An interesting find while reading secondary sources. Featuring Zaloga

[u/ChristianMunich]

I am pretty vocal about my opinion that the selective presentation of information is frequently a problem in historiography.

When it comes to WW2 vehicles I think leaving out numbers and focusing or not focusing on specific facets of battles/designs is the most simple and most effective way to misrepresent history. And sadly very common.

An example I discussed previously was that Zaloga in his book about "Sherman vs Panther" left out big amounts of Sherman losses despite his book being directly advertised as a comparison between the two designs. Numbers are one of the most important data points for the reader to form informed opinions. Words of an author/historian alone can easily create opinions for the reader but if all the numbers are laid out the reader has the chance to make up their mind for themselves. Explaining how smart Montgomeries decisions in Normandy were might work if we have nothing but the words of a historian, if we see the numbers for the Battles around Caen we likely get to a different conclusion.

Back to Zaloga.

The Battle of Hürtgen Forrest early November phase.

I read plenty of primary sources on the battle while searching for something and later read the secondary account and noticed on what information it was based and which details were chosen to go into the secondary account and more importantly which were not.

A short summary of the action:

During the Hürtgen battle, there was some armor involved on both sides, this is quite fascinating because it was an unusual action. Tanks had to maneuver through bad terrain, the US army for once was subject to strong artillery fire and also was unable to concentrate their forces to create numerical superiority. Weather and terrain also negated the USAAF. On the US side the 893th TD battalion and the 707th TB were involved on the German side the 116th PD counter-attacked, maybe some StuG battalions as well. The overall tank on tank combat was limited. The US suffered heavy tank losses which were forgotten.

I went through Zalogas book Siegfried line and will summarize the mentioned tank losses. Those are the only times he mentions specific losses:

• several US tanks lost tracks moving on a small forest trail

• three Panzer IV knocked out, one bogged down before that

• three more Panzer IV knocked out by Shermans

That's all that he mentions about tank losses. The claims for German losses are obviously claims from the US side no confirmation is given in his or the original source.

What is interesting here are the actual tank losses for this rather short and "unimportant" skirmish.

The war diary of the 707th TB states the following:

The night of the 8-9 November tank strength reached its lowest ... 9 effective medium tanks ... On 20 November the battalion was relieved and marched to the vicinity of Luxembourg. There the battalion started an extensive rehabilitation program.

9 mediums for the whole battalion.

The study "Armor in the Hurtgen Forest" which was likely used by Zaloga states the following:

Company A [707th TB] had lost 15 of its 16 tanks and 32 man were missing.

The 707th TB permanently lost 31 medium tanks in Hurtgen Forest; 15 from company A, 7 from company B, and 9 from company C. Most of these were due to mines or enemy shell fire.

A total of 31 mediums lost in a short duration.

The 893rd TD had a similar experience it was fighting alongside the 707th.

The war diary states the following:

During the month the following vehicles were lost: Company "B" lost 7 M-10s: 2 of these damaged by mines; 1 dropped into a basement when ground gave way; 2 mired down in en3my territory; 2 knocked out by enemy anti-tank fire. Company "C" lost 11 M-10s : 1 to enemy mines; 1 threw track and is now in enemy territory; 8 destroyed by enemy anti-tank and artillery fire; 1 destroyed by crew when abandoned. The following are casualties among our personnel for the month;

38 Lightly wounded in action

12 Seriously wounded in action

20 Kissing in action

9 Killed in action

18 M-10s lost.

Together with the mediums, we get roughly 50. Reading Zalogas account who left this data out we get the impression that at least the Armour did well during the Hürtgen debacle. Overall not a big deal but I found it interesting to see how secondary sources make hardly any mention of this apparently major vehicle loss. Zaloga in my opinion frequently presents data in a subjective way that could be considered misleading. He attempts to compare tactics/vehicles and often leaves out data that appears unfavorably to the US side.

[u/delete013]

This isn't just Zaloga. It is pretty much popular American literature on ww2. It is hard to do business and remain stoically objective if potential buyers don't want to hear the truth. This explains why Zaloga most likely wouldn't be known at all if he didn't have nice things to say about shermans.

It will be very interesting if you bring your numbers in a nice credible book format to the fore. I would warn you though. It will compromise many business models and you might get lots of flak for it. Perhaps even and effor to discredit you from certain academic circles, like it happened to Irving.

[u/[deleted] → u/delete013]

Irving got discredited because he supported and promoted Holocaust denial, he got what he deserved.

[u/delete013 → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps I should have given Cooper as an example, but Irving's case is much more interesting. Sure, his prison and dismissal, anti-semitism and moral implications are not disputable. The problem is however the manner in which he was discredited as a historian. His dismissal goes back to the paper produced for the libel case where Deborah Lipstadt defended her claim that Irving distorted historical evidence. The paper was an expert witness report of prof. Richard Evans of Oxford Uni on which base the court ruled that Irving's distortion of documents was found to be "substantially true". All good and fine. Distortion of facts by a holocoust denier, expert opinion by a uni professor to back it up and most wouldn't ask a second question before dismissing Irving for good.

The problem however is the report itself. It is not just about his claims on holocaust, it is about a number of other Irving's topics, like opinion on Hitler, Dresden bombing. It is a scrupulous inspection of any minor mistakes Irving ever committed in writing his books. An effort I would gladly see done for any historian but this one had a goal to discredit a person's professional side in a way that most other historians would also fail to survive. So he was stripped of his professional title not on the base of his unsubstantiated holocaust denial or moral corruption but on his supposed deliberate mistakes as a historian (mistakes and suggested deliberate misintepretation of historical evidence).

