WW1 Eastern Front..... zero takers?

[Paul H1]

Another thought....

Maybe the very nature of the Western front makes it easier to research? The lines stay static and you cam pour over maps and documents that you can commit to memory.

See how much more complicated when you try and follow the western front from March to september-October 1918.... a lot more movement and a lot harder to follow.

Now... take this to the Eastern front, mobile warfare, great distances to cover, places that all sound the same and you cannot even begin to pronounce....

Visit the Somme and everything is "There".... years of fighting in a contained space means looking for things of military interest is like shooting fish in a barrel..... visit the eastern front and you can cover hundreds of miles looking for anything of remote interest... and even when you reach a town where they fought for 2-3 days... there is nothing to see, no trace of the war....

Chris,

What kind of resarch to you mean? Battlefield tourism? Research to me means hitting the archives!

Paul

[Chris Boonzaier]

Indeed, but for me it is a combination of everything.

Take my Verdun Interest... First there was an exciting book... then there was a first visit to the battlefield, then more books and more and more visits.

Now when I read I can run the terrain through my head as if I had a camera over the battlefield...

My interest and any research I do comes from having turned the abstract into something "REAL".

As we have discussed before, you have a more analytical interest, mine is more concentrated in the experiences of the troops. either way, i think we are both helped by covering familiar ground when we are reading. When I read of the beginning of June attacks from Douaumont to Thiaumont, I can play the exact groud through my head as I read how they advances...

When I read a list of 15 villages spread over a 300 km trail through featureless Russian steppes... it is 1) all very abstract and b) (for me at least) lacks the salient points I like to pour over in a map.

My argument is, the Brits have the Somme and Flanders, areas where you know where start and finish is, with one good map you can follow the movements over 4 years...

With Russia you could look at a map and the fighting could have lasted a day before the troops moved into the next map.

There are a few major battles that dont capture the imagination of westerners (partially due to lack of materiel) but otherwise there is just too much space and time to keep folks concentrated.

I think lack of Russian material in English plays a part... but maintain my theory that nationalities concentrate on their own parts in the war and that static warfare leads to easier Study/Research.

Look at the Marne in 1914, I read a book where the Author said it was "A complicated battle" sure it was, as was the fighting from march 1918 onwards... simply because things were moving and grooving all over and it is harder to keep an overview. 4 months of the Somme is easier to study, minimal movement and noone is shooting off unexpectedly...

The more movement, the harder it is to follow, add minimal literature in English to a campaign and you have the modern western reader wondering off in confusion.

(I realise our Eastern friends are interested in the battles in their sectors, which is great, but as CarolI points out, they to are more interested in Local than in other fronts).

If you were to spread

[Paul H1]

Hello Chris,

I'm following you on the battlefield visits. I'm not sure driving around the plains of Poland would give you the same information as a hike through the ravines of Verdun, but I know what you're saying. I've spent enough time in the snow, mud and rain at Verdun to agree with you on the value of seeing the terrain first-hand.

I don't buy the war of movement is more complicated theory. WWII Eastern Front campaigns had a hell of a lot of movement but there are scads of books on the subject. Through on a smaller scale the war if movement in France in 1914 takes up 6 of the 14 volumes of the German OH. In fact, the writers of the history commented on how boring and difficult it was to write about static warfare as opposed to the war of movement.

I think it comes down to lack of interest on the part of writers, researchers and more importantly, publishers.

An interesting point of interest is the relative lack of books on the Eastern Front coming out in English after the fall of communism. I remember in academic Great War circles there was great expectation that now that the "doors to the archives had been thrown open," we would see a flood of new works coming out on the Great War and Russia. There have been a few, but not many, and I don't think any that are real military histories.

Any book on the Eastern Front would either have to be a labor of love, or an academic work as part of a PhD thesis. Trips to the Russian archives, trips to Germany, fleuncy in three languages, or supporting linguistic help= $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Paul

[leigh kitchen]

It never fails to register with me when out on the ground in France & Belgium just how amazingly close the "battlefields" really are - even having looked at the maps, it still was'nt apparent to me how "local" everything was.

[Chris Boonzaier]

I don't buy the war of movement is more complicated theory. WWII Eastern Front campaigns had a hell of a lot of movement but there are scads of books on the subject.

