# Talk:The Myth of the Eastern Front

Exposing the Third Reich: Colonel Truman Smith in Hitler's Germany -- by Henry G. Gole, on the role of Truman Smith (officer)
Legacies of Stalingrad: Remembering the Eastern Front in Germany since 1945: "a similar process of collective amnesia"
A bit of a tangent but interesting: "The politics of World War II in contemporary Ukraine". The Myth of the Eastern Front is cited on page 224 (page 14 of the PDF) for this content: "... the Wehrmacht was generally presented as having no direct role in the mass murder of Jews and Ukrainian and Russian civilians and POWs".
"Reading Death and Sacrifice in the Berlin Völkischer Beobachter, February 1942 – March 1943"; the book is used as source for "And indeed the narrative set deep roots, remaining prevalent in popular culture even into the twenty-first century, to the extent that the German defeat in the East “shapes up to have been something approaching a tragedy.”"
The Journal of American History. 1st page of the review: "... compelling and utterly intriguing argument ... "
Journal of Central European History. Partial review.
D-Day in History and Memory: citations.
Canadian Military History: "... fits well with the work of other scholars such as Ronald Smelser and Edward Davies, whose book The Myth of the Eastern Front points out just how much of our historical understanding of the Second World War is based upon the German reckoning of how the war unfolded ..."
Journal of Military History "The Weight of History: Wehrmacht Officers, the U.S. Army Historical Division, and U.S. Military Doctrine, 1945-1956." Used for citations.
The Historian: In "Hitler's Geostrategist?: The Myth of Karl Haushofer and the “Institut für Geopolitik”", used as source for: "Other myths—minimizing the Wehrmacht's involvement in genocide on the Eastern front, for example—have emerged in the service of specific political ends, such as strengthening Western anti-communist solidarity during the Cold War."
The Nazi, the Painter and the Forgotten Story of the SS Road: discussion of "gurus" cited to the book
The French Who Fought for Hitler: Memories from the Outcasts: discussion on romanticising community, cited to the book. Also discussed the American interpretation that it "became acceptable to conceive of the Wehrmacht's operations in the USSR as a 'prelude to our own struggle against Sovet Communism'". Eight total citations. Richard Landwehr is covered on page 19.
"A Noble But Sisyphean Effort", review by H-Net.
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I undid the recent additions to the lead as they do not adequately summarise the material in the article (diff). 
Compare material added to the lead: 

One review concluded that the authors' analysis of their material "is not entirely convincing" (...) Other criticisms included that the book underplays key divergences from its analogy between neo-Confederate ideas of the American Civil War and Eastern Front mythology.
With material added to the article with this diff: 

