However with
so many books available there is the problem of quantity vs quality. How many
books have accurate information from both sides? How many present new
information?
Unfortunately
many books that I’ve read have serious mistakes because they rely mostly on
other books for their information and not on the relevant archives. This is
understandable since researching the archives is very costly both in terms of
time and money.
What i look
for in a book is clearheaded analysis and lots of statistical data from both
sides. Based on this what are the books that I can recommend?
First let’s
have a look at the ones that I found lacking.
Two of the
most popular Eastern Front histories are ‘When
Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler’ by David Glantz and Jonathan House and ‘Russia's
War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945’ by Richard Overy. Having read them I can say that they have serious mistakes
since they rely on Soviet sources for information on German strength and loss
statistics. This leads to exaggerations that could have been avoided had the
authors used the reports available from the German archives.
In addition there are other mistakes scattered throughout both books. For
example Overy writes in chapter ‘The Citadel: Kursk 1943’ that the T-34 got a
3-man turret in 1943. He’s off by a year. This might seem like a small mistake
but it undermines his argument that the Soviet forces won the battle not through
numerical superiority but because they upgraded their equipment and tactics.
‘When Titans clashed’ is guilty of perpetuating several WWII myths. For
example the chapter ‘An army in disarray, 1937-1939’ exaggerates the effects of
the purges on the Red Army. Despite its
flaws ‘Russia’s war’ points out in chapter ‘The darkness descends’ that during
the period 1936-38 41.218 officers were dismissed, not executed (or even
all arrested). By May 1940 11.596 officers had been reinstated. The book says ‘Of the 179.000 officers employed in 1938
only 3.7 per cent were still formally discharged by 1940’. It is true that
the higher ranks suffered disproportionately but many of these officers (such
as Marshall Tukhachevsky) were lackeys of the regime and had not gained
their position by merit. In chapter ‘The Red Army’ the T-26 tank is called
‘aging’ and ‘obsolete’ even though its operational characteristics were similar
or superior to the German tank types Pz I, Pz II, Pz 35, Pz 38 and Pz III. Why
was this tank ‘obsolete’? Its main problem was the 2-man turret and by that
standard the mythic T-34 was also ‘obsolete’ since it only got a 3-man turret
in 1944.
Having said that let’s take a look at some very interesting books:




