ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Don't touch Glantz's "When Titans Clashed" - its maps are useless and see my review at Amazon for more [;)]
I'll go and take a look at your review, I quite enjoyed this book. As a one volume study of the Military aspects, I thought it was peerless. Overy was interesting but quite thin. The maps weren't great in Titans, but they were good enough to follow I felt.
Overy's "Russia's War" gives a much better and readable introduction, then look for some of Glantz's more esoteric texts such as his "Stumbling Colossus" which debates the myth of revisionists that Stalin planned to invade Germany in 1941 - basically a doctrine/TO&E/OOB treatment of the Soviet Military capability from the 1930's - 1941. Glantz is also (if not already) about to publish a follow up study of the Soviet Military from 1942-43.
I've came across this theory and found it more than a myth, but not totally convincing. It does do a neat job of explaining Soviet dispositions in June 1941 and some of Stalin's myopia. Whilst it can't be said the Soviets were on the verge of invading, it might be said they were making preparations.
A very nice text is "Hitler's Nemesis" by Walter Dunn 1994 which discusses the birth and operations of the WW2 Soviet Military and its adaption to the Wehrmacht covering the entire war in some intimate detail.
Haven't read this. I shall look it up.
Then to really get into the dust and mud, you can't beat the entertainment value of texts such a Paul Carell's "Scorched Earth" and Craig's "Stalingrad". Though there are some fine new treatments of individual campaigns releasing too.
I thought Glantz and House's Kursk was peerless in this respect.
Re Neillands and Normandy (you deleted the comments but I can't resist a reply) I stopped reading this after about three chapters. I had misgivings during the introduction. He seemed less intent on writing a military history of the campaign and more intent on elavating Montgomery (without really understanding what was driving him) and having an occasionally condescending pop at the Americans at each and every juncture. Had he let the facts do his talking and spent less time spelling it all out he may have made a point, but as it was...
D'Este and Hasting's accounts remain the best general studies.
Regards,
IronDuke
Adam.
(Deleted ref to Normandy book as o/t!)
[/quote]