Debunking the Glantz myth

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

Post Reply
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Michael T »

Anyone with access to Antony Beevor's 'The Second World War' should check out page 370, 1st paragraph, it shows clearly how poor Glantz's research is on the War in the East. I read one of his books. Won't be wasting my time reading anymore.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by 76mm »

Least useful post ever... If you are going to complain about someone's research it would make sense to tell people what the hell you're talking about, because I suspect I am not the only person on this forum that does have either book, much less both...
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Flaviusx »

The best one volume history of WWII was and remains http://www.amazon.com/World-Arms-Global ... ewpoints=1

Beevor has never impressed me. There's been a rash of general WW2 histories of late (I just finished reading Andrew Roberts' take, and it was meh.) None of them hold a candle to Weinberg.



WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Michael T »

I don't give a rats about other writers. There is a weird Glantz worshiping thing at this site. Here is some proof Glantz is sloppy.
User avatar
LiquidSky
Posts: 2811
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:28 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by LiquidSky »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I don't give a rats about other writers. There is a weird Glantz worshiping thing at this site. Here is some proof Glantz is sloppy.


So we should worship your god instead?
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Michael T »

I am not saying worship anyone. Many dudes around here think the sun shines out of Glantz's arse. Check the book I cite. Glantz is wrong.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Check the book I cite. Glantz is wrong.

Yup, OK, I'll buy and read both books to try to figure out what on earth you're talking about (er, something about War in the East, not clear what) rather than you spending 2 minutes to tell us what is troubling you so much. Or not...
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Flaviusx »

Near as I can tell, Michael has no gods, only a devil.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Michael T »

I said quite clearly that 'anyone with access to' the book should check it out. If you don't have access don't worry. I am not about to post a copy of the page and risk copyright crap. Go check out a copy in your local bookshop, they won't begrudge you looking at one page. I wasn't expecting what I read on that page. But it just cemented what I already thought about Glantz's work.
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by janh »

Not sure what you are referring to, but as a hard scientist I am used to take everything with a grain of salt or turn the coin thrice.

Glantz has written some nice books and essays, and certainly is an expert in the field. But even the best experts makes mistakes, or are restricted by the resources or original information available to him. Glantz, for my taste, is too little self-critical, and often put things in a light that make them seem an absolute truth.

I first realized it when talking about the casualties on the Eastern Front he presented. I went so far as too look up some recent research and alternative source on that, and the spread is enormous. The Wiki article is a good start on some references you can follow in deeper if you have scifinder oder isiweb. Surely many of their authors have done their best to accumulate "factual information", but you can clearly see who the decades and especially the opening of the UdSSR archives changed the results of the studies. Most surprisingly, even the usually so annoying German bureaucracy back then is incomplete, maybe due to loss of documents, reports, lack of returns, or disagreement of how to split the different wounded categories. Whatever.

Anyway, one has to make do with the best data on can lay hands on, or the "best" books one has at home to make up his mind. Yet also be sure to question the own conclusions regularly, just as Michael does. Nothing bad about his post except this teasing...
amatteucci
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
Location: ITALY

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by amatteucci »

Using Google Books (so, no risk of copyright infringements) I stumbled upon this quote from Beevor's book:
"In the view of Russian military historians, the factor which demonstrated conclusively that Mars was a diversion and not, as David Glantz, has argued, a coequal operation, was the allocation of artillery ammunition. According to General of the Army M. A. Gareev of the Russian association of the Second World War historians, the Uranus offensive received '2.5 to 4.5 ammunition loads [per gun] at Stalingrad compared with less than one in Operation Mars."
Unfortunately, the rest of the page is not accessible, so I'm not sure if this is what Michael is referring to.

