I'm sorry to say that I could not post in that topic in the lounge about Russians and their approaches to sharing information about the war. I have been and am from time to time in contact with a few authors, historians, and various experts in their fields about the Eastern Front, all are most helpful (I've had a small opportunity to even talk to David M. Glantz among others). From my personal experience (forgive me for replying to that section here, but since you wanted to hear what I have to say I might as well say it here) I have been debating WWII Eastern Front online for over 6 years, I had been on this forum years ago when I left because those who were here were simply ignorant and claimed everything and anything anyone said against the 'glorious' germans was propaganda and lies. I can say I remember you, Oleg, and many others from this site. I am more than happy to share what I know with others but I at the same time cannot stand ignorance when those who don't know what they speak of start to confront me and call me a liar and propaganda machine as has already happened on this site, and even before my 25th post. As to the references made about the Russian Battlefield Forum, lol, all I can do is laugh. I know the guy that everyone was complaining about and I talk to him on a regular basis on ICQ, he's a great guy, very funny and really knows his stuff. You simply have to come to him with a question and not a statement of fact as you consider it to be. He is very helpful with sources and explanations, I am grateful to him for all the help he's been able to provide me throughout the years I have known him for. Aside from this the one aspect of debating that at times annoys me is that the same topics are brought up that have already been discussed to death, people have to learn to pay attention to previous threads, explaining something over and over can only lead to being annoyed and angry at those who don't understand and don't want to.
EDIT: I just talked to Oleg and found out what the problem was, it is quite funny and sad that something so juvenile could lead to such anger and rage. Anyway, if one wants a great read about when the Russians kicked German 'ass' on a regular basis (so you can get the other side for a change instead of hearing how the great wehrmacht trampled over all the russians over and over again), or just a great overall story about a twice hero of the soviet union, try to find "Blood on the Shores" by Victor Leonov, his memoirs are some of the BEST if not THE BEST that I've read about the war on the platoon and company level, crudely written like a soldier would but just unbelievable stories. To this day I can't comprehend how some of the things he described could have happened, I finished the entire book within 2 days.
What is everyone reading on WW2?
Hello Kunikov, and welcome (back) to the forum.
I've spent some time myself on the RMZ forum and would mostly agree with you. Though the quality of the discussion seems to vary between the decidedly infantile and the outright superb. Sheremets is IMO basically a good chap who knows his stuff and has a great deal to offer anyone who desires serious discussion - though in fairness to those who quarrel with him, he can at times also be outrageously abrasive.
Where I don't agree so much with you though is in your estimation of Erickson, whose analysis I think is sorely inadequate. Above all, he simply has no grip at all on the material and numerical factors underlying events. He just sprinkles his narrative with seemingly arbitrary, frequently incomparable and occasionally wrong figures, not as a basis for analysis but rather as an illustration of a point made, as if he was a medieval chronicler. His chapters on the summer battles in 1943 is, I think, one of the worst pieces of analysis I've read.
cheers[/img]
I've spent some time myself on the RMZ forum and would mostly agree with you. Though the quality of the discussion seems to vary between the decidedly infantile and the outright superb. Sheremets is IMO basically a good chap who knows his stuff and has a great deal to offer anyone who desires serious discussion - though in fairness to those who quarrel with him, he can at times also be outrageously abrasive.
Where I don't agree so much with you though is in your estimation of Erickson, whose analysis I think is sorely inadequate. Above all, he simply has no grip at all on the material and numerical factors underlying events. He just sprinkles his narrative with seemingly arbitrary, frequently incomparable and occasionally wrong figures, not as a basis for analysis but rather as an illustration of a point made, as if he was a medieval chronicler. His chapters on the summer battles in 1943 is, I think, one of the worst pieces of analysis I've read.
cheers[/img]
Thank you, I definitely remember you, although I used to use a different name when I was here. You're right about Erickson's numbers but I do not think it his fault, it was what he had access to and what he worked with. I remember hearing from a Russian author friend of mine a while back when he discovered Erickson, he couldn't believe his eyes. He thought and still thinks that the book is a masterpiece. I look passed the numbers because I know the correct ones, or at least the more or less correct ones, can be found in other places. But just the amount of information he offers to me is unparalleled thus far in any books that I've read or heard about.Qvist wrote:Hello Kunikov, and welcome (back) to the forum.
I've spent some time myself on the RMZ forum and would mostly agree with you. Though the quality of the discussion seems to vary between the decidedly infantile and the outright superb. Sheremets is IMO basically a good chap who knows his stuff and has a great deal to offer anyone who desires serious discussion - though in fairness to those who quarrel with him, he can at times also be outrageously abrasive.
Where I don't agree so much with you though is in your estimation of Erickson, whose analysis I think is sorely inadequate. Above all, he simply has no grip at all on the material and numerical factors underlying events. He just sprinkles his narrative with seemingly arbitrary, frequently incomparable and occasionally wrong figures, not as a basis for analysis but rather as an illustration of a point made, as if he was a medieval chronicler. His chapters on the summer battles in 1943 is, I think, one of the worst pieces of analysis I've read.
cheers[/img]
-
Foelkersam
- Member
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 16:48
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
-
hohenstaufen
- Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 18:07
- Location: United Kingdom
-
Nina van M.
- Member
- Posts: 365
- Joined: 01 Nov 2003, 00:55
- Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Hi, mates!
I just read Ottmar Katz "Hitlers Leibarzt" (Hitler's personal doctor) and it was an interesting read because it was slightly different from the common opinion that was made about dr.Theo Morell. The fans of "war action" wouldn't liked it propably... but it is not just Morell's biography. It's more like Hitler's medical report, so if you are interested in stuff like that, I recommend it.
At the moment, I've just started with reading Paul Hausser's "Waffen SS im Einsatz" (in German).
Salute from von k.
I just read Ottmar Katz "Hitlers Leibarzt" (Hitler's personal doctor) and it was an interesting read because it was slightly different from the common opinion that was made about dr.Theo Morell. The fans of "war action" wouldn't liked it propably... but it is not just Morell's biography. It's more like Hitler's medical report, so if you are interested in stuff like that, I recommend it.
At the moment, I've just started with reading Paul Hausser's "Waffen SS im Einsatz" (in German).
Salute from von k.
-
Benoit Douville
- Member
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 02:13
- Location: Montréal
