WW2 biographies need recomendations

[Konair0s]

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

A bit late, but I like "Vospominaniya of voine" by Nikolai Nikulin. He was drafted from Leningrad, survived the war all through Berlin, later a professor of art who worked in the Hermitage.

It is quite direct, without glorifying and things.

Here is the Russian version: http://www.imwerden.info/belousenko/books/nikulin/nikulin_vojna.htm
And here is English by some amateur translator. Sadly nothing published is available: https://www.docdroid.net/4j2AWEO/memories-of-the-war-by-nikolai-nikulin.pdf.html

 

[krieger11b]

Hans-Ulrich Rudel's "Stuka Pilot" was an interesting read. He started out ironically as a terrible pilot in school and almost kicked out until he basically figured out by accident he was overthinking when flying. A bit of a warning though, he seemed to never stop being a Nazi and later Neo-Nazi, so he is quite unapologetic for the war.

I read Tigers in the mud like you, I was like in heavy depression for a month after finishing that book. Fascinating read though about honor and sacrifice for all sides, Otto had a very high respect for Soviet soldiers, American one's not so much. There was a story near the end of the book where he was in a Jadgtiger and came across an American tank platoon, he blew up the lead one, another tried to hide behind a barn, which Otto just shot through the barn and saw a turret going flying away from the barn. Another interesting bit at that time he found it almost impossible to get tank destroyer crews in his company to fire at the Western Allies, not wanting to be the last man to die for a lost cause and kind of hoping the Western Allies get to Berlin before the Soviets anyways.

*Edit Also to explain why Tigers in the Mud is so depressing is that Otto doesn't sugar coat how terrible the war on the Eastern and later Western front was.

 

[Chepicoro]

DoomBunny

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

For sure was used before Barbarossa, at least in western media was used since the polish campaign and the term was used in Germany in a military journal since 1935.... go read the wiki is well sourced.

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

The book really did not give me that impression... could you quote one passage about it??

I'd also note this is the English translation which Liddell Hart wrote himself into in a somewhat major way.

Liddell Hart had flaws as historian but his contribution is invaluable, keep in mind that he wrote history without the same access to primary documents that historians enjoy today (at least outside Russia), he had to rely in journals, interviews, newspapers and his own experience, and by the way the participation of Liddell Hart as a theorist of armor warfare is well documented.

Time to read British Armour Theory and the Rise of the Panzer Arm: Revising the revisionist.

Short story, in this case the revisionist (detractors of Liddell Hart) can not read german... Guderian asked to the military attaché in London articles related to armor, including articles from Hart.

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.

I really really doubt you have read the book... ahh I know you can not quote nothing.

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.

I did not read these books thanks for the information, however you could quote something relevant to the topic from this sources?? do not take me wrong but I am used to people that name a few dozen sources to prove a point without mention of anything substantial.

So far you mentioned 5 books (including Guderian memoirs) but apparently you can not put any information...

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.

Seems legit to me.

Well another war memoir "To the bitter End" by Gisevius, not a military memoir, but the only one that I have read about the 20 July plot to kill Hitler.

 

[DoomBunny]

For sure was used before Barbarossa, at least in western media was used since the polish campaign and the term was used in Germany in a military journal since 1935.... go read the wiki is well sourced.

Again I'd recommend Weichong Ong's work on this. He notes that Blitzkrieg wasn't really a doctrine as much as a natural evolution of German military thought. I'd also note that neither of the sources listed (Western media or military journals) recommend Blitzkrieg as a doctrine, nor do the realities of the invasions of Poland and France. These two campaigns speak rather the opposite. Poland is directly reminiscent of the traditional German appreciation of Cannae. France a repeat of the Schlieffen Plan turning into an attack that stills bares the mark of Moltke.

The book really did not give me that impression... could you quote one passage about it??

As I've said, I don't have it to hand. However, that passage you quoted serves well enough.

Liddell Hart had flaws as historian but his contribution is invaluable, keep in mind that he wrote history without the same access to primary documents that historians enjoy today (at least outside Russia), he had to rely in journals, interviews, newspapers and his own experience,

Actually Liddell Hart's flaws were not so much the evidence available, but his blatant misuse of it. Throughout his writings he tended to interpret history in such a way as to show his methods of warfare as the best and himself as an influential thinker. In the current context the most obvious example is his addition of sentences to his translation of Guderian.

and by the way the participation of Liddell Hart as a theorist of armor warfare is well documented.

Actually Liddell Hart's influence was over stated. He was a columnist without much influence and wasn't really leading the field in any way. The idea that he was so influential largely comes from his own self-promotion and his work as a historian, particularly in regards to manipulating German generals as noted above.

A rather amusing part of this tale is that Liddell Hart actually (temporarily) gave up on the tank as ineffective in the face of anti-tank guns.

Time to read British Armour Theory and the Rise of the Panzer Arm: Revising the revisionist.

If it wasn't £80 I'd have a go. As is it's on the library list.

Short story, in this case the revisionist (detractors of Liddell Hart) can not read german... Guderian asked to the military attaché in London articles related to armor, including articles from Hart.

Indeed he may have. Yet it is still clear that Liddell Hart massively over promoted himself and that the development of German armoured forces had other roots (as I've said, I don't deny the influence of British thinkers rather say that Liddell Hart was a massive self publicist and a fraud).

As for the language point, it's hard to comment without knowing which historians are referred to. However, I'd note that the sources I cite should be genuine and have appropriate language skills for their topic (unless I'm very much mistaken).

I really really doubt you have read the book... ahh I know you can not quote nothing.

Indeed, as I don't have the book to hand. I've mentioned this.

I did not read these books thanks for the information, however you could quote something relevant to the topic from this sources?? do not take me wrong but I am used to people that name a few dozen sources to prove a point without mention of anything substantial.

So far you mentioned 5 books (including Guderian memoirs) but apparently you can not put any information...

Again, books I don't have to hand. Journal articles you can read yourself.

 

[Dina1954]

[QUOTE="DoomBunny,



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. .[/QUOTE]

Well most generals like to big themselves up both axis and allied.Still Heinz got the comand for 2.Panzer Div. as a colonel ( 1. and 3. Panzer Div. had generals as comander ).General Geyr von Schwepenburg ment that 60% of what the German Panzerwaffe became is because of Guderian.General Manteuffel said that it was Guderian and at the beginning he alone -who introduce tanks in the army and the use of them as a operational weapon,that was not the general-staff. During my time in war ministary I know Guderians struggle for this new weapon said Manteuffel.The success in the beginning of the war was his credit.That is was what two very critical generals has said about Guderian.

 

[DoomBunny]

I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit here, so I'll just refer you to the previously quoted articles. Guderian was not overly revolutionary in his thought, nor was he going against traditional German thinking. He was not irreplaceable and, indeed, took several of his ideas from previous writers. Whilst he certainly became one of the more prominent figures later on, he was still neither irreplaceable or overly revolutionary, and his earlier record is minimal compared to that of thinkers like Seeckt who was instrumental in translating the traditional Prussian/German approach to warfare into a modern setting.