Talk:Samuel W. Mitcham

Sources

Copy/pasted from Talk:Rommel myth. Relevant here + useful sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Mitcham

I removed Samuel W. Mitcham; I find that his use to be undue when it comes to matters of historiography. Preserving here by providing this link. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you feel that his use is undue for matters of historiography? And I notice that you deleted his opinions on Rommel's military abilities too. I do not think that Mitcham, as both a military officer and a historian, is disqualified there. You may as well say that the other officers who have a critical opinion on Rommel have nothing to do with historiography. As for his comments on Irving's works, his main source is Admiral Ruge. I have never seen anyone rebuking either Mitcham or Ruge regarding this. Colin Baxter (a neutral author as you can see for yourself), in his Rommel historiography piece here, includes both Irving and Ruge (he subtly criticizes Irving and his Nazi agenda), so why can't we do that too (I use Mitcham in the place of Ruge, because I have not seen Ruge's German article myself; Mitcham is mentioned, albeit briefly, by Baxter too)?

I do not have much time right now, I just hope to get a clear explanation. I do not think we need experts on theoretical historiography here. We are doing an article (with some historiographic aspect) that tries to present different authors, with some degree of notablity on "Rommel studies" (Rommel-Forschung, or something like that), and their different opinions etc.Deamonpen (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

See for example Samuel W. Mitcham on de.wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What bit of information do you find there, that says something negative about Mitcham as an author on Rommel/Rommel historiography, or as a military historian in general? Because, honestly, I cannot see anything like that (the article basically just considers basic, neutral information: that he is a officer-turned-historian, taught at Universities like ULM and Westpoint, worked as a consultant and his works focuses on the Second World War and the Werhmacht etc).

Or do you know of someone who has recently managed to prove his body of works as generally ahistorical, unvaluable and unreliable or something like that? I do know that some reviewers say that he is biased towards Rommel and the Wehrmacht, but there are other reviewers who praise his research (and as far as I know, not in lesser numbers or from lesser scholarly authorities). Obviously, he is 'pro-Rommel'. And here we do mention 'anti-Rommel' authors, who receive negative and positive reviews, as well. We mention even Irving, whom many just generalize as just total rubbish (at least, again, as far as know, nobody tries to tear Mitcham to shreds like that: biased - perhaps, but worthy of mention). I think it is balanced. --Deamonpen (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mitcham's methodology has been questioned. He frequently uses dated secondary sources to write his books, resulting in "very old-fashioned" material (Baker, Lee. "Reviews: The German Defeat in the East, 1944-1945, by Samuel W. Mitcham". Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Jul-Sep 2008, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 593-594). When Mitcham does use primary sources, he arrives at strange conclusions:

Yet despite constructing a nuanced overview of the German officers fighting in France in the later war years, this image of complexity is undercut by depictions and omissions which reinforce a false, binary distinction between Nazi war criminals and an allegedly more benign, professional army that by and large did not commit atrocities. (...) In a familiar way, the Wehrmacht comes across as the "real", professional soldiers whose conquests continue to dazzle military historians; not the merciless and genocidal force of domination that ravaged the continent.

Source: Bradley Nichols (February 2011): Nichols on Mitcham, 'Defenders of Fortress Europe: The Untold Story of the German Officers during the Allied Invasion', H-Net. In short, the article does not want for sources; that's why I don't think that Mitcham's presence is essential. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would repeat that this applies for other historians as well. Do you think that Reuth, Remy, Butler and others are not questioned? If one says that the article has other sources and pick up a particular historian he/she does not like (just because that historian receives criticism here and there), in the end Wikipedia will be left with no acceptable historian.

For example, regarding the same book criticized by Nichols, a review by A. A. Nofi reads:

Although naturally tight, entries often offer important analysis and valuable critiques of the roles of particular officers, and Defenders of Fortress Europe will be of value to any serious students of the campaign.

Or, a review of The Desert Fox in Normandy on The Journal of Military History, Volume 62 reads:

The author provides an in-depth account of the World War II invasion of Normandy from the Axis point of view....[T]his book would be a valuable addition to any collection of World War II works, both for its masterful coverage of Axis military organizational, operational, and tactical activities, as well as for its excellent minibiographies of important German military and naval officers

Regarding the same book and his use of sources, a review by David Lee Poremba on the Library Journal:

Mitcham uses a number of little-known primary sources which contradict previously published accounts of Rommel, his officers, and the last days of the Third Reich. These sources provide amazing insight into the invasion of Normandy from the German perspective. They include German personnel records, unpublished papers, and the manuscripts of top German officers like General of Panzer Troops Baron Leo Geyr von Schweppenburg, the commander of Panzer Group West.

As for my personal opinion, if you want to know Rommel the Political Person, sure, I would like to rely on German historians more (and that does not apply to Mitcham only), because they provide, almost monthly, newly excavated documents. Mitcham is concerned with the technical battlefield much more, but at least he uses German sources, seemingly directly. That is already much better than most English-writing authors. Well, we still (relatively, in comparison with English and German) lack Italian sources and authors who use Italian sources (we also utterly lack Libyan sources, Egyptian sources, and Hebrew sources, but Mitcham is no exception there.--Deamonpen (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If I needed to source information of which unit moved where, who commanded it at a certain time, and which decorations the commanding general has received, I would not hesitate to use Mitcham. The point is that the article is mostly about Rommel as a Political Person and as a Product of Propaganda. This article is about historiography, myth-making, and Rommel’s orientation within the Nazi regime.

