Glantz, or the reliability of Stalin-era Soviet reports on the Eastern Front

[Drakken]

Grumbler and Berkut, to me...

In preparation for WITE, I've finished reading David Glantz' When Titans Clashed during my vacation camping trip, and I had a nasty leftover in my mouth as it focuses on the war on the Eastern Front, by using combat reports, casualties report, and production data sheets that were produced... under the Stalin regime and that he took from the Soviet archives.

Knowing what I know about how throughout "Oceanian" the Soviet Union under Stalin was, how they would falsify and produce phony production data to please Stalin and make sure that they'd be kept alive, how Stalin would execute anyone who would tell him bad news (like Pavel Rychakov, shot in Spring 1941 for whistleblowing to Big Daddy J that the testing aircrafts blowing up not because of sabotage, but faulty design and quality control), I have an gnawling feeling that the vast numbers and data produced by Glantz are, let's say, very subject to contestation.

As the book was out only in 1993, it's arguable whether Glantz had the time to thoroughly vet these data. But what I witness, is that Glantz is tossed around as one of THE best sources on the Eastern Front because he focuses on the Soviet side, and that the data is taken at face value without scrutiny. So am I being overly skeptical about the validity of this data here? Have historian researchers attempted to consistantly confirm or infirm these data by using German or other sources?

[The Brain]

Ide says the data is A-OK.

[LaCroix]

Ide says the data is A-OK.

actually, that would be raz and guller

[Razgovory]

Glantz is probably the best guy there is on the Soviet Union in WWII.  Admittedly it is difficult know if all Soviet sources are accurate, but then again, the same is true for the German sources as well.  The Germans officers that survived the war had very good reasons to lie, and did frequently.  Unfortunately the German view point has essentially become Western one.

What numbers are bothering you?

[grumbler]

I'd say that you are right to view the book with a pinch of salt, because the data/accounts used were subject to political considerations even as they was gathered.   It is the best we have in book form, though, as far as I know. 

Glantz's later works were more focused, and had better research.  I recommend Stumbling Colossus and Zhukov's Greatest Defeat.  I haven't gotten around to Colossus Reborn or To the Gates of Stalingrad yet.

[grumbler]

Oh, and Glantz is pro-Soviet, and his willingness to claim that he knows what commanders were thinking hurts him as a historian, but all his biases are in the open, I think.

[Drakken]

I'll give an example that Mosier gives in "Hitler vs. Stalin : The Eastern Front 1941-1945". While anecdotal, and Mosier reads a bit like a revisionist sometimes, it still puzzle me off and fuels my reticence to accept Soviet data at face value, so wild are the discrepancies.

Mosier mentions that when Von Manstein attacked and took the Kerch bridgehead in 1942, he reported annihilating two Soviet Armies, over 160,000 prisoners and over 350 tanks captured or destroyed.

The official Soviet data for the Kerch defense, as quoted by Glantz in his appendix in When Titans Clashed, which I have checked personally, was that on 249,000 Soviet soldiers there, 162,282 where killed OR missing (I remind you, von Manstein reported over 160,000 Soviet PoWs), 14,284 wounded, and zero tanks nor vehicle claimed destroyed or captured.

I can accept that Von Manstein would write his Lost Victories with his reputation and bashing Hitler in mind, but nonetheless I can't believe he would magically make up destroyed Soviet tanks in the Kerch offensive just to say "oh yeah, we've ashed tanks too", which can be confirmed or infirmed by other witnesses there, and the Russians really defended the Kerch bridgehead with zero tanks. The only reason I can see is that these losses were glossed over in the report for accounting reasons and hide the fact that precious tanks had been abandoned there to the Germans.

[grumbler]

I'll give an example that Mosier gives in "Hitler vs. Stalin : The Eastern Front 1941-1945". While anecdotal, and Mosier reads a bit like a revisionist sometimes, it still puzzle me off and fuels my reticence to accept Soviet data at face value, so wild are the discrepancies.

