Yes, Currahee! was written by a D-Day paratrooper. It’s an unforgettable read.
Yes, that was one in particular I was thinking about. He, Burgett wrote a series of books on his experiences.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, Currahee! was written by a D-Day paratrooper. It’s an unforgettable read.
Yes, that was one in particular I was thinking about. He, Burgett wrote a series of books on his experiences.
True on so many levels. The other thing that was eerie was how these Nazis would have appeared so civilized in so many settings...but abject evil was abound. People who get emotionally swept up in the current mood of the mob would be wise to read books like this. It is a great illustration of how quickly and profoundly totalitarians can gain power without a majority supporting them. And once in power, they can turn with great viciousness on the mobs enabled their installment.That book connected with me on so many levels. The first was silly, it made me feel like a great parent. My daughter is never going to grow up to date a high ranking Nazi or Soviet officer.
The second was how things came about in terms of silencing speech and having roving gangs enforcing unspoken “rules.” It very much reminds me of what is going on in our country now. Throw in that the Nazis had harsher animal cruelty laws than laws concerning Jewish life and you can see even more similarities. Scary stuff. Almost anything Krakauer does is great. Tells a great story.
True on so many levels. The other thing that was eerie was how these Nazis would have appeared so civilized in so many settings...but abject evil was abound. People who get emotionally swept up in the current mood of the mob would be wise to read books like this. It is a great illustration of how quickly and profoundly totalitarians can gain power without a majority supporting them. And once in power, they can turn with great viciousness on the mobs enabled their installment.
But the author is Eric Larson.
I have read the civil war and World War 1. Read the Guns of August. I read his WW2 book.You probably mean John Keegan. His history of World War II is the best I have ever read. He goes very in depth into the economic and industrial strength of each nation which was fascinating. He also went into great detail regarding the Atlantic convoy system and UBoat war against the convoys. I think I might read it again because I keep thinking of things he did better than anyone else. Detailed the Battle of Stalingrad, the V2 rocket race, the German’s understanding of the importance of the oil fields at Ploesti coming too late...
He also wrote a history of the Civil War and WWI which are excellent. Keegan is my favorite historian.
I have read The Splendid and the Vile...bought it the day it hit the street...Time period of WW2 I find most fascinating...typical superlative stuff from EL!Yep you are right. For some reason when I think of In the Garden of Beasts it make me think of a Krakauer book Under the Banner of Heaven which is about three LDS brothers who start a killing spree. I am looking forward to reading The Splendid and the Vile by Larson. Have you read it?
. The USA literally supplied England AND Russia (Lend Lease) with the capital and capability of war, against the German juggernaut. They survived because of the USA.Most Americans don’t realize that by June 6 1944 the Russians had been fighting for three years and were decimating the Germans in the east. Despite what we were taught growing up, the U.S. didn’t win the war but helped shorten it.
This was mentioned already....
While not a comprehensive WW2 book, it is one of the finest pieces of literature you will come across. Once you read it, you will never forget it.
You are correct. I have read many books on the Eastern front but didn’t want to correct him as he was obviously fired up. My father fought in Europe and I have all the respect for them.Actually, jennjefjoe is just wrong about his final assessment. The allies achieved air supremacy sometime in 1944. Operation Bagration launched to help relieve Western Allies in June 1944. The Battles of Leningrad and Moscow were in 1941 before the Americans got involved although Leningrad lasted quite a while. Stalingrad was done in January 1943 and Kursk was fought in July 1943. The Germans lost them all and they were all before we got seriously involved.
Also, are you aware of Fritz Todt. In 1941, well before we were attacked and involved ourselves in WW2, he told Hitler to settle the conflict with the Soviet Union as the war in the East was lost if better supplies and logistics could not be supplied. All of this was before significant American involvement. yes, we did make materiel and supplies available and it can be argued these were the critical element to victory.
You are correct. I have read many books on the Eastern front but didn’t want to correct him as he was obviously fired up. My father fought in Europe and I have all the respect for them.
Yep.
It becomes emotional because it becomes a USA vs. USSR thing for some, or because they had family fight on the Western front (as I did), or because many were taught growing up that the Americans won WWII (as I did).
It's okay to acknowledge that (1) while the United States did incredible things in advancing on Nazi Germany while also fighting and ultimately defeating the Japanese, (2) the Soviets bore the largest brunt and had turned the tide against a Nazi war machine that the United States never had to face.