Anyway, there's no need to read the latest work of Beevor to realize that even Glantz makes mistakes.
Just for example, in "When titans clashed" Glantz wrote that the Panther was equipped with an 88mm gun.
Now, this is sloppy! I would not have made such a mistake even when I was ten years old. [8D]

Having said so, it's ironic that this mistake is due to the fact that this time Glantz failed to do what many of his critics mantain he does routinely: uncritically parrotting Soviet General Staff's reports and Russian historians' works! [:D]

P.S. Jokes aside, I agree with jahn when he says that "one has to make do with the best data on can lay hands on". This means that Glantz is an unavoidable reference when dealing with Eastern Front secondary sources in English, and the fact that he's quoted often has more to do with the quantity (and quality, also) of his production than with the fact that some people takes his writ as gospel.
danlongman
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by danlongman »

Well that sure "debunks" that "myth". And so does the belligerent counter-response.
I have books by both authors but not that particular Beevor volume, rendering the statements absolutely meaningless.
I know a little of Glantz' credentials and am aware that Beevor has written popular histories on a number historical themes
since I own some. Knowing nothing else.... how a reference to a page number in one book "debunks" a "myth" escapes me.
I know that people tend to believe what they wish to believe over facts any time. Hence something Beevor wrote somewhere
"debunks" a "myth" that Glantz wrote somewhere. Maybe his myth was too big or too small or the wrong color?
I will make note of that. Some guy in Queensland thinks Glantz is wrong about some thing based on Beevor's superior thing.
"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by 76mm »

This thread has gotten truly surreal, arguing about who is right and wrong without even knowing what issue is being discussed.

I will say that to discount all of a serious historian's (as Glantz is) work because you found another historian with another, perhaps better, source/argument/citation is rather ridiculous. Maybe Michael is right that Glantz has been sloppy, but at least I'll never know because I have no idea what he's talking about, and oddly the local bookstores in Moscow don't carry large selections of Beevor's or Glantz' books. Not that I would bother to look anyway.

And last time I checked, it doesn't violate copyright to tell people what you've read in a book, I don't know why you think that the only way to convey information is to scan pages?

Anyway, all historians make mistakes, read Historians' Fallacies by Fischer for a better understanding; I won't tell you what he says, I'm sure you can find it in a local bookstore.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Michael T »

You need to read the whole page. But to summarise. Glantz concludes that Mars was a coequal offensive conducted simultaneously with Uranus.

The evidence that Beevor presents makes it very clear that Mars was a diversion to aid in the success of Uranus.

Its not just a simple mistake of fact on Glantz's behalf. Its a totaly wrong conclusion drawn from inadequate research of the material available. This kind of failing, IMO brings in to question his work overall.

But I bring it up at this site because, unless you have been living under a rock, or are new around here, Glantz has been placed upon a mighty pedastal. And his work apparently so great it overides all other works by previous writers/historians on the subject.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Glantz has been placed upon a mighty pedastal. And his work apparently so great it overides all other works by previous writers/historians on the subject.

I read this forum as much as anybody and don't recall anyone putting Glantz on a pedastal; the most common sentiment that I've seen expressed is that he is a serious historian who has uncovered a lot of materials in the Sov archives, which is a good thing. Sure people quote his facts a lot, I guess because his books are very detailed and contain lots and lots of facts.

I've only read a few of his books and don't plan to read any more except in the unlikely event that I ever design a computer wargame or create a scenario for one, in which case he would certainly be ONE of my sources. Regardless of whether he is a "good" or "bad" historian, his style of basically regurgitating or even cutting/pasting pages of Stavka reports, etc. is extremely tedious and not particularly insightful. I guess he might be able to draw new insights based on his research, but I would probably miss them as I skimmed the pages skipping the boring parts.

Rodimstev
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:07 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Rodimstev »

hi all,

historic studies are not "a exact science".
a historian has always a point of view about a event and in function of his source he try to devellop arguments in favour about his hypothesis.

David Glantz is the first to have access to soviet archives (but this archives are ot comparable with west or german military archives).
he has the first to write a new point of view about "the great patriotic war". the first point of view wher soviets are not just "barbarians"....

with time, it is now easier for another people to access new documents, and of course new point of view.
but don't forget his enormous work about this particular war.

for operation Mars, just look the D. Glantz's book : "operation Mars, the great Zhukov Failure"
and after just reading,
ask good questions...

if Mars was a diversion, why the number of soviets soldiers, tanks, artillery are more that force for uranus operation?
in all soviet operation after may 42, the high commissar of strategic operation advince to create a real concentration of force for a offensive....

for my point of view, we have now a great luck to have in our hands this documents and for this thanks M. D. Glantz.

