|
Can anyone recommend a good book about the immediate post-WWI era in central and eastern Europe? I know about the armistice, the abdication, Versailles, and the Russian Revolution(s) and Civil War, but I just realized there was so much else that went on in 1918-1925 or so (Soviet invasion of Poland? Communists seizing control of several German cities? Whatever the hell happened in the dissolving A-H Empire? Allied occupation of Istanbul not Constantinople?) that I have only the faintest knowledge of. e: vvvv I've added it to my queue, thx! e2: poking around on Amazon recommends Ian Kershaw "To Hell And Back: Europe 1914-1949", which also sounds right up my alley. FMguru fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Feb 13, 2019 |
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Try Robert Gerwaith's, "The Vanquished".
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Try Robert Gerwaith's, "The Vanquished". This. Probably the best single-volume that focuses specifically on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Also: as depressing as it is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
I just finished reading C V Wedgwood's 30 Years War history, which was quite good in giving an overall narrative of what was happening in central Europe throughout the war. My only criticism is I sometimes found her sketches of the personalities involved a bit obscure, in that they'd have apparent self-contradictions, or contradictions with her commentary on them later. This book focused a lot on the leaders and the dynastic and religious struggles; I'm wondering if anyone knows of a book that has more of a focus on the lower levels of the conflict? I know the whole thing was characterised by immense suffering, and I'm keen for some misery porn describing that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
I don't know myself, but there's a PhD student studying a Saxon regiment in the war who posts in the Religion and MilHist threads in A/T. I'd ask them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
Don't get Hey Guns started on Wedgewood. But, seriously, definitely ask them about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Can I get a recommendation for a book on the civil wars of Central America in the seventies and eighties, and US involvement? I'm pretty familiar with Nicaraguan history but I don't know much about Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:I just finished reading C V Wedgwood's 30 Years War history, which was quite good in giving an overall narrative of what was happening in central Europe throughout the war. My only criticism is I sometimes found her sketches of the personalities involved a bit obscure, in that they'd have apparent self-contradictions, or contradictions with her commentary on them later. This book focused a lot on the leaders and the dynastic and religious struggles; I'm wondering if anyone knows of a book that has more of a focus on the lower levels of the conflict? I know the whole thing was characterised by immense suffering, and I'm keen for some misery porn describing that. Hi. I have a book manuscript on the misery porn angle if you want to PM me with your information. Just don't show anyone or talk about it online because of copyright--it isn't published yet. Also what do you want to know about the personality sketches in Wedgewood and whether or not they're contradictory?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Don't get Hey Guns started on Wedgewood. But, seriously, definitely ask them about it.  )I disagree with her on some things, but you have to respect her. How many other undergrads have people debating their work for the next 80 years? also the only way you can make your name is arguing against established wisdom, so HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Feb 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
dublish posted:a PhD student
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i actually graduated, thank christ Congrats! Sorry I missed it if you said anything previously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
dublish posted:Congrats! Sorry I missed it if you said anything previously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
I picked up Peter Wilson's "Europe's Tragedy" on the Thirty Years War when I was in Berlin a few years ago and enjoyed that. It's the UK version of the paperback too, so it has a cooler cover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:I picked up Peter Wilson's "Europe's Tragedy" on the Thirty Years War when I was in Berlin a few years ago and enjoyed that. It's the UK version of the paperback too, so it has a cooler cover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
It is and I liked it compared with the US version which is a painting. Would that be his preference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:It is and I liked it compared with the US version which is a painting. Would that be his preference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Hey Hey Guns how good is Peter Wilson’s book on the HRE?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Hey Hey Guns how good is Peter Wilson’s book on the HRE? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgdbE-1uEqw
