I agree with that. The Glantz books are superior to everyone elses' due to its objectivity, presenting documents and troop movements on both sides. I think this will make his books timeless even after his death.TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑09 Jul 2021 00:54Given that we have several decades of analytical dearth and, when given, of superficial opinion writing, I'm not that interested or hopeful here. Different authors have different virtues; Glantz is for finding a good picture of what the Soviets were doing/thinking.
However it would still be interesting to know more of his opinions, editorial stance... Since his histories are of daily, and operational nature what is going on with the tactical environment and with companies, battalions, regiments is often a ??? and often raise more questions than answers. So the only tactical clues are in the thousands of pages of translated Soviet documents and excerpts.
The recent texts, starting from the Stalingrad Trilogy are the best ones he's done before more tactical detail is included.
On the part of the reader, it puts a great amount of work. The historian is supposed to be one working for the reader, and helping them save a lot of time. I find that Glantz books are more time-consuming to read and comprehend than any other military history for this reason.