Anorther Article for Students of the Eastern Front

[Gotthard Heinrici]

I've posted this one already but the old link is now gone and in the light of requests for info about the East this will help to clarify the Campaign and its timeline:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/e-front.htm

[Gnomey]

Interesting Gotthard. There is also this presentation that covers the whole of the war on the Eastern Front (not in that much detail): http://english.pobediteli.ru/

[Za Rodinu]

Gotthard, I knew that article you present and I look at it as of seminal importance. Also very important from the same author and also thankfully available online:

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publica...g-war41-45.pdf

That David Glantz dude is wacked out. He is a pretty poor historian. He states that among the battlefields that Kasserine was the "revealing" of the American policy for WWII. Someone ought to tell him that at Kasserine Pass, the Americans were under British control. Some other crazy claims:

-He also claims that the weather repeadedly frustrating the German aims was a Myth. Is he talking about the Soviet Army and the war on the Eastern Front in WWII or some other war?

-He claims the Soviets didn't have numerical superiority. Again we are talking about WWII? They started virtually every battle with a signficant numerical advantage in men, tanks and artillery, though he might be right if he is referring to immediately after the battle. He didn't specify that.

-He claims the Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured is a myth. Stalin was the one that said that, not the US. Does Glantz know more about the Soviets in WWII than Stalin did?

-He claims that Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored human losses was a myth. Does he know how many of the Soviets were killed in battle or surrendered in at the first sign of attack of the enemy. Someone is off in the weeds. Either Glantz or the German soldiers that reported their memoirs in books on the eastern front. That's a toughie!

Last time I heard of someone so infactuated with the Soviet Union was Lee Harvey Oswald and I believe he was the first US defector to the Soviet Union before he was rejected by the Soviets and shot John F Kennedy. Both of them were in the US military but this Glantz guy seems flat crazy by comparison. Interesting...

[Exxley]

Originally Posted by jimbotosome

That David Glantz dude is wacked out. He is a pretty poor historian. He states that among the battlefields that Kasserine was the "revealing" of the American policy for WWII. Someone ought to tell him that at Kasserine Pass, the Americans were under British control. Some other crazy claims:

-He also claims that the weather repeadedly frustrating the German aims was a Myth. Is he talking about the Soviet Army and the war on the Eastern Front in WWII or some other war?

-He claims the Soviets didn't have numerical superiority. Again we are talking about WWII? They started virtually every battle with a signficant numerical advantage in men, tanks and artillery, though he might be right if he is referring to immediately after the battle. He didn't specify that.

-He claims the Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured is a myth. Stalin was the one that said that, not the US. Does Glantz know more about the Soviets in WWII than Stalin did?

-He claims that Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored human losses was a myth. Does he know how many of the Soviets were killed in battle or surrendered in at the first sign of attack of the enemy. Someone is off in the weeds. Either Glantz or the German soldiers that reported their memoirs in books on the eastern front. That's a toughie!

Last time I heard of someone so infactuated with the Soviet Union was Lee Harvey Oswald and I believe he was the first US defector to the Soviet Union before he was rejected by the Soviets and shot John F Kennedy. Both of them were in the US military but this Glantz guy seems flat crazy by comparison. Interesting...

Interesting thing, except that it only shows that some people out there really needs some reading courses.

I will suggest interested readers to take a look at what Glantz really says and compare it with what our local reading expert wrote :

The dominant role of German source materials in shaping American perceptions of the war on the Eastern Front and the negative perception of Soviet source materials have had an indelible impact on the American image of war on the Eastern Front. What has resulted in a series of gross judgments treated as truths regarding operations in the East and Soviet (Red) Army combat performance. The gross judgments appear repeatedly in textbooks and all types of historical works, and they are persistent in the extreme. Each lies someplace between the realm of myth and reality. In summary, a few of these judgments are as follows:
- Weather repeatedly frustrated the fulfillment of German operational aims.
- Soviet forces throughout the war in virtually every operation possessed significant or overwhelming numerical superiority.
- Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored human losses.
- Soviet strategic and high level operational leadership was superb. However, lower level leadership (corps and below) was uniformly dismal.
- Soviet planning was rigid, and the execution of plans at every level was inflexible and unimaginative.
- Wherever possible, the Soviets relied for success on mass rather than maneuver. Envelopment operations were avoided whenever possible.
- The Soviets operated in two echelons, never cross attached units, and attacked along straight axes.
- Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured.
- Hitler was the cause of virtually all German defeats. Army expertise produced earlier victories (a variation of the post World War I stab in the back. legend).
- The stereotypical Soviet soldier was capable of enduring great suffering and hardship, fatalistic, dogged in defense (in particular in bridgeheads), a master of infiltration and night fighting, but inflexible, unimaginative, emotional and prone to panic in the face of uncertainty.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Yeah I love that one about Envelopment operations being avoided. Just what exactly was the surrounding of 6th Army at Stalingrad or indeed how did so many German Units end up as "roving pockets" following Soviet Attacks. They were well capable of envelopment operations. Jimbo, first of all he didnt say they were completely false. He said that "Each lies someplace between the realms of myht and reality".

