David Glantz and Western historiography about the EF

[Qvist]

p.s. BTW, are you aware that Glantz has done more to raise awareness of the true valour and suffering of Red Army troops than all other authors combined? In fact, I am constantly impressed by his tireless devotion to making Westerners more aware of what really happened on the Eastern Front. Still more, he has been every bit as tireless in his efforts to put a human face to the Russian soldier we so cruelly forgot about after 1945. The vast majority of his books are written from the Soviet point of view. I can count the number of western authors who have tried to reverse the effects of Cold War propaganda on one hand. Only two of them have gone out of their way in an effort to ensure we do not forget the accomplishments of the Red Army.

Hello again Paul

Just on a point of mild disagreement, I think you do Glantz a disservice by describing his work in this way, as if it was case of required counterpropaganda. Much Western (or at least Anglo-Saxon) historiography has been written without recourse to many Soviet sources (though this was to a considerable extent through no choice of their own), but in principle it is no better to write it from the "Soviet point of view". Any work dealing with the war in the East needs to to be based on an adequate set of sources pertinent to both sides. One based only on German sources (and in fact I don't think you'll find many Western books who are) is not corrected by one based only on Soviet sources - rather you would have two inadequate works. Since Glantz' books are generally books about the war, not about the Red Army, they would have been blatantly inadquate if they had indeed presented the war just from the Soviet point of view, and if they had "gone out of their way to ensure we do not forget the accomplishments of the Red army", they would hardly have been balanced. In fact, that's the sort of phrase I would rather have employed about a book if I wanted to dismiss its significance.

for my part, I enjoy his works because they are detailed, generally well-reserached, objectively inclined and draw on source materials not often (if at all) used, at least by non-russian historiography. He does this without accepting uncritically the perpsectives of the sources he uses - to a large extent unlike Erickson, whose work seems heavily flawed by an absence of same. Also, while his work is in principle open to the criticism that he relies on much more extensive research into the Red Army than he does for the opposing side, he does at least generally rely on good previous research for his information about them. So, in short - I would praise Glantz rather for what appears as his dispassionate objectivity than for any special effort to underline the achievements of the Red army, and because he does not limit himself to conveying one of the sides' "point of view".

And incidentally - thanks for many good posts on this thread.

cheers

[paulmacg]

Hello again Paul

Just on a point of mild disagreement, I think you do Glantz a disservice by describing his work in this way, as if it was case of required counterpropaganda. Much Western (or at least Anglo-Saxon) historiography has been written without recourse to many Soviet sources (though this was to a considerable extent through no choice of their own), but in principle it is no better to write it from the "Soviet point of view".

I'm glad you called me on this because, honestly, I felt I didn't really get my point across and was unsure how it would be perceived.

I had two points to make about Glantz:

First, I don't know about all of the "West", but here in Canada and the U.S. our view of the war has been greatly influenced by several factors including, but not limited to, our emotional connection to the WTO, MTO and PTO, Cold War propaganda and the long-standing secrecy of the old Soviet Union. Walk into any bookstore and you will be lucky to find even a stitch of material dealing with the Eastern Front. You will find, however, book after book on D-Day, Italy and North Africa. Generally speaking people do not know the importance of the Eastern Front and, more importantly, have not been given the chance to understand the magnitude of what happened there. Even worse, the Russian soldier has remained a faceless entity even more mysterious than his/her German counterpart.

It is my opinion that Glantz has done more to change this than any other writer. I should not have given the impression that it is his only goal to banish the shadows of the past, but it is definitely important to him. In his latest book, for example, Colossus Reborn, he spends considerable time putting a human face to the aforementioned Russian soldier. It is a fascinating read that I have not seen equalled in the last 5 years.

Others may disagree, but for me, this is one aspect of his work that I find very pleasing on a personal level.

And, apart from that, I find his work to be generally well-researched, useful and informative.

Cheers

Paul

p.s. I do not view his work as being intentionally counter to any current effort to misinform the public, but I do most certainly believe that such an effort was made and that Glantz' work is doing wonders in terms of undoing the damage.

[Qvist]

Hello Paul

Once my slow-working early morning brain grasped that "WTO" didn't refer to the World Trade Organisation, your post started to make a whole lot more sense.

