or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
or
Amazon Prime free trial required. Sign up when you check out. Learn more
More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
or
Get a £5.85 Amazon.co.uk Gift Card
The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture
 
 
Tell the Publisher!
I’d like to read this book on Kindle

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture [Paperback]

Ronald Smelser , Edward J. Davies ll
5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
RRP: £17.99
Price: £17.09 & this item Delivered FREE in the UK with Super Saver Delivery. See details and conditions
You Save: £0.90 (5%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
In stock.
Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.co.uk. Gift-wrap available.
Only 3 left in stock--order soon (more on the way).
Want guaranteed delivery by Friday, February 24? Choose Express delivery at checkout. See Details

Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover £44.65  
Paperback £17.09  
Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store for more details.

Frequently Bought Together

Customers buy this book with The Wehrmacht History, Myth, Reality £15.15

The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture + The Wehrmacht History, Myth, Reality
Price For Both: £32.24

Show availability and delivery details

  • This item: The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture

    In stock.
    Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.co.uk.
    This item Delivered FREE in the UK with Super Saver Delivery. See details and conditions

  • The Wehrmacht History, Myth, Reality

    In stock.
    Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.co.uk.
    This item Delivered FREE in the UK with Super Saver Delivery. See details and conditions


Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought


Product details

  • Paperback: 342 pages
  • Publisher: Cambridge University Press (5 Nov 2007)
  • Language English
  • ISBN-10: 0521712319
  • ISBN-13: 978-0521712316
  • Product Dimensions: 23.9 x 15.7 x 2.5 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 956,837 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • See Complete Table of Contents

More About the Author

Ronald M. Smelser
Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Visit Amazon's Ronald M. Smelser Page

Product Description

Review

"Ronald Smelser and Edward Davies vividly show how the pernicious idea of an honorable German war on the Eastern Front permeated the American consciousness with devastating consequences not only for the broad understanding of German atrocities in the East, but ultimately for the Cold War itself. From its lucid discussion of the former Hitler generals who whitewashed their military records after World War II to its disturbing look at the self-proclaimed gurus of army minutia who still pose as authorities on the Wehrmacht, The Myth of the Eastern Front is a masterful and incisive combination of military and cultural history."
-Norman J.W. Goda, Ohio University

"The swiftness with which Cold War America embraced vanquished Nazi officers, along with their sanitization of Wehrmacht criminality on the Eastern Front, is a chilling reminder of how historical memory often follows the flag. Ronald Smelser and Edward Davies have performed a signal service in bringing to light the internet's perpetuation of self-serving myths about World War Two. Whether Waffen-SS reenactors and Nazibilia collectors represent harmless playacting or something more sinister only time will tell. But anything that traffics in half-truths, and worse, especially concerning matters of grave moral concern, can't be taken lightly."
-Lawrence N. Powell, Tulane University

"A superb and insightful study of the premeditated manipulation of history and memory in the fabrication of the myth of a "clean Wehrmacht." Expertly exposes the intersection and influence of popular imagination, politics, and popular culture in the rewriting of the German army's experience in World War Two."
Edward B. Westermann, author of Hitler's Police Battalions: Enforcing Racial War in the East

"Recommended." -Choice

"Smelser and Davies need to be commended for their fascinating and detailed study." -Journal of American History, Gerd Horten

Product Description

From the 1950s onward, Americans were quite receptive to a view of World War II similar to the view held by many Germans and military personnel on how the war was fought on the Eastern Front in Russia. Through a network of formerly high-ranking Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr officers who had served on the Eastern Front, Germans were able to shape American opinions into an interpretation of World War II that left the Wehrmacht with a 'clean' reputation in World War II history. A positive view of German military conduct, opposed against a newly dismissive view of the Russian military in light of Cold War prejudices, was absorbed by many Americans during the 1950s, and continues to this day in a broad subculture of general readers, German military enthusiasts, war game aficionados, military paraphernalia collectors, and re-enactors who tend to romanticize the German army and its history.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Search inside this book:

Tags Customers Associate with This Product

 (What's this?)
Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
 

Your tags: Add your first tag
 

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

 

Customer Reviews

2 Reviews
5 star:
 (2)
4 star:    (0)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:    (0)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
5.0 out of 5 stars (2 customer reviews)
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most Helpful Customer Reviews

13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Long overdue, 28 Feb 2008
By 
T. Kunikov (United States) - See all my reviews
"The Myth of the Eastern Front" is an interesting look at the evolution of the Western view when it came to the German Wehrmacht throughout WWII.

