Myths and Legends of the Eastern Front: Reassessing the Great Patriotic War [off topic]

[edwest2]

I am hoping for unbiased historical research based on primary documents. I am also hoping for no or few editorial assertions by the author that are unsupported or purely interpretive.

[Dénes Bernád]

Ed, an unbiased approach coming from Russia is really a challenge. Exactly for the very reason outlined in the foreword of this book: "The memory of the Second World War on the Eastern Front – still referred to in modern Russia as the Great Patriotic War – is an essential element of Russian identity and history, as alive today as it was in Stalin’s time. It is represented as a defining episode, a positive historical myth that sustains the Russian national idea and unites the majority of Russian citizens."

[edwest2]

Yes, I know. I am Polish and have relatives living in a former Communist country. Healing begins with the truth.

[Andrei Demjanko]

The problem with this book that it is not about history but about ideology. The previous books of it's author - Boris Sokolov - are purely publicistic in nature. It's just no more than replacing of "positive" myth with "negative" one.

As a result, as Boris Sokolov shows in this powerful and thought-provoking study, the heroic and tragic side of the war is highlighted while the dark side – the incompetent, negligent and even criminal way the war was run – is overlooked

This fragment alone shows how out of touch the author is with the subject

Judging by the previous works of this author, in my opinion it's better to avoid this book

[mars]

Originally Posted by Andrei Demjanko

– the incompetent, negligent and even criminal way the war was run – is overlooked

Yeah, the author managed to make an insult to both Soviet and Germans with a single sentence

[Andrei Demjanko]

Originally Posted by mars

Yeah, the author managed to make an insult to both Soviet and Germans with a single sentence

Once one poet wrote: "Listen, if stars are lit it means - there is someone who needs it"
I think it had been done intentionally precisely with that aim. There are some alarming attempts in media to re-ignite mutual hostility in central-eastern Europe recently. Results of such hostility are predictable - all would-be participants will suffer, third parties will benefit and certain Yale professors will lecture the world about "bloodlands"

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Soviet superiority approx. 13:1. With this superiority, competent personnel competently led would have crushed the opponent in a few days. This was not achieved = incompetent personnel led by incompetents.

To smash opposing air force is only one of the missions of an air arm. And if this opposing air force is insignificant factor due to its humble strength, so the mission of its destruction is not of top priority. In other words - the Soviets had not have to fight for air superiority. It was theirs by default thanks to the implementation of one of the key prinicples of war - force concentration

[edwest2]

Reigniting hostility is required in the present so that the 'enemy' is clearly identified as a threat. The Polish government recently bought an Anti-Ballistic Missile system from the US. That sort of thing goes over with the people a lot better the more they feel threatened.


Here, my only goal is to help fill in the blanks. And that includes books that may only briefly touch upon air operations so that researchers wondering why aircraft that were deployed here or there were ordered to do so.


Regards,
Ed