Very Narrow East Front Poll (1 Viewer)

[nasirkasmani]

rob, i just felt that though his reputation is tarnished with what deemed as anti semitic vibes, there's no denying his knowledge.

so for me, i read Irving's book with interest on hitler's role as leader of the reich and commander in chief of the whermacht.

anything Irving wrote with regards to the treatment of the jews (as his reputation precedes), i took with a pinch of salt (as he may attempt to sugarcoat the nazi crimes).

sincerely.

 

[Rob]

rob, i just felt that though his reputation is tarnished with what deemed as anti semitic vibes, there's no denying his knowledge.

so for me, i read Irving's book with interest on hitler's role as leader of the reich and commander in chief of the whermacht.

anything Irving wrote with regards to the treatment of the jews (as his reputation precedes), i took with a pinch of salt (as he may attempt to sugarcoat the nazi crimes).

sincerely.

Good post Nasir,yep can't argue with his knowledge and his skills as a researcher either.Actually to be honest i guess a lot of History is eskewed in one direction or another.

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

Good post Nasir,yep can't argue with his knowledge and his skills as a researcher either.Actually to be honest i guess a lot of History is eskewed in one direction or another.

Rob

Just about all of it I'd say, unless you know of a way to seperate emotion from the individual. Of course, the telling thing is the degree to which the undenial bias of an historian actually distorts their presentation of the "facts" they discover. Historical facts can be illusive. I am not so clear on what is wrong with Irving from the conflicting posts here. Denying the holocost would be an absurd distortion but citing alternative death figures is something many historians do for ?well documented reasons. Is the issue that he effectively lied about the numbers or that he has expressed a philosophical view that is so repugnant that it doesn't matter whether his research is accurate or not?

 

[fmethorst]

It wasn't Hitler alone who brought the Germans to defeat at Kursk. Several of his generals, including Manstein to his eternal discredit, agreed with the basic idea of Operation Zitadelle. I think what really threw everything off were the delays (on Hitler's insistence) to get the new prototype armor like the panther. It gave the time for the Russians to prepare in depth. The "cool" German armor that everyone wants to see in a Kursk line is ironically what ended up dooming them. The Germans should have called it off when they realized the gauntlet that awaited them but Hitler's force of personality and groupthink among the general staff carried the day. In my opinion it was probably the greatest German mistake of the war. All of Speer's work rebuilding the juggernaut went down the toilet in a week. Fans of the German war machine should be ashamed to see the debacle of Kursk given priority over Mastein's masterful counter-stroke at Kharkov.

I defintely agree, the strategic initiative gained as a result of the Kharkov offensive was largely squandered due to lack of follow on operations. I also agree that the delays caused by Hitler's insistence on the Ferdinands, Panthers etc. being present made "Zitadelle" unviable when it was finally launched. I suppose the Germans were still learning the need to respect the new found strategic skill of their Soviet foe since summer operations in earler years had been very successful. That said I think Kursk is often overblown as a German disaster. Yes the operation was called off but this was more due to changes in the overall strategic situation (i.e. Operation Husky) and a lack of progress than the destruction of the German war machine.

 

[Rob]

Just about all of it I'd say, unless you know of a way to seperate emotion from the individual. Of course, the telling thing is the degree to which the undenial bias of an historian actually distorts their presentation of the "facts" they discover. Historical facts can be illusive. I am not so clear on what is wrong with Irving from the conflicting posts here. Denying the holocost would be an absurd distortion but citing alternative death figures is something many historians do for ?well documented reasons. Is the issue that he effectively lied about the numbers or that he has expressed a philosophical view that is so repugnant that it doesn't matter whether his research is accurate or not?

Hey Bill,good to read your view.To be honest i can't see this theme going anywhere good,and i wouldn't want to be responsible for taking this thread off subject, so i'm going to bale here mate.
Cheers

Rob

 

[lancer]

Just about all of it I'd say, unless you know of a way to seperate emotion from the individual. Of course, the telling thing is the degree to which the undenial bias of an historian actually distorts their presentation of the "facts" they discover. Historical facts can be illusive. I am not so clear on what is wrong with Irving from the conflicting posts here. Denying the holocost would be an absurd distortion but citing alternative death figures is something many historians do for ?well documented reasons. Is the issue that he effectively lied about the numbers or that he has expressed a philosophical view that is so repugnant that it doesn't matter whether his research is accurate or not?

