The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: Roger on September 05, 2006, 08:38:22 pm
-
If anyone here's interested in this kind of thing…
I've just read two of Antony Beevor's books about the Russian front: Stalingrad and Berlin 1945. That left me with a 2-year gap between the two events, from Feb 1943 to Feb 1945, and now I want to know what shenanigans were Stalin, Beria, Kruschev and the rest of the wacky gang up to at the time.
Any recommendations?
-
If anyone here's interested in this kind of thing…
I've just read two of Antony Beevor's books about the Russian front: Stalingrad and Berlin 1945. That left me with a 2-year gap between the two events, from Feb 1943 to Feb 1945, and now I want to know what shenanigans were Stalin, Beria, Kruschev and the rest of the wacky gang up to at the time.
Any recommendations?
I've been reading Stalingrad. Well, haven't read any in a while now, as I wasn't going to finish it in time to return it to my friend when I was there, and it's a bit hefty for a third airplane book.
Anyway, I don't really know of anything, except Antony Beevor has just released a book of the letters Stalin and Truman sent each other. Doesn't cover anything pre-'45 I assume, but might be of interest. I want to check it out at some point.
-
Hm, I'm an historian, but an Americanist, so the literature I know tends to be very US-centric. Try reading the endnotes in Beevor's books and see if one reference jumps out at you time and time again.
I'm guessing you'll run across David Glantz, he's pretty well-known. However, I haven't personally read his stuff so I couldn't tell you which of his many books would be the best choice. He's quite prolific. Avoid Stephen Ambrose, he's a great writer but I don't trust his scholarship.
If you're a student, you can probably get access to Google Scholar through your university library website, and that could point you to a journal or two that might give you a lead on an author whose style you like.
WWII history is sort of a matter of taste, you can narrow down to military, political, cultural or social and still have plenty to choose from.
Let me know what you find, for my own edification if nothing else. And if you're into US diplomacy I can give you some good titles in that area.
-
Here's my thought on World War Two:
Does anyone else get this feeling that... it kind of hard-wired something ultimately bad into the American culture?
Since "we" won the last big transregional war on a combination of national sacrifice and the dark magic of the atom, there's this... collective subconscious feeling that we're, like, just the good guys. Just always the good guys and World War Two proved it... and it's this kind of cultural brain damage that we haven't recovered from...
Like we learned the wrong lesson from World War Two.
Like instead of learning that war is this giant soulless awful thing that must only be done in direct self-defense and through tremendous sacrifice from the top down... which actually was the truth... instead we sort of just came to the conclusion that we're the good guys all the time and World War Two horror just keeps getting... vomited back up over and over again anytime we're fighting for the wrong reasons.
As though we lost for winning. I don't know. It's something that crosses my mind all too often lately.
-
A compelling argument, but it assumes no Korea, no VietNam, and no Persian Gulf, part 1 (technically a "police action.")
There is an historical argument that the U.S. always fights the previous war. WWII was fought based on the lessons learned during (mostly after) WWI about appeasement and secret alliances. Korea was fought in an attempt to prevent another incarnation of WWII. VietNam, like Korea, was a product of the Cold War mentality, but the way in which it was fought hinged on lessons learned in Korea, mainly the stuff about "winning hearts and minds." Many would argue that the current war on terror is a way of compensating for the losses suffered in VietNam and re-asserting our cultural and moral superiority in the world.
I think the parallels with VietNam are important, but should not be overstated. I see the war on terror as the new Cold War. There were a number of issues during the Cold War era that presidents of both parties grappled with, and which GWB and his successors (whoever they may be) will have to grapple with. For one, how do you fight an ideology? For another, how do you oppose groups through military force when those groups are adept at (and prefer) non-military tactics?
I should state for the record that IANAMH (I am not a military historian). I don't know the details of every battle fought on foreign soil. My studies tend towards the cultural and occasionally the political, but insofar as foreign policy has an impact on domestic life, the United States' place in the world has changed significantly since WWII. I think there was for many years a sense that "we" -- Americans, the unit -- would always be the men in white hats, but I think VietNam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and however many other deceptive, immoral, or just downright evil actions perpetrated by our government have changed that. Maybe I'm a cynic, or maybe I'm naive, but I don't think people had the same faith in government even six years ago that they had sixty years ago.
They certainly had plenty of faith in the thirties when Roosevelt all but handed us over to the commies. But you don't have to take my word for it. (http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=BK_PART_000163&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes)*
*I heard Jonathan Alter speak last night at school. He was pretty fascinating and I was a total fangirl. So buy his book. It's awesome.
-
Does anyone else get this feeling that... it kind of hard-wired something ultimately bad into the American culture?
Since "we" won the last big transregional war on a combination of national sacrifice and the dark magic of the atom, there's this... collective subconscious feeling that we're, like, just the good guys. Just always the good guys and World War Two proved it... and it's this kind of cultural brain damage that we haven't recovered from...
Actually it's been hard-wired into the American culture from the git-go, since John Winthrop's "shining city on a hill" speech. As a people, we tend to be convinced that we're morally and technologically superior to other countries. Which worked out nicely for us in WWII but makes us particularly ill-suited to confront a culture like militant Islam.