To begin with the book is broken down into eight chapters, discounting the introduction and conclusion. The first chapter aims to reveal how the Soviet Union was viewed throughout the war in the American Media. Many times the Russians, from the soldiers to the women working in industries and within the Red Army, were compared to their US counterparts with the idea that they were very alike and similar as a people and in their individual qualities. From Readers Digest to a variety of other publications like Time and Life readers would be able to catch a glimpse of the Soviet Union through journalists, reporters, and a variety of others. Yet, just as soon as some publications went from vilifying the Soviet Union before they were attacked by Hitler, they would go back to the same standard quite soon after the war was over. Helping to tarnish relations that so many worked had to sustain and cement in the hopes of a peaceful future.

The Second chapter tackles the Nuremberg trials and the numerous ways in which the German General Staff and Army Generals were shown to have been implicit in genocidal acts on the Eastern Front. Trials began to take place soon after the war in various cities throughout the Soviet Union where perpetrators were put on trial for their crimes, from collaborators to SS and regular army officers and soldiers. The Wehrmacht's guilt was made quite clear by a number of their own generals, and others, including Einsatzgruppen commanders who testified to the regular cooperation of the army with their troops. Some of the generals convicted of various war crimes through trials held after the Nuremberg IMT were Wilhelm List, Walter Kunze, Lothar Rendulic, Wilhelm Spiedel, Helmuth Felmy, Ernst von Leyser, Hubert Lanz, Ernst Dehner, Wilhelm von Leeb, Georg von Kuchler, Hermann Hoth, Hans Reinhardt, Hans von Salmuth, Karl Hollidt, Karl von Roques, Hermann Reinecke, Walter Warlimont, Otto Wohler, and Rudolf Lehmann. Walter H. Rapp, the prosecutor, stated that the one of the reasons for the trials was partly so that legends would be prevented from forming in the future about military generals, as had happened after WWI. It seems that the American occupation paved the way for the future view of the Germans and the Soviets. Those soldiers who had liberated the Concentration camps and had seen what the Third Reich was all about were soon replaced by new recruits who began to view the Germans in a different light. Fewer and fewer came to blame the German people for the war and even less could believe that they were responsible for concentration camps. But US soldiers were quick to apply their homegrown stereotypes to the Slavs and the Jews which the Germans eagerly encouraged and cultivated, especially after US soldiers were allowed to fraternize with the Germans. One must also take into consideration the fact that the Soviets, to a large degree, did not want to be friends with the Germans since they were so different culturally and the Germans did invade and unleash a genocidal war on their land. After this the reader can follow the various political machinations that eventually led to the majority of those convicted of war crimes, from the SS to the German Army, to be released for a variety of reasons cooked up as a result of the political situation in the US, the war in Korea, and the rearmament of West Germany. The last part of the chapter examines the "Halder Group" which was, for the most part, responsible for the Cold War view of the Eastern Front and the Soviets. A surprise to me was to learn that after France was conquered, in the beginning of July, it was Halder's staff which drafted the first major plan for a war against the USSR, "Operation Otto", which was created in part out of strategic considerations and as well to counter the demobilization which Hitler was contemplating.