If the question is one of focus on the Eastern Front I agree entirely. I think however you are being a little hard on earlier historiography, for all its shortcomings, when you describe it as an attempt to misinform the public. In fairness, precious few Soviet sources were available, and many of the more important who were available (the key memoirs f.e.) were in fact extensively utilised. On some points - Kursk f.e. - it is largely the Soviet version of events that was reflected in Western historiography. Also, I think it is understandable that there is an overemphasis on a country's own direct experiences in the historiography of that country, though a problem here of course is that anglosaxon historiography is in practice also in many ways the global historiography, as the only one generally available everywhere while that published in other languages have a more limited outreach (I've been told that an american researcher once said: "It is often said that history is written by the victors. I disagree. History is written by the British" ). But anyway, as you say, the net result among the general populace has been a frequent underestimation of the importance of the Eastern Front, though that resides perhaps less in what has been written about it than in how little has been written about it. Glantz' contribution here har certainly been a very major one.

cheers

[paulmacg]

Hello Paul

If the question is one of focus on the Eastern Front I agree entirely. I think however you are being a little hard on earlier historiography, for all its shortcomings, when you describe it as an attempt to misinform the public.

No, I certainly don't blame historiography alone, but remember who the enemies were for about 40 years. I really think that a concious effort was made to downplay the role of the Red Army and to exagerate that of the Western Allies. Historiography probably ended up as heavily censored as Hollywood or most other media.

I mean, you would have to be an idiot not to look across Europe and see what was happening in the early war. Anyone in any position of power could not have missed the importance of Stalingrad and Kursk on their chances of successfully invading Europe. Just counting manpower and divisions alone would have been sufficient. So, even with a certain paucity of Soviet sources, why would Western authors, even modern ones, claim that D-Day was the turning point in the war? Or North Africa was a key element in the downfall of Germany? I think there were sufficient sources around to know how silly those claims were so why were they made? Why are smart people continuing to make them?

Of course, not everyone was guilty, but it appears to me that, at least until the mid-70s, western historians were, for the most part, not at all interested in the Eastern Front or were not willing to risk their reputations or careers making claims that were either unpopular or even dangerous.

I think it should be remembered what kinds of things were happening in the west during the 50s and 60s when the red scare was at its height. I think it will take more than Glantz to undo that kind of damage, but he's making good headway.

BTW, as fun as this is, it is all fantastically off-topic. If we are going to continue this we should move it to a separate thread.

Cheers

Paul

[Qvist]

Good idea, and hereby done.

I really think that a concious effort was made to downplay the role of the Red Army and to exagerate that of the Western Allies. Historiography probably ended up as heavily censored as Hollywood or most other media.

I was not aware that there was any censorship of historiography at all? Unless I am much mistaken, there were, even in the 50s and 60s, quite a lot of books published that took a highly congratulatory stance towards the Soviet war effort - see f.e. Alexander Werth's work. Explicitly anti-communist analysis (Revel and the likes) has always seemed prone to exaggerate Soviet military strength and prowess rather than downplay it. And the academic community in the West has never exactly been a hotbed of anti-communism, rather the contrary. Limited knowledge and a tendency to focus on the more familiar and accessible aspects of history seems to me a far more plausible explanation for the shortcomings, such as they were.

mean, you would have to be an idiot not to look across Europe and see what was happening in the early war. Anyone in any position of power could not have missed the importance of Stalingrad and Kursk on their chances of successfully invading Europe. Just counting manpower and divisions alone would have been sufficient. So, even with a certain paucity of Soviet sources, why would Western authors, even modern ones, claim that D-Day was the turning point in the war? Or North Africa was a key element in the downfall of Germany? I think there were sufficient sources around to know how silly those claims were so why were they made? Why are smart people continuing to make them?

Well, I can't actually think of any work I have read (provided it treats the EF at all, which of course not all works do, without that neccessarily being a problem) that denies explicitly or implicitly that the EF was of crucial significance, and for as long as I've been reading about WWII (which I did from a fairly early age and especially initially, in books of somewhat variable quality), I've never had any impression that it wasn't. Normandy and North Africa were key points in the war in the West, but I too am annoyed when this is not put in the proper context of the overall war effort on both fronts. However, I think it is going too far to read into this any general wish to downplay the Eastern Front. Quite frankly, I have the impression that any work that treats a specific subject is required by some unwritten publishing law to declare the monumental importance of that particular subjet, preferably in bombastic tones on the jacket.

Of course, not everyone was guilty, but it appears to me that, at least until the mid-70s, western historians were, for the most part, not at all interested in the Eastern Front or were not willing to risk their reputations or careers making claims that were either unpopular or even dangerous.