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:good but somewhat of a simplified overview. Try Joachim Whaley as well. He only has books on the HRE starting from the Reformation though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Squalid posted:For young people who want entertaining reading on the Aztecs The True History of the Conquest of New Spain By Bernal Diaz is a great read. Its the first person account of a conquistador so its basically nonstop ultra-violence. Not recommended for the faint of heart, there's a lot of gross out stuff. For example after every battle the Spanish stop to build a fire and render the fat from the flesh of their enemies and then slather the man-fat over their bodies and wounds, as some kind of medicine? early modern europe owned
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
This is one of the cool things about reading history, seeing how people who seem extremely normal and otherwise relatable will act in ways that appear insane by modern standards, totally oblivious to the norms and standards we'd like to imagine as universal. It's been a while since I read the conquest of Mexico, but as I recall the conquistadors just regarded rubbing human-tallow all over their bodies as completely normal. Diaz doesn't even bother to explain why this is supposed to be medicine, he just takes it for granted in the same way I wouldn't bother explaining to someone how aspirin works. Eating mummies or the blood of executed prisoners was just a normal and rational thing everybody did if they could. And yet the same people were horrified by cannibalism, which was obviously completely different and totally unrelated to what they were doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:Hi. I have a book manuscript on the misery porn angle if you want to PM me with your information. Just don't show anyone or talk about it online because of copyright--it isn't published yet. Also what do you want to know about the personality sketches in Wedgewood and whether or not they're contradictory? Thanks for that very generous offer - will contact you with details shortly. One that stuck out to me was her depiction of Ferdinand I; she suggested early on that historian's understanding of him as not very intelligent or politically savvy was in error, but later refers to him pejoratively for lacking those very attributes (albeit only a couple of times). Another was Christian IV of Denmark - in her opening sketch she suggests he was underrated as a ruler, partly because of an unfavourable comparison with the exceptional Gustav Adolphus. However, when his actions later are discussed (particularly military manoeuvers), she characterises them consistently with his detractors - that they were excessively brazen. There are others that I was a bit nonplussed by that don't recall off-hand. I imagine there's a lot of nuance I'm missing as someone quite ignorant of the period and that there are explanations for the seeming inconsistencies, but I was a bit lost as to exactly why she thought as she did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Thanks for that very generous offer - will contact you with details shortly. Denmark was a small polity but it was relatively wealthy and Christian IV was also the duke of Holstein and could get revenue from it on his own, without consulting everyone else in the Danish government. This allowed him to punch above his weight. But the wars he waged damaged the Danish economy, which only works if you win. After Tilly and Wallenstein beat him in the 20s, the provisions in the treaty they made him sign included that Denmark would stay out of Imperial politics forever. Those two are why Denmark isn't a European great power any more. (Yes, a big general in the field can draw up treaties. Yes, this eventually came back to bite Wallenstein.) Do you mean Ferdinand II or III? Ferdinand I was in the 1500s. Ferdinand II is the one who was so freaking catholic he started the war up again after he had won it. Ferdinand III is the one who was a decent young man who hadn't chosen the situation he had been born into and had to make the most of it. Gustavus Adolphus is overrated but here Wedgewood is at the mercy of her sources, which are either Protestant or French. English-language historiography has a long lasting Protestant bas. The person who really comes out poorly in works from this period is Matthias Gallas, who may have been drunk but he wasn't incompetent. The new work that's come out on him rehabilitates his image substantially, but it's all in German. Squalid posted:This is one of the cool things about reading history, seeing how people who seem extremely normal and otherwise relatable will act in ways that appear insane by modern standards, totally oblivious to the norms and standards we'd like to imagine as universal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
What's your take on Berhard of Saxe-Weimar? He lost really badly at Noerdlingen, but his command of the French troops and the Heilbronn League seems to have been remarkably successful, as well as a lot of his earlier stuff with the Dutch. Generally, who do you think was the best of the Protestant commanders?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:It is and I liked it compared with the US version which is a painting. Would that be his preference? That painted cover looks really cool on the glossy hardback version I saw, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:What's your take on Berhard of Saxe-Weimar? He lost really badly at Noerdlingen, but his command of the French troops and the Heilbronn League seems to have been remarkably successful, as well as a lot of his earlier stuff with the Dutch. quote:Generally, who do you think was the best of the Protestant commanders?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:Do you mean Ferdinand II or III? Ferdinand I was in the 1500s. Ferdinand II is the one who was so freaking catholic he started the war up again after he had won it. Ferdinand III is the one who was a decent young man who hadn't chosen the situation he had been born into and had to make the most of it. I meant Ferdinand II, my bad. Thanks for the extra context. Also: quote:The person who really comes out poorly in works from this period is Matthias Gallas, who may have been drunk but he wasn't incompetent. The new work that's come out on him rehabilitates his image substantially, but it's all in German. Hah. Wedgwood speaks of John George of Saxony similarly; apparently drinking heavily was lauded among Germans at the time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Hah. Wedgwood speaks of John George of Saxony similarly; apparently drinking heavily was lauded among Germans at the time? Pretty much everyone in the 17th century drank heroic amounts of booze.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:Hah. Wedgwood speaks of John George of Saxony similarly; apparently drinking heavily was lauded among Germans at the time? The Elector of Saxony was a big fat drunk but he was not an idiot. Saxony's problem was that it spent the 1620s caught between Johann Georg's conservative political beliefs (loyalty to the Emperor and veneration for the constitution) and Ferdinand II's ultra-Catholicism. Saxony drops out of the conflict in '25, but gets increasingly jumpy through the late 20s. Johann Georg starts re-arming in May 1631, but nobody knows this. During that summer, he tries to coordinate a group of moderate Protestants, which fails, and he gradually gets pushed toward allying with Sweden. Tilly occupying Saxony with troops that fall is usually cited as the tipping point for what pushed the Elector of Saxony into the Swedish alliance, but by that point he was probably going to do that anyway. Yet he was never entirely comfortable as Sweden's ally, which is why Wallenstein kept trying to peel him off of Gustavus Adolphus and broker a seperate piece with Saxony behind everyone else's back. In 1635 the Emperor concluded the peace he had killed Wallenstein in '34 for trying to bring about. This is the Peace of Prague, which brought Saxony back onto the Imperial side and ensured that most of those moderate Protestant polities that follow Saxony are either Imperialist or neutral. It also legally protected the Imperial Estates from having troops quartered in their territories without their consent. This is why Gallas's military expeditions after 35 often ended in failure--he can't provide for his troops and he is too loyal to risk an inter(intra??)national incident by quartering them on someone anyway and daring them to make a big deal out of it, which is what Wallenstein probably would have done. Saxony's army gets the biggest it will ever get in 1637, as part of a large military endeavor which they fail at, and then the troop numbers decline. But it manages to support at least a small army until 1651. I think they win like one battle or something. They sort of hang out in the eastern part of Central Europe. They don't collapse, which is an achievement, and Saxony gets a number of territories out of its allegiance with the Emperor. In a bunch of fights from the last decade of the war, the side that's usually designated as "Imperialist" is an Imperialist/Saxon/(Danish??) coalition force. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Feb 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:These are not modern Americans in fancy hats, they're real weird For some reason I find the ways people in the past used and interacted with human bodies really interesting. . . I mean in some ways its not surprising, who isn't fascinated by looking and interacting with things that used to be real people? However today we've worked hard to build these elaborate systems to regulate and control how our corpses are used that didn't exist in the very recent past. For example the Ye Olde Curiosity Shop in Seattle Washington, has a 100 year old cowboy mummy that it bought from a con artist and gangster. Supposedly he died in the desert and was naturally dried out by the desert climate. However modern investigators found he was embalmed with arsenic. Who was he and how did the con-artist get his body? :itisamystery: Hopefully he wasn't actually murdered and preserved by the gangster, but I don't think anyone knows and 100 years ago nobody cared where it came from. I also like the story of how the trade in shrunken heads got banned. In the 19th century with colonialism in full swing collectors started going crazy for the body parts of the natives of far off lands. In places like New Zealand museum curators would visit locals and draw up contracts to buy the heads or skins of people with interesting tattoos, sometimes before they were even dead. Typically such specimens would be collected, with or without the permission of the original owner, after a natural death. However how the body parts were obtained was not usually a concern of collectors. This caused serious trouble in places like the Peruvian Amazon when western anthropologists discovered the Jivaroan practice of creating shrunken heads. The heads were traditionally collected in the course of small scale feuds and tribal warfare, and instantly sparked sensational demand for the objects within western markets. A brisk trade quickly sprung into existence, with guns, machetes, and