|
Author
|
Topic: One final question about the criticism of Glantz
|
Greg LG
Senior Member
|
posted 12-08-2002 06:55 PM
  
I promise not to bring this up again, nor involve myself in any further discussions on Soviet sources, etc. But, I would like to know one last thing, and I address this to Mr. Zetterling, Mr. Lawrence, and to Rich:Given the degree of criticism you have collectively leveled at Glantz in this forum, on what basis was it made? In other words, what material of Glantz' have you read? I ask because as far as I can tell it is only two books of Col. Glantz' that are the foundation of this criticism - and one of those books, When Titans Clashed, is really almost a layman's guide to the war. The other book is, of course, Battle of Kursk. As said earlier, I've no longer any intention of taking issue with any of this at this point, but if you would respect this last request I'd appreciate it. Best of luck to you all in your studies.
IP: Logged |
Jyri Kettunen
Senior Member
|
posted 12-08-2002 09:31 PM
I may be way out of line here, responding to this post, but the most important thing I learned when studying history was that always suspect, in constructive way, all previous studies of a given subject. I think it´s self-evident that criticism towards Glantz´s work on this forum has been strictly professional, and I don´t see any reason why Mr. Glantz´s work should be beyond any criticism.
IP: Logged |
Greg LG
Senior Member
|
posted 12-08-2002 10:45 PM
Hi Jyri,No, I feel the same way about constructive criticism. I'm not trying to imply that Glantz is beyond reproof, he is clearly not. I guess I should elaborate on my original post. The intent is not to bring into question their criticism, but to better understand the specific source, or sources, of their criticism.
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 12-09-2002 12:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Greg LG:
I promise not to bring this up again, nor involve myself in any further discussions on Soviet sources, etc.
Well, please don't feel constrained. It was a useful and rational discussion. These issues go to the heart of why there are differences in "interpretation". quote:
In other words, what material of Glantz' have you read?
Primarily "When Titans Clash", "Battle of Kursk" and "Don to the Dnepr". I found problems, both little and large with all three books (although I have not finished going through Kursk). I have also seen his work from his Leavenworth days and purchased some of his self-published material.
In case you missed an earlier post, he also did some work for us as a consultant, which I was completely satisfied with and I reference that work in my book. Glantz is "the expert" in Soviet-era sources. Unfortunately, when it comes time to write a book, he produces books that I have lots of little and some major disagreements with. quote:
As said earlier, I've no longer any intention of taking issue with any of this at this point...
Why? [This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 12-09-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Greg LG
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 01:29 AM
Thanks for the response, Chris. I don't have the Don to the Dnepr book myself, though I do have about four of his Frank Cass books, and maybe eight of his publications overall. The Frank Cass books on intelligence and deceptions are a little different in that they make more objective comparisons via German intelligence maps with Soviet dispositions. His book on deception is about 600 pages long.As to why I no longer wish to discuss this issue is because I think I'm at an impasse. I understand your collective opinion (again, sorry for lumping this all into one), but I don't agree with it. My disagreements are based on historiographical issues - sort of like arguing whether the ground game is better than the air game in football (or whether the passing game is better than the long ball, for the Euro's amongst us).
IP: Logged |
Tero
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 01:57 AM
Originally posted by Greg LG:In other words, what material of Glantz' have you read? When Titans Clashed and The Siege of Leningrad When Titans Clashed, is really almost a layman's guide to the war. That is what stokes me the wrong way.  IMO it is a laymans guide to the Soviet histography of the war. At best.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 03:00 AM
To me it is more a matter of how sources are used. As I see it, one of the fields where this problem is most seroius is the Soviet secondary sources. If these are to be used, very strict caution has to be observed. I think very few who have used them have displayed this necessary caution. Glantz is just one of several. However, as Glantz is probably the most prolific writer (and most frequently read) among those who rely strongly on Soviet sources, he is perhaps a more convenient target for the kind of critisism I (and Chris and Rich, if I may speak for these gentlemen) have voiced. [This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-09-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Tero
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:However, as Glantz is probably the most prolific writer (and most frequently read) among those who rely strongly on Soviet sources, he is perhaps a more convenient target for the kind of critisism I (and Chris and Rich, if I may speak for these gentlemen) have voiced. How much of the "blame would you say should be placed on his editors, publicists and publisher for fostering the commercial jargon which gives rise to misinterpretations as to what his work should be considered to be ? As such I find nothing inherently wrong in his approach apart from the fact he seems to use Soviet sources exlusively when counterpoint(s) can not be extracted from German sources. What is more his work is passed off as the definitive truth about the events without providing the caveat about the onesidedness of his sources and interpretations of the facts. I hope (and at the same time fear ) he would find time to supplement his "Forgotten battles" series with a book detailing the Red Army actions againts the Finnish army.