This is not a subject I wish to pursue much furthur. I will say, going off my memory from some 15+ years ago, that Irving's view of the holocaust went beyond just a dispute with actual numbers and the political views expressed went beyond far-right lip service. -- lancer

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well don't think I am supporting the man in anyway; I had never heard of him but was just reacting to the seeming controversy over his conclusions. Since many here seem incable of having a simply informational discussion of a controversial area I will just goggle him for more information I guess. Of course, I didn't bring the bloke up to begin with.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I defintely agree, the strategic initiative gained as a result of the Kharkov offensive was largely squandered due to lack of follow on operations. I also agree that the delays caused by Hitler's insistence on the Ferdinands, Panthers etc. being present made "Zitadelle" unviable when it was finally launched. I suppose the Germans were still learning the need to respect the new found strategic skill of their Soviet foe since summer operations in earler years had been very successful. That said I think Kursk is often overblown as a German disaster. Yes the operation was called off but this was more due to changes in the overall strategic situation (i.e. Operation Husky) and a lack of progress than the destruction of the German war machine.

They did inflict greater losses on the Soviets than they themselves sustained, so I agree it can't be viewed as an absolute defeat. The problem was they didn't inflict the 3 or 4 to 1 ratio of losses they needed to at that point in the war to regain the initiative on the eastern front. A lot of German divisions got shredded and while they may have been brought back up to strength not long after the operation concluded, that was thanks to increasing German productive capacity and recruiting back home, and those men and machines could have otherwise been used to create new divisions instead.

Some say Kursk was called off too early, when victory was within reach, leaving a lot of semi-intact armor behind on the field for the Soviets to capture etc. Do you think the Germans could still have achieved something of a victory if they had persevered with the operation?

 

[Rob]

Well don't think I am supporting the man in anyway; I had never heard of him but was just reacting to the seeming controversy over his conclusions. Since many here seem incable of having a simply informational discussion of a controversial area I will just goggle him for more information I guess. Of course, I didn't bring the bloke up to begin with.

Its not that i'm incapable Bill,its simply that its obvious where the conversation will go and its not really anything to do with the poll.

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

Its not that i'm incapable Bill,its simply that its obvious where the conversation will go and its not really anything to do with the poll.

Rob

You are taking it too personally my friend. I said many, which does not include you, and your comment on where you think it will go supports my observation. Again, I did not bring the topic up, merely asked a question about what was said by others when it was brought up by others.

 

[Rob]

You are taking it too personally my friend. I said many, which does not include you, and your comment on where you think it will go supports my observation. Again, I did not bring the topic up, merely asked a question about what was said by others when it was brought up by others.

Understood Bill

This would not be a good time to talk about Mel Gibson would it?!!

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

Understood Bill

This would not be a good time to talk about Mel Gibson would it?!!

Rob

Well from what I read from the google search on the "other topic" it might be. That's what you get for asking a question about a controversial topic sometimes I suppose. So back to the German war machine destruction at Kursk I suppose.

 

[Rob]

Well from what I read from the google search on the "other topic" it might be. That's what you get for asking a question about a controversial topic sometimes I suppose. So back to the German war machine destruction at Kursk I suppose.

I understand at Kursk the Tank action was so close quarter and desperate that some crews took to ramming each other in suicide attacks.Was this common only at Kursk does anyone know?.

Rob

 

[IXEC]

Its not that i'm incapable Bill,its simply that its obvious where the conversation will go and its not really anything to do with the poll.

Rob

It really should be obvious where this conversation should go ,to informed and open minded students of history.

One should never paint history with a broad brush.

I brought up this book only because so many members here time and again bring up the naturally curious questions about WW II. Chief among them are why did Hitler and/or his Generals do what they did, when they did. Or why did they do one thing or another this way and not that way. ( Hindsight )

What really influenced Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union. Why didn't the German soldier have winter gear at the gates of Moscow even though it was issued to them. Why didn't Hitler's General's obey his repeated order to strengthen Army Group South flank long before the Russians cut off the 6th Army in Stalingrad.

These are among the questions to name a few that us armchair generals ask when were playing with TS, regardless or what era it may be.

Authors such as Paul Carroll, as well as others, mostly tell the story, although equally important, from the soldiers on the ground prespective. This may all be well and I do most enjoy that kind of reading myself, but that usually leaves the door open to so many unanswered questions, or have us craving for a more informed knownledge.

The book Hitler's War, is truly the only book ever written from the perspective of the " man in charge " namely Hitler himself. You might not have thought this could be possible to do, that is, someone writing a factual and unbiased view of the man, Hitler and did so more than 30 years ago.

