but then that makes you wonder if Hoth thought the whole plan to get to Kursk at all was just not going to work at all.

Actually, you're exactly right in your thinking. According to Zamulin's recent excellent book on Kursk, Hoth realized by May that the overall plan for Kursk would never work. He therefore anticipated that the best he could hope for was to engage and destroy the Soviet mobile reserves and thereby weaken the Red Army's summer offensive, and decided that the most likely and favorable place to do so was around Prokhorovka in the gap between the Psel and the northern Donets. He cites Hoth's contemporary diary and field orders the Prokhorovka diversion, so it's highly unlikely there's any post-war self-justification there.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: map66

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: sulla05
The next one from Kursk is that he says the Soviets forced the Germans to attack toward Prokhorovka but other books have Hoth's writings from before the battle and he mentions that he will be going that direction.

I don't doubt that Glantz often dismisses German sources (the particular aircraft numbers probably are suspect since Russian aircraft steadily gained in strength and coordination over the Kursk battlefield).

But he may often be right to do so. For example, why would Hoth want to take a detour to Prokhorovka when the high road to Kursk is 20-30km WNW of there? Hoth may have thought before the battle that he might have to take a detour, but then that makes you wonder if Hoth thought the whole plan to get to Kursk at all was just not going to work at all.

Actually, you're exactly right in your thinking. According to Zamulin's recent excellent book on Kursk, Hoth realized by May that the overall plan for Kursk would never work. He therefore anticipated that the best he could hope for was to engage and destroy the Soviet mobile reserves and thereby weaken the Red Army's summer offensive, and decided that the most likely and favorable place to do so was around Prokhorovka in the gap between the Psel and the northern Donets. He cites Hoth's contemporary diary and field orders the Prokhorovka diversion, so it's highly unlikely there's any post-war self-justification there.

Wow! That's a brilliant bit of analytic work by Hoth. Prokhorovka is not only in the gap, but exactly where Russian reserves would be (and did) move up and they were almost caught before they could deploy.

In effect, Hoth played out the battle in his mind and foresaw the Russian moves to block the high road, so Glantz isn't exactly wrong since anticipated Russian moves forced Hoth to undertake plan B, whereupon the Russian Plan A reserves turned up as expected by Hoth, but they switched to their own plan B very quickly and Plan A blocked plan A and plan B blocked plan B.

[Keunert]

Glantz sounds good. But how detailed is Glantz? i don't need to know how many bullets of each calibre was delievered.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Keunert

Glantz sounds good. But how detailed is Glantz? i don't need to know how many bullets of each calibre was delievered.

The narrative is pretty detailed. Some of the detail is astounding (those Phone calls from STAVKA are wild)
and some are mind-boggling in their excess. There is some Glantz book that lists all the communications
gear deliveries (as well as bullets and what not). I think sometimes he just put in what he had raw from
his sources since it seemed revealing to him. But you can skip most of the excessive detail I think.

[sullafelix]

I wouldn't call it prescience on Hoth's part. German planes still had the run of the eastern front until after kursk, and the invasion of Italy, so the Germans had detailed reconnaissance of the Soviet formations.

It is not whether Glantz is right or wrong. He is stating unequivically that the Soviets forced Hoth to turn northeast. But we know Hoth was talking to Manstein in May about going that direction. If a writer wants to interject his own ideas that is fine. However he should state " this is what I think happened " not saying " this is what happened and here is the proof".

There are many stories about Kursk that have been put forth by writers years ago that many people still believe are true. Most people are shocked to find out the the panzer divisions in AGS actually gained in tank strength and Kursk was not the death of the panzerwaffen. The real reason the battle was called of was because of the invasion of Sicily and the movement of troops from AGS and AGC.

All I am saying is that there are books out on the eastern front that have slants. Many have a German slant to the history, many have a Soviet slant. Glantz's books are great reads and full of information and I am very glad that I have purchased a lot of his works.

[demyansk]

I have almost every book out there but this author does a nice job and easy to read,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Citino

[sullafelix]

I think Citino books are great also.

[Pawsy]

My vote currently goes to Manstein: Hitler’s Greatest General by Mungo Melvin

http://www.mungomelvin.com/

Whatever the pros and cons he was a truely great general