Talk:David Glantz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal David Glantz is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Military historiography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

[edit] Book by Mary Glantz

Constanz, please show something in support of the view that her study looks favourably on Stalin's policies. I have just read through various reviews, none mention this view being espoused in her book. Until you can support your assertion with quotes, I do not think it should be part of the article. Andreas 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glantz, Duranty and Stalin

Review by Thomas Titura (from Austria):

“When Roosevelt initiated the formal recognition of the Soviet Union, Stalin was already standing knee-deep in the blood of his opponents, both imagined and real. But that doesn't bother Mrs. Glantz. The only important thing is that Stalin was opposed to Hitler. But stop! Stalin signed a pact and secret protocol with Hitler. Stalin also occupied Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Bessarabia and smashed the Polish forces fleeing from Hitler's Wehrmacht. No problem, Stalin was only expanding his defensive perimeter...

Stalin attacked another small neighbour, Finland. Still, no problem for the author. But there was one problem: the young State Department officials who later served at the American Embassy in Moscow sided with the Baltic States and Finland (as did the majority of the Western populations at the time).^[1] Glantz naturally does not excuse such a wrong policy, one has to look at the big picture: Stalin will be important in the future, so let him conquer any country he likes. The occupation of other countries by Stalin is always a defensive measure. Another issue: Mrs. Glantz writes about the NKVD terror in the occupied countries and in the Soviet Union itself. Does she call it terror, because sheer terror is what is was? No, she mostly refers to it as "NKVD action".^[2] Walter Duranty would be proud of her.”http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/070061365X/ref=sr_11_1/104-0754874-0208706?ie=UTF8

[edit] Refs

--Constanz - Talk 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was an article about COL Glantz, who is a very distinguished military historian, and not about his daughter. DMorpheus 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, this is a reader review from Amazon. As such, it does not qualify as an acceptable source (which ought to be reputable) under Wiki guidelines. But in any case, feel free to open a page on her, it really does not fit here. Andreas 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a matter of POV if one regards Winter war and occupation of small Eastern European states as Soviet aggression or an elaborate way of self-defence. It's probably unnecessary to add, that I subscribe to the former, and well-taught Mary Glantz to the latter POV.

(I have to admit: I really pointed out the Stalinist apologies of David Glantz' daughter (and co-author) with my diabolic intention of hinting the possibility of 'systemic bias' in D.Glantz' own studies. That was a bloody trick.)--Constanz - Talk 08:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying Glantz is a closet Stalinist or something? You are aware he was a Colonel in the US Army? Odd, in the time I spent there I didn't meet any pro-Stalinist officers. DMorpheus 13:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry if I misled you, but I was actually talking about Mary Glantz. I haven't read her book myself and won't dare to read it, after having got to know which her POV is (I mean the review). I wouldn't call Stalin's conquest of my country and neighbouring states an act of defence of whatever kind, especially regarding the sources on Stalin strategy I've read. BTW - no objection to mr Glantz being a trusted soldier, but his books are not the most thorough and modern description of the events, he has been wary of using new sources and, with the exception of Viktor Suvorov, Glantz hasn't tried to refute Russian historians (e.g take Nevezhin) who criticise the 'official version'. I'd suggest Constantine Pleshakov's study in English, it's more up to date than Stumbling Colossus or Erickson's utterly naive article Who attacked whom, which I managed could read.Constanz - Talk 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)