Wodin Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Stalingrad is a great book to introduce Military History books to the non Military History crowd. My Brother in Law says it's the best book he has ever read. Yet I do tell him there are much better, he refuses to believe it!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamer58 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 LukeFF, Don't know where that quote originated, but I know of NO B-17 attacks on Japan, for the very good reason the B-17 lacked the range. The bombers may've been flashy and were certainly hurtful in their attacks on Japanese cities, but the defeat of the Japanese was ultimately a mathematical certainty because of submarine warfare and the wholesale use of sea mines dropped by B-29s. That's what RAND concluded. Without food, fuel and other essentials the blockade denied them, the Japanese were doomed to an agonizing slow death. Regards, John Kettler Yes the SS was critical. But for whatever reason at the time the command thought it wasn't enough to blockade or starve them - otherwise there would have been no plans drawn up for Operations like Cartwheel, Iceberg, Olympic, Coronet etc, only a long slow blockade. That quote comes from my earlier post. My reference to B17s was really a throw-away, but the B17s were used all throughout the theater, mainly to disrupt enemy shipping, also against enemy warships, but in reality the B24 was favored. However, everywhere in 1945 the superweapon - the B29 delivered the killing blow, and actually we only had enough material for one more pistol for an A Bomb. Two were delivered and had the intended result, but if they had called our bluff we would have used a third, and after that prayed for another 6 months of men going through the meat grinder until there was another fissile material ready for another A Bomb to use. What I don't get is how Beevor thinks MacArthur is an overrated leader. I thought the leader's job was to GSD. We did win that war, didn't we? And Beevor conveniently forgets Inchon? Screw Beevor and his gewgaw books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamer58 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Stalingrad is a great book to introduce Military History books to the non Military History crowd. My Brother in Law says it's the best book he has ever read. Yet I do tell him there are much better, he refuses to believe it!. Exactly. Great for grandmas too. But frankly there is so much primary source material available on PATHE, Liveleak, YouTube and websites that I find reading anything like Beevor's accounts to be Mawkish. Compare Beevor's type of 'on the page' recounts with something like Buchanan's book 'Churchill Hitler and the Unecessary War' where the latter author actually does come up with something unique. Screw Beevor and his fit for strip mall bookshop bargain bin publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 jeez what did beevor bang your girlfriend back in the day or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrus58 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Exactly. Great for grandmas too. But frankly there is so much primary source material available on PATHE, Liveleak, YouTube and websites that I find reading anything like Beevor's accounts to be Mawkish. Compare Beevor's type of 'on the page' recounts with something like Buchanan's book 'Churchill Hitler and the Unecessary War' where the latter author actually does come up with something unique. Screw Beevor and his fit for strip mall bookshop bargain bin publications. So you're critical of Beevor, yet cite Buchanan. Yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I understand D. Irving has some nice things to say about MacArthur. You should look him up - it seems like his style would be right up your alley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I get the sense that Gamer58 doesn't like Beevor's books, but it may just be me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamer58 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I understand D. Irving has some nice things to say about MacArthur. You should look him up - it seems like his style would be right up your alley That's got nothing to do with Beevor being wrong about MacArthur, but nice Alinsky like tactics there if that is what you are trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamer58 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 So you're critical of Beevor, yet cite Buchanan. Yeah, right. Watch the CSpan interview of PJB talking about his book, sources etc (it runs about an hour, used to be available on google video). PHB actually comes up with something interesting and original. Can't say I feel the same about Beevor's books. Also Beevor is just flat out wrong about MacArthur. We did win that war, didn't we? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamer58 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I get the sense that Gamer58 doesn't like Beevor's books, but it may just be me. But they are great reads for 10 year olds and grandma! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I've never read any of Beevor's books because I was never particularly drawn to them. The East Front is not really my thing. But now you've got me curious. I may to find out just exactly what he has to say about MacArthur. I will repeat what I said earlier about Manchester's biography of the General. It strikes me as both compendious and even-handed. He doesn't stint praise when MacArthur gets it right, neither does he gloss over his faults and failings. I was very impressed. Probably the best biography I personally have read. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tecumseh Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 He's fantastic. He's one of the few WW2 authors I feel I could spend an evening with, and wouldn't need to invent an excuse to escape back to normal people. He's not pompous, he's not lost in fantasy. He has empathy and he has perspective and balance. I've read all his books and probably enjoyed the one on the Spanish civil war the most. I never really saw an anti-soviet bias, but he mentions rape in most of his books and I think his personal feeling is the suffering of women by rape is a horror of war that doesn't get enough attention, so he focuses some time on it. And he doesn't attempt to excuse the horrific Red Army rape statistics by talking at great length about the reasons a soviet soldier might think it was warranted. Which I think is the right thing, just as he doesn't try to excuse other atrocities by giving the criminal's POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I'm closing this topic for two reasons: 1. It has nothing to do with the Med Theater, or even the European Theater! Might as well be talking about The War of 1812. 2. When someone posts an overtly strong opinion, he should expect to get push back. And the more he digs in his heels, the more push back he's likely to get. This is not a place to see how dig heels can be dug in. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts