Debunking the Glantz myth

[Captain]

You can't use Beevor to criticize Glantz, their books are aimed at totally different publics. Beevor is a general historian who writes for the general public. I had read his book on "Stalingrad", it is aimed at readers who do not know the story and basically just retells the same story that has circulated since WW2.

Glantz's books are aimed at grogs who want all the details. I am currently plowing through Glantz's Stalingrad trilogy, halfway through the second book now. You can track individual divisions and some regiments throughout the book.

There are a lot of myths about Glantz, one is that he is pro-Soviet. His Stalingrad trilogy relies on Russian and German primary sources, including recent works by German and Russian historians. For his book on the actual city fighting, he drills down to official German and Soviet Army/NKVD reports which show that the actual number of combat troops involved were much lower than generally thought and that Russian troops suffered serious morale problems which were only kept in check by brutal discipline.

The problem you always have with the OstFront is the fact that few english language works are available. Most pre-1991 works are suspect since they relied in part on Soviet propaganda, although Erickson's work has held up pretty well. Once you look at post-1991 works, you quickly realize Glantz is the only author putting out serious operational histories in English. The first volume of his Stalingrad trilogy, "To the Gates of Stalingrad" is the best operational history I have ever read and really shows the power of the WW2 German Army at its peak.

The problem with threads like these is the fact that most people who criticize Glantz have never read any of his books, that hardly makes for a serious discussion.

[Aurelian]

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.".

Mine either.

But if I want an authority on the RKKA in the war, just who am I supposed to go to? Guderian? Manstien? von Mellenith?

Erickson's two books are very readable. Glantz's books, unless House is involved, can be a real chore to read through. But they have a different target audience.

[Tarhunnas]

I stopped reading Beevor when I realized he doesn't know what a Nebelwerfer is.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I stopped reading Beevor when I realized he doesn't know what a Nebelwerfer is.

Thats not fair Tarhunnas, throwing out a smoke screen like that.[:D]

Kind regarding,

Rasmus

[Ketza]

Everyone knows a nebelwerfer is the distant cousin of the fig newton.

Jeesh.

[Aurelian]

To claim that a single passage in a book debunks a man who has written or co-authored more than twenty commercially published books, over sixty self-published studies and atlases, and over one hundred articles dealing with the history of the Red Army, Soviet military strategy, operational art, and tactics, Soviet airborne operations, intelligence, and deception, and other topics related to World War II, (His Wikipedia entry) is, at least, delusion.

It's going to take far more to convince me this nothing more than a severe case of Glantz envy.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I stopped reading Beevor when I realized he doesn't know what a Nebelwerfer is.

It is mist thrower... you know that Air Conditioning system for outdoors (i.e. mist cooling device... [8D]




Leo "Apollo11"

[carlkay58]

Glantz is basically being accused of having drawn an incorrect conclusion about whether Mars was a companion or diversionary offense with Uranus. It actually could have been either - or it could have been planned as well as Uranus and changed to diversionary because of its lack of success. All through out the war, the Soviets reinforced success and let other areas to die of neglect. Launched approximately the same time, Uranus became the major thrust and received the greater resources because of its almost immediate success. If it had not been as successful, or if Mars had started off better, the discussion may have been whether Uranus had been planned as a major effort or just a diversion for Mars.

John Erickson's Road books are still relevent and accurate because they are based on interviews with Soviet commanders and staff in the early 70s. Yes there were some political filters that he had to create to correlate the information from the different personalities, but as a whole his books do an excellent job as a study of the Soviet command during the war.

[Michael T]

Any reasonable and sensible person who has been around the WITE forum since the game was released would recognize that there is a very strong bias toward the Soviet cause by a core group of very bullish and boorish people. These same people consistently cite Glantz in their one-sided diatribe as gospel that supports their bigoted views on the German Soviet war. A typical scenario is that some guy will put forward an idea, theory or view on the game or history that does not run with the said bullies or Glantz's view of the war. The poster is then bombarded with a pile of crap that is mostly irrelevant to his original argument, but it has the desired effect in driving them away from the site.

People who can read and comprehend English will recognize that what I wrote in relation to the OP's subject is simply encouraging unbiased and open minded people not to listen to the bigots at this cite and read some other authors other than Glantz before forming a view on any particular element of the war, albeit with some tongue in cheek attitude. When Flav states Michael says this, or Michael thinks that, take the time to read what I actually wrote. And of course he doesn't know what I think, maybe he thinks he is a mind reader. He constantly try's to put words in to my mouth that I never said at all. Simply the guy has an irrational dislike for me because I don't buckle to his and his disciples bullying.

For the bullies, you are not privy to the support I get in PM's and emails from the silent majority who read but never or rarely post. Rest assured your warped views and unrelenting attacks on anything I say, do or suggest are noted and recognized by people who just couldn't be bothered debating you.

I won't stop fighting the misinformation that you spruik or for advocating for a balanced game.

[hfarrish]

I don't really have any interest in getting involved in this argument...my only quibble would be that nothing that has ever been posted by the "bullies" on this site qualifies for the term "bigot," or at least nothing related to discussions about gameplay or the relevance or lack thereof of certain authors.