Ahhh... buuuuut..... always for bigger things.... Kursk, Stalingrad, Demjansk Pcket ezc. etc. etc...

Try and find info about smaller battles or fights when the panzers were rolling (Either forward or back...)

With the millions of men on the eastern front in WW2, most are lost to history... I have had a document to an Knights cross with oakleaf winner, with gold close cbt clasp.... I spent months looking.... nothing to be found as his unit was in the middle of nowhere, fighting like hell, but not in a big battle.... and no info to be found on it.

I agree, a REAL WW1 eastern front book would be a supreme labor of love, the writer would probably have to pay to get it published, and although I would snap up a copy or two... for most WW1 buffs it will be passed over for another book on the Somme :-(

"

I don't buy the war of movement is more complicated theory. WWII Eastern Front campaigns had a hell of a lot of movement but there are scads of books on the subject. Through on a smaller scale the war if movement in France in 1914 takes up 6 of the 14 volumes of the German OH"

Thats my point, the 1914 war of movement takes up 6 volumes... BECAUSE it is so complicated.... and because it is so complicated, many folks take something in a more bitesized chunk, like the Somme or Verdun. the 6 volumes are just too much to be in one guys field of interets.

BruceG has the frontier battles in the Argonne as his "thing" as such he has plucked a certain part out of the 6 volumes. Would be the same for someone who was crazy abot Le Cateau and mons.... or someone into Noyon 1914.... but the whole 6 volumes?

I think on the western front you CAN take a little bit of 1914 and you will be able to study it for years using British/German/french sources...Neufchateau, L?ttich etc. etc... can all be intense areas of interest if you cut out a specific area if interest...

Try that with the Eastern front.... if you take a BIG battle you can find some info... take small or mediun sized... and you will find half a page of info, maybe some mentions in German regt histories...... then thats it.

On the western front you can read the histories of the Germans, Belgians, British, French Americans.... there is an endless supply of info...

In the east just a little bit of german... and thats it....

Best

Chris

[Paul H1]

Chris,

I don't think the six volumes on the war of movement were because it was complicated, I think it's because they are interesting...

Which means, as you pointed out, and I agree, that actually a book on the Eastern Front would be very interesting, as there is some movement, sweeping action, flanks to turn and all that. I agree with Chruchill when he wrote that no aspect of the Great War was more exciting than the movement of the campaigns in the East!

A little bit of German....

Careful there though. That would provide you with a German view of the action, but a true military history would need to include the Russian side of things. I've had a peek into the contents of the Russian archives--amazing what is there!!!!

Paul

[Chris Boonzaier]

.

Careful there though. That would provide you with a German view of the action, but a true military history would need to include the Russian side of things. I've had a peek into the contents of the Russian archives--amazing what is there!!!!

Paul

Thats my point, you would have german books and regimental histories.... but you would not have the same from the Russian side.

When it comes to Verdun, I think of the German Regiments and french ones as my Homeboys... "My guy in the 4th Zouaves" "My guys in the RIR37"....

I work to get the feeling from both sides of the battlefield and it adds to the interest for me... Eastern front would be too one sided....

You would need a good pile of books in English to be able to even begin to stir an interest...

Even the most ethnocentric Brit hobby historians are reaching for Jacj Sheldons books on the Somme and Flanders to get the view from the German side.... for anyone interested in the Eastern front that would not be possible, either to learn about the Germans or, more impoertantly, the Russians...

[Paul H1]

Chris,

Not wanting to make you sad, but have a look here:

Russian Books

All Russian texts on the Great War...sigh.

Paul

[Chris Boonzaier]

Chris,

Not wanting to make you sad, but have a look here:

Russian Books

All Russian texts on the Great War...sigh.

Paul

Indeed... but until they are accessible to non Russian speakers, they may as well not exist.

A Somme fan who only speaks English.... for them all the German language books may as well not exist. Jack's work in translating the german stuff is a tiny tip of the iceberg, but they seem to lap it up...

I dont think that there is anyone who is going to start translating the Russian stuff any time soon.... for us it may as well not exist :-(

Another thought... How objective do you think it is? I have a translated Russian history of WW2... mentions the Germans marching into Poland, not a word of the Russians marching in.... its a really funny book to read ;-)

[Paul H1]

Indeed... but until they are accessible to non Russian speakers, they may as well not exist.