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 12-09-2002 09:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Greg LG:
I don't have the Don to the Dnepr book myself,...
I had a real problem with his March 1943 maps. I used them for the basis for providing direction to a researcher for a daily division-level engagement data base that we were were adding to (the DLEDB). It turns out a number of Soviet divisions are not correctly located on the maps, including one that was placed around 100 kilometers away from where it really was. This forced me to send my researcher back a couple of times, which costs me money. This is probably the basis for my current "attitude".
quote:
The Frank Cass books on intelligence and deceptions are a little different in that they make more objective comparisons via German intelligence maps with Soviet dispositions.
Actually, I do the same thing for my Kursk book. Of course, doing the reverse would be real revealing. quote:
My disagreements are based on historiographical issues -
Sorry, but I was not able to clearly identify what those historiographical issues were from your posts. You appear to be hesitant to accept our arguments that one needs to seriously weigh and evaluate secondary sources, and in particular Soviet-era secondary sources...and that in almost all cases it is better to rely on primary sources (which have existed for the German side regardless). quote:
I understand your collective opinion (again, sorry for lumping this all into one)
That fact that you are seeing a collective opinion from some very disparant voices should tell you something. This is not a bunch of kids talking out of turn.
[This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 12-09-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 12-09-2002 09:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Tero:
As such I find nothing inherently wrong in his approach apart from the fact he seems to use Soviet sources exlusively when counterpoint(s) can not be extracted from German sources.
Yes, but this is a major problem...and in most cases German sources do exist. When one is quoting Soviet reports for German strength and losses (or intentions), then one has made a fundamental error. All analysis that stems from this flawed data/methodology therefore becomes suspect.
IP: Logged |
Paul Jungnitsch
Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 09:59 AM
Glantz has posted a reply hereHe is taking the disagreements personally instead of debating the substance of them, which is a shame. For me the message of this whole thing is a reminder to look at books critically and not to take them as gospel. They are all someones interpretations of the facts and I think this is something the Glantz supporters fail to keep in mind. Ideas stand on their own, and I'd rather have both the Lawrence and Glantz books (and Zetterling's, and Nipe's) on my desk and make up my own mind what the real story is. Say I write a paper on Kursk for my European history class next term. What kind of mark would I get if I use only Glantz's 'Battle of Kursk' as a reference?
IP: Logged |
Jyri Kettunen
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 10:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Tero:
I hope (and at the same time fear ) he would find time to supplement his "Forgotten battles" series with a book detailing the Red Army actions againts the Finnish army.
Hear, hear!
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 11:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:
Glantz has posted a reply here
I have read Glantz reply and can, as mentioned by Paul, not find any substance in it.
I can only say that I hope Chris looks as painstakingly in the Kursk book I and Anders have written. If he finds errors, hopefully he will bring them up. Perhaps I will make an "errata" and place on my web site.
It is true that Glantz recommended Frank Cass to publish my Kursk book, I am glad he did. I have no hard feelings against Col. Glantz. If he asked me for som kind of help or assistance, I would offer him that provided I have the information, knowledge and time needed. If he finds errors in my writing, I am thankful for that.
