So I just finished reading "A Frozen Hell" by William Trotter, an account of the Winter War. While reading it, the author describes the military movements of both the Soviet and Finnish troops usually by saying Xth Division moved from Place A to Place B. Or something similar,where he simply notes cities, movements and whatnot. While I was reading it, I was overwhelmed with the names and the information. Keeping track of which division moved where was near impossible. (The Finnish names didn't help though)
My question, is what is the best way to keep track of such information? I've encountered a similar situation when reading "Face of Battle" by Keegan. An overload of places and troop movements. How does one keep track of it, or is unnecessary to understand the bigger picture?
The best thing you can do is develop a mental map of the world and specific regions. I used to have problems with some European histories until I took a class on European Geography and paid attention to the maps that are provided in books. Not all maps are created equal so it might help you to make a list of names to look up so you can further understand what is where.
Maps are your friends, look at them more often.
I agree that mental maps are best, but unfortunately my brain just won't retain eastern European village names. Try finding historical maps that you can print from the Internet. For example, say you are studying Operation Barbarossa, just type "Operation Barbarossa map" and you should be able to find a ton of options. Just print one or two maps that are detailed enough for you to use. They shouldn't be too detailed/colorful, if you plan to track movements/battles. Keeping a map by my side is one of the easiest ways to make what I'm reading less overwhelming and more "real." I usually hunt down black and white versions from university or even high school classes that are not too detailed, but provide enough reference points for me to grasp the topic. Topographical maps are especially good for many military books.
I certainly agree with the other posters' suggestion to keep a map handy, but I suspect this might be more of an issue of reading strategy. It's important in any sort of history writing to ask yourself what information you most need to retain. Military history texts in particular have a tendency to be heavily narrative-based, such that twenty or thirty pages of battle movements might pass before the author pulls back to talk about the bigger picture.
If those battle movements are important to you, by all means read closely, draw maps in your notes, make tables, or otherwise find a way to visualize or record that information -- whatever strategy works for you. But when I read that sort of text, I'm much more interested in the impact of the war on civilian populations, the everyday lives of common soldiers, provisioning strategies, and so on. Not because that's necessarily the most important aspect of military history, but because it's most helpful for my own work. When it comes to lengthy battle narratives, I often skim right through -- reasoning that I can always look those things up if I need them, I don't need to know all the particulars right now, and I probably won't remember them anyway. So there's more than one way to do this. It really depends on what you hope to get out of it.