A Somme fan who only speaks English.... for them all the German language books may as well not exist. Jack's work in translating the german stuff is a tiny tip of the iceberg, but they seem to lap it up...

I dont think that there is anyone who is going to start translating the Russian stuff any time soon.... for us it may as well not exist :-(

Another thought... How objective do you think it is? I have a translated Russian history of WW2... mentions the Germans marching into Poland, not a word of the Russians marching in.... its a really funny book to read ;-)

Chris,

Yes, I don't we'll see it translated soon. I think it sad thet there is a great deal even online, but as you said, it might as well not exist for us poor non-Russian speakers.

I sure can't speak to the objectivity. As we've discussed even the official works, such as the great "Der Weltkrieg 1914-1918," can have serious agendas.

Paul

[ccj]

Chris,

Yes, I don't we'll see it translated soon. I think it sad thet there is a great deal even online, but as you said, it might as well not exist for us poor non-Russian speakers.

I sure can't speak to the objectivity. As we've discussed even the official works, such as the great "Der Weltkrieg 1914-1918," can have serious agendas.

Paul

It's a shame that the many websites and books may never be available in English. I travel often for work and do a lot of sitting outside watching my kids so I'd absolutely love to find audio books on the subject.

[Ulsterman]

It's a shame that the many websites and books may never be available in English. I travel often for work and do a lot of sitting outside watching my kids so I'd absolutely love to find audio books on the subject.

well, some of us-a small band of gnomes as it were, might be able to change some of that. Translations from Chris B.-German to English for example, would be easy I reckon. We have a few Russian speakers here as well and other languages are about...

[Paul H1]

I wanted to point out a series that covers the East Front, and can be found pretty cheap, but unfortunately only for German speakers, "Der gro?e Krieg in Einzeldarstellungen." Here are some of the titles:

Die Schlacht bei Lodz

Die Winterschlacht in Masuren

Gorlice-Tarnow

Die Schlacht bei Grodek-Lemberg, Juni 1915

Der Durchbruch am Narew, Juli-Aug. 1915

Die Russische Fr?hjahrsoffensive 1916

Die Befreiung Siebenb?rgens und die Schlachten bei Targu Jiu und am Argesch

Paul

Edited May 30, 2008 by Paul H1

[Carol I]

I am again intervening into the discussion with my own perspective which I hope would go across the national or geographical interests. In my opinion the events that are most likely to be researched and re-searched are primarily the meat grinders at specific places that have left a deep mark into the minds of the public through their losses (e.g., Somme, Verdun, Stalingrad). Inevitably these are rather static. On a second place would come those events with a large impact or significance such as particular actions or offensives, successful or not. These may be localised but not necessarily. Other than these the interest decreases very quickly, especially with the passing of time.

[Carol I]

Another thought... How objective do you think it is? I have a translated Russian history of WW2... mentions the Germans marching into Poland, not a word of the Russians marching in.... its a really funny book to read ;-)

There are many works that have to be taken with a grain of salt, as they might be influenced by ideology, political agenda or even the personal need for a scapegoat.

Chris' recollection reminded me about a physics teacher in a communist country who told how she chose this profession. Her parents have been history teachers in the first years of communism when history was taught according to the official ideology and when the importance of events was given according to the official ideology. And as this changed rather often the history has to be rewritten according to the new indications (well, "1984" had not been that far from the truth). Anyhow, she told that seeing them wondering night after night in what light to present a particular event or whether it would be safer not to mention it at all, she decided that she would choose a profession where the way of looking at thinks should not be influenced by ideology, hence she chose physics.