It is good if there is collaboration to find more material, mor data, better analyses, etc, to obtain a better understanding and knowledge of the eastern front (or any other theatre). However, I think that this can not only apply to the phase that preceeds publication. If books are not allowed to be scrutinized and commented upon after publication, well then we are not going to realize the aim of better understanding of WWII (or any other subject). After all, medicine did not proceed particularly much as long as ancient Galenos was not questioned. [This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-09-2002).]
IP: Logged |
kevsharr
Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 04:41 PM
I guess it's true that man cannot create perfection and that hold's true for author's,so Glantz's book contain's discepancies,10 year's from now C.Lawrences book may be found to have discrepancies also.To say different would be to avoid the fact's-man is not infallible.This book is off topic but in Eric Hammal's book "Munda Trail"he states that the Japanese Knee Mortar[type 89 grenade launcher]was spring loaded,this is not the case,he goes further and states that because of this trait they were silent and the first the g.i.'s new of the fact they were being fired on by them was a grenade falling in their midst thereby contributing to the poor performance of the army troop's who were generally spooked by their first combat action.tThe fact is they were not silent and with their limited range had to be heard by the men in question.In David McCullough's book"John Adams"he mistakingly quote's Adams as saying that Thomas Jefferson was a"paragon of democracy"that was false,do we relegate these volumes to the trash heap?In the [was it 27] discrepansies pointed out in his book I saw that other author's were used to disprove his writing's,who to say these author's were right?Other author's?What were their sources?Previous author's.In Albert Seaton's book The Unknown War his figure of 3.2 million axis troops as being involved in Oper. Barbarossa can be disputed but who's to say these other sources are correct or incorrect?I have no answer's only observation's,it might come down to faith because as I've stated Man is not perfect and therefor cannot create perfection.
IP: Logged |
Frederick L Clemens
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 06:36 PM
not relevant[This message has been edited by Frederick L Clemens (edited 12-10-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Frederick L Clemens
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 07:08 PM
Since the forum where Col Glantz's response is posted is so difficult to access (overloaded perhaps), I am posting the text below. I will post my rebuttal to him on that forum once (or if) the access frees up again. Please note that all grammatical errors are retained as they appear in the original. Response to Chris Lawrence Critique
December 8 2002 at 4:06 PM
David Glantz
Response to Discussion on Glantz I have read Chris Lawrence's rather caustic notes on The Battle For Kursk, which I co-authored with Jon House, with considerable interest, if not outright amusement. Although I generally try to avoid debates such as this, particularly since Chris’ new book has yet to appear, some response is warranted. First, and, in general, most historians who have researched and written extensively on the illusive subject of Soviet-German War understand that there is considerable risk when attempting to cite specific numbers regarding such things as force strength, weapons, losses, etc. This is so because of the tremendous number of discrepancies in various sources, as well as differences in definition (such as ration as opposed to combat strength of units), and the congenital tendency among commanders, particularly German, to understate their strength (particularly in weapons) and sometimes their losses. For example, while it is nice to have actual ration strength of certain divisions, as anyone who has served in a US or German division understands, there is a significant difference between that and actual combat strength. To a lesser extent, this applies also to specific dates, the numbers and names of attendees at conferences, and other lesser details, on which German sources also disagree.
Therefore, as I noted in my introduction, our aim was to capture the operational and tactical essence of the battle of Kursk within the context of operations going on elsewhere and provide general or representative rather specific numbers and figures regarding the scope and scale of combat. Having said this, I welcome any new data concerning the battle, and if Chris’ book provides that data, more power to it. We still have a ling way to go in that regard.
I will refrain fro arguing over some of Chris’ interpretations and criticisms regarding specific numbers, dates, etc., in part, because German sources are manifestly contradictory on such matters and, in part, because no author can safely say he or she is the font of truth. I do, however, reject entirely his criticisms regarding my strategic, operational, and tactical judgments on the battle. To begin to study the intricacies of Kursk requires a thoroughly understand of the war which provided it context.
