Feldgrau.net

David Glantz has a new book coming out next year: "Operation Don's Main Attack."

https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Dons-M ... on+don%27s

Can Glantz focus his research on something else instead regurgitating again and again battles of Moscow, Rzhev, Kiev, Vyazma, Bryansk, Smolensk, Kharkov, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk? Its been done to death with regards to these so-called huge battles in the Eastern Front

Glantz's earlier work on Soviet military history is pretty good such as those regarding Soviet military deception in WW2, Soviet deep operations theory, captured/fallen Soviet generals, Soviet offensive in Balkan and August Storm operations in Manchuria but lately I think he is becoming more like Franz Kurowski, churning out a number books on subjects which had been done to death such as Battle of Stalingrad and so on.

Even Robert Forzcyk, Frank Ellis and David Stahel are producing books on the history of Eastern Front that gave us new insight & perspectives on the war at the Eastern Front with Forzcyk on lesser known campaigns of the Eastern Front and Ellis/Stahel is writing more on politico-military history of the Eastern Front. In fact I like to point out that Ellis books on Stalingrad and Barbarossa utilized primary sources from BOTH Soviet and German archives

I must say that's a bit Harsh IMO. Using phrases like "regurgitating again and again battles " followed by almost a dozen battles is a bit shaky and implies that he has addressed the battles in some detail multiple times.

Then there's the "so-called huge battles" line. The implication is that these weren't "huge battles" so which one or ones weren't or what exactly is your definition of "huge"?

It may well be that some of the battles on the Eastern Front have a wealth of books published about them but I venture to guess that there is still a limited understanding and/or knowledge of these battles among most of the English speaking world. Who does the author consider his primary audience? If it's the general public then the critisim is rather misplaced if it's those already well educated on the Eastern Front then it may not be.

There is a new generation of Russian military historians such Igor Nebolsin, Alexei Isaev, Valery Zamulin whose works are being translated to English that gave us new perspectives of the Eastern Front from Soviet archives.

Even Antony Beevor knew that he was persona non grata in Russian archives which explains why he rarely wrote about Eastern Front nowadays ever since his book on Berlin was published in the early 2000s.

Yes, David Glantz's original thesis of the imbalance historiography of the Eastern Front in WW2 due to over-reliance of German primary and secondary sources is valid but it is already 30 years plus since he espoused the theory in the 1980s. Any new interpretation of viewpoints since then? If I am not mistaken the last time Glantz ever wrote a book (When the Titans Clashed co-authored with Jonathan House) to provide a different viewpoint which is to refute Suvorov's (V. Rezun) icebreaker theory and that was in the 1990s.

The majority Glantz's books are intended for serious students of the Eastern Front of WW2. If he intended to wrote books for the general public, he would have gone to Osprey publishing.

As I mentioned, Glantz' earlier research on topics such as Soviet military deception and intelligence were pretty good but unfortunately, he still stuck in the era of John Erickson on Soviet Russia WW2 perspective.

Though I rather read Glantz's books or works anytime over Richard J. Evans so-called magisterial history of the Third Reich at war