Talk:Samuel W. Mitcham

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:


 * 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:


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


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


 * 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:

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:

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. 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:


 * 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:


 * 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 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)