Perhaps the most disconcerting and unfortunate aspect of Chris’ frontal attack on this book is the manner in which fashioned and launched his criticism. Over the past 20 years an unwritten and informal code of conduct has existed among those whose few who have written on the Soviet-German War. Historians like John Erickson, the dean of the Soviet military historical community, Malcolm Mackintosh, Albert Seaton, Earl Ziemke, any many others, including me, understand how difficult it has been to solve the puzzle of what actually occurred during the Soviet-German War and both why and how it happened. Given that understanding, plus the knowledge that up to 40 percent of the war remains obscure, we have adhered to a code that postulates cooperation rather than confrontation. We all understood the aim – a search for the truth, however illusive it was – and the necessity for working together.
For that reason, no member of the group spoke ill of another or publicly criticized another’s work as they attempted to quantify that which was not quantifiable. Within that context both John Erickson and Malcolm Mackintosh read and endorsed my book on Kursk before it was published. I have routinely subscribed to that code, and therefore, have denigrated no book unless it was demonstrably incorrect in its major judgments. In fact, I was instrumental in having Zetterling's book published by Frank Cass Press, and, informally, I have given favorable advanced publicity to Chris's book. Apparently, however, Chris does not subscribe to that code. That is sad indeed.
In addition, those who subscribed to this code routinely had their works vetted in advance by others in the group so that they could share impressions, correct obvious errors, and prevent embarrassing mistakes. All of my book s have been so vetted either by me or by my publisher prior to publication.
In conclusion, I find Chris’ critique petty, often wrong, and utterly self-serving.
Incidentally, Chris’ work on Kursk derived from his work at the Dupuy Institute, which prepared the Kursk project under contract to the US government and with government funding. Since the recent critique appears on the Dupuy Institute website, this leads me to conclude that, at least in part, the strident criticism was essentially an advertising effort.
IP: Logged |
kevsharr
Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 07:23 PM
So I guess I've stumbled onto a site frequented by god-like being's that can't handle someone with view's that differ from your's ,,,,,,,,,As this tread turned into a profane rant...I exercised my power as editor for the first time on this site and clipped the rest of it. Sorry if anyone feels they have been deprived of important content. Chris Lawrence [This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 12-09-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Frederick L Clemens
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 08:22 PM
not relevant[This message has been edited by Frederick L Clemens (edited 12-10-2002).]
IP: Logged |
kevsharr
Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 08:25 PM
All grammatical error's,,,,Okay, sorry but we were hit with a second profane rant. Again I've deleted it. Chris Lawrence [This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 12-09-2002).] [This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 12-10-2002).]
IP: Logged |
WWII=interest
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 08:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
If he finds errors in my writing, I am thankful for that.[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-09-2002).]
I do not believe Mr. Glantz would make them public though, from the type of person he is. I believe he would just find the errors privately and make sure not to put them in any future books of his own. He might tell you in private, but I doubt it.
Well, from what I can tell at least. And if you guys really have a problem with his work, why dont you take it up with him personally. Contact him, phone him, email him, meet him............ I personally have yet to read a single full Glantz book, so I cant really back Glantz up or criticize him more. I just work off of whats here.
IP: Logged |
WWII=interest
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 08:32 PM
And I also believe to make it more justified, as this forum has been geating a lot of heat towards all the comments made sort of bashing Glantz's work, there should be dissections of many more books. Zetterlings being one, Chris's being another, then move on to other eastern front books and judge them. That is the most reliable way possible to justify this. Each book gets dissected and discussed, not just keeping the heat on Glantz, as I am frankly getting sick of it all. It has been dragged out toooooooo long.
IP: Logged |
Frederick L Clemens
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 08:41 PM
You have a point, Mr WWII Interest, but didn't you start this thread? (just teasing)
I do believe that the thread has been internationally overblown as a Glantz Witchhunt. It has always been meant as a Kursk discussion, including all the facts and mis-facts (is that a word?) that have appeared in ALL the Kursk books so far. All books are game for dissection and all authors are free to rebut, as I see it.