Loren Baritz's Backfire is about Vietnam, but it's a good read for someone interested in how our national attitude sometimes leads into situations where we get our asses chewed off.
-
we learned in my psych class today that Americans are wired to always think that things are getting better, Europeans are wired to think that things are always getting worse, and East Asians (in the study, actually, just Chinese) are wired to think that everything is staying the same. Huh. (it made me feel better that Europeans are just as fucked up as us. you know.)
-
Europeans are wired to think that things are always getting worse
Well, at least we're being realistic.
-
Hey cool, I thought this thread had been buried forever...
Thanks JL, I checked Glantz's bibliography, he seems to be quite the specialist on Eastern Front matters. I just need to find the right book, one that focuses on the Russian campaign as a whole, and not so much on specific operations and events.
IANAMH (I am not a military historian) either, not even a historian, and I'm not that interested in pure military stuff. What draws me to war history is how it culturally affects peoples and places and how it (re)shapes what comes after... For example, I've also been curious about post-war Germany and how a division that was forced upon a country "sedimented" along the years and established two distinct identities (if so).
It's Hollywood's fault that I became interested in WWII in the first place, I admit. But I started looking for Eastern Front accounts after becoming a little tired of always seeing the American side of the story, and realizing there was this whole other aspect of the conflict, this whole people who basically got the roughest deal in the affair (not to undervalue the suffering of other peoples involved, mind you...)
Anyway, a couple of years ago, during the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings, I started spotting comments here and there on the lines of the invasion of Normandy's main purpose actually being to secure Europe from getting completely snatched by Stalin... rather than freeing it from the evil Nazis and whatnot. Is that a valid historical interpretation nowadays?
-
Normandy's main purpose actually being to secure Europe from getting completely snatched by Stalin... rather than freeing it from the evil Nazis and whatnot. Is that a valid historical interpretation nowadays?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
-
My favorite WWII history is My Three Years With Eisenhower by Harry Butcher, Ike's naval aide and companion. Butcher was a magazine editor and CBS Vice-President who accompanied Eisenhower all over Africa and Europe serving as a media advisor and general pal. It's more of a personal history, but it does give some unique insight into the highest levels of command and to Eisenhower's personality.
-
I don't have much to say about WWII history but I am pleased that IANAMH (I Am Not A Military Historian) was used twice in the thread with the explanation that makes it actually longer both times. Keep up this shenanigan!
-
this reminds me-- in my latin textbook (actually, both The Student's Catullus and Caesar: 55 and 54 BC Expeditions to Britain) uses the abbreviation "Tr."
As far as I can tell, this is supposed to be short for "try."
[quote D.A.S. John (Ed.)]
rursus coniuratione facta: Tr. 'renewed their oaths to stand together'
[/quote]
what else could this mean? why would they tr. to abbreviate this word?
-
Translation?
-
hm. That would make so much sense, but they often seem like really inaccurate translations.
...that's probably what it is. Damn. This is like when I couldn't figure out what "natch" meant.
-
This is like when I couldn't figure out what "natch" meant.
Are you talking about just a couple of days ago when I used it?
~Paul
-
no, I had been seeing it all my life. And I had a concept of what I thought it meant. And then one day someone on here used it, and I read it as "naturally," and then said "wait... OH SHIT!"
I can no longer explain what I thought it meant. it was a pre-natch concept, to be sure.
-
no, I had been seeing it all my life. And I had a concept of what I thought it meant. And then one day someone on here used it, and I read it as "naturally," and then said "wait... OH SHIT!"
I can no longer explain what I thought it meant. it was a pre-natch concept, to be sure.
wait...OH SHIT!
I get it now.
...What draws me to war history is how it culturally affects peoples and places and how it (re)shapes what comes after...I started looking for Eastern Front accounts after becoming a little tired of always seeing the American side of the story, and realizing there was this whole other aspect of the conflict, this whole people who basically got the roughest deal in the affair...
You might look into what happened to Japanese culture after Hiroshima. I'm sure V-Adore could tell you quite a bit about this, but there's a real connection between the way Japanese animation/sci-fi developed and the a-bomb. Pedro wrote a paper on this way back in the dark ages when we were undergrads, but his bibliography isn't accessible at the moment. Pedro says that what it boils down to is, "if you got a place where giant earthquakes and then atomic bombs basically kill the hell out of everybody, you get some weird cartoons. And Godzilla."
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.
Anyway, a couple of years ago, during the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings, I started spotting comments here and there on the lines of the invasion of Normandy's main purpose actually being to secure Europe from getting completely snatched by Stalin... rather than freeing it from the evil Nazis and whatnot. Is that a valid historical interpretation nowadays?
AFAIK. There are, of course, historians that would argue both ways. It's kind of like the argument that the American Civil War wasn't actually about freeing the slaves, but was more about federalism vs. anti-federalism. As a rule, historians must beware of oversimplification, and saying that [action] was about [cause] without qualification often veers dangerously close to that precipice.
I tend towards revisionism so I sympathize with the cynics here, but when you talk about motives for an historical action, particularly when it is a government and not an individual committing that action, the "reason" or "purpose" tends to be a blend of all possible motivations for that particular choice. So, when given the choice, my answer is generally that it was probably a little of both.