|
Rotten Punk posted:Geneva Convention - This is the illustrated edition, since you probably don't read so good. For what it's worth, I thought this was brilliant. If anybody's interested in Germany during the interwar period (that's between the world wars, you uneducated plebs), I've got a couple of suggestions. This one's a decent overview: James S. Corum, The Roots of Blitzkrieg (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1992) These were written by generals deeply involved in the development of German tank doctrine: Heinz Guderian, Achtung-Panzer! The Development of Tank Warfare, trans. Christopher Duffy (London: Cassell, 1999) Erich von Manstein, Lost Victories, ed. and trans. Anthony G. Powell (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1958) Note that in Guderian's book, depending on which edition you get, there's a passage that credits B. H. Liddell-Hart with being one of the early tank theoriests...this passage appeared after LH read the book and contacted Guderian to ask him to put him in it because he knew what a significant book it would become. LH had little/nothing to do even with British tank doctrine.
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
That's a $25 paperback with no kindle edition. drat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:So I got the Library to get some books in from across town: The Germans didn't coin the term "blitzkreig" as we associate it with the invasion of Poland, but it was definitely in use prior to 1942. It was used in a 1939 issue of Time Magazine, and probably before that since Time doesn't seem to have invented it either. I'd recommend Manstein's book Lost Victories as well. I've got a 27-page paper on the development of blitzkreig as an operational concept. Some of the better sources I had were Achtung Panzer, The Roots of Blitzkreig by James Corum, Guderian: Creator of the Blitzkreig by Kenneth Macksey (this guy seriously sucks Guderian's dick), and anything you can find on Hans von Seekt...this guy is the reason Germany was able to rebuild so effectively despite the pressures the Allies dumped on it. Edit: After some quick reading through of articles I saved on the topic, it seems blitzkreig was used on several occasions by German military writers/strategists throughout the interwar period, as early as the 20s. But it was generally used as a description (it means "lightning war") rather than a name or title of anything specific. It was used to describe such things as the sudden onset of combat, or as a "knockout blow." So it's likely the term was just applied to a situation that fit the description, and stuck as a name. But the West applied that name first, then the Germans were like "Yeah, that sounds badass. We'll use it too." Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 16:25
|
|
Nice to know, I guess.
|
So his theory is that the War of 1812 was a big win for the US? That's interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Because Britain never tried to actually win. The official issues of impressment and other naval abuses by the Brits against Americans were weak justifications for the declaration of war...the idea that it was an excuse to annex Canada and expel Britain from North America fits the evidence and the Americans' emphasis on a northbound land campaign much better. American naval hit-and-tactics served them well, but only because the Royal Navy treated that theater as the sideshow it was and only dispatched enough ships to keep the USN busy. I'm actually interested in reading this book, now. Edit: the War of 1812 was a push, not a win. The American land campaign was a complete disaster, and the naval campaign actually accomplished nothing of value. The British Acts that America was outraged about were actually already repealed before Congress declared war, but the news was still crossing the Atlantic. The Americans got what they wanted without firing a shot, but because *reasons* they decided to invade Canada rather than cease hostilities. If it weren't for the continental war in Europe and the global naval campaign Britain was already fighting, the Americans would have been fighting against a British reconquest. Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The war of 1812 was a win for the navy. Back when, there were strong feelings about standing armies and such. The opposite tradition was the militia on the village green and all that, but you couldn't exactly muster a frigate on the village green*. Warships required a huge amount capital and manpower to sustain. Once the war broke out, the navy validated its own existence. It was a political win. But as far as a military win, not really, no. They held their own against a small contingent of a distracted enemy, nothing more.