Jump to content


Photo

Historicon 2006


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 22 March 2006 - 01:40 PM

Well, Historicon 2006 is coming up in July and we'll be there as usual. For those who are used to seeing us in the Cornwall Room, we've moved to the Host Room. Actually, this move took place last Historicon.The Host Room is a bigger room, not quite as hot, but is a little difficult to find. The HMGS folks running HCon this year have been working with us and have updated the convention maps to better indicate where we are location.As we normally, we're putting out a cry for help at the convention. We're looking for folks to run a Mein Panzer or BattleLines event for us. And/or help with our walk-up demo tables.If you're going to Historicon this year and would like to help, send me a Private Message or an email.

#2 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 22 March 2006 - 02:40 PM

Jon,After attending last year, I just cannot see how or why that out of the way location can be made to work. It is not near anything, and I seem to recall there were lots of people stopping by so that their children could play (it is a childrens room at the hotel)!?! Too bad there were not more gamers.How did it go at Cold Wars?Gregory

#3 Jonathan Coulter

Jonathan Coulter

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 652 posts
  • LocationStephens City, VA

Posted 22 March 2006 - 03:41 PM

Cold Wars was better. The biggest problem for both HC and CW was the program map. There was no indication what-so-ever WHERE the Host Room was at. Only a reference outside the map margins to "Kids World".Numerous people never showed up to play because they couldn't find where the room was located. CW was better as we had more signs pointing the way, but the program was terrible. I've seen the new Program Map (I've emailed you a copy) and it is great. We'll still have signs and I'm planning on a series of signs that will hang from the ceiling to point the way. I have a good feeling about HC 2006.The Day Care thing was a carry over from conventions past where the room was used to drop children off at. The HCon staff for 2005 was never informed of us being there and assumed the day care was still in place, sending people our way. As far as I know we got zero instances of that at CW.The room was called "Host Room / Kids World" at HC 2005. At CW is was just "Host Room". At HC 2006 it will "Host Room ODGW".It is indeed out of the way and we're trying to come up with some incentives to get people to come down the hallway.On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give HC 2005 a solid 1. CW was probably a 4. I'm betting HC 2006 will be an 8+ ... just a gut feeling.

#4 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 02 June 2006 - 12:13 PM

For everyone's information, David Glantz will be speaking at Historicon this year. Col Glantz is the premier historian currently working on the Soviet army in WWII. He has had access to recently declassified Soviet archival material, that has shed much new and surprising light on their military, debunking much of the "accepted" wisdom regarding the Red Army's performance.Here is a summary of one of his papers:Col Glantz paper:

Conclusions: The Reconciliation of Myths and Realities The dominant role of German source materials in shaping American perceptions of the war on the Eastern Front and the negative perception of Soviet source materials have had an indelible impact on the American image of war on the Eastern Front. What has resulted in a series of gross judgments treated as truths regarding operations in the East and Soviet (Red) Army combat performance. The gross judgments appear repeatedly in textbooks and all types of historical works, and they are persistent in the extreme. Each lies someplace between the realm of myth and reality. In summary, a few of these judgments are as follows: - Weather repeatedly frustrated the fulfillment of German operational aims. - Soviet forces throughout the war in virtually every operation possessed significant or overwhelming numerical superiority. - Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored human losses. - Soviet strategic and high level operational leadership was superb. However, lower level leadership (corps and below) was uniformly dismal. - Soviet planning was rigid, and the execution of plans at every level was inflexible and unimaginative. - Wherever possible, the Soviets relied for success on mass rather than maneuver. Envelopment operations were avoided whenever possible. - The Soviets operated in two echelons, never cross attached units, and attacked along straight axes. - Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured. - Hitler was the cause of virtually all German defeats. Army expertise produced earlier victories (a variation of the post World War I stab in the back legend). - The stereotypical Soviet soldier was capable of enduring great suffering and hardship, fatalistic, dogged in defense (in particular in bridgeheads), a master of infiltration and night fighting, but inflexible, unimaginative, emotional and prone to panic in the face of uncertainty. A majority of Americans probably accept these judgments as realities. In doing so they display a warped impression of the war which belittles the role played by the Red Army. As a consequence, they have a lower than justified appreciation for the Red Army as a fighting force, a tendency which extends, as well, to the postwar Soviet Army. Until the American public (and historians) perception of Soviet source material changes, this overall perception of the war in the East and the Soviet (Red) Army is likely to persist. Close examination of Soviet sources as well as German archival materials cast many of these judgments into the realm of myth. Recent work done on Eastern Front operations has begun to surface the required evidence to challenge those judgments.45 Continued work on the part of American historians, additional work by Soviet historians, joint work by both parties, and more extensive efforts to make public Soviet archival materials is necessary for that challenging process to bear fruit. It is clear that no really objective or more complete picture of operations on the Eastern Front is possible without extensive use of Soviet source material. Thus definitive accounts of operations in the East have yet to be written. How definitive they will ultimately be depends in large part on the future candor and scope of Soviet historical efforts. In the interim it is the task of American historians, drawing upon all sources, Soviet and German alike, to challenge those judgments and misperceptions which are a produce of past historical work. It is clear that the American (Western) perspective regarding war on the Eastern Front needs broadening, in the more superficial public context and in the realm of more serious historical study. Scholarly cooperation among Soviet and American historians, research exchange programs involving both parties, and expanded conferences to share the fruits of historical research would further this end and foster more widespread understanding on both sides.

Col Glantz's seminar alone is reason enough to attend the con!Cheers,Gregory




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users