|
turtlefang -> RE: Debunking the Glantz myth (7/31/2012 4:15:20 PM)
|
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.
|
|
|
|
