The Battle for Leningrad 1941-1944 by David Glantz

[Jason Pipes]

The Battle for Leningrad 1941-1944
by David Glantz
Hard cover
660 pages (470 pages of text, rest appendix, notes and index)
ISBN 0-7006-1208-4
University Press of Kansas
$39.95

I had been looking forward to a comprehensive title on the many battles for Leningrad for sometime and was excited when I finally heard that Glantz's book was now available for purchase. I managed to find a copy at my local Borders Books and although I have not by any means finished the book I do have some rather important points to mention about it that I think are worthy of immediate discussion.

First of all let me say this book is astounding. It's a great work by a great author on a critical subject that has so far produced little to nothing in English on the actual military aspect of the topic. There are some books in English on the Siege of Leningrad itsfelf and the suffering of the people in the city, but little on the swirling and furious battles around Leningrad that caused the siege in the first place. To that end Glantz's book is a much welcomed resource and covers in lavish detail each and every campaign and battle up to and during the period 1941-1944.

That being said, let me mention what I've noticed so far that has me thinking this is most certainly not the last book we'll ever need to see on the subject. For one, considering the size and scope of the fighting covered in the book there seems to be a suprising lack of maps to illustrate the unit positions and back-and-forth nature of the figthing. This was a sour point for me as I was really hoping to find detailed maps of the region to help on research I'm currently conducting regarding the battles around Leningrad. That part aside, more maps would have really helped create a clearer picture of the battles.

Another interesting point about the book is that there is far less use of German archival sources (or even German language resources) on the topic versus Soviet sources. Although everyone knows Glantz's speciality is the Soviet and Russian perspective, I was rather shocked when looking over many of the notes and the bibliography. The bibliography lists dozens and dozens of Soviet and Russian sources, but less than 10 German primary sources. The secondary resource listing is even worse with the meat of the German sources consisting of "In Deadly Combat" by Herbert Bidermann and "Hitler Moves East" and "Sorched Earth" both by Paul Carrel. Don't get me wrong, these German books are great but should not, in my opinion, serve as the major basis for German resources by someone as regarded as Glantz when so much else is also available. In reading one particular section alone about the swirling battles around Mga Glantz quoted from Bidermann and Carell something on the order of 6 or 7 times. Unacceptable to me considering so much else could also have been used.

Along the same lines as the above mentioned use of sources, there is a total lack of quality photographs included in the book. This is not really something that makes the book worse in anyway, but since the title includes a number of photos it would have been nice had they been of some level of quality. All but two or so are Soviet propaganda photos of dubious quality. I myself have dozens of unpublished photos of actual combat around Leningrad so I can't imagine it would have been hard for someone like Glantz to uncover a few himself for inclusion in the book.

As for the content of the book, as long as one understands that the perspective is largely from that of the Soviets, it is by and large the best single English language resource on Leningrad to date.

[Frederick L Clemens]

publisher's page:
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/glalen.html

amazon ordering and review:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

Jason, you have hit upon the key point to the problem that many researchers, including me, have with Glantz's works. That is, Glantz, more or less, pulls a "bait and switch" with his readers.
He, his publisher, and his "scholarly reviewers" invariably promise that his latest book is the "definitive" study of an East Front battle using "massive existing detail" synthesized with "newly available Soviet and German sources".
That is the bait.
What we get instead is a translated regurgitation of Soviet accounts, mostly secondary sources, of the battle with a smattering of German secondary sources thrown in for "balance".
That is the switch.
The problem is not that Glantz presents the Soviet view(s) nor is it inherently a bad thing that he is publishing translations of secondary sources - there is a place for both on a military history bookshelf. (I see the same thing happening on the "German side" with books by Steven Newton, but I believe he is somewhat more honest with his labeling.) The real issue is that Glantz is publishing this material under a false label - he promises the reader a definitive and balanced account, but they certainly are not when, for one example, Soviet sources are used to give German strength figures. This cavalier attitude about what he is selling to his readers is what is most disturbing to those of us who seek truly "definitive" accounts of battles.
When Glantz publishes his massive "studies" of East front battles, he needs to make it more clear that the "unprecedented new detail" he is repeating from Soviet accounts has NOT been cross-checked with the primary Russian and German archival sources. As such, these accounts MAY give us more information about a battle, but they may just as well MISINFORM us. Glantz not only fails to warn his readers of this, he does quite the opposite by promoting his audience's gullibility.

[Uncle Joe]

FLC, I agree completely. What is surprising about Glantz that his work seems to vary too much in quality. I mean that his Art of War Symposium transcripts seem to be much more balanced than his later works. I have read his From the Don to the Dnepr and in comparison with When Titans Clashed and his smaller Leningrad book the difference is huge. Again, when his references are checked out in his Leningrad book (the first one), I couldn´t see a single primary reference. Yet, those from the German and Finnish side must be plentiful. If Russians continue their hiding game, it´s their loss, unless there are indeed more than a fair share of skeletons in the closet. And that would bring the whole conflict into different light.

Jukka

[Uncle Joe]

BTW, perhaps a good indication of Glantz´s research is his "love" of John Erickson. John Erickson, whom a Finnis military historian recently called "a favorite pet of Krasnaya Zvezda". Krasnaya Zvezda was the journal of Soviet MoD...(a tool of truth...)