Mosier mentions that when Von Manstein attacked and took the Kerch bridgehead in 1942, he reported annihilating two Soviet Armies, over 160,000 prisoners and over 350 tanks captured or destroyed.

The official Soviet data for the Kerch defense, as quoted by Glantz in his appendix in When Titans Clashed, which I have checked personally, was that on 249,000 Soviet soldiers there, 162,282 where killed OR missing (I remind you, von Manstein reported over 160,000 Soviet PoWs), 14,284 wounded, and zero tanks nor vehicle claimed destroyed or captured.

I can accept that Von Manstein would write his Lost Victories with his reputation and bashing Hitler in mind, but nonetheless I can't believe he would magically make up destroyed Soviet tanks in the Kerch offensive just to say "oh yeah, we've ashed tanks too", which can be confirmed or infirmed by other witnesses there, and the Russians really defended the Kerch bridgehead with zero tanks. The only reason I can see is that these losses were glossed over in the report for accounting reasons and hide the fact that precious tanks had been abandoned there to the Germans.

I am not sure what you are asking.  Does Glantz say no tanks were lost, or simply not have any data (my copy is at school)? The former would be suspicious, for sure.  The latter would simply underscore the chaotic state of Soviet records.  The other numbers seem to be in accord with what von Mastein reported, would it not? 

[Ed Anger]

I fall asleep when I read Glantz.

[Drakken]

I am not sure what you are asking.  Does Glantz say no tanks were lost, or simply not have any data (my copy is at school)? The former would be suspicious, for sure.  The latter would simply underscore the chaotic state of Soviet records.  The other numbers seem to be in accord with what von Mastein reported, would it not?

It's in his appendix, table B, page 295, under Kerch Defense :

Strength : 249,800
Killing or Missing : 162,282
Wounded : 14,284
Total : 176,566

Tanks/SP Guns : Empty
Artillery : Empty
Aircraft : Empty

Nowhere in the main text of the book does he mention the loss of tanks, only infantry :

In May, von Manstein's 11th Army struck at the inept Soviet defenders and, in a nine-day operation [...] drove Soviet 44st [sic], 47th, and 51st Armies from the Kerch Peninsula into the sea. (page 116)

The only mention I can see is in the notes, citing Nevzorov, which matches the numbers given by von Manstein :

According to Nevzorov, [...] during the May catastrophe, more than 150,000 men, 4646 guns and mortars, 496 tanks, and 417 aircraft were lost.

But then in the same note he immediately cites Krivosheev, whose numbers are uncannily similar identical to those presented in the appendix, making obvious which interpretation he finds valid, with no mention whatsoever of any loss of tanks or military material :

Krivosheev [...] places Soviet losses in May at 176,566 out of a total force of 249,800, 162,282 of which were irrevocably lost.

So I wonder, why did he leave the parts about material loss empty, when he could have just take Nevzorov's data as far as vehicles were concerned with a simple note.

[Drakken]

I fall asleep when I read Glantz.

By 1944 I agree, it's just a list of phantom Soviet Armies and fronts thrown onto the Germans again and again and again, so much it was an eyesore.

The book needs more operational maps at each three pages.

[The Brain]

Did he write about what happened in the battles or was he writing about what the sources claim?

[Drakken]

Did he write about what happened in the battles or was he writing about what the sources claim?

Other what I have said in the main text and a small part about how Lev Mehklis was sacked and never given another important position again after the Kerch disaster, nothing more.

The main text is a narrative of the Eastern Front from an operational standpoint, with notes for sources.

[The Brain]

Did he write about what happened in the battles or was he writing about what the sources claim?

Other what I have said in the main text and a small part about how Lev Mehklis was sacked and never given another important position again, nothing more.

The main text is a narrative of the Eastern Front from an operational standpoint, with notes for sources.

I was asking because information without uncertainties is almost useless.

[Ideologue]

Oh, and Glantz is pro-Soviet, and his willingness to claim that he knows what commanders were thinking hurts him as a historian, but all his biases are in the open, I think.

Would you prefer pro-Nazi?

Anyway, I like his Kursk book.