Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici  No offense taken Boykin. read "Panzer Battles" by Von Mellenthin, "Lost Victories" by Erich Von Manstein, "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian. You will find some of these myths and stereotypes being alluded to either directly or indirectly. And who said Glantz was a bad author? If he is then who would you suggest is better? |
I've just got to ask, if it's written by a German author does that make it, by default, untrue? It seems that your agenda is to vindicate the poor perception of the Soviet military machine by Western authors, and so you automatically disregard any testament of accounts from a German source as false and misleading because these accounts don't correspond to the perception of events as you wish them to be. From what I can discern, according to you the Germans were all self-serving liars and any Russian declassified document is gospel.... blah, blah, blah.
I appologize for the tone of this post, but I decided not to go back and revise it because it reflects how I feel about the methods you employ to make arguments for the revisionist history you propose. You are incensed that the Western view of history is disproportionately taken from the German perspective, but how can any arguments you make be taken seriously when you dismiss German sources out of hand as untrue? To a certain extent there is validity in all of the "myths and stereotypes alluded to" (as you describe it) by the German authors. Certainly other factors than the generally accepted were at play in any operation, and it is inevitable that men writing memoirs will skew their recollection of some events to show themselves in a more favorable light, but to make the claim that an explanation of events cannot be true or accurate because it comes from a German source (and therefore must be some type of cover-up) makes, for me at least, any argument you might make specious.