tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2383897115500989335.post2504163484084964590..comments2024-02-20T08:31:57.362-08:00Comments on WWII and other Book Reviews: The Myth of the Eastern Front by Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies IIT. Kunikovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03243004853811191350noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2383897115500989335.post-36991347967519368412007-12-04T14:32:00.000-08:002007-12-04T14:32:00.000-08:00Perhaps this is correct as the authors do mention ...Perhaps this is correct as the authors do mention on a variety of occasions Carell and it does make a wrong impression to say the Germans lost at Kursk and then won at Kharkov after when the reverse is the truth. Carell is most definitely one of those who propagates the 'clean hands' of the Wehrmacht myth.T. Kunikovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03243004853811191350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2383897115500989335.post-76035777341883442312007-12-04T14:27:00.000-08:002007-12-04T14:27:00.000-08:00"the author mention that after the defeat at Kursk..."the author mention that after the defeat at Kursk Germany went on the defensive and Manstein was advocating a fluid defense, after this the author mentions Manstein's victory when retaking Kharkov in March of 1943, why mention this AFTER Kursk when it happened before?"<BR/><BR/>Maybe because he (the author) has read Paul Carell's "Scorched earth". I have just started to read Carell's book yesterday and he, Carell, does the same: first Kursk, and later Kharkov. According the introduction, in which he tells to the reader about that, it's because in this way the history is more "dramatic", but I can't see why it should be more "dramatic" in this way. Instead, I guess that, in Carell's book, it is because putting first Kharkov and later Kursk gives the impression of the Wehrmatch quickly "going down", but putting first Kursk and later Kharkov it's more like "hey, we have lost the first battle, but now we are winning" (Carell doesn't hide his preferences about germans, in fact, he deserves a place as a forger of the "eastern front myth"). Of course, this is false due to the fact that he doesn't follow cronological order.<BR/><BR/>Kind regards from a humble Axis History Forum reader.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com