I somewhat doubt that it would have entailed any risk to a career to delve into that subject, and nor can I actually see that there has been a really fundamental change in the perception of the importance of the Eastern Front. As you say, it has always been obvious to anyone with a basic comprehensive grasp of the facts that it was of key importance. Of course, there were lots of people who didn't have such a grasp and thought the war was won at El Alamein, and there still is, and probably always will be. But fortunately, very, very few of them have at any time published works of history. In Norway at least, things like Stalingrad or the siege of Leningrad belong to common perceptions as much as the Battle of Britain or Normandy. Perhaps it is different in the US, but the dominant historiography are almost exclusively the same (ie, British and US publications is almost exclusively what was read by Norwegians). In short - I have some trouble recognising the alleged widespread lack of recognition that the EF was key, among people in general and certainly in Western historiography. That there has been (and remains) huge black holes in the available analysis of the war in the East is a different thing. Many things impact on that, not least lack of sources and the vastness of the subject.

Anyway, the moral of the story remains, I think we will both agree, that there is a lot of work that remains to be done in the field of internationally accesible research on the EF, to put it like that. And that Glantz' work has made crucial contributions to filling in some of the innumerable black spots.

cheers

[paulmacg]

I was not aware that there was any censorship of historiography at all? Unless I am much mistaken, there were, even in the 50s and 60s, quite a lot of books published that took a highly congratulatory stance towards the Soviet war effort - see f.e. Alexander Werth's work. Explicitly anti-communist analysis (Revel and the likes) has always seemed prone to exaggerate Soviet military strength and prowess rather than downplay it. And the academic community in the West has never exactly been a hotbed of anti-communism, rather the contrary. Limited knowledge and a tendency to focus on the more familiar and accessible aspects of history seems to me a far more plausible explanation for the shortcomings, such as they were.

I am glad you moved this one to a different thread because honestly this is more of a personal opinion than anything that I have taken the time to properly research.

Anyhoo, I think that people nowadays find it generally hard to believe the degree to which anti-communism rooted itself in American (and to a much lesser extent Canadian) society. Historiography is part of that, but generally I am not really referring to it as being a culprit. I would much rather prefer to believe that it was a victim.

We have to remember that there was a time when people were being brought in front of tribunals on charges of treason for pro-communist views, associations or memberships in perceived pro-communist organizations. Many of those same people ended up blacklisted, in jail or generally removed from the public light. Among them were teachers, directors, screenwriters and the like. Worse, these proceedings were done in the most public of manners in order to make the message clear to everone not yet on trial.

I mean, people were not anti-communist per se in the 40s, yet by the 60s they were adamantly so. That change came about in the short space of 10-15 years and was so strong that it led to hatred and crises whose effects still endure to this day (i.e. Cuba and Vietnam).

Well, I can't actually think of any work I have read (provided it treats the EF at all, which of course not all works do, without that neccessarily being a problem) that denies explicitly or implicitly that the EF was of crucial significance, and for as long as I've been reading about WWII (which I did from a fairly early age and especially initially, in books of somewhat variable quality), I've never had any impression that it wasn't.

Generally speaking the crime is one of omission. Now that you raise the point, I have never seen an author outright state that the EF was not important. Good point.

Normandy and North Africa were key points in the war in the West, but I too am annoyed when this is not put in the proper context of the overall war effort on both fronts. However, I think it is going too far to read into this any general wish to downplay the Eastern Front.

Well put. You may be right. I suscribe to the view that things could have been vastly different and should have in fact been so, but I certainly respect your view. It is my opinion that we should have been going well out of our way to highlight the importance of the Eastern Front and, moreover, to honor the achievements of the people that fought there. Instead we ignored them, at the very least, or quietly swept them under the rug. Of course, there was always a certain level of mistrust and an almost immediate separation of Europe into two armed camps.

Quite frankly, I have the impression that any work that treats a specific subject is required by some unwritten publishing law to declare the monumental importance of that particular subjet, preferably in bombastic tones on the jacket.

I agree, but I think many authors have gone way too far in this respect.

I somewhat doubt that it would have entailed any risk to a career to delve into that subject, and nor can I actually see that there has been a really fundamental change in the perception of the importance of the Eastern Front.

Here I am forced to disagree strongly. In the 50s and 60s there were lots of people in the United States that found out very quickly just how serious their government was. This was starting to change by the 70s, but even so, Reagan made it very clear in the 80s that Russia was the enemy and that he would do whatever it took to ensure their downfall.

In Norway at least, things like Stalingrad or the siege of Leningrad belong to common perceptions as much as the Battle of Britain or Normandy. Perhaps it is different in the US, but the dominant historiography are almost exclusively the same (ie, British and US publications is almost exclusively what was read by Norwegians).