I urge anyone to read this book. Most of your questions and more will be answered. See that era's world view of the greatest battles ever fought on this planet and I think you'll find this books contribution to one's knowledge of WW II history far outweigh the dangerous, politicly correct, and sometimes censored view of history.

Read it...and you be the judge.

 

[lancer]

I understand at Kursk the Tank action was so close quarter and desperate that some crews took to ramming each other in suicide attacks.Was this common only at Kursk does anyone know?.

Rob

I do not know how truely widespread ramming was but I know it occurred many times outside the scope of Kursk. The Red Airforce even had a policy for air-to-air ramming tactics from the beginning of the war but I don't remember what it was called. The Luftwaffe went that route very late in the war with special units. The Russians used ramming tactics from the beginning of the war on both ground and in air but I think it was mostly an individual, on the spot choice of the of the man in the tank or plane. Don't know if a policy exsisted for tank ramming. One of the Eastern Front gurus can answer this, I'm sure. -- lancer

 

[Spitfrnd]

I do not know how truely widespread ramming was but I know it occurred many times outside the scope of Kursk. The Red Airforce even had a policy for air-to-air ramming tactics from the beginning of the war but I don't remember what it was called. The Luftwaffe went that route very late in the war with special units. The Russians used ramming tactics from the beginning of the war on both ground and in air but I think it was mostly an individual, on the spot choice of the of the man in the tank or plane. Don't know if a policy exsisted for tank ramming. One of the Eastern Front gurus can answer this, I'm sure. -- lancer

The impression I got was that the performance advantage of German armor was just about neutralized at Kursk by the heavy Russian anti-tank defenses and the point blank range of the encounter. So here they would have been better off with more less superior Panzer IVs?

 

[IXEC]

The impression I got was that the performance advantage of German armor was just about neutralized at Kursk by the heavy Russian anti-tank defenses and the point blank range of the encounter. So here they would have been better off with more less superior Panzer IVs?

And that's what they did, repositioned the Armored Wedge formation, putting the Pz.IVs in front as cannon foder. After they did, it worked fine exposing the Russian positions which were quickly neutralized by the heavies.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

It really should be obvious where this conversation should go ,to informed and open minded students of history.

One should never paint history with a broad brush.

I brought up this book only because so many members here time and again bring up the naturally curious questions about WW II. Chief among them are why did Hitler and/or his Generals do what they did, when they did. Or why did they do one thing or another this way and not that way. ( Hindsight )

What really influenced Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union. Why didn't the German soldier have winter gear at the gates of Moscow even though it was issued to them. Why didn't Hitler's General's obey his repeated order to strengthen Army Group South flank long before the Russians cut off the 6th Army in Stalingrad.

These are among the questions to name a few that us armchair generals ask when were playing with TS, regardless or what era it may be.

Authors such as Paul Carroll, as well as others, mostly tell the story, although equally important, from the soldiers on the ground prespective. This may all be well and I do most enjoy that kind of reading myself, but that usually leaves the door open to so many unanswered questions, or have us craving for a more informed knownledge.

The book Hitler's War, is truly the only book ever written from the perspective of the " man in charge " namely Hitler himself. You might not have thought this could be possible to do, that is, someone writing a factual and unbiased view of the man, Hitler and did so more than 30 years ago.

I urge anyone to read this book. Most of your questions and more will be answered. See that era's world view of the greatest battles ever fought on this planet and I think you'll find this books contribution to one's knowledge of WW II history far outweigh the dangerous, politicly correct, and sometimes censored view of history.

Read it...and you be the judge.

For those who want to read the book, it is available as a free download from http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/ Probably no worse than watching a Mel Gibson movie I am curious enough to read it because the current view is that Hitler's bad decisions, the incompetence of his closest associates, and the bullying of his generals is what lost the war. Is there another side to this?

Terry

 

[IXEC]

For those who want to read the book, it is available as a free download from http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/ Probably no worse than watching a Mel Gibson movie I am curious enough to read it because the current view is that Hitler's bad decisions, the incompetence of his closest associates, and the bullying of his generals is what lost the war. Is there another side to this?

Terry

Shockingly yes. Very much so...


Thanks for the link. This download edition has about 30 more and updated pages than my 1977 1st edition.

 

[Blowtorch]

Due to his anti semitic beliefs and denial that that the holocaust took place, I wouldn't consider anything that David Irving as reliable. Although he's considered an accomplished researcher, because of his beliefs, his work is not viewed very favorably.

There's a well respected Brit historian John Keegan who has stood up for this book. But Irving does have a complicated life story. It will probably take another historian to tell his story. He's too tarnished.