Mr Michael T -
For one attempting to give basic English comprehension and reading lesson, prehaps you should take one or two lessons first. My comment on your statement clearly stated "I have to say the implications of this statement demostrate a complete lack of understanding of Glantz and his works." Clearly makes it an implication, not a declarative statement - and since it followed by a period, that represents a complete thought. Which separates it from the next sentence, which is clearly my statement, not yours. So if your going to give reading and comprehension lessons, at least learn the meaning of basic punctuation before you attempt give lessons or distort someones postings.
As far as the findings I outline go, you may not have read them by Glanzt, but every one of them trace directly back to him as the ultimate western source. Which means that a) your didn't read them from the primary source, and b) you didn't get them from the closest source to the primary source (Glanzt). And as every historian knows, every time you get one more degree away from the primary source, it get less accurate.
1) This only came to light after 1991 achieves were released. And Glanzt provided the primary sources and translations on this, which has been sources by every other English writer either directly or indirectly. Prior to to this, Stalin did not allow this to be documented as he did not want to be associated with the heavy Soviet losses and the official history was re-written, after Stalin, vairous other official history de-emphasized the roles Stalin played to reduce his importance. If you have other sources, provide them.
2 & 3) Both are original theories of Glanzt. A lot of people now agree with him but no one proposed these before him. These, BTW, remain his most controverial theories, and they are theories. Too many documents are still missing or haven't been released to prove these.
4) Original research by Glanzt. First published in 1996, then written by him and others in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Still denied by the official Russian historicans but Glanzt literally uncovered the original documents showing the average executions, penal battalions, floggings, etc.... Again, while displine was considered harsh in the Russian Army before Glanzt, it was nearly always based on the famous quote - “In the Red Army,” noted Marshal Georgi Zhukov, “it takes a very brave man to be a coward.” I would say always, but I haven't read every work on the Eastern front.
5) Glanzt provided most of the proof for this, although Erickson made hints at this. Not accepted by most historicians prior to Glanzt and his Red Army loss review in his 1996 papers. The official RMG history is that this is still a controlled withdrawal. Interesting enough, even German General Halder, in his post war review for the Allies, believed that the Soviets enacted a systematic withdrawal based on German Army records and the counterattack at Stalingrad.
6) While virtually everyone knew about the IL-2 phone call Stalin made - its a famous story in the history first told by Churchill in the West - what people didn't know was extensive and how detailed Stalin tracked the factory outputs or his input into the technical details of the production models. Glanzt uncovered the executive briefings, the telephone minutes, and the orders to the factories in his 1996 research. Prior to that, Stalin's near weekly/daily involvement in factory production simply wasn't know. Again, if you have earlier source, provide them.
7) Glanzt proved this when he uncovered the Feb 9 executive order redirecting the armies from marching on Berlin to redirecting them to Hungary and Austria. This was a major historical find and it explained a lot of the Soviet Army movements in 1945. Prior to this, speculation existed but the official Soviet historians denied it - then Glanzt uncovered this order, and the others that followed which delayed the Battle of Berlin for 2.5 months. Again, if you have sources that uncovered this before Glanzt, provide them.