However, the review also concludes that the authors' analysis of their material "is not entirely convincing", and also observes that they underplay key divergences in their analogy between neo-Confederate ideas of the American Civil War and the mythic views of the Eastern Front.
K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Labelling the change to the lead as "vandalism" was not a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where this was labeled as vandalism -- am I missing something? My edit summary was: Rv -- will leave a note on Talk. I've always treated "rv" -- as "reverting"; perhaps it's interpreted as "revert vandalism"? Then apologies, this is not what I intended. PS -- I've seen "rvv", which I assume does mean "revert vandalism". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
In what way does that material not summarise the material in the article? It doesn't have to be word-for-word. What exactly is your problem with it? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that the material is exactly the same, as inserted into the body & into the lead. Per MOS:INTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The material about "key divergences in the analogy between neo-Confederate ideas of the American Civil War and the mythic views of the Eastern Front" is not one of the "most important points" covered in the article.
Please also keep WP:BRD in mind rather than reverting to the version that has been challenged. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You had not discussed the edit, which is expected per BRD. All you did was revert and paste the material. That is not discussion. The problem with the lead is that it basically says the reviews were positive, but completely fails to point out significant negative aspects of at least two if not more reviews. Balance requires that the lead shows what is in the body. I have no idea why the negative aspects of the review by Alpers were somehow left out of the body, let alone the lead. I have fixed that in the body at least. There are other negative aspects of reviews which have also been somehow left out of the body, I will endeavour to make sure they are also reflected in the body. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I assumed it would be self evident that 1 = 1 is not a "summary" but perhaps I should have been more clear. I have now clarified that. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It remains the case that the lead does not reflect the less positive aspects of the reviews. I have ensured that the less positive aspects of the various reviews are now reflected in the article body, aspects that should have been included when the article was created. I suggest we discuss the wording to be added to the lead to reflect those less positive aspects. I will formulate some words and make a suggestion, in the hope that we can agree on a form of words without needing to resort to a RfC. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that the second para be replaced with:
The book garnered largely positive reviews, for its thorough analysis on the creation of the myth by German ex-participants and its entry into American culture. The book was variously described as a "fascinating exercise in historiography", and a "tour de force of cultural historiography" that “present[s] a discomforting portrait of the American views of the Eastern Front”.  
Reviewers noted the limitations of the book in a number of areas. These include: that the actual impact of the mythology on US perceptions is unclear, that the book is incomplete and provides a “one-sided view of the historiography”, that it assumes specialised knowledge and lacks context, that its analysis is “not entirely convincing”, and that the book has a “rather weak conclusion“.
Let me think on that; the first impression is that the suggested copy has too many quotes that could appear out of context. Summarising it into prose may be a better approach. Meanwhile, I believe that some of the recent additions can be improved upon. For example, the Wildermuth review from H-Net is as follows:
This is a book that can be used more effectively by scholars than the general public. For the general public, more context in the book regarding how the Waffen-SS differed from regular German army units in training, equipment, and deployments would have been useful. Additionally, while scholars are sufficiently versed in historic examples of war crimes committed by Waffen-SS units, the lay reader will be faced with more difficulty regarding context, especially in light of the falsehoods appearing daily in Internet website chatrooms. Another minor criticism is the occasional sniping the prose contains when discussing the war gurus and romancers, in which the authors’ frustrations with the gurus’ and romancers’ romantic notions of a valiant German military become palpable. 
These minor criticism do not, however, detract from the overall scholarship and importance of the book. For any researcher of the German army or the war on the Eastern Front, as well as American popular culture, it provides much fascinating analysis on how, far removed from its time and place, the echoes of this war still reverberate.
The article currently presents it as follows:
David Wildermuth of Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania has noted that whilst the overall scholarship and importance of the book is acknowledged, the book has deficiencies because the necessary context of the differences between Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht training, equipment, and deployments is not provided. Wildermuth also remarks on the occasional sniping which makes palpable the authors' frustrations with romantic notions of a "valiant German military".

The reviewer notes that his criticism is "minor", while the content now in the article glosses over the positive aspects and zeroes in on the sniping. My suggested version would be:
David Wildermuth of Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania has concurred with the author's argument regarding the potential danger of "depoliticizing a conflict which at its core was a war of racial subjugation and conquest". He finds authors' analysis of the present-day war-romancing trends to be "deep and compelling", but notes the book's limitations in assuming specialist knowledge, which makes it less accessible to the general public. For example, the lay reader would have benefited from the necessary context of the differences between Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht, along with an overview of the war crimes committed by the Waffen-SS, "especially in light of the falsehoods appearing daily in Internet website chatrooms". The reviewer also remarks on the occasional sniping which makes palpable the authors' frustrations with romantic notions of a "valiant German military". Despite this minor criticism, Wildermuth commends the book for its "fascinating analysis on how, far removed from its time and place, the echoes of this war still reverberate".

K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with the changes to the Wildermuth review in the body. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I've edited the above before I notice the comment just now. Does this still work? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