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Sacrilage posted:That's a fair assessment, but I would reiterate the strength of will and character that the Navy and it's men showed during the war. Sure, there was the normal amount of Navy bullshit (which was perhaps some of the most shocking parts; I had this view of American history as sunshine and glory, uneducated as I am), but in the end it took a significant amount of courage to be willing to face the reputation of the British Navy, and to believe that victory was possible at all. The parallel would be ridiculous, like the modern Malaysian Navy crippling an American CSG. Considering the Navy was facing virtual disbandment, I'd say the fact that they came out looking pretty baller and allowed to continue existing makes it a political win. The US felt like it had a pretty good idea of what the Brits could bring to the fight...after all, this was only three decades after the Revolution. And that time around, the Royal Navy actually ran a seaborne logistics/troop movement chain that wouldn't be topped until loving D-Day, and it wasn't enough. Add in a continental war and a global naval war that the Brits were fully committed to, and the Americans were feeling pretty good about the odds. Unfortunately there were few good generals available to the Army, and Jefferson & Co. had basically gutted both the War and Naval Depts since taking power. The Americans were lucky to get off so easily, considering how inept they were. I'm glad you brought this back up, I'd forgotten to throw this book on my amazon wish list. Edit: V That's why I think it's a shame nobody gives a drat about that one...everyone just laughs at Canada burning down the White House (which didn't really happen that way) and moves on to the Civil War. Godholio fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
anne frank fanfic posted:I always thought Washington was more cooperative and moderate back when they were killing each other in a civil war, as opposed to now where there's various snarky twitter accounts and political commentators. I assume you're trolling GiP again, but serious answer: absolutely not. A then-recently-retired Secretary of the Treasury challenged the then-Vice President to a loving pistol duel (and lost).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Obama Africanus posted:Read Gibbons. All grown men should at least put that on a bucket list back burner, it's the last true history of "us" and Howard Zinn is a dick suck sycophant compared to gibbons, and I love Zinn. Gibbon was not intellectually honest in the way we define it today. He was very much a historian of the Enlightenment, and wrote his histories from the perspective of "how these things raised us up above our ancestors." He comes at the subject in a very tautological way. He basically starts from the end state and works backward, tweaking as needed to make the story fit his argument and hold sway over non-historian readers. That second part's not a terrible thing, though. It's definitely on my list to read...I want to read the entire drat thing, but as a historical work it tells us more about the minds of enlightened scholars than it does about the Roman Empire. As a historical piece it's actually used as an example of what not to do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Not teaching yet...it's not a career that'll pay the bills so I put that on the back burner until at least next year while I chase contractor funbux. Teaching only pays about $2k per class per semester. That puts it squarely in the "not my day job" category. So for now I read and refine some ideas i want to research, write, and publish. But I do know how to analyze a historian's work. Edit: Also, not saying don't read Gibbon. I don't know of anyone else who's tried to tackle such a huge subject in one massive loving effort. There's definitely value in it, but just know that it's not the end-all. Godholio fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
George R. R. Martin.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Oh, hey, forgot about this thread. This book came up in discussion in GIP before, so I'll mention that I'm reading The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. It's not a bad read, but this guy has a SERIOUS loving hardon for the Romans. It's clear from about 3 pages in that they were the pinnacle of human civilization and if we're lucky we'll match them again someday. It was apparently sunshine and butterflies for several centuries, during which time barbarians were converted (immediately upon defeat) into eternally loyal subjects, slaves were so well treated that they were fine with maintaining their station in life and passing it on to their children, etc etc. If you can get past the phallus delectabitur there's some good info and sources. You just have to sift verifiable events from the author's opinion. Also, keep in mind that it was written in the 1700s and most "current" editions were still re-edited 150 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
hannibal posted:Also about the Roman Empire but with a military focus (and of course, much more recent) is The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. It goes into great detail about Roman military organization, defenses (the limes), tactics, logistics, and (duh) strategy. The same guy wrote a similar book about the Byzantine Empire that I haven't gotten around to yet. I haven't read this one yet (it's on my list) but just realize that he's one voice in a reasonably active debate. I know there are a couple of more recent books out that disagree with him.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Tour of Duty wasn't good enough for you? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the one I've got. It's also next to impossible to figure out which editor's comments you're reading.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I know we had Saudichat a while back, so I went out and read Inside the Kingdom. Goddamn. I have no idea how they're our allies. The poo poo that goes on in Saudi Arabia boggles the mind. They have lots of oil and are big and Not Iran.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 21:38
|
|