WW2 biographies need recomendations

[scarc]

So I personaly find ww2 super interesting, and I love reading up on all kinds of stuff about it. One of my favorite asspects is to read tales from the people who were actualy there. Especialy all the stuff that one would almmost find too ridiculous for real life.

Thus I was wondering if you guys have anny recommendations for me (dosen't have to be ww2, but thats what im mainly looking for). Something I would realy like to read is a tale from a japaneese soilder, but evrything goes

So far I have red:
-Tigers in the mud
-Norwegian officers in the waffen-SS
-Infantry attacks (ww1)
-Band of brothers

To read list:
-To hell and back

As long as I can read it in english I don't have anny problems, but it's a + If it has a Norwegian translation.

 

[DoomBunny]

If you want something that's genuinely rather harrowing and really not a merry romp through the Soviet motherland, then I'd recommend Eugene Sledge, With the Old Breed. Unlike some other first hand accounts he really doesn't pull punches describing what went on, what he did, what he saw. About the only thing censored is the names of some of his comrades, I'd imagine as a show of respect for their privacy. It's certainly the most frank account of frontline action I've ever read, and also probably the best. Interesting comparison can be made to Robert Leckie, Helmet for My Pillow, which I read immediately after and thought conveyed less of what actually happened.

Another interesting work (though more from a critical perspective of Allied leadership rather than frontline action) is Freddie de Guingand, Operation Victory. He was Monty's Chief of Staff for most of the war and served in North Africa before Monty's arrival. It's a particularly interesting book because Monty didn't give de Guingand a good enough job in the post-war army, so de Guingand promptly quit and got a headstart on the memoir game. He writes quite soon after the war has finished and though he clearly likes and admires Monty (he actually argues that the man was not genuinely uncaring for others, but rather was misunderstood), he is not uncritical of his generalship at points. This might be a bit hard to find however, as I don't think there's been a recent reprint. I picked mine up for £10ish of Amazon, but that was the low end of the price bracket.

Finally you may enjoy Alanbrooke, War Diaries, though not an autobiography they are, as one might expect, his diaries during wartime. There's some interesting stuff in there, as well as some interesting post-war commentary.

 

[scarc]

Thx . Ill make sure to take a look at "With the Old Breed" it seems just up my gate, and im allready looking forward to reading it. Ill be sure to take a note of the other two as well. Operation victory seems appealing since i have never red anny books from the top of the hirarcy before.

 

[Admiral Piett]

Oh, you mean memoirs. Biographies are written by someone else (typically a historian) about a specific person. Memoirs are written by the person about their experience, but are not necessarily about their life (that would be an autobiography). This may interest you, even if it isn't a straight up memoir:

Also this oral history:

And this:

 

[scarc]

In my native language the term is typicaly used for the whole genre, and since the words are very simelar in both languages "biography"/biografi/ I thought the meaning would be basicly the same. But yes memoirs is the term im looking for.

Annyway thanks for the suggestions ill make sure to take a lokk at them.

 

[Dina1954]

In my native language the term is typicaly used for the whole genre, and since the words are very simelar in both languages "biography"/biografi/ I thought the meaning would be basicly the same. But yes memoirs is the term im looking for.

Annyway thanks for the suggestions ill make sure to take a lokk at them.

I have a good book to recommend if you can read Swedish title Den glömde soldaten (the forgetten soldier in English) publisher Svenskt Militärhistoriskt Biblotek by Guy Sajer who had a french father and German mother.This man tell us about the terrible war in Russia for a soldier on the losing side who just try to survive the war.

 

[Gil galad]

Defeat into Victory by fieldmarshal William, Viscount Slim. (Autobiography)
The Road past Mandalay by John Masters. (About the Chindits)
Auchinleck, the lonely soldier by Philip Warner.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Can I recommend 'A Stranger to Myself'.

I have burned all the cities,
strangled all the women,
brained all the children,
plundered all the land.
I have shot a million enemies,
laid waste the fields,
destroyed the churches,
ravaged the souls of the inhabitants,
spilled the blood and tears of all the mothers.
I did it, all me. I did nothing. But I was a soldier."

It is the semi-finished memoir of a German conscript in Russia. He died before finishing his manuscript and it ranges in experience from the slow seeping away of time as he waits to deploy, through to the swathes of boredom doing nothing through to the moments of hell. The story doesn't end, it just stops abruptly. There is no heroism, only the experience that a million men before him experienced, and a million men after him have also done so.

Another great book is 'The Forgotten Soldier' by Guy Sajer. While some doubt the authenticity, it is a great book to read.

