>antony beevor le bad cause he only picks german sources and is german biased which is hecking bad>david glantz le good cause he only picks soviet sources and is soviet biased which is hecking goodWhy do people still take this guy seriously?
>>16555002I don't know who this guy is, but Beevor is shit because his works are about as deep as a puddle.
>>16555002is this the retard who claims hitler was a gnostic or am I thinking of anther guy?
>>16555002Op started the thread with a A bad faith strawman. All you naziboos can do is distort the truth or cherrypick out of context of just plain lie. I hope you learn tobecome a better historian and a better person one day.
>>16555080That's true, I just find his logic to be kinda funny.>>16555451Yeah that's him.
>>16555459What have I said that's wrong here?This is exactly what TIK claims.
>>16555462He's not an actual historian, he just makes quirky videos for clicks. He's as bad as that whatifallthist guy. They both just create (clickbait) narratives and cherry-pick information to suit said narratives. These people are easy to pick out because they never try to falsify their own claims.
>>16555002>david glantz le good cause he only picks soviet sources and is soviet biased which is hecking goodShow where the clip that justifies this comment.
>>16555481If I did clips about the Glantz stuff it would take too long, just watch his videos, the dude can't stop obsessing over Glantz.Is Glantz having a pro Soviet bias news to you or something?Here's his claim that Beevor is pro German anyway:https://youtu.be/dUtPCPDO1L4?si=uJLyBr9vvMgPedX8&t=1340
>>16555541Thanks for the clip. No, Glantz is not 'pro soviet' he simply doesn't fall for the lazy old tropes and memes about the soviet armed forces and doctrine that traditional German contemporary sources so often parroted and includes a range of sources from both sides in his work. And in that clip you sent me Tik still recommends reading Beevor as an introduction while recognising some of its weaknesses. Your strawman Op said otherwise.
>Not even s philosopher>BTFOs hegelians
>>16555565>Thanks for the clip.No problem>No, Glantz is not 'pro soviet'Yes he is, take his 1999 Battle of Kursk book as an example, Glantz 100% fully believes in the Russian historian Grigori F. Krivosheev's sources on Soviet casualties for the Kursk campaign which put them somewhere between 177,877-200,000. Despite the fact that all the sources that have been written since then have the Soviet casualty figure as high as 800,000.The reason for this is because Glantz only takes his sources from Soviet archives and NOT German archives, granted though he has gotten a bit better in his later years with having a bit more of a mix.>he simply doesn't fall for the lazy old tropes and memes about the soviet armed forces and doctrine that traditional German contemporary sources so often parrotedYes that's true, instead he does the opposite and believes in Soviet myths, like the ones at Kursk.>and includes a range of sources from both sides in his work.No he doesn't, at least not in his earlier works. In his Kursk book Glantz only focuses on Soviet sources, even when it comes to telling the German POV of the campaign he still uses Russian sources on their opinion about the Germans, you can see how one sided this is.Glantz even went as far as to say that the Germans lost 320 tanks and assault guns during the Battle of Prokhorovka. This isn't true by a long shot. At most the Germans lost 32 tanks and assault guns damaged and destroyed.https://web.archive.org/web/20140912164146/http:/www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm>And in that clip you sent me Tik still recommends reading Beevor as an introduction while recognising some of its weaknesses.Yes, but you can clearly see he doesn't want to and couldn't care less about his works.>Your strawman Op said otherwise.Don't care.
Huh? He literally proved a primary soviet source, a captured diary of a German general from stalingrad. Was either completely fabricated or heavily altered by Soviets as some propaganda piece after attempting to use it in reference with other materials. This soviet source is a well known one in historical academia and has been commonly referenced for decades too He has never put that much stock in any one side.He has his personal biases and beliefs but they’re pretty on his sleeve, the videos directly explain what they are and why he thinks it
Glantz may have been relevant 25-30 years ago when people were starting to state the obvious, that just about all of the works on the Eastern Front were pro German. But the problem is he went a tad bit too far into the east block deep end and started to kiss Soviet ass a little too much.Fast forward to today and there have been other works on the Eastern Front that are just as good if not better.Just take Christopher Lawrence's kino on the Battle of Prokhorovka which completely MOGGES Glantz little book in every single way imaginable.
>>16555002>actual sources causing this level of seethe TIK-sama...
>>16556238>soviet dick sucking ≠ actual sourcesNope
>>16555002Isn't this the guy that said that military logistics should be organized around a free market where soldiers need to buy their equipment
>>16556320Yeah that's him
>>16556320He's unironically correct This would stop pointless wars. If you want to fight go fight on your own dime instead of spending billions of dollars to lose in Afghanistan
I would call beevor a glorified journalist but even present day journalists have more style
>>16557257No he’s not, this gnostic obsessed retard should unironically stick to tanks and perhaps banks too.>>16557287>I would call beevor a glorified journalistHe’s just a pop ‘‘‘‘‘historian’’’’’ nothing more, still not the worst pop historian going around.>but even present day journalists have more styleKek I wouldn’t go that far…
>>16555002If he makes you seethe, then God bless him
>>16556206To put it quite simply he just parrots whatever Glantz says. That's it.If Glantz says something is bad, then it's bad.
>>16556320>military logistics should be organized around a free market where soldiers need to buy their equipmentSo a retvrn to medieval tradition.
>>16555002Tik is too based for the tankies on here >>16556320It makes sense for atleast the option to be there, I own thermals, nods and a shit ton of high end weapons. Why shouldnt I be able to buy this level of gucci gear (With the accompanying military discount) when conscripted or enlisted?
