Debunking the Glantz myth

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

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It did lock down all of the AGC reserves. To that extent it succeeded as a diversion. But that begs the question: was it actually intended as a diversion? Or was it a failed offensive that nevertheless had major side benefits? And could have it succeeded as a diversion at less cost in blood and treasure than actually happened?

According to Beevor's sources, it was not only a diversion, but a maskirovka directed at the very highest levels, i.e., Stalin, and hidden from the general in charge of the offensive -- and the Germans were being fed information about it by a Soviet double agent to insure they'd respond to it. This is astonishing if true, and completely new information. But I am skeptical.


So am I. Would you really use your best general for a diversion? But who can really say with Stalin. The fact that forces were allocated for Jupiter, (aimed at 3rd Pz Army), leads me to believe that it wasn't just a diversion. But what do I know? I've read Glantz/Erickson.

It didn't do what Uranus did, even with the side benefits. So it got buried.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
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 »

Gee, now I have to define simple terms.

Glantz, by basing his conclusions on mostly Soviet records, must by definition, result in his work having a Soviet bias. Simply because he does not hold other national records with the same weight.

He is not, as far as I can tell, Pro Soviet. Which would mean he is somehow for the Soviet cause or would involve advancing the Soviet cause over the say the German cause. Do you see the difference?

As for the gutter talk. Yes its unbecoming of me. It’s a something I do try to avoid being drawn in to. But I did not throw the first stone.
User avatar
Seminole
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Seminole »

Would you really use your best general for a diversion? But who can really say with Stalin.

If you thought the Germans might have spies aside from your plant, it makes a certain kind of sense.
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
User avatar
Seminole
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Seminole »

Gee, now I have to define simple terms.

I credit you with the intelligence to see how someone could misinterpret, or better yet, not place the same spin on the words you do. It's easy to clarify without being officious.
Glantz, by basing his conclusions on mostly Soviet records, must by definition, result in his work having a Soviet bias. Simply because he does not hold other national records with the same weight.

Has he said such a thing (that he holds other national records as less authoritative than Soviet?).
It seems to me he has come to some different conclusions because he has access the records long available in the West and those more recently available in Russia (real time reports, not politically motivated histories). That would strike me as more balanced than biased.
He is not, as far as I can tell, Pro Soviet. Which would mean he is somehow for the Soviet cause or would involve advancing the Soviet cause over the say the German cause. Do you see the difference?

I do, but the similarity in meaning and usage of the terms can generate confusion more readily dispelled with clarification that mockery. I'm used to discussing history in international forums as well, so when I see an interpretation of my comments different than I intended, I try to enhance my explanation, not belittle someone. They probably know more languages than I do.
As for the gutter talk. Yes its unbecoming of me. It’s a something I do try to avoid being drawn in to. But I did not throw the first stone.

If someone else decides to lower themselves in the eyes of others doesn't mean you have to.
Don't blame others for your actions.
No one is going to decide these issues for all time in some obscure corner of the internet. We all have something to learn.
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: Seminole
Would you really use your best general for a diversion? But who can really say with Stalin.

If you thought the Germans might have spies aside from your plant, it makes a certain kind of sense.

Kind of does. Playing head games can be sort of fun.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
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 »

Look Seminole, I have no problem with people who disagree with what I write or believe. But when it is done mockingly, or in an insulting manner I am not the type to turn the other cheek. Thats the way I am. If this forum was more stringently policed and those that fired insults reprimanded I would be far more tolerant. But compared to other forums its almost anything goes here. Unless like Pelton or Helio you constantly attack the developer, then the powers will act. But I have seen personal attack after personal attack on myself and others go without penalty. After a while your skin becomes less thick. So the tendency is to shoot first and ask questions later. But I will heed your advice and try to remain more civil. I hope others might do also.
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
Look Seminole, I have no problem with people who disagree with what I write or believe. But when it is done mockingly, or in an insulting manner I am not the type to turn the other cheek.
Huh? Your nasty comments sure seem to be directed at turtlefang, who neither mocked nor insulted you as far as I can tell before your belittling response about reader comprehension ("If you can't fathom the difference between those two statements then I suggest a refresher course in basic comprehension of the English language.").
ORIGINAL: Michael T
If this forum was more stringently policed and those that fired insults reprimanded I would be far more tolerant. But compared to other forums its almost anything goes here...But I have seen personal attack after personal attack on myself and others go without penalty.
eh? I don't know what other fora you frequent, but this one seems pretty normal to me. I suspect that you find that people will be more civil to you if you don't make mocking statements about reading comprehension, etc. You should try it...
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Flaviusx »

Michael, if you want to set the tone at a higher level, you might want to consider the way you handle these topics. The title of this topic in itself, for starters. Refusing to explain your sources. (I got more out of Seminole about this in one sentence and a Youtube link than I have gotten from you in multiple pages.) Engage your critics directly by actual arguments instead of ad hominems. And avoiding the most elemental rhetorical and logical errors. I'm forensically trained and will take those apart without remorse. (U.Chi.Law class of 92, natch.) This I suppose is the "bullying" and "bigotry." (I'm still scratching my head about this bigotry claim, which I am not so much insulted by as merely confused.)