The weather did not completely impede the Germans in the East. Yes it was a factor but not to the extent that the German Memoirs would have us believe. As I have stated before two sides were fighting in the same weather and the Russians just happened to fight better and were smarter than the Germans in that they knew what was coming. I dont accept the premise that the weather was the only reason the Germans lost at Moscow and Stalingrad. The Germans were only 28km from Red Square at one point but in no way were strong enough to take the capital. It certainly impeded their advance and indeed hampered their ability to fight but doesnt that make the Russians smarter? Who is stupid enough to invade Russia and not bring Winter Clothes?

[Gotthard Heinrici]

"Military planners and the general public alike were transfixed by foreign locales such as Tobruk, El Alamein, Oran, Kasserine, Palermo, Salerno, and Anzio where America's military strategy unfolded. " This is the quote that Jimbo is referring to I believe. You know why he mentions these battles Jimbo?? Because up to June 1944 these were the only battles against the Germans that the Western Allies were involved in!!!! America's strategy unfolded in places like these because this is were the Allies Fought the Germans!! Are you denying Kasserine????? Kasserine was a valuable lesson for the US. After it they never lost a battle in the Med to the Germans. Kasserine showed the Americans how inflexible their command Structure was and also showed up Frendendall to be incompetant. A certain chap named Patton got the job I believe and the rest IS history. So please, no dissing Kasserine. Even in Defeat valuable lessons can be learned. By the way, Glantz's point about Kasserine and the rest is that Western Planners were obviously too preoccupied with Western Battles to notice what was happening in the East.

[Za Rodinu]

I can't understand your patience with these kind of people. Why do you waste time responding to him? This fellow is immature, crass, insulting, attention-seeking, pigeon-holed, destructive, utterly repetitive and above all, boring.

The only result is that discussions get sidetracked and go down the drain, and the only person happy in the end is him. I think the definition below is appropriate.

"In Internet terminology a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"Don't Feed the Troll" essentially means to not satisfy a troller by posting a response to his troll. If you do post a response, you have been trolled and this satisfies the troller's lust for conflict." in http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=705934

[Exxley]

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

I can't understand your patience with these kind of people. Why do you waste time responding to him? This fellow is immature, crass, insulting, attention-seeking, pigeon-holed, destructive, utterly repetitive and above all, boring.

The only result is that discussions get sidetracked and go down the drain, and the only person happy in the end is him. I think the definition below is appropriate.

"In Internet terminology a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"Don't Feed the Troll" essentially means to not satisfy a troller by posting a response to his troll. If you do post a response, you have been trolled and this satisfies the troller's lust for conflict." in http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=705934

Well, old habits never die unfortunately I might say. Harassing the trolls/neo-nazis/whiners was quite a successful tactic on the History Channel, but I have to confess that this one troll is even more trolly than what I have seen so far. Usually those dumbwits tend to stick to just one kind of topic where they had some kind of knowledge (see the posts made by AntiComm, D./onara/whateverhisnickwas, Confucius on the THC for instance). I guess that the behaviour of this one troll can be explained by the fact that he obviously doesnt know anything at all about the topic at hand.

[von Poop]

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/e-front.htm
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publica...g-war41-45.pdf

Got round to reading the Article and ZR's article suggestion too, another blinder! adresses most of the problems that this site underlines on the discussion of the eastern front.
EVERYBODY READ THIS!
It's well balanced.
Free.
Well written and readable.
Why wouldn't you read it? you're interested in the second world war aren't you????

(Are you listening mossie?)