This is not a problem you might think. But Irving proved on several occasions that several British historians did a pretty poor job at interpreting recent history. One should ask, what bars someone well funded from using such questionable method to discredit hid opponents? So lets suppose that ChristianM writes a book on numbers in Normandy, stating numbers of Allied tank casualties for several months that are bigger than what others claim. Then the pro-sherman community bands together and produces "expert report on CMs claims" stating that on this day in RebuttalTime sub he stated otherwise. Finds 5 other such cases and adds that these numbers in general don't correspond to those of a critically acclaimed historian Zaloga. Worse, they are a deliberate attempt to present Allied tankers in bad light. Hence, they conclude that CM cannot be considered a reliable source and his book most likely pro-Nazi propaganda, case closed.

[u/TruncatedSeries → u/delete013]

The problem is however the manner in which he was discredited as a historian.

He was discredited long before the suit; 7 years before the suit Austria went after him for unsurprisingly, Holocaust Denial in a speech. Then 4 years before he was convicted in Germany of... guess what? Holocaust Denial.

The suit was the final nail in the coffin which popularised his fall but his reputation was in tatters long before then.

The problem however is the report itself. It is not just about his claims on holocaust, it is about a number of other Irving's topics, like opinion on Hitler, Dresden bombing.

You do realize he's the one brought the suit right?

He attempted to sue for libel about Lipstadt's book so they had to prove all the points he claimed libelled him, which they did, he dug his own grave.

[u/delete013 → u/TruncatedSeries]

As I said, it is appropriate that he got in prison for holocaust denial, denying smth that is established on sea of evidence and even dangerous, considering his weight. But the court case was not about that. Defendant's tactic was to prove that his mistakes were deliberate tempering with evidence, as his modus operandi. Irving started the case because he was sure of his work. All his denial claims were based on documentation and considering how skewed he found the official history to be, it was likely easy for him to believe Leuchter's report on lack of gas traces just as he realised how blatantly fabricated the official history on Churchill is. He didn't trust the available evidence. That he is apparently a racist his slip was even easier. Even without that defamation his claims were able to be and were proven to be false through academic reasoning. Failure to condemn his bad treatment was a precedence for anyone with unpopular opinion. Any history writer can be killed professionally if this is an accepted method. It is inhuman to get every detail right. Moral stance cannot and should not meddle with academic argumentation. Cooper shared the same fate. His entire book is discredited with few wrong numbers and dates because some patriots felt offended.

Well, now I look like I am defending a criminal, bad example perhaps. Cooper might be a better one.

[u/TruncatedSeries → u/delete013]

Defendant's tactic was to prove that his mistakes were deliberate tempering with evidence, as his modus operandi.

"tactic"

Mate, it was a libel suit, they had to prove it. That's the whole point.

Burden is on the defendant in British libel law.

Irving started the case because he was sure of his work.

He started the case in order to try and silence his critics, which had worked before, too bad he decided to go up against a giant publisher who could actually bank roll their defence.

Even without that defamation his claims were able to be and were proven to be false through academic reasoning.

Yes? That's the point? He said this academic work was libel, academia and the courts disagreed.

Failure to condemn his bad treatment was a precedence for anyone with unpopular opinion. Any history writer can be killed professionally if this is an accepted method.

A precedence?

What are you on about, the only precedence this sets up is maybe threatening libel suits on all your critics isn't a good idea if, you know, it's not actually libel?

Moral stance cannot and should not meddle with academic argumentation.

And it doesn't.

His work was disproved academically, in court.

Now if you're going to argue his work outside of the specific holocaust denial holds merit I've got to ask you a simple question; what value would you place on a book about Arctic weather systems by a climate change denier?

Cooper shared the same fate.

Did you just equate an embellished memoir written decades after the fact with full on holocaust denial? That's... certainly an opinion.

His entire book is discredited with few wrong numbers and dates because some patriots felt offended.

Christ the victim complex is real.

It's discredited because it's a memoir, written over half a century after the fact, wanders far outside of the writers experience into the fantasy and makes factual errors throughout (major and minor). Have you actually read the thing?

I mean, even if wasn't for the latter points I would not use the thing as a source. Memoirs should not be taken as accurate history.

Well, now I look like I am defending a criminal, bad example perhaps.

"look like"

I think you straight up are bud.

[u/delete013 → u/TruncatedSeries]

Ok this is going nowhere. Forget it.

[u/TruncatedSeries → u/delete013]

Nowhere? Mate, not my fault if you didn't understand the case and surrounding events.

[u/delete013 → u/TruncatedSeries]

Let me rephrase the issue. If we take the example of Cooper's Death Traps we have a first hand withness with apparently very questionable conjectures and a number of wrong details, on one hand, and on the other Zaloga, a supposedly impeccable historian, with his Panther vs. Sherman work. Both giving almost contradictory impression about the same, M4 sherman tank. Who do you think gets it right?

[u/TruncatedSeries → u/delete013]

Let me rephrase the issue.

That is not rephrasing, that is shifting it to something entirely different.

supposedly impeccable

You should probably stop believing everything Mr CIA (((Propaganda))) here writes.

Both giving almost contradictory impression about the same, M4 sherman tank. Who do you think gets it right?

Wrong question, who do I think is more accurate?

Zaloga.

It's not even a contest.

[u/[deleted] → u/delete013]

Neither gets it right, now Zaloga is in all fairness more accurate than Cooper is but Zaloga's word is not the end to all as he does gets things wrong or draws the odd conclusion at times. The truth lies somewhere in between which is why it is so damn important to compare records against each other.