I have savagely mocked you in this topic because you have deserved it. You started trolling and got called on it. I'm perfectly willing and indeed interested in having a useful and constructive discussion on Mars. Wildly sensationalist claims and topic titles aren't helpful. Drop the huge axe you've got to grind about Glantz and there is something interesting here to talk about. You seem much interested in destroying him and ignoring him than in talking about Mars and this new information (if it is true.)
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Tarhunnas, it's really case of the game systemically inflating the offensive at the expense of the defense. Also, the game lacks any kind of surge replacement capacity for the Soviets in 1941 in the face of pocketing. Both in terms of replacements and the ability to get dead units back from the pool. It's very hard to recover from disasters. In real life the Sovs could bounce back from being hit with monster pockets in Kiev and then Typhoon (combined 1.3 million losses there in a space of a month or so, and that's not including losses elsewhere), here not so much.

The initial release was very rough on the Axis, though. Not so much in 1941, but from 1942 on. 42 got fixed, but I fear we broke 1941 in the process.

Yep, agree! Your analysis is to the point as always!
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by mmarquo »

This thread is hysterical; I would relish the opportunity to have multiple beers with you all around a table. Hell, I would buy a an entrance fee.

Marquo
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

This thread is hysterical; I would relish the opportunity to have multiple beers with you all around a table. Hell, I would buy a an entrance fee.

Marquo

------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by mmarquo »

[:D] [:D] [:D]





Image
Attachments
DuelingMonkeys.gif
DuelingMonkeys.gif (102.17 KiB) Viewed 144 times
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by elmo3 »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Heh, rumors of Glantz' death have been greatly exaggerated, Mr. Beevor....

Yeah the guy can't even get that simple fact right yet he is used to show how Glantz' Eastern Front research is faulty. [8|] Not to mention he does not know how to pronounce Uranus.


I think this whole thread is really a diversion. The main attack on Glantz will come later from another direction. Or maybe this thread is really the main attack that just failed miserably. If so then future apologists will write about how it was really a misunderstanding and it was only meant to divert our attention from the main operation. Time will tell...
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
Seminole
Posts: 2237
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:56 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Seminole »

Heh, rumors of Glantz' death have been greatly exaggerated, Mr. Beevor....

Well, he did come to bury Glantz, not to praise him... [;)]
"War is never a technical problem only, and if in pursuing technical solutions you neglect the psychological and the political, then the best technical solutions will be worthless." - Hermann Balck
User avatar
Tarhunnas
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:19 am
Location: Hex X37, Y15

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Tarhunnas »

ORIGINAL: elmo3

I think this whole thread is really a diversion. The main attack on Glantz will come later from another direction. Or maybe this thread is really the main attack that just failed miserably. If so then future apologists will write about how it was really a misunderstanding and it was only meant to divert our attention from the main operation. Time will tell...

Brilliant! Just brilliant!
------------------------------
RTW3 Designer
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by turtlefang »

All -

I apologize to Michael T for way I respond to his the email. I should not have turn it into a personal insult. And I also apologize to the rest of the forum as personal attacks don't have a place here. All I can plead is a long day at work, a couple of Scotchs, and the fact that I like to play one upmanship more that I should. That is not an excuse, the email, regardless, should not have been written in the way it was.

I will make it a point not to do that in the future.

My first email, quoting Michael T, was not intended as a shot at him, but to raise the point that anyone using Glanzt as to make the point that Soviets are superior tacticians or strategies shouldn't be using Glanzt. His POV just doesn't support that position.

I much prefer the discussion - and disagree - to be around the history and welcome any disagreement or difference of opinion with people citing various sources to back their opinion.

As a note, I read Glanzt - and virtually every other WWII author of note - on the Eastern front in English and many in other languages. I have for a more years that I like to admit, studied some of the original source material myself. So I do express my opinions in these areas and feel I know this area fairly well.