>>16557837>If he makes you seethe, then God bless him
TIK will never make a Battle Storm video about the Kursk Campaign as he can't risk having his precious Soviets look like absolute retards during the Battle of Prokhorovka.That one battle would refute ALL of TIK's work on the Eastern Front, as he would have to come to terms with the fact that the Soviets really did do human waves throughout the whole campaign and that's why he'll never do it.Screen cap this.
>>16558360>Tik is too based for the tankies on hereHe is a Tankie, what the fuck are you talking about?He just doesn't like Stalin, that's it. TIK will eat up the most pro Soviet books going around, especially if they go against the "hecking ebil Western pro German historians".>It makes sense for atleast the option to be there, I own thermals, nods and a shit ton of high end weapons.No it doesn't make sense, you risk your Army looking like Donetsk Rebels ffs and look like much problems they've had anytime they've gone into battle.>Why shouldnt I be able to buy this level of gucci gear (With the accompanying military discount) when conscripted or enlisted?Because you're a retard who LARPS in the woods not a soldier who is there for the defense or offense of his country.TIK is just a fucking idiot, the end.
>>16558498Not everyone is from a 4th world cunt ya know, right chang? Why should I, a person who makes $90k a year have to use the same gwot hand me downs found the US army and marines? Beyond retarded
>>16558498>No it doesn't make sense, you risk your Army looking like Donetsk Rebels ffsThose tards actually held Ukraine off and their mass casualties didnt start till a foreign power forced them to attack entrenched Ukrainian soldiers. But they filled the purpose they and TIK was arguing for, a self defense force.
>>16558546>Not everyone is from a 4th world cunt ya know, right chang?Meds>Why should I, a person who makes $90k a year have to use the same gwot hand me downs found the US army and marines?Because once again you are just some random fuck who only uses his gear as a hobby not as a job>Beyond retardedWe already know you are, dumb cunt.
>>16558455Apparently the 2 German tank commanders were retarded as well which makes the Soviet losses look even more pathetic. Or maybe I’m thinking of a different battle
>>16558585>No uPeak poorfag banter lol
>>16558568>But they filled the purposeOh you mean like when the Rebels lost:>Battle of Artemivsk>Battle of Karlivka>Battle of Mariupol (2014)>Battle of Marinka>Battle of Krasnyi Lyman>Battles of Sieverodonetsk (2014)>Shyrokyne standoff>Battle of Avdiivka (2017)It's taken the Russian Military to fight in the largest battles of the 21st Century, which has resulted in a lot of hard fighting and a lot of casualties just to retake these places, all because the poorfag Donetsk Rebels couldn't hold the line in those areas.
>>16558586Well the Soviets were meant to have the edge in the battle, but they still somehow managed to fuck it up. It explains why they went on to call all the German tanks Tigers (even though most weren't) as a cope and also destroyed all evidence of the battle (photos). Also the Wiki article is wrong when it comes to the German losses, they only lost 32 AFVS.
>>16558588Enjoy your shitty barely working hand me downs faggot.Just remember to not surrender straight away in the upcoming le happening.
>>16556235Sweet, going to read this.
>>16558659Still survived and held on just fine for all those years, cope elsewhere bootlicker
>>16556189Not him but the archival research correcting the destroyed tank numbers happened a good chunk of time after glantz published his Kursk book, so there is that.
>>16558878It's a good book, but it's pretty hard to come by the original. There's a newer version but it's shortened down>>16559037>Still survivedBarely, they were been supplied by the Russians throughout all those years and yet they were still struggling at every turn. They would've eventually collapsed if the Russians didn't intervene>and held on just fine for all those yearsI wouldn't call losing nearly all their cities holding on just fine, they would've lost even more if the Russians didn't step in.>cope elsewhere bootlickerThanks for not refuting a single one of my points, also thanks for proving you're a complete and utter retard who doesn't know a single thing about the subject.
>>16559082Good point, but correct me if I'm wrong, Glantz never stopped using Grigori F. Krivosheev as a source even after all other legitimate historians pointed out that Krivosheev was downplaying the casualty number for the Soviets?
>>16556320>having the state garnish your wages to fund wars you never asked them to start:)>funding your own defense directly under pressure of direct attack or aggression by another state:(
>>16558498>tik is a tankieare you retarded? He's an ayn randian ancap
>>16559149Krivosheev’s book was extremely well researched for its time and people can still use the parts of it that aren’t bad until proven otherwise. Krivosheev isn’t a liar- he’s a guy who’s chose sources badly at a time nobody knew they were bad. There’s no reason to doubt his operation iskra numbers, for example. Soviet and Russian record keeping on prokorovkha is genuinely impenetrable and the research on it is still even today crystallizing.
>>16559162I'm not saying that's his ideology, but he deep throats the most pro Soviet sources so much to the point his videos are just one sided.
>>16559187At least a counterbalance for post ww2 historiography build on german mythology. Take all numbers with a grain of salt.
>>16559178I don't know anon Krivosheev is the one who came out with the 8.7 million Soviet military dead figure which is still being discussed to this very day, as a lot of historians believe the figure should be as high as 10.9-13.7 million Soviet military dead.While Roman Töppel pointed out that Krivosheev was ignoring 40% of the Soviet losses during the Kursk Campaign. Idk it's either Krivosheev is not very good at his job or he has his own biased agenda, I'm going with the latter.
>>16555470>whatifalthist
>>16559217>build on german mythology.This is probably one of the worst running memes in the field of history and it's used to justify nonsense.
>>16555002Any book on the Eastern Front written before the opening of the Soviet Archives is going to have a 'German bias' because only German sources had been available up until that point. Glantz' advantage is that he can use both German and Soviet sources, so he's actually less biased than Beevor.
>>16559430>Glantz' advantage is that he can use both German and Soviet sourcesAnd yet in his earlier works he didn’t, he only used Soviet sources.