The third chapter, aptly named "The German Generals Talk, Write and Network" begins with a description of how Halder was helped by the Americans in escaping a trial in Bavaria, which was a result of his diaries being found and incriminating Halder in a variety of war crimes. Halder's thoughts and ideas on how the German military should be perceived were tape recorded as he conferred with others. He continued with the "war against Bolshevism" theme and at the same time tried to "rescue the honor of the German officer corps" by removing the stigmatism that had developed in regards to Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust/atrocities of the war. A list of Generals who would help Halder write about the Eastern Front is given and, even more interesting, is a list of the titles that came out from the Strategic, Operational, and Tactical field which helped create the myths that have been sustained to this day in the west in regards to the war on Germany's Eastern Front. Halder would become a household name after his diaries were published in the 1960's. He'd be given various honors from the military and politicians; he'd give speeches throughout military schools in the US and receive numerous letters from the layman asking every kind of question about the German Military and WWII, etc. The Bundeswehr as an institution is described, interesting is the fact that 100% of its officers were part of the former Wehrmacht in 1955, when it was created.

The last part of the chapter deals with the similarities between the "lost cause" phenomenon of the US Civil War and the Eastern Front in WWII. A fascinating insight into how the American public has been, to a degree, duped into reveling in the failures of racists.

The fourth chapter deals with "Memoirs, Novels, and Popular Histories." The first tackled is Manstein's memoirs, going through Manstein's history on the Eastern Front I couldn't help but see the authors of this book 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? Apparently, as someone pointed out to me, this is how Carell presents this in his book on the Eastern Front which the two authors quote from throughout the book. The majority of the material on Manstein speak to his knowledge of the genocidal activities going on, his orders which suggest he knew and supported these activities, and testimony that shows the aforementioned as well. Manstein's ideas about how Hitler was at fault for most of the blunders in the war and that he was the only one who could contradict and/or stand up to him are prevalent throughout his memoirs, yet are simply self serving as they go to discredit any officer who opposed or hindered Manstein's career during the war. I'd say this has been well established in recent literature, especially by Marcel Stein's recent book, but even so, it's here for those who are interested. The authors also cover books by Guderian, von Mellenthin, Rudel, Carell, and Sven Hassel noting how they've helped create a new of the Wehrmacht.

Next chapter goes over some of the previously mentioned authors and recounts how their books became part of the mainstream. Gaining accolades and forwards from scholars and historians as they ignored the genocidal aspect of the war they waged and rather praised their stance against the Soviet Union. Practically all the memoirs mentioned, from the officer to the lowly soldier, state outright that they will solely concentrate on the military aspect of the war and skip over the politics. In the end it appears that these were all valiant soldiers fighting for the good of their nation and people under the auspices of a brutal ignorant dictator. We can easily ask ourselves, how often does "good" fight for "evil"? Well, this is what the above mentioned authors would have you believe when they discuss their time on the Eastern Front. Everything is discussed from the blurbs to the photos inside each book and how it affected the US public.

Chapter 6 discusses the "gurus" of the German Army and Waffen SS, which today have legions of followers all over the internet. A critique of Mark Yerger is offered, the authors claim that although he has done some excellent research, for at least 2 of his books, on the whole the majority of the others rely on pictures and at best are `iconographic' representations of the war and its participants. For me personally it was interesting to learn about Richard Landwehr who mostly caters to the Waffen SS, although many would probably consider him a revisionist of the highest nature for his love of the Waffen SS and the allies of Nazi Germany that joined its ranks. Erich Hartmann's biography, The Blond Knight of Germany, is mentioned and the title already gives way to how the authors of his biography wanted him to be viewed. A variety of Franz Kurowski books are mentioned and the type of view that they give of the common German soldier, that of fighting for their comrades and uniting them in both life and death, yet where is the mention of the genocidal context for which these units were sent into the East in the first place? In the end it is simply a matter of one side of the war being ignored to present the other. There is no doubt that the actions Kurowski describes or bravery and compassion for the enemy took place, but he never questions why the enemy is in fact an `enemy.' One "guru" who does admit what the Germans practiced in the east, that of brutal behavior and criminal acts, is Anthony J. Munoz who more so concentrates on foreign volunteers in the Waffen SS.

Chapter 7 discusses war gamers, the internet and popular culture. War games apparently saw an opportunity to re-fight the battles of the Eastern Front with wholly different... Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Superb study of mythmaking about World War Two, 17 Mar 2010
By 
William Podmore (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture (Paperback)
In this brilliant book, Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies II, both professors at the University of Utah, examine the role of the German army in World War Two. Many books on the eastern front glorify the German army and cover up its active role in the genocidal assault on the Soviet Union. Many accept the Nazi lie that the German army was fighting a war of defence against the Soviet Union.

