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

[Ed Anger]

Would you prefer pro-Nazi?

Might as well. HEIL HITLER.

[Drakken]

You're bad at imitating Slarg.

You lack the Nazi zeal, a "je-ne-sais-quoi" that evil blondies from the 5th SS Panzer Division had.

[Ed Anger]

You're bad at imitating Slarg.

You lack the Nazi zeal, a "je-ne-sais-quoi" that evil blondies from the 5th SS Panzer Division had.

The cat avatar just doesn't give off the reich feel.

[PDH]

Damn you for stealing the thunder from my "Reich Stuff" line.

[Ed Anger]

I'm always late to the pun party. So when I seem the reich opening, I'm going through.

[Drakken]

Reich through, I hope you mean.

I like where this is goering...

[11B4V]

When Titans Clashed

Not bad 3/5.

[11B4V]

Glantz's later works were more focused, and had better research.

+1

 

I recommend Stumbling Colossus and Zhukov's Greatest Defeat.  I haven't gotten around to Colossus Reborn or To the Gates of Stalingrad yet.

Your in for a treat.
Pt. I The red army at war, 1941-1943 
1 The first period of the war, 22 June 1941 to 18 November 1942 3
2 The second period of the war, 1943 37
3 Soviet military art 63
Pt. II The force 
4 Strength and major components 135
5 The shadow army : NKVD forces 157
6 Rifle and airborne forces 179
7 Tank, mechanized, and cavalry forces 218
8 Artillery and air forces 285
9 Engineer, signal, chemical, railroad, auto-transport and road, and construction forces 333
Pt. III The leaders and the led 
10 Strategic leadership and control organs 369
11 Central military administration 403
12 The officer corps and command cadre 466
13 The red army soldier 536
14 Conclusions 609

[11B4V]

I fall asleep when I read Glantz.

I prefer his style.

[11B4V]

Would you prefer pro-Nazi?

Anyway, I like his Kursk book.

His Kursk book is very good, but needs to be balanced with Newtons and Zetterling. Throw in Nipe's, Decision in the Ukraine.

When Nipe comes out with his 2SS Panzer Corps account that can be thrown in there too. Another guy (Zamlin???) has come out with another Soviet account.

[Berkut]

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?

A couple things, in no particular order:

Glantz is not all that "pro-soviet". He does tell the story from the Soviet side, which hasn't been done much in Western histories, so I think he comes across as being pro-Soviet, but he is hyper-critical of the Soviets in many, many cases. So much so that the Russians don't even seem to much like him anymore.

He acknowledges that his access to Soviet records, while giving a pretty good insight, is in fact flawed from the standpoint of their completeness and reliability. He seems to be pretty careful to back check as much as possible, and even compare the German and Soviet views of the same battle (which is often rather illuminating, especially when the Soviets report a huge counter-attack on the Germans that is barely defeated, and the German reports mention some local skirmish they stopped easily). I don't think it is accurate to say that he accepts Soviet sources uncritically, at all.

The idea that "well, the Germans are biased too!" when talking about Soviet records is kind of bullshit. Not because the Germans are not biased, of course they are, but because the advantage of the German records goes far beyond and issue of bias. The Germans kept incredible records for the most part. They had a effficient and relatively thorough staff system that was pretty damn good at record keeping at the bureaucratic level, which is generally much more transparent. THe commanders can say what they like about given battles, but there is likely to be reams of mid-level record keeping that is going to refute or support them. Not so with the Soviet records. The Soviets did not have anywhere near the same level of mid-level organizational management that was good at record keeping, nor did they have (IMO) the same level of cultural demand for good record keeping. I do not at all agree with the oft-refrained "well, the German records are biased too, so why should we trust them anymore than the Soviets?". We should trust them more because they are simply more complete, more consistent, and more honest.

I don't think Glantz is a great source for a complete history of the Eastern Front in WW2, but he is far and away the best source for the complete Soviet history of the Eastern Front in WW2. His writing is not great in that it is often very dry and hard to get through, and dear lord where are the maps???, but there isn't anything else out there that is even close, IMO.

[Razgovory]

Berkut, Pro-Nazi.  I have no idea how he knows the German records are more then accurate Soviet ones.  There is simply more access to German records and memoirs then Soviet ones.  German officers have a bad habit of dishonestly.  In fact, one of the contributing factors of the rise of Adolf Hilter can be attributed to German officers blame shifting and lying.  The Dolchstosslegende.  I think heavy reliance on German officer memoirs and the like has somewhat clouded western thinking on the German-Soviet war.  For instance in the popular mind Stalingrad hold a much more important place then Kursk.  After the Stalingrad debacle Hitler gave a much freer hand to his army in planning the operation.  This made a it harder to blame Hitler for the failure so they would rather focus on Stalingrad where blaming Hitler's stubbornness was much easier despite Kursk being more strategically meaningful.

[dps]

When it comes to the accuracy of German sources, I think it's important to make a distinction as to which "German sources" you mean.  As Berkut points out, official records are quite extensive and generally accurate (though not completely exhaustive nor 100% accurate).  But if you're talking about the reams of documents generated by the Allied debriefing of captured German officers, you can't take stuff there at face value.  The captured officers had major incentives to blame both German battlefield reverses and atrocities commited by German forces solely on Hitler and the Nazis as much as possible.  And of course memoirs that were written by them suffer from the same problems.

[Razgovory]

Is there reason to believe that internal Soviet ones are less so?

[dps]

Is there reason to believe that internal Soviet ones are less so?

Yes.