|
Somebody earlier in the thread was asking about 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. I'm a big fan of this book. Some of the more outlandish numbers are speculative, but Mann warns about those. I think the basic thesis is quite sound, and I don't think anyone who reads this will think of American Indians in the same way. I've got a counter to Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, which I'll confess I haven't read. But I have read Michael Jones' book on the subject, Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed. From what I understand, Jones wrote this as a response to Beevor's book, which apparently had some inaccuracies. It's almost entirely dedicated to the Red Army; if you're interested in the Germans, look elsewhere. Jones also has a book on the Leningrad siege which I'm reading now. Harrowing stuff. Last Days of the Incas is a very interesting book about a subject I knew nothing about before I picked up the book. It chronicles the means by which the Conquistadors conquered the Inca Empire, and also the little known revolt that almost succeeded in toppling Pizarro. This book is great at showing how much the Europeans' success was built on disease, pitting one native group against another, and sheer dumb luck.
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What problems did he have with Anthony Beevor? Jones disagrees with Beevor about how many Soviet soldiers were executed, the orthodox view of Pavlov's House, the details of other engagements like the battle for the Railway, the start of the sniper movement, and a jillion other things. The book really feels like a response to Beevor's work, and Jones spends a large part of his book debunking him. The basic thesis of Jones' book is that the Soviets didn't win by just throwing more men at the Germans, but by good decisions by their leadership and unbreakable morale. From what I could gather, Beevor reinforces the traditional view that the Soviets mindlessly threw themselves against the guns of the Germans until they beat them into submission. Jones writes that that would be impossible; the Soviets were often outnumbered, had less armored support, and had given up complete air superiority. But the Soviets had good officers, and for the first time in the war, Stalin let them make informed decisions without political oversight. They developed new tactics and somehow managed to keep on fighting despite suffering huge casualties. I haven't read Beevor's book, so I can't comment on his scholarship, but Jones' claims seem very well supported. His book is almost entirely focused on the Soviet side, and the fighting inside the city itself, so if you're interested in other parts of the battle, you won't find much in here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 23:02
|
|