Not to diminish what we faced on the Western front. The Ardennes offensive in 1944 was no joke, and we were fighting legitimately tough units up and down Italy, in North Africa, and in France/Germany. But what the Soviets faced was a completely different beast. And once they were able to mobilize their war machine and churn out bodies for the slaughter, Germany's fate was sealed.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that German defeat was ensured the moment they launched Barbarossa on 22 June 1941. They made strategic errors that perhaps -- if avoided -- could have resulted in Soviet collapse. But their failure to close the deal in the winter of 1941 -- mostly because of a late start thanks to some distractions in the Balkans -- was the first nail in the coffin. The Soviets had too many men, too much land, too many resources. We assisted the Soviet effort, of course. But we were not the primary reason for Nazi defeat in the east.
I would like to add that Germany was never a serious threat to invade England, they did not have any landing craft, they planned to use barges to cross the Channel. In addition the Germans had a very small surface navy, even a weakened RAF along with the Royal Navy would have slaughtered that invasion force.Yep.
It becomes emotional because it becomes a USA vs. USSR thing for some, or because they had family fight on the Western front (as I did), or because many were taught growing up that the Americans won WWII (as I did).
It's okay to acknowledge that (1) while the United States did incredible things in advancing on Nazi Germany while also fighting and ultimately defeating the Japanese, (2) the Soviets bore the largest brunt and had turned the tide against a Nazi war machine that the United States never had to face.
Not to diminish what we faced on the Western front. The Ardennes offensive in 1944 was no joke, and we were fighting legitimately tough units up and down Italy, in North Africa, and in France/Germany. But what the Soviets faced was a completely different beast. And once they were able to mobilize their war machine and churn out bodies for the slaughter, Germany's fate was sealed.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that German defeat was ensured the moment they launched Barbarossa on 22 June 1941. They made strategic errors that perhaps -- if avoided -- could have resulted in Soviet collapse. But their failure to close the deal in the winter of 1941 -- mostly because of a late start thanks to some distractions in the Balkans -- was the first nail in the coffin. The Soviets had too many men, too much land, too many resources. We assisted the Soviet effort, of course. But we were not the primary reason for Nazi defeat in the east.
Seared into memory - great description. I remember reading it right out of PSU while working my first job (national defense-related)...literally could not put it down...Agree completely.
My grandfather (WWII combat infantryman) recommended it. My dad then read and recommended it. And so it passed to me -- read it for the first time when I was maybe 14, and I try to read it every 10 years or so.
It's a beast. 1,400+ pages. But probably the most incredible book I've yet read. Some of the passages are seared into my memory for all-time.
Not the most authoritative history. But the best journalistic account of Nazi Germany you'll ever find.
Barbarossa by Alan Clark is a great account of the Nazi-Soviet war. Too few Americans are literate about the Eastern Front, and some of the battles -- like Kursk -- dwarf anything involving the United States. The sheer magnitude of the killing was something that United States has never remotely experienced.
Norway says hello.I would like to add that Germany was never a serious threat to invade England, they did not have any landing craft, they planned to use barges to cross the Channel. In addition the Germans had a very small surface navy, even a weakened RAF along with the Royal Navy would have slaughtered that invasion force.
Another huge mistake by Hitler was not finishing the Brits off at Dunkirk, that was another 300K plus soldiers they later had to fight.
Declaring war on the USA was also another nail in the coffin.
Good thread. Can anyone take the time to expand on what exactly the German endgame was for the Battle of Britain? I know that Goering overpromised on what the Luftwaffe could accomplish but the logistical issues with invading England mentioned here were certainly not lost on the German General Staff. So, what? Was it just a matter of getting air and sea superiority and starving England into submission?
Starve them and along with the fear of an invasion, hopefully England sues for peace.Good thread. Can anyone take the time to expand on what exactly the German endgame was for the Battle of Britain? I know that Goering overpromised on what the Luftwaffe could accomplish but the logistical issues with invading England mentioned here were certainly not lost on the German General Staff. So, what? Was it just a matter of getting air and sea superiority and starving England into submission?
I know there are a lot of history buffs on here, so I thought I'd ask. I've read a ton of Civil War books, FDR and Churchill Bios. I'm looking for a single volume on WW II. I don't want a 5 volume set. I'd love it to be detailed on the military strategies, but not so much that it gets bogged down and becomes unreadable. I am also interested in the background bios of the major figures of the war. Maybe I'm asking a lot for all this to be in a single volume, but I thought I'd throw it out there. What do you all think? Thanks in advance!