Rodimstev
"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Peltonx »

Poeple have trouble dealing with change. When the change is counter to most of the stuff they have been reading for yrs.

It takes about 20 years before poeple can reflect back on something like a war, presidents, econemys ect ect.

To say WW2 has not been loaded with a ton of politics from 45 to 91 is just plain lieing to themselfs. Poeple had reputations to defend, those poeple are now all dead.

So in general now we can take a look at the data without all the East vs West drama

We can finally compare German and Russian records and get a picture of how things were between 41-45 on the eastern front.

Less drama and more data finally after 60 years.

Glantz is not perfect by any means, but its more then easy to ripe holes in any book now writen before 1991, most if not all are based on 50% politics.

I read as much as I can on books writen after 91 as they tend to be based on records from both side. Any Russian data before 1991 is loaded with politics to support the east or west point of view.

Not sure why your so down on Glantz, change is good.

Good thing some dude thought out side the box based on data and figured out the world was round and not flat. He did not fit the political mold at the time but was right.

I think he was tring to teach the Pope from the Book of Isaish were it says the Earth is a circle ( circle are round ), the oldest writings from that book have been dated at about 400 BCE and that book is part of the scrolls found.

Change is good even if it is recycled old news without the politics.
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Flaviusx »

In truth this business about Mars is open to interpretation; the Soviets (now Russians) have always claimed it was diversionary in intent and achieved its goal. Glantz, after some fairly exhaustive OOB analysis concludes otherwise. I myself am not really sure what the operational intent was. Both interpretations are plausible and have precedents to back them up.

We'll never be completely sure until we get more archive access. (Putin's Russia is going backwards in this regard as in many others.)

But the title of this thread is pure 100% trolling. (How does this debunk an entire body of work consisting of dozens of books covering the whole war by a controversy that covers only a single battle?) Micheal has allowed his bizarre dislike of Glantz -- a historian he has hardly even read much less understood -- to overcome sober analysis.
WitE Alpha Tester
kg_1007
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:45 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by kg_1007 »

I think as noted above, Glantz is simply one of the people who have had access to records. I do not think it is correct to , also, put 100% stock in Soviet records,which were just as political/propagandized as the German side was. But the lesson I would take, is that you cannot look at EITHER one, as "the facts"..BOTH sides told the story as they wanted it told. So, I also have seen some "Glantz worship" here, I guess..but I never would entirely take either side, over the other..it is always best to read the entire thing, from both sides, realizing what each's perspective was, and then find the likely truth, usually somewhere in between, as neither side could see the other's that well, while writing their own.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Flaviusx »

A good example of a major diversionary effort that was an operational fiasco yet achieved a major strategic goal would be Tolbukhin's attempt to crack the Mius line in July of 1943. This was a major effort (although not on the scale of Mars) that failed dismally to achieve its immediate object. Tolbukhin himself was disappointed in the results and felt he mismanaged the battle and could have forced a bridgehead.

Yet STAVKA pronounce itself more than satisfied with the results, and Vasilevsky commended Tolbukhin for his efforts; the offensive attracted considerable German attention and diverted an entire panzer corps to the south away from the Kursk area. This in turn made it possible for Voronezh and Steppe Fronts to crack the Belgorod line and take Karkhov in August. By the time this panzer corps got back to its original location the damage was done and it was too late to restore the situation.

Mars may have been something similar. Or not. The sheer scale of it implies more than a diversionary effort. But nobody can be really sure about it. If the scale was huge, so was the payoff, Uranus was a game changer. However large Mars was and however much of an operational fiasco it turned out to be, it is difficult to argue against it on strategic grounds. Even if this was an ex post facto justification (which nobody can really be certain of) it's a pretty good one.

WitE Alpha Tester
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”