In that regard, Mitcham is not a great source. For example, he more or less subscribes to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht as noted in the review I already linked (“betrays adherence to a central plank of the postwar myth of the ‘unblemished’ Wehrmacht”). His biographical sketches are also criticized as examples of the “trap” he finds himself in:

The biographical summaries themselves, while certainly the most noteworthy aspect of the book, are in many places monotonous recitations of each officer's birthplace, spouse, and politics, his promotions and the units he served with, and above all, his military performance according to Mitcham. In fact, as hinted at above, the work rather quickly falls into the trap of judging "good general vs. bad general" through ex post facto criteria employed to distill the "lessons" to learn from a campaign—a long-standing trend within operational military history.

His other works on the Wehrmacht have been also unfavourably reviewed, such as The Rise of the Wehrmacht: The German Armed Forces and World War II, Vols. 1 and 2. By Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International, 2008:

The source material is mostly popular history and memoirs from the 1950s and 1960s. The author ignores almost all the English-language writing on the Wehrmacht of the last twenty years. (…) With minimal research, the author writes with a broad brush and makes sweeping assertions about the Wehrmacht’s doctrine that are impressively wrong. (…) Of the many histories of the Wehrmacht that I have read and reviewed over many years this ranks as perhaps the worst. Even the propaganda-laden stuff put out by the Soviet Union in the 1970s was better than this. (…) The Rise of the Wehrmacht serves no purpose at all other than to revive many of the myths about the Wehrmacht that should have been put to rest long ago.

Source: “The Rise of the Wehrmacht: The German Armed Forces and World War II.” By James S. Corum. In: The Journal of Military History, Jan 01, 2009; Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 306–307. Note that both reviews mention “myths” that Mitcham “adheres to” or “revives”. Some of his assertions and approaches are not in line with the consensus of contemporary WW2 historiography. (I’ve seen related criticism of his book on the American Civil War, so this is clearly a trend). Thus, I find his statements about the “true measure of [Rommel’s] genius” etc. [1] to be undue in this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So, you also think that an author can be inaccurate regarding particular broader political and moral issues and is still reliable in another regard? Then, I ask you, what does Mitcham succumbing to Clean Wehrmacht and American Civil War myths have to do with his comment on Rommel's talent as a commander (because this Myth page is about that aspect as well) or his criticism of Irving, or even Mitcham's overall reputation as a military historian (because, I think, as a historian, he has always focused on the technical and military side, as well as the individual commanders and units much more)? Because you quote Nichols again regarding the biographical sketches of 'Defenders of Fortress Europe: The Untold Story of the German Officers during the Allied Invasion', I think it should be mentioned that even Nichols does not dismiss Mitcham as an overall bad historian, or even 'Defenders of Fortress Europe: The Untold Story of the German Officers during the Allied Invasion' itself as a work flawed to the point unworthy of being referenced by other scholars or encyclopaediae:

This study by the prolific Samuel W. Mitcham Jr. examines the western front of the Second World War in 1944-45 from the perspective of German military officers. In a combination of operational military history and extended prosopography, Mitcham presents a compelling narrative of the dramatic clash between Allied and Axis forces in France, from the Normandy landings to the surrender of the last pockets of German resistance in fortress towns on the French coast (...) Defenders of Fortress Europe is nonetheless a fascinating and insightful work of military history on the German officer class of the Second World War. However, while the work does an excellent job describing battles and establishing links between the social, political, and religious background of German officers and their actions in combat, many of its implications for the study of the Third Reich must be read with a critical eye.

I think "the German officer class", "links between the social, political, and religious background of German officers and their actions in combat" (where Nichols finds Mitcham to be insightful and excellent) are at least areas beyond "which unit moved where, who commanded it at a certain time, and which decorations the commanding general has received." Nobody requests that we rely on Mitcham alone regarding such areas either.

Other than Nofi, another review of this work, published by the Military Review reads:

Samuel Mitcham provides a superbly researched account of the second- and third-level leaders of the German Army in 1944. Defenders of Fortress Europe follows German army leaders as they prepare for the Allied landings on 6 June 1944 [...] I recommend Defenders of Fortress Europe to military professionals andto those interested in understanding the German army’s inner-workings during the final days of World War II.

It would be another matter, if his opinions on Rommel, in general, are against the consensus. And yet, I think here we have never tried to include only those who say what the middlest of the middle people say - in that case I think we can add that these opinions are really controversial, as opined by such as such. In the same way I'm perfectly OK with, say, Goldhagen's work being used as a source regarding the German people's knowledge and attitude towards the genocide, provided the authors who have different views regarding specific points are also represented.

Regarding the use of sources, I keep my opinion above. Imho, at least Mitcham tells us exactly where he takes something from, and he does not misrepresent the sources he uses the way some others do (for example: "Maurice Remy is a historian critical of Rommel" - also a trend). Reuth, for example, provides a bibliography, but almost no citation - I think that we can still keep him and quote him extensively though, because others consider him notable, in a good way or not.

As for Mitcham's criticism of Irving, I added that because it is the only relatively detailed source in English that explains to readers how many of Irving's claims are problematic etc--Deamonpen (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Lost Cause/Confederacy Apologist?

I don't know how to put this, but someone needs to address the click-bait titles of his last two books. Hhfjbaker (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Hhfjbaker: I have a pdf of a recent review of one of Mitcham's book on the Civil War. I could email it to you so that you could use it as a source for the article. If you'd like that, please use "Email this user" function, so that I can respond with a pdf attachment. The review I have is this one:

'Vicksburg’ Review: The Falling Tide of Gray

The surrender of Vicksburg, Miss., to Union forces the day after the Battle of Gettysburg effectively broke the Confederacy in half.

Russell S. Bonds reviews “Vicksburg” by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vicksburg-review-the-falling-tide-of-gray-1529536146

PS -- I restored the book titles on the Civil War.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)