[Flaviusx]

Michael, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not in fact sure Glantz is right on this Mars thing. But nor should you be so certain he is wrong. The subject is open to dispute. You have done the most superficial reading on it, seized upon a one page cite by Beever, and concluded that not only is Glantz wrong on this in particular, but on everything he has ever written everywhere. This is simply demented. The fact that you can't see this and feel you are being "bullied" is flabbergasting.

It is impossible to hold a rational discussion on this subject with you.

[Michael T]

Flav, you are nothing more than a school yard bully who was never sat on his arse.

[Aurelian]

OK, we're bullies because we don't all bend the knee to a one page entry...... Wow.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Any reasonable and sensible person who has been around the WITE forum since the game was released would recognize that there is a very strong bias toward the Soviet cause by a core group of very bullish and boorish people. These same people consistently cite Glantz in their one-sided diatribe as gospel that supports their bigoted views on the German Soviet war.

Yeah, imagine that, people trying to use facts to refute unfounded arguments and propaganda--horrors!!! So any attempt to point out that some Nazi general's (one-sided) account of this or that in the war might be incorrect is considered a "one-sided diatribe"? Despite all of your posturing to this effect, I still have yet to see anyone post a single quote from someone saying that Glantz is the "be all to end all" historians for this front. Sure, people cite him because he is in fact a respected historian in this field--you seriously have a problem with that?
Frankly your arguments have evolved from eccentric to frightening in an Orwellian sort of way.

ORIGINAL: Michael T
A typical scenario is that some guy will put forward an [ill-formed, ones-sided, pro-German] idea, theory or view on the game or history that does not run with [reality]. The poster is then bombarded with a [facts that refute his idea], but it has the desired effect in driving them away from the site.

Fixed that for you. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who are not able or willing to defend their ideas by providing their own facts should not be upset if there are "bullies" who are able and willing to do so. I guess what you're saying is that no one should have to consider or respond to any of Glantz' facts if they are inconvenient to their arguments? Nice one...

ORIGINAL: Michael T
People who can read and comprehend English will recognize that what I wrote in relation to the OP's subject is simply encouraging unbiased and open minded people not to listen to the bigots at this cite and read some other authors other than Glantz before forming a view on any particular element of the war, albeit with some tongue in cheek attitude.

er, no, you did not "encourage unbiased and open minded people...to read some other authors other than Glantz before forming a view..." Here is your quote: "...shows clearly how poor Glantz's research is on the War in the East. I read one of his books. Won't be wasting my time reading anymore."

And this without any reference at all to what the hell you were talking about, why Glantz was wrong, why Beevor's arguments were better, why this "error" by Glantz meant that nothing in any of this books could be correct, etc. etc.

[hfarrish]

Stop bullying 76...you are such a bigot. The silent majority is already up in arms about this.

[Flaviusx]

The truly bizarre aspect of all this is that Glantz isn't painting the Soviets in a very flattering light here. Quite the opposite: he's accusing them of covering up an operational fiasco to protect Zhukov's reputation. This ought to be pleasing to people who are convinced that Glantz is nothing but a pro Soviet propagandist. The phrase cognitive dissonance comes to mind. There is evidently no pleasing some people.

The actual Soviet apologist here is...Beevor? But if he's against Glantz it must be right because Glantz is the devil.

(I don't really think Beevor is a Soviet apologist, BTW, and suspect that what's really going on is an academic pissing match, but regardless.)

[danlongman]

How come so many people who come up with half baked poorly thought out and badly expressed ideas are always part of some unseen, unheard majority?
Is it because the majority of people think poorly and come up with half baked ideas which they then express badly?
Please tell me I am not on to something here.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: danlongman

How come so many people who come up with half baked poorly thought out and badly expressed ideas are always part of some unseen, unheard majority?
Is it because the majority of people think poorly and come up with half baked ideas which they then express badly?
Please tell me I am not on to something here.

I think that hfarrish is being sarcastic there. It's really a small, digruntled few who have claimed from the beginning that the game/developers have this huge pro Soviet bias.

[Michael T]

Reading and comprehension guys. Where in this topic have I accused the devs of anything?

Two characteristics that make a good historical writer are one, being able to take in to account all pertinent available data and records. And two, being able to convey to the reader a well written and accurate account of what actually occurred. Some sound and unbiased judgement is required for both. I don't think Glantz scores too many points here. Thats just my opinion.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Anyone with access to Antony Beevor's 'The Second World War' should check out page 370, 1st paragraph, it shows clearly how poor Glantz's research is on the War in the East. I read one of his books. Won't be wasting my time reading anymore.

You remind me of todays so called journalists.

"City center trashed by killer storm"

When you read the article you learn that the wind blew in some trash from the city dump and it landed on a grasshopper in a park that was killed.

Dismissing all the work fram a writer based on ONE thing that MIGHT be wrong is just narrowminded. I can bet you a months salary that you can find errors in ALL historians work including Beavors.

I have read all works I have found by both writers and enjoy them both.