Then I think it very likely that there is a difference (I won't hazard a guess how large) between North American and Norwegian (and probably even British) perspectives on the war. There is simply no comparison between the general attention receied by D-Day (here) or the Battle of Britain (in the UK) and Stalingrad. I mean, most people here have never even heard of Kursk or Barbarossa. Some are aware that the Germans made it as far as "the gates of Moscow" and have been taught that the Russian winter brought an end to that just like it did to Napoleon, but beyond that not much more. Leningrad is not a part of popular awareness of the war. Nor is Bagration or any other of the numerous operations that made D-Day possible.

One good example of this is Max Hastings, in his book Overlord, who dedicated all of a sentence to the Eastern Front when he mentions that the Soviets destroyed 27 (?) German divisions in Eastern Europe and that the destruction of said divisions made it difficult for Hitler to consider moving large numbers of men to the Western Front! A classic understatement of the importance of the EF. Still, at least Hastings made an effort. Others, like Carlo D'Este, simply chose to ignore the EF altogether.

In short - I have some trouble recognising the alleged widespread lack of recognition that the EF was key, among people in general and certainly in Western historiography. That there has been (and remains) huge black holes in the available analysis of the war in the East is a different thing. Many things impact on that, not least lack of sources and the vastness of the subject.

You make a strong argument.

I don't know why we disagree, but I would love to hear some more perspectives on this. I know that there is a very different perception of the war nowadays than there was in my day. The students I talk with now seem to be fully aware of the importance of the Eastern Front, for the most part, and completely uncoloured in their opinions by the Cold War. My generation knew much less about it (the EF) and those of us that did know something did not have such an easy time voicing our opinions.

Still, having said all this, it is definitely possible that I am dead wrong on this one. Hopefully someone else will take an interest in the discussion.

Anyway, the moral of the story remains, I think we will both agree, that there is a lot of work that remains to be done in the field of internationally accesible research on the EF, to put it like that. And that Glantz' work has made crucial contributions to filling in some of the innumerable black spots.

cheers

Absolutely. The work that is being done is fantastic, but I have the strong impression from my dealings with Russian and Ukrainian researchers that they have access (and have had access for some time) to very detailed information that, if translated, would be of tremendous benefit. In fact, the depth of their knowledge and their age leads me to believe that perhaps Soviet censorship was not as strong as we were led to believe.

Cheers

Paul

[Marc Rikmenspoel]

Without getting into the particulars of the debate, here's a brief outside point of view. I've been reading about the Eastern Front since roughly 1982, when I was 12 and was able to get some Bantam/Ballantine paperbacks such as "Juergen Thorwald's" Defeat in the East. It soon became clear to me that the major part of the European ground war was in the east, and that it dwarfed the scale of other campaigns against Germany. I soon collected all I could find, such as "Paul Carell" (what's with all the pseudonyms ) books and the various photo collections available in hobby shops.

Since about 1988, when Fedorowicz came on the scene, it has become MUCH easier to find quality Eastern Front materials in English. And that ease has increased each year, so that today anyone can easily obtain a work such as Slaughterhouse and quickly learn some fundamentals of the study of this topic. And one of the important figures in making this sort of knowledge readily available has been David Glantz (his real name, I believe ).

So I hope in the course of this thread, everyone who reads or posts takes a moment to reflect on how well we have it in 2005. If someone who studies the Second World War chooses to remain ignorant about the Eastern Front, then it certainly isn't for want of sources! (and here I should add that of course since 1988 I have collected all sorts of works in languages other than English, but this thread is really about historiography in the English-speaking world)

[Kunikov]

I would like to comment that when scanning through Russian reading materials (newly published that is) there is still a lot of information that is lacking in Western sources, something that I hope can soon be rectified. For example, we had Murphy's book come out about intelligence coming in to GRU and Stalin, yet there are volumes of books which list information he never even mentions in his book. Right now I'm waiting to receive a copy of a new book that has just come out about the Mechanized Corps in 1941, Paul this might interest you, but sadly it is in Russian.

[paulmacg]

Right now I'm waiting to receive a copy of a new book that has just come out about the Mechanized Corps in 1941, Paul this might interest you, but sadly it is in Russian.

I'm still learning to read it, but getting closer all the time. What's the book called? Hopefully in another year or so I will be able to take a stab at it. In the meantime, I know a few people that are always looking for good sources.

Cheers

Paul

[Kunikov]

Right now I'm waiting to receive a copy of a new book that has just come out about the Mechanized Corps in 1941, Paul this might interest you, but sadly it is in Russian.

I'm still learning to read it, but getting closer all the time. What's the book called? Hopefully in another year or so I will be able to take a stab at it. In the meantime, I know a few people that are always looking for good sources.

