|
Author
|
Topic: Kursk books
|
Jukka Juutinen
Senior Member
|
posted 11-01-2002 05:39 AM
  
I just ran into a shortly forthcoming (to be available in late Dec 2002) Kursk book: "Kursk 1943-The German View" by Steven H. Newton. Publisher is to be DaCapo Press. Any comments from other members?Jukka
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 11-01-2002 06:30 AM
Not a clue actually. I have never read any of Newton's books. The subtitle is intriguing though. It has often been claimed that the perception of the eastern front in the English speaking world has been conditioned by the alleged German view. For the battle at Kursk, at least, this is decidedly wrong.[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 11-01-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Frederick L Clemens
Senior Member
|
posted 11-10-2002 09:50 PM
Don't expect too much from Newton. He specializes in reprinting manuscripts from the Army Historical Division series into hardcover format. It is annoying that he does so without making it obvious that these are 50 year old monographs done by German officers just after the war and often without use of records or maps. As such, they often represent an officer's impression of a battle written for American consumption rather than a true study.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 11-11-2002 03:44 AM
I have used some of these for my books on Kursk and Normandy. I have to say that for Kursk, the archival records are so good that there is little that these manuscripts can add.
For Normandy, there are more gaps in the records and the manuscripts can add valuable information.
However, the German officers who wrote them often emphasize that they had to rely on their memory, and that they had only been provided with large scale maps, which certainly did not facilitate their work. The German often clearly stated that they were uncertain on specific details, like time and dates, strength and location etc.
Granted, some of the manuscripts writers have obviously benefited from some papers, diaries or comparable sources, but it is not always clear when this has been the case.
Many of the manuscripts in the 1950-ies did to a large extent rely on the archival records, but not all of them.
It is good that these manuscripts becomes more easily avialable, but it should, as mentioned by the previous post, be clear when they have been used and what their limitations are. As I see it, if used with caution they can add important things, but I would not write a history on a battle exclusively from them, rather they must be compared to other sources.[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 11-11-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 11-11-2002 06:14 AM
quote:
However, the German officers who wrote them often emphasize that they had to rely on their memory, and that they had only been provided with large scale maps, which certainly did not facilitate their work. The German often clearly stated that they were uncertain on specific details, like time and dates, strength and location etc.
In a number of cases, they obviously had access to some notes, or had outstanding memories. Breith's manuscript on Kursk, for example, appears to be quite accurate in its details, includng tying specific events to days, like when the 6th Panzer Division had trouble getting across a creek due to the bridges being out on the 7th of July. More to the point, he gives times for attacks for the operations on the 5th and 11th which match with the unit records, and give a precise list of captured enemy material. He clearly had some paper (probably the Corps KTB) with him. In all of them, you find errors, like Brieth's claims of two divisions destroyed around the 9th of July. Other's have a lot more errors, like Seidemann's (VIII Air Corps) manuscript for Kursk, and in some cases you wonder if the errors are not part of a deliberate attempt to slant the story. A number of these appear to have been written in the early 50s, in the comfort of their home (not in the camps) and I gather under contract. They are a useful source that can nicely supplement the historical records, but must be used with caution. They invaribly have major errors (as do some of the various books written by the Generals).
[This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 11-11-2002).]
IP: Logged |
HvM
Member
|
posted 11-30-2006 03:17 AM
Try J. Fedorowicz publishing's great photo books about Operation Citadel and Kursk, split into 2 volumes, the North and the South. Or if one is interested in the Waffen-SS at Kursk,try Remy Sprezzano's several volumnes of photo records of the LAH, Das Reich, etc at Kursk, published by RZM. Unfortunately though, these good books are a bit pricey.K
IP: Logged | |
The Dupuy Institute Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