The Nuremburg and other postwar trials confirmed the German army's links with the Holocaust. Franz Halder, chief of the army general staff 1938-42, noted Hitler's 1941 order, "This is a war of extermination." The Nazi regime conducted racial genocide against Jews and Slavs. The attack on the Soviet Union was a war of aggression, a war of annihilation and enslavement, which killed eight million Red Army soldiers and 22 million Soviet civilians. 3.5 million Soviet POWs died in German custody.

Germany's generals all backed the attack. They laid the operational foundations for genocide. Halder's staff drafted the criminal Commissar and Barbarossa orders, which ordered killing all captured Communist Party members, partisans and Jews, and denied that German soldiers had to abide by the laws of war.

But after 1945, the US state quickly turned from seeing the Nazi generals as war criminals to treating them as allies against the Soviet Union. The USA backed German rearmament in the 1950s, and tried to whitewash the German army's criminal acts during the war.

Too many books on the eastern front omit the strategic level entirely, and fail to ask why the war happened. They look only at the operational and tactical levels, asking only what happened and how. But to focus on the Wehrmacht's courage and sacrifices is to ignore its crimes. These books promote the myth of Germany's soldiers as `non-political' patriots.

The books are part of a whole vile sub-culture which glorifies the Nazis' army. It comprises novels, memoirs, war-games, websites, Waffen-SS re-enactors and Nazibilia collectors.

The authors recommend that we should instead read the true accounts of the war on the eastern front, like John Erickson's The road to Berlin and The road to Stalingrad, Omer Bartov's books, Hitler's Army and The Eastern Front 1941-1945, and Alexander Werth's Russia at war.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 2.6 out of 5 stars (25 customer reviews)

69 of 85 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Good Project, Mediocre Execution, 25 Dec 2007
By M. Kirschenbaum - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture (Paperback)
The book argues that a sanitized and romanticized narrative of the German conduct of the war on the eastern front has been popularized in the West, as a result of a variety of factors including Cold War politics, the writings of key German commanders, and the diffusion of this narrative through a broader subculture which includes military historians and hobbyists, internet enthusiasts, wargamers, and reenactors. The book expends a lot of space on the visual imagery associated with these groups, for example book jackets and wargame box art which glorifies/romanticizes the German cause. This is generally a kind of argument I am sympathetic toward, since a book or game cover is an expression of marketing and self-identity.

At the same time, as sympathetic as I am to the basis thesis and premise of the book, I find the execution clumsy and less compelling than it might be. What the authors don't mention, for example, is that the bias toward Nazi/SS imagery is already well known in the wargaming community, is often critiqued, and is sometimes aggressively countered, for example Adam Starkweather's cover choices for his various east front games (available through Multiman Publishing, the same company which markets various other games that come under fire in the book). Nor do the authors delve into game design and mechanics to examine whether or not actual systems are biased toward a German viewpoint. There's no doubt that there are lots of people who think Tiger tanks and Panzerfausts are cool; then again, most of us also found Darth Vader much cooler than Luke Skywalker.

Often the kind of thesis the authors put forward is misunderstood or (worse) deliberately misrepresented as some kind of outlandish conspiracy theory, rather than an examination of the way in which certain groups and communities are predisposed to favor certain kinds of imagery as a result of an array of interacting cultural, social, and political variables, and the way this imagery then feeds on itself and becomes self-perpetuating and transparent. The authors are drawing on a foundation of scholarship that studies popular media culture, not so different from the way in which (to give just one example) anxieties about the Bomb in the fifties found their way into many corners of pop culture, including a piece of candy called the Atomic Fireball--thereby masking our deepest collective nightmare by making the atom safe for consumption.

Thus far here on Amazon, reviews of the book have polarized, with ratings of either 1 or 5. That's exactly wrong in my view, and one suspects these are not necessarily disinterested parties. I think the book is finally a middling and mediocre effort. The authors' project is legitimate, but the execution is awkward, careless, and, frankly, not terribly well written. Which is too bad, because the subject deserves more.