Cheers

Paul

E. Drig. "Mechanizirovannye Korpusa" something like this, when I get it within the next few weeks I'll give you more details on it.

[Dmitry]

E. Drig. "Mechanizirovannye Korpusa" something like this, when I get it within the next few weeks I'll give you more details on it.

As Eugeniy Drig said himself on a Russian Military Forum the book is just a printed version of his site http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/ and while it was in the process of publishing the site got a lot of new info and thus the book is a bit outdated already.

[Kunikov]

E. Drig. "Mechanizirovannye Korpusa" something like this, when I get it within the next few weeks I'll give you more details on it.

As Eugeniy Drig said himself on a Russian Military Forum the book is just a printed version of his site http://mechcorps.rkka.ru/ and while it was in the process of publishing the site got a lot of new info and thus the book is a bit outdated already.

That's a shame, I thought it would be filled with a lot more information. Personally I like the site, but it would also be nice to have a book to look for what I need if I'm not by a computer. Where did the site get all of this new info from?

[Dmitry]

Where did the site get all of this new info from?

Actually I don't know, he just mentioned about it here (edit - fixed the link)
I think you can ask him yourself on this forum. He is moderator there.

[Kunikov]

Where did the site get all of this new info from?

Actually I don't know, he just mentioned about it here
I think you can ask him yourself on this forum. He is moderator there.

I didn't even notice that he runs Mechcorps.ru, it will still be an interesting book for me to read, and will definitely help me with my paper and perhaps future book on the Mech Corps in 1941.

[Qvist]

Hello Paul

Thanks for a lenghty and well-considered post.

I don't know why we disagree, but I would love to hear some more perspectives on this. I know that there is a very different perception of the war nowadays than there was in my day. The students I talk with now seem to be fully aware of the importance of the Eastern Front, for the most part, and completely uncoloured in their opinions by the Cold War. My generation knew much less about it (the EF) and those of us that did know something did not have such an easy time voicing our opinions.

I didn't know that we were approaching this from the point of view of different generations as well as different locations. It is very possible that this is at the root of our differing perceptions, I am certainly in no position to offer a different assessment of the intellectual climate in North America in the fifties or sixties. Myself, I grew up during the seventies, when we had the benefit of such things as the BBC's "The unknown war" documentary series (a title which it strikes me rather supports your assessment actually ). Probably we are both reflecting part of the truth through our respectcive impressions. I think in any case it is useful to bear in mind that (sadly) it is all too easy to find convincing explanations for the shortcomings of much historiography besides from any ideological distortions, and particularly for the fact that there is comparatively little of it. Also, I think it must be recalled that AFAIK, one cannot easily find examples of things that have been written but in an ideologically distorted way.

One good example of this is Max Hastings, in his book Overlord, who dedicated all of a sentence to the Eastern Front when he mentions that the Soviets destroyed 27 (?) German divisions in Eastern Europe and that the destruction of said divisions made it difficult for Hitler to consider moving large numbers of men to the Western Front! A classic understatement of the importance of the EF. Still, at least Hastings made an effort. Others, like Carlo D'Este, simply chose to ignore the EF altogether.

Well, both Hastings and D'Este wrote books about the Normandy campaign after all, so I don't really see any very good reason why they should neccessarily devote much space to the Eastern Front (though doing so would certainly provide useful context for the subject). And I think Hastings does in fact make a more lenghty comparison concerning German losses in Normandy and Bagration respectively (though he errs in his conclusion, due to using very unreliable figures for the German losses in Normandy)?

Absolutely. The work that is being done is fantastic, but I have the strong impression from my dealings with Russian and Ukrainian researchers that they have access (and have had access for some time) to very detailed information that, if translated, would be of tremendous benefit. In fact, the depth of their knowledge and their age leads me to believe that perhaps Soviet censorship was not as strong as we were led to believe.

If I was billionaire with philanthropic leanings, one of the things I would certainly do would be to start an institute for the translation and publication of russian sources and historiography about the war. There is today a divide in both of these areas that is strongly detrimental to research. In many ways, access to and use of russian documentary sources is the most important avenue of further progress, and the most critical obstacle for a western researcher. This is partly due to the language barrier (which we all of us can at least theoretically overcome), but also because foreigners apparently have severely restricted access to archives.

As for Soviet censorship, this would IMO be naive to ignore as a factor in the historiography of the day. But that doesn't mean that Soviet era publications lied about everything in general (which one sometimes gets the impression that some people think). Used with normal critical alertness, they remain, together with post-90 research, for obvious reasons the main basis of knowledge about the Red Army.

cheers