 

[scarc]

Thanks for all the suggestions! I really apriciate it

 

[chepaeff]

There is a bunch of well translated Red Army soldiers memoirs. All are interesting to read.
Red Road from Stalingrad: Reflections of a Soviet Infantryman, Mansuer Abdullin.
Tank Rider, Evgenii Bessonov
Penalty Strike: The Memoirs of a Red Army Penal Company Commander, Alexander V. Pyl'cyn
Panzer Destroyer: Memoirs of a Red Army Tank Commander, Vasiliy Krysov

 

[Solfall]

This documentary on the battle of Norway includes stories from Norwegians, British and French veterans. However, I'm very disappointed that there are no subtitles for foreigners. Heck, not even for the French which few Norwegians know.
http://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/invasjonen-av-norge-i-1940-1.12245484

 

[Henry IX]

Panzer Killers: Anti Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front by Artem Drabkin is a series of memoirs by various individuals in the Soviet anti-tank forces. It gives some interesting perspectives on what was one of the most dangerous jobs in the Red Army.

 

[BrutalDeluxe]

-Stuka pilot. This one was actually very entertaining.

-Panzer Leader. Not finished this one yet, but the first half really gets you to comprehend the huss and fuss when making up all sorts of crazy ideas like blitzkrieg.

 

[DoomBunny]

I'd take anything said in Panzer Leader with a massive pinch of salt. Generals are notorious for glory-seeking/rewriting history to suit themselves. German generals are especially bad, German generals from WW2 are worse, and Heinz Guderian was towards the top of a bad bunch.

If you listen to Heinz you will come out thinking the man was the father of blitzkrieg and a military genius who would have won Germany the war. Throughout he battles against the high command who wont listen to his ideas. This is in fact, a load of nonsense. Heinz Guderian, whilst certainly important in the development of Germany's armoured forces, was a latecomer to the field compared to other thinkers, didn't contribute a great amount that others weren't already, and didn't face great opposition from the high command. His later military genius is also dubious, unless driving to Moscow with a massive logistical overstretch and several hundred thousand angry Soviets on your flank can be considered military genius.

 

[Chepicoro]

I'd take anything said in Panzer Leader with a massive pinch of salt. Generals are notorious for glory-seeking/rewriting history to suit themselves. German generals are especially bad, German generals from WW2 are worse, and Heinz Guderian was towards the top of a bad bunch.

If you listen to Heinz you will come out thinking the man was the father of blitzkrieg and a military genius who would have won Germany the war. Throughout he battles against the high command who wont listen to his ideas. This is in fact, a load of nonsense. Heinz Guderian, whilst certainly important in the development of Germany's armoured forces, was a latecomer to the field compared to other thinkers, didn't contribute a great amount that others weren't already, and didn't face great opposition from the high command. His later military genius is also dubious, unless driving to Moscow with a massive logistical overstretch and several hundred thousand angry Soviets on your flank can be considered military genius.

I really wonder if you actually read his memoirs or just an angry review... it is true that memoirs if possible must be contrasted with another sources and Guderian´s memoirs are no different.

A Soldier´s Duty by Rokossovsky must be my favorite soviet memoir... depending of the edition complete years could be included or not.

 

[DoomBunny]

I really wonder if you actually read his memoirs or just an angry review... it is true that memoirs if possible must be contrasted with another sources and Guderian´s memoirs are no different.

A Soldier´s Duty by Rokossovsky must be my favorite soviet memoir... depending of the edition complete years could be included or not.

Indeed I have read Guderian's memoirs. They are, largely speaking, crap. I've also read some of his contemporary writings (i.e., Achtung Panzer!), and the works of other writers (Volkheim, Lutz, etc...) and the works of historians dealing with the topic.

Now certainly, some level of self-service is to be expected from anyone writing a history of something they were in, particularly a personal history. Yet with Guderian, it approaches outright fantasy at many points, like those I mentioned.

 

[Chepicoro]

Throughout he battles against the high command who wont listen to his ideas. This is in fact, a load of nonsense.

Yet with Guderian, it approaches outright fantasy at many points, like those I mentioned.

I am sorry but so far you mentioned nothing specific. Could you quote those fantasies and crap?

 

[DoomBunny]

I don't have the book to quote from at the moment. However, I would point to the previous two parts mentioned, the pre-war development of the armoured forces and Kiev/Moscow.

Another example might be in the Battle of France, at the start of which Guderian claims he felt supremely confident because of the vast superiority of his way of warfare compared to the Allies. Conclusions on the defeat of France aside (and I'd suggest that that is a very big aside), it's a rather obvious moment of Heinz screaming "Look at me and how great I am".

 

[Chepicoro]

Guderian memoirs deserve criticism, but by some one who actually have read the book.