25 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars The Myth of the Eastern Front, 2 Aug 2008
By Tom Houlihan "houli861" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture (Paperback)
REVIEW: The Myth of the Eastern Front

by Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies II

In the very beginning, during the introduction and first chapters, I noticed a flaw in the presentation. In the introduction, it is mentioned how most of what Americans read of the war on the Eastern Front is from the German, rather than the Russian perspective. While there's no doubt that's true, we must recognize why that is. It's because for many years, those were the only good accounts available! Should we have not read anything until the Soviets let their books out?

Very little history was allowed to leak out from behind the Iron Curtain for decades. It was suspected, and later recognized, that even what was coming out was skewed, as the materials were edited for proper Soviet content. So, we can't be faulted for not reading what wasn't available!

The first chapter is entitled "Americans Experience the War in Russia, 1941-1945," which is quite descriptive of the contents. But even there, it starts out missing a vital fact. The chapter discusses several examples of American visits to the USSR, as well as a media campaign to educate Americans on life in Russia. The chapter describes how the general attitude of Americans was massaged and turned into a favorable one. But there is a major hole in the subsection "The Russian-American Relationship 1917-1941."

In one paragraph, the authors go from 1917 to the 1930s. They completely gloss over American attitudes towards the Communists/Bolsheviks during the first years of the regime. Not only is the negative attitude towards Communists not discussed, but the fact that the US had troops in Murmansk and Vladivostok from 1918-1920 is omitted. This was technically an invasion of their land, and the authors don't even factor it into the relationship! So we have an initial chapter about international relations that is presented as merely educating one country about another, when in fact the former had sent armed troops into the latter twenty years previously. This in fact, in my opinion, affects one of the authors' biggest complaints later.

The second chapter discusses the Cold War, and the growth of a "lost cause" mythology. Now, while I can see similarities in lost causes, I think the authors were wrong in comparing the Confederate States of America to Nazi Germany. While both may have "lost cause" mythologies built up around them, the American perception of these two opponents is radically different. The residents of the secessionist CSA were originally Americans. They were us! I can't help but see this as being rather different from befriending a former opponent as far away as Europe.

What got me about this chapter was the hypocrisy of it. The US, especially the military, was damned for their efforts to learn more about the Soviet Union from the people who had fought them most recently. Our former ally was now a potential enemy (and a formidable one at that). The responsible thing to do was to learn as much as we could about this opponent. In the military, it's known as gathering intelligence. Every responsible leader does it! The hypocritical part, as I see it, is that the authors praised the US for doing the same thing for the Soviet Union that they condemned when it was done for Germany! Never mind the fact that if the USSR did come west, Germany was going to be the main area fought over. In truth, this section did more to alienate the authors from me than any other.

There was another part of the second chapter that I found disingenuous to the point of lying. Halder, as Chef des General Stabs, was decried for having offensive plans for the east drawn up long before Hitler ordered them. This right here clearly illustrates that the authors' knowledge of the military is limited, or that they just chose not to include information that would undercut their point.

Any General Staff, High Command, or the like has contingency plans drawn up at all times. It is responsible preparedness. In the US, these plans were known as the Rainbow Plans*. These plans included potential operations against nations that were considered our allies, or at least not un-friendly. The operative word is `contingency.' To criticize Halder, as the personification of the General's Staff, for having plans for potential operations anywhere in Europe is misleading, or at a minimum, ignorant.

As for claiming that German soldiers, from Private through General tried to hide things in their memoirs, I thought it was a little harsh. It is human nature to minimize one's own culpability for failure. So, to a certain extent that is to be expected in any autobiography or memoir. Very few of us are willing to air our faults for the world to see. That isn't something we can ascribe to any nationality. Certainly, the generals are going to lay more of the blame for loss on Hitler's meddling, but will we ever know how much of that is actually true? There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Hitler's taking personal control of orders down to divisional level hurt the Army's ability to fight. While I don't think Germany could have actually won the war, it certainly would have gone much differently if Hitler had let the professionals do their jobs. Again, I considered this to be twisting reality to suit their goals in this work.