### Proposal
I've reworked the suggested second para:

The book garnered largely positive reviews, for its thorough analysis on the creation of the myth by German ex-participants and its entry into American culture. The book was variously described as a "fascinating exercise in historiography", and a "tour de force of cultural historiography" that “present[s] a discomforting portrait of the American views of the Eastern Front”.  
Reviewers noted the limitations of the book in a number of areas. These include: that the actual impact of the mythology on US perceptions is unclear, that it assumes specialised knowledge and lacks context, that its analysis is not entirely persuasive, and that the conclusion is lacking. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
With some suggested adjustments:
The book garnered largely positive reviews, for its thorough analysis on the creation of the myth by German ex-participants and its entry into American culture. The book was described as a "tour de force of cultural historiography" that “present[s] a discomforting portrait of the American views of the Eastern Front” and was praised for its compelling analysis of contemporary war-romancing trends.
Reviewers noted the limitations of the book, commenting that the influence of the mythology on wide popular perceptions, outside of a few select groups, remains unclear, and that the work assumes specialised knowledge and lacks context, especially in the areas of the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS during the Soviet-German war. Some of the reviewers found its analysis not entirely persuasive because the authors had overlooked the impact of more recent, balanced historiography of the Eastern Front.
I was struggling a bit with "the conclusion is lacking". This seems to refer to Folly:
Moreover, Folly states that the book overlooks the influence of prominent and more accurate accounts of the war on the Eastern Front. His overall summary is that "the book therefore delivers a rather weak conclusion, which dilutes the impact of the useful analysis earlier in the book on the creation of the myth by German ex-participants and its entry into American culture with the help of the US Army".
I replaced that with a more specific statement. Separately, I believe that one review described the book as "incomplete", but that was more in the context of "more research is needed." The "analysis not entirely persuasive" is left a bit hanging -- which analysis? and not persuasive how? Edit: I've now connected the two parts of the last sentence with "because' which I think reads better.
I rephrased the 1st para as "historiography" was mentioned twice: "exercise in historiography" and a "tour de force of cultural historiography", which sounded repetitive. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I have no issue with the first part of the para, so I've implemented that for now. The second part regarding criticisms is now a bit light on in my view, so I'll have a look and get back to you. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps if we deal with one thing at a time. The observation from Showalter is that the book is incomplete, not because more research is needed, but because it has limited perspective in a couple of key areas, exhibits "traffic light syndrome", and doesn't properly acknowledge the complexity of Eastern Front romanticism. I'd be happy to expand the second part of the para in that way. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Gentlemen, the first part of this sentence: "The book was described as a 'tour de force of cultural historiography'..." It is written in a way that makes it unclear that only one reviewer/historian made that statement; the way it is presented in Wikipedia's voice could lead a reader to believe a host of reviewers/authors/historians have made that statement; if kept, it should be tweaked accordingly, I believe. Kierzek (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the lead should summarise the reviews, rather than one review (i.e. Showalter or any other). At least two reviewerrs commented that the authors did not include the analysis of more balanced historiography, hence I included it in my suggested version above. Likewise, two reviewers noted that more context, esp. around the crimes of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS would have been a good idea. So I think we should identify the trends, rather than call out individual assessments. Hope this makes sense. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe that approach properly captures, in the lead, the criticisms of the book. Some of them, like Showalter, are fairly strong and go to the heart of the whole approach the book takes. They need to be reflected in the lead. If it is a matter of balance, then more laudatory material should be added to the lead to balance the negative. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Then the lead would be rather long. The original 2nd para did reflect Showalter somewhat (emphasis mine):

The book garnered largely positive reviews, for its thorough analysis on the creation of the myth by German ex-participants and its entry into American culture. Several reviews noted limitations of the book in its discussion on the myth's role in the contemporary culture and the extent of its impact on wide popular perceptions of the Eastern Front, outside of a few select groups.
What is the best way to sum up Showalter's "going to the heart of the approach the book takes"? His analysis appears rather nuanced; he does not wholesale dismiss the book. 
Alternatively, this sentence could be reworked / expanded to make the criticism more specific: "Some of the reviewers found its analysis not entirely persuasive because the authors had overlooked the impact of more recent, balanced historiography of the Eastern Front."  K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he dismisses the book. But he does have serious criticisms regarding the limited perspective in a couple of key areas, and says that the book exhibits "traffic light syndrome". They are significant criticisms. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest the second paragraph should summarise the criticisms, which appear to me to fall into two main themes or trends. Firstly, that the analysis/conclusion is lacking in some respects, secondly that the actual impact of the mythology described in the book on US perceptions isn't clear, which ties in with the suggestion it suffers from "traffic light syndrome", ie it over-states its case. There is also the observation that the book assumes specialised knowledge and lacks context of the war crimes committed on the Eastern Front. All of this, I believe, should be incorporated into the lead. I don' think a small associated increase in the lead is a problem, there are a range of views on the book and they should be properly reflected in the lead. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I agree, the lead does inadequately summarize the criticisms and should therefore be expanded. I also added another critical review, hope that it is okay. If the linked review can not be viewed externally, I'm happy to provide a pdf copy. Regards. Caprisunn (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Myth of the Eastern Front/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 12:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Some issues that I noticed:

The lead mentions "tendency to whitewash Red Army crimes." This seems undue since as far as I can tell only one review mentions this.
In the "Themes" section, the bullet points should be integrated into prose.
ENGVAR: mixes -ized and -ised spelling. Should consistently use United States spelling.
"opening of the Russian archives" Is it really Russian archives that are meant, or Soviet/Eastern Bloc archives—including Ukraine, Poland, etc.? buidhe 22:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing these out; I've addressed them as follows:

Revised.
Converted to prose.
Standardised to American English.
Removed "Russian" as unneeded per the rest of the sentence.
--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Passing: This article meets standards on prose, coverage, focus, copyvio, original research, image relevance, and neutral point of view. Good work! buidhe 01:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)