IP: Logged |
Greg LG
Senior Member
|
posted 12-09-2002 09:09 PM
Chris,I think Col. Glantz’ response hits the nail on the head. It seems that the criticisms leveled at him from his book, “Battle of Kursk,” are small details. The main points of his book far outweigh any minor numerical discrepancies. As to the general criticism being placed over him, regarding Col. Glantz’ use of secondary Soviet sources, it is far too sweeping for my tastes. History, human history to be exact, is anything but an exact science, and to assume that Soviet sources are useless because they possess political biases is to risk coming at odds with a fundamental human truth – humanity is ultimately self-serving and therefore biased. When it was first put to me by Mr. Zetterling that he didn’t understand what was meant by historians researching from ‘a German or Soviet side,’ I wasn’t sure quite what to make of it. I’ve never had someone dispute this simple human fact. Now, I realize there is an overall sense here that it is possible to study and research history from an almost mathematical sense. I categorically reject such a notion on the grounds that even from a mathematical perspective the number of variables involved is prohibitively large. Add in human nature, and you have something beyond mathematical capabilities – unless one uses chaos theory, fractals and fuzzy logic, but that only puts one back where one left off, basing phenomena on patterns and percentages. Because of the biased nature of humanity (cognitive thought insures this) all historical studies must not only acknowledge and address bias, they must also admit their own biased natures regardless of how truthful they strive to be. Since the nature of bias is exclusionary, it behooves the historian to combat this by including any and all primary perspectives that are pertinent to the respective research. With any human conflict there are always at least two sides to the story (why else was there a conflict?). If we are to better understand the Soviet-German War it is necessary that each perspective be given, German, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, Finnish, and Soviet. At the very least the perceptions of the major combatants, German and Soviet, need to be present if there is to be any level of understanding. Given that in the West the large majority of works on the Soviet-German War are from a German perspective indicates to me a dire need for more material from a Soviet perspective. Otherwise, historical research on the Soviet-German War will remain an unfinished, incomplete work from which no useful conclusions can be drawn. Glantz’ work, however you may feel about his emphases or his source material, is providing a valid perspective from the Soviet side upon which comparisons can be usefully drawn with previous and current German-based works. The source material Glantz uses is from credible military works within Soviet military circles, and as such provides many insightful details into the theory and practice of Soviet military operations in WWII. Political propaganda is always a concern with Soviet material, but given the nature and intended use of these sources, it seems rather extreme to suspect their overall veracity simply because of politically biased side notes. As I stated earlier the study of human history is an inexact science. This requires that a ‘collage’ of works are needed, all from divergent and differing perspectives in order that a proper judgement can be made and useful conclusions drawn for as complex a process as the social interactions of humanity.
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 12-09-2002 09:10 PM
WWII Interest: Back on November 14, you specifically asked: "I respect that Mr. Zetterling. and can you provide me with some examples of what you or others disagree with in Glantz's book?" This is what generated this thread, for better or worse.So, I provided some examples by just starting on page one and working my way through. It was in support of my previous statement that some works have an error a page.
IP: Logged |
Tero
Senior Member
|
posted 12-10-2002 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:[b] Yes, but this is a major problem...and in most cases German sources do exist. When one is quoting Soviet reports for German strength and losses (or intentions), then one has made a fundamental error. All analysis that stems from this flawed data/methodology therefore becomes suspect. I quite agree. One must remember though the same thing has happened the other way around with the earlier research using only German sources. As such I can not see his research as being fatally flawed. From my POV its is just as myopic and biased as the earlier works based on solely German sources were. The only real difference seems to be the work based on German data has been done using primary sources and Glantzs work is based largerly on secondary or tertiary sources, as far as his bibliography can be use as an indicator. What is missing is the caveat which indicates this. His work has been publicised and marketed as the truth or the true story about the Eastern Front. And that is what makes me grinch. IMO the problem (myopia, onesidedness) he has can be seen and is emphasized better and more clearly when he is addressing things pertaining the Red Army actions against the Finns. In When Titans Clashed he at least seems to have used Mannerheims memoires as the sole Finnish source (which seems to be in keeping with his methodology of not using archival materiel). In his book on the Siege of Leningrad there is not a single Finnish source listed. Based on that I do agree with you totally on the flawed data/methodology issue.
IP: Logged | |
The Dupuy Institute Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