Jukka

[Frederick L Clemens]

Uncle Joe, in response to your points -
- the Art of War symposiums along with the various atlases and staff studies which Glantz has translated and published are all useful materials since they are accurately labled for what they are. As you and I have noted, where he is less than honest in labeling is in his so-called analytical studies which often turn out to be basically lifted straight out of Soviet secondary sources.

- Primary sources for the German side in the fighting around Leningrad are indeed plentiful. Among the three major Army Groups on the East Front, the records for Army Group North at our National Archives are the most complete right to the last months - probably because AG North was never overwhelmed like the others were. I usually have no probably finding what I need in AG North records and, a few years ago, a friend of mine did a very detailed order-of-battle study (he's one of those types that researches down to the last snow removal unit) for the German units around Leningrad. This friend knows Glantz but Glantz has never asked for help with such information from German records.

- The secrecy of the Russians concerning their records is very regrettable. It may well be that much of the records will be unusuable by the time we finally get access due to the fragile nature of wartime paper. This goes as well for all the captured German records which the Russians hold.

[Frederick L Clemens]

With regards to Erickson, his obituary is here:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 67,00.html


This is his review of Glantz's Leningrad book from the publisher's site:
“An original and important contribution not only to the battle for Leningrad but also to a wider understanding of the Great Patriotic War. Drawing upon previously unavailable or neglected Soviet and German sources, it provides a major corrective to the shortcomings of previous accounts and will stand as a significant and durable achievement on a subject that continues to fascinate.”—John Erickson, author of The Road to Stalingrad

If Jason's review is correct, one wonders what unavailable or neglected German sources Erickson is refering to.
I also note that Erickson employs the fashionable term "Great Patriotic War". It is curious to me that in their eagerness to prove their "anti-fascist" credentials, many scholars, Glantz and Erickson included, often embrace the terminology and analytical structure concerning the Eastern Front provided by that other totalitarian state. So instead of a War of Greater German Liberation where the Superior Race captures more Lebensraum, we have a Great Patriotic War where the Red Army of Workers and Peasants liberates its away across Eastern Europe!
Have these "scholars" no idea of objectivity? Can't they come up with their own terms to describe the historical reality?

[Marc Rikmenspoel]

I had a look at the Narva-Tannenberg section of the book, and it is woefully inadequate from the German perspective. It has a highly inaccurate OOB, including "the Estonian 'Nederland' Brigade" and mentions falsehoods such as having the Estonian Waffen-SS Division flee in its first combat (the fighting at Narva was not its first action, and the unit didn't run away). This is probably what Soviet accounts report, but this is not what German records show.

[Andy H]

Is this an expansion on areas dealt within Glantz's book "The Siege of Leningrad (900 Days of Terror) 1941-1944? published by Spellmount

[Pzleaders]

I had a look at the Narva-Tannenberg section of the book, and it is woefully inadequate from the German perspective. It has a highly inaccurate OOB, including "the Estonian 'Nederland' Brigade" and mentions falsehoods such as having the Estonian Waffen-SS Division flee in its first combat (the fighting at Narva was not its first action, and the unit didn't run away). This is probably what Soviet accounts report, but this is not what German records show.

Sorry but Glantz does not say that it was the Nederland's first action in combat, nor does that statement come from Soviet accounts.

The statement being criticized is on page 375 in which Glantz states:

"However during the intense fighting on 13 February, the SS Estonian Brigade, whose morale was recognized as parlous, broke and ran as it approached the front."

That information comes from Ziemke's "Stalingrad to Berlin", not a Soviet report.

[Marc Rikmenspoel]

I meant "first action as a division" since it had been recently upgraded. Thanks for pointing out the source. I had only looked through the book previously, but I now have my own copy, so that I can better check details. Ziemke was wrong, and I wonder what his source was? His books are quite out of date, but I do consider them very good as pioneering efforts, and for their time.

I should add that the Estonian Brigade/Division DID have poor morale at the beginning of 1944, but only because they felt their service was being wasted in fighting in a corner of Latvia. They wanted very much to have more of an impact on their native country, and were delighted to be shifted to the Narva sector. This is per the veterans' accounts found in books such as Estonian Freedom Fighters in WW2 and the 2nd volume of the Narwa Bataillon's history (which has an English summary).

[Pzleaders]

I meant "first action as a division" since it had been recently upgraded. Thanks for pointing out the source. I had only looked through the book previously, but I now have my own copy, so that I can better check details. Ziemke was wrong, and I wonder what his source was? His books are quite out of date, but I do consider them very good as pioneering efforts, and for their time.).

Sorry, but I do not have a copy of Ziemke to look and find out his source.

Another thing I want to point out is that, it is true Glantz relies more heavily on Soviet documents than German, though not to an extent that the whole book is corrupt. Glantz manages to keep a good number of German accounts and casualty figures, but about 20% less often than he does with the Soviets. The good thing is, Glantz does not put either as "the numbers". He points out what the Soviets say, and what the Germans say, he does not take either for being "the one."

Anything else you think is wrong about the Narva section?