I think that the authors also failed to give enough credit to the common soldiers. They scorn the thought that front line German troops would have patched enemy wounded, or given them food and water. This seems to be a common act, though, crossing any lines of nationality. There are too many accounts of soldiers doing this, regardless of the enemy. There are too many accounts extant to simply scoff at Germans mentioning it for possible self-aggrandizement. The rear-echelon elements, on the other hand, are a different story.

The last three chapters have one thing in common that minimizes their possible value. I think the authors have missed the point on one major issue. The key here is "military history." They criticize people who are interested in the TO&E, or rather, Kriegsgliederung. Apparently, it's not acceptable to be primarily interested in uniforms, equipment, tactics, weapons, vehicles, campaigns, or strategy. I don't study political history or sociology. I'm curious about how the Wehrmacht achieved the victories that it did, while throwing away other possible victories. I'm interested in how some weapons systems performed well, while others didn't. So their condemnation of people like Yerger and Rikmenspoel are petty. Those men, and men like them, study certain facets of the war more deeply than others, and comprehend them better, which makes it easier to explain to the rest of us. They don't deny the politics and ideology of the Reich. That is simply not the area they choose to study. To label them as gurus is insulting to them, and to those of us who read their books. That insinuates some kind of cult, with us readers as mindless followers. What then would the rest of us label anyone who takes this book as gospel, without doing any research of their own?

I understand that war is an extension of politics. However, tactics, weapons, and equipment are apolitical. Thus, any ideological goals of the Nazi Party have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my studying of Waffen-SS uniforms and accoutrements, or the awards system of the Kriegsmarine. Himmler's machinations for political or personal gain are immaterial when discussing the activities of the 2nd SS-PANZER REGIMENT. Wargaming the Afrika Korps' campaigns to see if there might have been a way for them to march into Cairo, or a successful sortie by BISMARCK, are experiments in military science. Politics and ideology simply are not a part of that. I see no condemnation of wargames about ancient empires here.

As for condemning reenactors who do Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS impressions, perhaps they should have taken that concept a little further. What about other eras? The Federal Army of the United States was instrumental in destroying the culture of the Native Americans, including the use of biological warfare, but those who reenact the Union Army are ignored in this book. I have seen of those who reenact the Roman Legions. The Roman Empire was one of the best at subjugating other nations, and exploiting them for all that could be sent back to Rome, but they are ignored in this book. There are those who reenact English armies from various eras, yet the soldiers of this, one of history's largest empires, are given a pass. In my own personal opinion, I felt that aiming this antipathy was aimed at the targets of personal prejudices rather than the focus of a purely academic study.

This book wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I did find passages of value, but these were far outnumbered by misleading, politically-correct pages that showed a distinct lack of knowledge regarding military history, military science, or the military in general. They have done themselves a disservice by not finding out more about their subject matter before they wrote this book.

*The Rainbow Plans:

Red - Britain and Canada, with different territories assigned variants of that color: UK "Red," Canada "Crimson," India "Ruby," Australia "Scarlet" and New Zealand "Garnet."

Black - Germany.

Brown - Philippines.

Citron - Brazil.

Emerald - in Ireland in conjunction with War Plan Red.

Gray - invading a Caribbean republic.

Green - Mexico

Gold - France and French Caribbean possessions.

Indigo - Iceland.

Lemon - Portugal.

Olive - Spain.

Orange - Japan

Purple - a Central American republic, or possibly Russia (There may have been two different Purples).

Silver - Italy.

Tan - Cuba.

White - domestic uprising in the U.S.

Yellow - China

Violet - intervention in Chinese domestic events.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Five

12 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Unbalanced Reading, 30 Jan 2011
By cpt matt - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture (Paperback)
Well, author Edward Davies and I have some things in common- we both read and collected war books & novels in our youth, played Avalon Hill board games, we're both from PA. The authors argue that America has been brainwashed by the Germans who created a myth that there was a `clean war' fought against the Russians.