other modern manufactured goods exchanged for human heads. While the Jivaroan had since times immemorial engaged in headhunting and warfare, now they could expect a hefty bounty for every head taken. Fueled with newly plentiful western weaponry, this had the predictable effect of sparking a massive increase in warfare and violence. While this violence was contained to indigenous communities deep within the Amazonian jungle the trade continued with collectors more-or-less oblivious to the fruits of their interest. However when the heads of Indian warriors began to become scarce, the headhunters expanded their list of targets. First to include Indian women, who previously had never been used to create shrunken heads. The trade was finally halted and banned when the Jivaroan started targeting neighboring mestizo communities, and white Peruvian traders began finding and collecting heads of their own for the trade, with dark and mysterious provenance. This post was mostly drawn from the book The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians edited by Richard J. Chacon, David H. Dye, though I have not read it in completion, just a few bits available for free viewing on google books. One good passage:  edit: There's something about that image of a seething mob cheering and hollering at the presentation the flesh of their vanquished enemies I can't forget. Especially because they would have sounded like me, lived under basically the same government, have read many of the same books and had the same religion, yet still be so totally unrelatable. Squalid fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Feb 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Good lord I just realized that Caro still hasn’t finished his LBJ biography series. I thought he’d been done for years. From Wikipedia quote:In November 2011, Caro estimated that the fifth and final volume would require another two to three years to write.[11] In March 2013, he affirmed a commitment to completing the series with a fifth volume.[12] As of April 2014, he was continuing to research the book.[13] In a televised interview with C-SPAN in May 2017, Caro confirmed over 400 typed pages as being complete, covering the period 1964–65; and that once he completes the section on Johnson's 1965 legislative achievements, he intends to move to Vietnam to continue the writing process.[14] He went from thinking it would be done by 2014 to it being several years away as of last December. Dude is gonna die long before he finishes at this rate. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Good lord I just realized that Caro still hasn’t finished his LBJ biography series. I thought he’d been done for years. I really hope he has a succession plan. Also, I bet he was giving bad estimates for completion for every single volume of the LBJ series. Writing this book is probably what keeps him alive, like coaching football is what kept Bear Bryant alive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
How come LBJ gets the definitive 5,000 page biography of our time and not someone like FDR? Or any number of other more important historical figures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:How come LBJ gets the definitive 5,000 page biography of our time and not someone like FDR? Or any number of other more important historical figures. Because LBJ recorded every conversation he had in the White House and his whole governing career is when thorough record keeping and retention really started. So his career is really well-documented and he really wanted it to be out there and available for people to learn about. Plus his era in government included the Great Depression, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the hottest part of the Cold War. Pretty much most of the consequential history of the 20th Century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Good lord I just realized that Caro still hasn’t finished his LBJ biography series. I thought he’d been done for years. That delay was probably due to his imprisonment in Syria though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:That delay was probably due to his imprisonment in Syria though? What? Going down a rabbit hole on this, quote:Among sources close to the late president, Johnson's widow Lady Bird Johnson "spoke to [Caro] several times and then abruptly stopped without giving a reason, and Bill Moyers, Johnson's press secretary, has never consented to be interviewed, but most of Johnson's closest friends, including John Connally and George Christian, Johnson's last press secretary, who spoke to Caro practically on his deathbed, have gone on the record" What's your problem, Bill Moyers? Also quote:In an interview with The New York Review of Books in January 2018, Caro indicated he did not know when the book would be finished, mentioning anywhere from two to ten years. lol. Who is the bigger tease, George RR Martin or Caro? Look Sir Droids fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Feb 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:That delay was probably due to his imprisonment in Syria though? Took me a second. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:What? https://forums.somethingawful.com/dictionary.php?act=3&topicid=2299
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Caro the Goon could be the subject of a really fascinating book. Honesty surprised no ones hooked him up with a publisher and a ghost writer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 23:09
|
|