From the Realm of a Dying Sun vol. 1-3

[Cult Icon]

Well art I don't think it pretends to be a "balanced" analysis of the battles with equal research on the Soviet side, but rather a German tactical one centered on one Corps (with the general situation, other corps discussed as well) from German sources.

[mars]

vol. 1 focuses a lot on the actions of 73.ID, 19.Pz, 3.SS, 5.SS

I've bought it, unfortunately it has many problems similar to Frieser, i.e. instead of describing Soviet actions and operational objectives it describes German perception of them. The question of accuracy of these perceptions is not adressed, while it should be. Similar to Frieser the book overdramatizes importance of "battle of Praga/Radzymin/Volomin", which had mostly a tactical effect. It is repeated many times that the Soviet 3 Tank Corps was almost fully destroyed in this battle, which is not true. I believe there is some kind of overreliance on oral sources: in many instances "a hellish Russian drumfire" describes what was a modest artillery support accoridng to Soviet documents. In general, the books needs to be countebalanced by a perspective from the opposite side. Again, it seems to me that a lack of good modern overview of this campaign was a handicap.

This is the same issue in author's earlier book Hell's gate

[Art]

Well art I don't think it pretends to be a "balanced" analysis of the battles with equal research on the Soviet side, but rather a German tactical one centered on one Corps (with the general situation, other corps discussed as well) from German sources.

Such account IMO must exist in the general context of the campaign history, otherwise it would be like probing the elephant. As I said, I see a part of the problem in the lack of such general context. Of course, this fact cannot be blamed on Nash.

[Cult Icon]

I am almost done with vol. 2. The second half of vol. 2 is one for the drama queens; while providing an operational history of the Konrad 1, 2, 3 operations and subsequent defensive fighting there is an extensive analysis of the paper trail concerning the poor working relationship & lack of trust between Balck and Gille's IV SS Pz Korps.

The argument presented here is stridently anti-Balck/pro-Gille, and (showing without stating) implies that Balck was trying to protect himself with a paper trail against possible reprecussions concerning the failure of the Konrads. This consisted of Balck's repeated accusations of untimely reporting and insubordination to orders, and many black marks against the competence of Gille & his IV SS Pz Korps staff.

I think the author implies that Balck's leadership of the KONRAD operations was inadequate.

[Jan-Hendrik]

Old conflict. Read Balck's 'Ordnung im Chaos. Erinnerungen 1893-1948'...

Jan-Hendrik

[Cult Icon]

I have, and the argument presented here addresses the claims in the memoir.

[Jan-Hendrik]

Gille and Balck weren't 'green' towards each other since the Tarnopol battle...

Jan-Hendrik

[Jan-Hendrik]

Och... it was Tscherkassy!

Got Vol.1 yesterday, and, after reading the first 3 chapters I would say this book is a really good one. Five stars out of five. Will order both following Volumes.

Well researched, well explained...and a bunch of info. State of the art!

Jan-Hendrik

[harmel]

Hi J-H have read all 3 Vols and have really enjoyed all.
Tough fighting on the Eastern Front -remarkable.
Harmel

[Max]

Hello All
Any new ideas on the meaning of the title?

Cheers
Max

[Cult Icon]

Hello All
Any new ideas on the meaning of the title?

Cheers
Max

There is another book with a similar title:


https://www.scalemates.com/books/sunwhe ... el--120046

Well, as can be predicted these books are about desperate defense (and desperate offense), struggling to hold the line, and then struggling to make it to Budapest. That's the only connection I guess, and I finished both books. I do not recall the meaning of the title ever being addressed.

[Sterk]

Having read Nash's classic Hell's Gate (one of my all-time faves) and the excellent Victory was Beyond Their Grasp, I dived into this trio as soon as published. Informative, detailed, exciting, it's all there. However, there is a recurrent oddity of this trilogy that I wonder about. It might seem minor, but it makes me scratch my head and ask if something is going on.

Throughout the Dying Sun volumes, the author constantly notifies us, via the dreaded [sic] symbol, that his quoted sources, whether they be German participants or even highly regarded fellow historians, are in error when they dare refer to the Germans' opponents on the Russian Front as "Russians." In his original text Nash refuses to write anything but "Soviet." He can call them what he likes, but what gives with these insistent "corrections?"

This sort of thing, if thought absolutely necessary, would normally be handled with a simple note in the introduction. Unless I blinked and missed it, no explanation is provided. Surely a good proofreader would bring this up prior to publication, if the books were proofread. I spotted numerous basic errors such as "laying" for "lying" which may mean these manuscripts were presented to the public "as is."

So what is it all about? Is it a recent form of retro political correctness of which I'm not aware? What bugs me is that it might indicate a sort of underlying ax grinding, these volumes being quite opinionated. It doesn't work the other way around: it's okay to call the Germans "Germans." No insistence on styling them "Nazis" or--just a joke here--"Hitlerites."

I've read several reviews now, with nary a mention of this peculiar facet.

[Max]

Hello All
Any new ideas on the meaning of the title?

Cheers
Max

There is another book with a similar title:


https://www.scalemates.com/books/sunwhe ... el--120046

Well, as can be predicted these books are about desperate defense (and desperate offense), struggling to hold the line, and then struggling to make it to Budapest. That's the only connection I guess, and I finished both books. I do not recall the meaning of the title ever being addressed.

Thanks for that C I
Maybe my explanation is still holding up
Cheers

[Cult Icon]

Throughout the Dying Sun volumes, the author constantly notifies us, via the dreaded [sic] symbol, that his quoted sources, whether they be German participants or even highly regarded fellow historians, are in error when they dare refer to the Germans' opponents on the Russian Front as "Russians." In his original text Nash refuses to write anything but "Soviet." He can call them what he likes, but what gives with these insistent "corrections?"

I too follow this rule, to never call the Soviets...Russians.

Russians find calling the "Soviets", Russians, inaccurate and early on pointed out this issue to me. Apparently, it is offensive to them.

[gebhk]

Is it a recent form of retro political correctness of which I'm not aware?

I would suggest it is simply correct as opposed to incorrect and nothing to do with 'political' correctness. No more than not referring to Britain and the British as England and the English resp.

No insistence on styling them "Nazis" or--just a joke here--"Hitlerites."

I would suggest the Axis? 'Nazis' is incorrect because none of the other parties involved were Nazi. I agree that 'Hitlerite', while arguably accurate, is unhelpful, because then we would have to call the opposing side 'Stalinites', the Japanese Empire Tojoites and the whole conversation goes downhill rapidly after that