And I just remembered another story about how sensitive were some things in those days, not only in history, but in geography as well. In the Black Sea there is a large rock called Serpents Island that had belonged for years to Romania. The peace treaties of 1947 that fixed the post-war borders of Romania did not make any reference to the rock and therefore it was still de jure Romanian territory. Anyhow, in 1948, the soviets forced the Romanian government to do further changes to the frontier which resulted in transfer of territory to the Soviet Union including the Serpents Island (as a note, the agreement had not been ratified by either country which undermines its validity even today). Anyhow, in those years when the pupils were taught the new frontiers of Romania (in those days they were being referred not as 'new', but as 'true') one teacher was asked who had possession of the Serpents Island. The teacher was quite embarrassed as attributing the island to Romania if it belonged to the soviets would have led to charges of revisionism and attributing the island to the soviets when it belonged to Romania would have led to charges of anti-sovietism (both with quite nasty results for the teacher). So the safe answer was: "as the name says, it belongs to the serpents". If the story is real I fear for the pupil as in those days even mentioning the name of the island created problems for the speaker.

Anyhow, these indicate how things worked in those days. So do not be surprised when you read that the Soviets did not invade Poland or that Katyn was an all-German thing (perpetration and subsequent cover-up). According to the official directions, this was the truth. Maintaining the contrary would have brought the author to tough circumstances, times and places.

[Paul H1]

Just saw this today. Should be out soon.

The Brusilov Offensive (Twentieth-Century Battles) by Timothy Dowling. It's in English to boot!

Paul

[Carol I]

Just saw this today. Should be out soon.

The Brusilov Offensive (Twentieth-Century Battles) by Timothy Dowling. It's in English to boot!

I've just remembered reading about this in an English-language magazine some time ago. I did a small search and found it: Brusilov's Immortal Days by Jamie H. Cockfield in MHQ Autumn 2001 Vol 14 No 1.

[Eric Stahlhut]

this guy probably had some extremely interesting experiences...

[Chris Liontas]

Hi all, kind of late into this discussion, but I remember really enjoying:

Tannenberg: Clash of Empires. Revised edition (Washington D C: Brassey's, 2004. (History Book Club selection). (Original: Hamden , CT : Archon Books, 1990. Military Book Club Selection; Paul Birdsall Prize, AHA. Polish edition, 2005).

Dennis Showalter (Ph.D) was a visiting professor when I was at the Air Force Academy. I remember his lectures on military history were absolutely outstanding. He published Tannenberg: Clash of Empires one year before I entered into the Academy--so most of the history proffs were still talking about it. Dr. Showalter was a great guy, and seems to really know his stuff (remembering him describe Vietnam as the pimple on America's ass still gets me laughing)--so for anyone interested in the Eastern Front in WWI, this might be a start (at least in English)

Speaking on WWI though, how popular is the entire Western Front, really? Most Americans I talk to know Omaha beach, Utah Beach, even St. Lo---but if I mention the Argonne Forest they have no idea what I am talking about. WWI American history seems to be non existant in the present time. I can find certain books on Air Combat, that is always popular, but try finding a good book on WWI infantry combat written by the soldiers. I had a heck of a time getting, Artillery and Trench Mortars, a short memoir by a 32nd (Red Arrow) Division vet. And Suddenly We didnt want to die, another memoir, seemed just as unpopular. The American sector of the Western Front seems to be unknown to most Americans....I wish we had the pride the Brits, Irish, French, and Belgians had for their WWI battlefields.

http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dept/hy/Fac.../Showalter.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id...1&ct=result

[Les]

On this subject, there's usually more people who want to read than there who have more than a passing familiarity with the subject. (I'll put myself in the latter group.)

A couple of long winded observations on the matter of the war in the east.

First of all, there's a strong tendancy to see things from the perspective of "Germans" versus Russians. Some attention is paid to the Austro-Hungarian war effort with a tendancy to denigrate the Austro-Hungarian contribution. (The title "Chained to a Corpse" is less than flattering.)

The Austro-Hungarian Army and Empire were multi-national and multi-lingual instutions. Although the Empire was a "dual" one, officially there were -NINE- languages that could be, and were used in official communications. The Army was also split into two seperate "national" units, one under the Austrians and the other under the Hungarians.

Prior to the war, Russian intellegence operations against the Empire culminated in their gaining a high level operative on the Austrian General Staff who sold the Russians -all- of the Austrian war plans, along with whatever information the Austrians were privy to about German war plans and mobilization schedules. When the infamous Colonel Redl was exposed, tried and convicted of treason in 1912, there was -NO- mention of the compromised war plans to the Germans.