IMO, Glanzt is one of the best Eastern Front historians of this generation. His discoveries - based on original research in the Soviet Archives rivals Samuel Morrison's work on the US Navy. But Glanzt has never held up the original work from the Soviets as the be all and end all - its a piece of the puzzle to be used with other historical archives and documents. And his ability to combine both the Soviet and German sources on the East Front remains unequaled at this time.

And he sometimes draws conclusions that can't always be supported by the data and represent his theories. And his writing isn't that great. You have to work at getting through most of his works.

Beevor's not in his class - but to give Beevor credit, he did raise the issue of Russian treatment of German civilians during WW2 in a way it had not been openly discussed before or researched. And that did start a line of research regarding Russian war crime violations that had been "forgotten" (as well as eventually spilling over to US/Canadian/British war crimes).

Using multiple sources is always a good idea. But ignoring Glanzt is foolish - he is one of the primary sources in the West at this time. And until someone else steps up and does catch's up and then digs deeper, he is the current leader in the field.

Regarding MARS

As far as German spy operations during MARs, here's the story:

On November 8, Hitler received a report from R. Gelen, the head of the Russian Department of the Intelligence Service (the founder of West Germany's counterespionage agency in the future). There the Rzhev Salient was reported to have been chosen by Soviet SCCR as the main aim of a new offensive, according to intelligence reports. According to the documents of OKW that was the very wary document. Later Gelen claimed that he had especially focused attention on the Rzhev Salient. He had reasons for doing this. As a matter of fact on Nov. 04, Abwehr got a message about the preparing of a Soviet offensive in Rzhev sector. It claimed the offensive was to start on Nov. 15.

This information had to be so valuable as it had been received from agent "Maks" working as a communication officer in the Soviet General Staff. Later "Maks" was awarded an Iron Cross with Swords. Gelen noted that information of this agent was always exact and extremely valuable. It was really the truth, as all the information for him had been prepared directly in the Soviet General Staff and been approved by one of its leaders - S. Shtemenko. In reality "Maks" was an NKVD agent "Geine" - lieutenant Alexey Demyanov.

One of the leaders of the Soviet Intelligent Service - P. Sudoplatov in his book "Spetsoperatsii. Lubyanka i Kreml, 1930 - 1950" (translation: "Special Operations. Lubyanka and Kremlin, 1930s - 1950s") was writing: "...Zhukov, who had been kept unaware of this operation, dearly-paid for it. In the Rzhev offensive thousands of our soldiers were killed. In his memoirs he was writing that the result of this operation had been unacceptable. But he never knew that Germans had been warned about this offensive and that's why they concentrated such force there...".

This is the story regarding the spy. However, there is no listing of "Maks" ever receiving the Iron Cross. And I haven't been able to find the Nov 8 briefing document for Hitler - even though all the other Nov 8 daily briefing documents are on file for review. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but there should be a record of the Iron Cross awarded - and there's not. In any case, this story remains "unproven" - at least to me, until some documentation is presented. Gelen never mentions it in any of stuff (and Lord knows, he willing to take credit for finding a tank in a haystack much less an offensive that was defeated); no briefing document, and no listing of Maks or his name on Iron Cross winners. Seems thin without some documentation.

Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Schmart »

Michael T,

For those of us without current access to Beevor's book, perhaps you could elaborate a bit as to how and why you feel that Glantz was wrong about Uranus/Mars, or at least explain to us what it is that Beevor details. You have received some seemingly well-reasoned arguments, however these arguments have so far gone unanswered...
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Schmart »

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Glantz, by basing his conclusions on mostly Soviet records, must by definition, result in his work having a Soviet bias. Simply because he does not hold other national records with the same weight.

Would that then mean that most works written based moreso on German records are German biased? Since before the opening of the Soviet archives most works on the eastern front were based on German records, would that say something about their bias, judgement, and accuracy? Are there any works/authors who use a better balance of multiple archive sources?
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Aurelian »

Well, using a passage in Beevor's book to claim that all of Glantz's work is wrong, the very same book that states that sailors of the USS Oklahoma were trapped *underneath* the ship......

All those books that cover the attempted rescue of those trapped *in* the capsized ship got it wrong?

Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Debunking the Glantz myth

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Glantz, by basing his conclusions on mostly Soviet records, must by definition, result in his work having a Soviet bias. Simply because he does not hold other national records with the same weight.

Would that then mean that most works written based moreso on German records are German biased? Since before the opening of the Soviet archives most works on the eastern front were based on German records, would that say something about their bias, judgement, and accuracy? Are there any works/authors who use a better balance of multiple archive sources?


Yes it would. And throw in how many of them came out during the Cold War...
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”