He was part of the "clean wehrmacht myth" but here is not the place to debate about war crimes, he omitted the bribes or "gifts" received from Hitler and probably we could find more examples of convenient omissions or distortions, but your examples are really unfair to the point that I doubt you read the book.

DoomBunny

If you listen to Heinz you will come out thinking the man was the father of blitzkrieg

First he never used the term blitzkrieg, but he acknowledged the contributions of other people to the field.

This brought me in touch with Lieutenant Volckheim, who was then engaged in collating information concerning the very limited use of German armoured vehicles, and the incomparably greater employment of enemy tank forces during the war, as a staff study for our little army. He provided me with a certain amount of literature on the subject; though weak in theory it gave me something to go on. The English and French had had far greater experience in this field and had written much more about it. I got hold of their books and I learned. It was principally the books and articles of the Englishmen, Fuller, Liddell Hart and Martel, that excited my interest and gave me food for thought.

These far-sighted soldiers were even then trying to make of the tank something more than just an infantry support weapon. They envisaged it in relationship to the growing motorisation of our age, and thus they became the pioneers of a new type of warfare on the largest scale. I learned from them the concentration of armour, as employed in the battle of Cambrai. Further, it was Liddell Hart who emphasised the use of armoured forces for long-range strokes, operations against the opposing army’s communications, and also proposed a type of armoured division combining panzer and panzer-infantry units. Deeply impressed by these ideas I tried to develop them in a sense practicable for our own army.

Guderian, Heinz. Panzer Leader (Penguin World War II Collection) (Kindle Locations 486-491). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

About Lutz he even wrote the preface to Achtung Panzer and received credit by Guderian.

Throughout he battles against the high command who wont listen to his ideas. This is in fact, a load of nonsense.

He was dismissed two times by Hitler and have serious issues with Kluge his immediate superior in 1941, that is a fact. so I can not see the "nonsense". He also mentioned when he shared his opinion with Hitler and did not put all the blame on him... or at least he tried to be fair.

Germany's armoured forces, was a latecomer to the field compared to other thinkers

He published articles about armor since the early 20´s... so why he is a late comer?? compared with the french and british that have first hand experience in ww1? ok I can agree with that.

On April 1st, 1922, I reported to General von Tschischwitz in Berlin, very keen to receive his instructions concerning my new General Staff duties. He explained that he had originally intended to assign me the employment of motorised transport troops as my field of work.

Guderian, Heinz. Panzer Leader (Penguin World War II Collection) (Kindle Locations 458-460). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.


As I said before Guderian deserves criticism, but a fair one not invented examples.

 

[DoomBunny]

First he never used the term blitzkrieg

This brings up the whole "Was there even a doctrine of blitzkrieg" as we label it until Barbarossa?

but he acknowledged the contributions of other people to the field.

See this is my point. Notice how it's done.

Volckheim gives a 'certain amount of literature', 'weak in theory', which gave Heinz 'something to go on'. This is a way of giving a nod of the head on the face of it, but actually what Heinz is doing here is suggesting that Volckheim wasn't of great significance.

I'd also note this is the English translation which Liddell Hart wrote himself into in a somewhat major way. He being another one of the interwar armour jockeys who later decided to write themselves into history post-fact.

About Lutz he even wrote the preface to Achtung Panzer and received credit by Guderian.

Indeed, but again it is very much Heinz who is 'The Man'. This simply wasn't the case.

He was dismissed two times by Hitler and have serious issues with Kluge his immediate superior in 1941, that is a fact. so I can not see the "nonsense". He also mentioned when he shared his opinion with Hitler and did not put all the blame on him... or at least he tried to be fair.

I was referring to the interwar period and several wartime decisions. Interwar Heinz acts like he was the one driving German armoured forces forward, this wasn't the case, the roots of the Wehrmacht stretched back to Hans von Seeckt and even beyond, back to Moltke and even the post-Napoleonic reforms of the Prussian army. Again, in WW2 the points I'm noting are stuff like Kiev, where Heinz is stopped from winning the war by his superiors telling him to turn Southwards.

He published articles about armor since the early 20´s... so why he is a late comer?? compared with the french and british that have first hand experience in ww1? ok I can agree with that.

Here we're taking Guderian's word for what happened, which is the trap that so many fall into.

IIRC the comparative influence of Volckheim, Lutz, Seeckt, Guderian, et al, is well dealt with in W. Heinemann, 'The Development of German Armoured Forces 1918-1940', in J. P. Harris and F. H. Toase (eds.), Armoured Warfare, (Batsford, 1990). Further to this are the two works I mentioned above by Corum and Ong.

Again, I'm not saying that Guderian was without influence, rather that he was not doing anything particularly special and liked to big himself up.