Arguably, if the Germans had learned their war plans were compromised, rather than scrap the Schieffen plan, some might have argued for immediately starting a pre-emptive war against the Russians before the Russians were able to alter their own plans and make the Schlieffen Plan "out of date."

When war began in 1914, the Austrians went into it without having told the Germans anything. The Russians as it turned out botched their invasion of East Prussia. With the Russian invasion of Galicia in 1915, the Austrians never saw it coming. They lost almost one-quarter of their army, and over half of the railway rolling stock they had. The Russians destroyed the Austrian rail-lines (different gauge from their own). The end result was that through several bad mistakes, the Austrians almost lost the war as early as 1915. The fact that they actually managed to fight on, especially after the Italians switched sides (add one more language to the list of those needed to study the war outside of western Europe!) is one of dogged determination to perserve. Once you look at the Austrian war effort in more than passing, it's amazing they not only managed to last long past 1915, but until November 4th, 1918 a week before the Germans threw in the provernial towel.

If you really want to dig into the war in the east, German and Russian will get you started. German sources will tend to see matters from the German point of view. The Austro-Hungarian perspective has never been adqeuately looked at for reasons that have to do with the fact that the Empire collapsed and after the war was carved into several new nations that had no interest in looking back at the past. The Austrians used a regimental depot system which was geographically (and often ethnically) centered. After the war ended, regiments disbanded and documents never made it back to Vienna or Buda-Pesht.

For anyone that wants to look into the eastern war with more than a superficial look, the archival sitation is one problem. Then there's the matter of needing a reading ability in not only German, and Russian for starters, but also Ukranian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Magyar, Serbo-Croat, and Romanian, Bulgarian, and to a lesser extent perhaps Finnish, Latvian, and if you add the Italian Front....Italian.

Les

Edited July 9, 2008 by Les

[Ed_Haynes]

An interesting discussion that touches on many important points: what it takes to do real research, the problems of linguistic limitations, the dangers of seeing conflicts only through one's own nationalistic prism, etc.

I, too, would like to see better serious work on the "eastern front". However, if you think that is bad, try to find good books on Mesopotamia, on East Africa (in all balanced aspects, not just the South African side), Palestine/Egypt/Libya, or even Gallipoli (there were more that Australians there and where is the Ottoman side).

I look forward to following this fascinating discussion.

[Ulsterman]

Ed is right-take for example the French at Gallipoli. I had no idea they were there until an album was sold on eBay last year!

A HUGE gap is the Russo-Turkish front! Nobody seems to know anything about it.

[Paul H1]

Ed is right-take for example the French at Gallipoli. I had no idea they were there until an album was sold on eBay last year!

A HUGE gap is the Russo-Turkish front! Nobody seems to know anything about it.

The French Official History covers the French efforts at Gallipoli in detail.

Paul

[Les]

"Gallipoli". That raises yet another problem to doing research: military bases and on-going national security zones.

Some of the areas that were sites of intensive military ops during the war were, and still are, military bases and national security zones that aren't open to the public and may not even be available to scholars with credentials.

Much of the peninsula south of Istanbul is a Turkish military zone. Much but not all of the battlefield is open to the public. If you want access, you'll be required to undergo security checks.

Eastern Europe? Back in the bad old days when the Soviet Union was around, free and ready access could be difficult if not impossible for outsiders. Even Russians were required to have internal passports. Similarly, research in the former eastern block prior to 1990 wasn't a piece of cake.

In a few days, the Olympics in China will be starting. The yachting competitions will be taking place in the harbor at Tsingtao, where the Imperial German Navy established a base with dry docks, and site of a seige by the Japanese against the German forces there in 1915. The harbor, base and facilities are now used by the Chinese Navy, and much of the area is strictly off limits.

The east isn't the only area with off limits security zones. They are present in the middle east, but also parts of western Europe. The French army today still has military areas near Verdun, that are not exactly free and open access zones. Some of that is due to the need for training zones with weapons, etc.

Les

[Carol I]

Regarding the dramatic WWI battles on the Western and Eastern fronts, here is a piece of news from the French press.

La Meuse veut faire classer par l'Unesco les champs de bataille de 14-18

The idea is that there is a proposal to include on the UNESCO World Heritage List the prominent battlefields of WWI: Verdun (France), Isonzo (Italy) and Mărăşeşti (Romania).