I'm ok with most of the early chapters contents which outline how and why the US/British began to separate `good soldiers' from the SS and Nazis. It was pragmatic and needed, since the Soviets became our enemies in the Cold War. It is a fundamental aspect of war that you have to know your enemy. Of course we would study what the Germans did and made them effective. It is very difficult to separate politics from those who have to wage the war, and I agree that it is important that we remember this as we study the weapons, tactics, and experiences of Germany in WW2. Serious historians know what the Nazis did and the horrors they unleashed on the world, not just the Russians. Or should we call them Soviets - 30 million Russian people died in WW2, a significant portion of them by the Soviet secret police or a result of Stalin's policies and purges.

I do think it's good to remember that and understand that a lot of the German leaders were Nazis, followed Hitler, knew what was going on, and profited from the Nazi regime. Of interest, it was a running joke with my fellow tankers stationed in Germany in the 80's - every German ex-soldier we met fought on the eastern front - never against the Americans of course. I also admit I get insulted when some Germans said "we did not know what was going on with regard to the concentration camps". I have far more respect for those who admit they knew, but also admitted the hopelessness of fighting the regime.

It's interesting how many of the exact same books the authors and I have read - Sven Hassel's Wheel's of Terror, The German Generals Talk, Panzer Commander to name a few. Funny how he does not balance that out with other works such as Cross of Iron, Enemy at the Gates, Last Battle for Berlin which do show the German soldiers as brutal, savage...fighting a brutal and savage enemy. Anyone cutting their teeth in history in the 70's would have watched the World at War Series - tell me that whitewashed what the Germans did. I have many books on war, strategy, weapons from all nations in WW2. None of that has made me a Nazi, nor forget the evils of the Nazis. It is entirely possible, and in most cases probable, that you can collect Nazi uniforms, medals, weapons and not be a Nazi. One of my buddies is a serious collector of WW2 memorabilia but that does not make him a Nazi. Another close friend is from the south and he has the ability to honor those who fought for the south and not be a racist. Yet another friend is Irish and a fan of Michael Collins - all honorable men who served and fought for their country. Of course there are extremists, skin heads, bigots, neo-Nazis, white supremacists out there. I've read Michael Whitman's story (published by Schiffer). He was a Nazi but I can read about his exploits and biography without being evil.

The authors save special disgust for those who are re-enactors, go on the internet to find out details of German uniforms and play computer games. Schiffer publishing company gets pummeled because they are a "small town in the eastern part of the United States". For the record, I have no affiliation with Schiffer, but Alten PA is a mere 25 miles from Philadelphia. All books have to be published - where? New York? Utah where the authors reside? Oh, and don't go on Amazon or Barnes and Noble to buy these books. Avalon Hill is in Baltimore, I guess that's not right either.

This book would have been much better if they simply addressed the myth of any `clean war'. Our battles with the Japanese were every bit as racial as the Germans against the Russians. Very little quarter given or taken there (watch the Pacific HBO series or read With The Old Breed). Could one argue that our Strategic Bombing campaign against German cities were a war crime? What about the Brits who admitted that they were terror bombing in reprisal for what the Germans started?

Using labels to smear students of war as "gurus" "romancers" is not needed. Aside from going overboard with their case, the authors don't even have a recommendation or proposed solution. The last sentence of the book is "The `good German' seems to be destined for life" Who is the target audience here? Serious historians know all of this. Nazi empathizers will ignore it and most Americans do not read history at all. I borrowed this book from the library, so it did not cost me anything to read. I like to see balance in my reading; this book does not have that. Had I purchased it (which would have been from Amazon) I would send it back. I believe in voting with my wallet, the small insights of the first 50 pages or so do not outweigh the last 250.
 Go to Amazon.com to see all 25 reviews  2.6 out of 5 stars 
Were these reviews helpful?   Let us know
 
 
Only search this product's reviews



Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
Topic:
First post:
Prompts for sign-in
 


Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions
   
Related forums


Listmania!


Look for similar items by category


Look for similar items by subject


Feedback


Amazon.co.uk Privacy Statement Amazon.co.uk Delivery Information Amazon.co.uk Returns & Exchanges