(Part 3) Best military history books according to redditors
We found 4,468 Reddit comments discussing the best military history books. We ranked the 1,954 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
There is an argument using evolutionary theory that agriculture was only adopted to increase group fitness at the cost of indivual fitness.
Lots of civilisation diseases started with the adoption of agriculture.
So there is the argument that agriculture made civilisation possible but at the cost of pure indivual strength and physical prowess.
There is lots of evidence that early agricultural societies had less than healthy members compared to hunter gatherers.
When you think about it, the indivual skills of a warrior in a large army is less important than pure numbers, most armies in the past were farmers called to war once a year, and yet the prevailed most of the time against nomad societies whos way of life made them formidable indivual warriors like the steppe people, just by numbers alone.
Edit:
If someone is interested where these theories come from, I recommend these books:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0452288193/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0452288193
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0996139516/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0996139516
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Our-Success-Evolution-Domesticating/dp/0691178437/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=joseph+henrich&qid=1558984106&s=gateway&sprefix=joseph+henr&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Not-Genes-Alone-Transformed-Evolution/dp/0226712125/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=not+by+genes+alone&qid=1558984151&s=gateway&sprefix=Not+by+ge&sr=8-1
That battle is goddamned insane. There is absolutely zero reason Taffy 3 should have survived that, and through a combination of insane/heroic actions on the part of the escort destroyers and under-informed decision making on the Japanese side they survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0
I would credit the victory over France more to his generals, especially Guderian. The German doctrine at the time allowed for significant leeway on the part of field commanders and many of them showed incredible aggressiveness that led to that victory. Hitler and much of his staff at the time did not want the Panzer divisions to keep pressing into France, they feared that the lines would become too vulnerable and France would be able to counterattack. The Panzer divisions were actually ordered to stop, but Guderian pretended there was a problem with the radio and claimed he didn't receive the order. Then, he requested permission to send an "armed recon" mission to scout ahead -- and then he sent his whole division forward, claiming they were all part of the "recon" team. Eventually, Hitler asserted a halt order that is still a little controversial among military historians, and it caused the German advance to stop long enough for the Dunkirk evacuation. Had Hitler not given this order, Dunkirk may not have happened.
Sources for all this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Blitzkrieg-Legend-1940-Campaign/dp/1591142954/ and http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Decisive-Victory-Stalemate-Blitzkrieg/dp/0700616551/
Overall, the German army seemed to struggle most with intelligence (not meaning they were dumb, I mean in terms of getting information on the enemy, and counter-intelligence = keeping the enemy from finding out about you). They didn't seem to have great intel, and the allies often had solid intel on German movements, which plagued a lot of the German operations.
It seems that over the course of the war, Hitler went from an open policy, allowing his field commanders to improvise at their discretion, which tended to work well and give them flexibility -- to a more micro-managing, hands-on approach as the war went on. This kept the army from being able to respond as quickly and effectively.
I agree, Vietnam had project 100k one of the most retarded programs we ever had. There this book about it called Mcnamara's folly. They took the low IQ, the drop-outs, the criminal and the intellectually disabled and decided they would be perfect candidates for fighting a brutal jungle war.
These soldiers couldn't tie their shoe, read, write, some of them had down syndrome and some didn't know the difference between left or right. There's cases where the officers either killed outright or "unintentionally" (through things like heatstroke during training), they couldn't deal with it. Some of the low IQ soldiers would fight back and kill their officers, throw a grenade on them. These soldiers make up nearly 10% on the Vietnam memorial wall. This is why things like the my lai massacre happened when you had inept soldiers with little reasoning skills fighting it.
The author btw is pro-millitary and defends the US government.
I don't recall if there were pictures of the damage in the book I read (among other things, IIRC the DEs that were hit pretty much all sank, so there's no pictorial evidence from those, just eyewitness accounts), but the survivors described entire gun directors and (AA) gun mounts with their 12+ man crews being ripped right out of the ship and hurled through the air, as well as
> "a hole in the waterline big enough to drive a pair of sedans through, one beside the other".
That quote was regarding the USS Hoel, a Fletcher-class DD, probably hit by a 14-inch shell from the Kongo.
Then there's this one, regarding the DE Samuel B. Roberts, hit by three shells from the Kongo:
> At the waterline, about two-thirds of the way to the stern on the port side, gaped a cavernous hole seven to ten feet height and some fifty feet long. The massive opening would have neatly garaged a semitrailer parked sideways. ... Unlike the armor-piercing rounds that had penetrated earlier without exploding, the high-explosive shells that hit the Roberts now performed exactly as designed.
Note that it's largely conjecture that the IJN switched to HE rounds, but the damage and change in type of hits the ships were taking are very suggestive; the crew certainly believed the enemy had changed round types.
> Most of the planes from Taffy-3 were equipped for anti-sub and ground-support roles and didn't have the torpedoes and dive bombs usually used to attack warships
IIRC some of them were loaded with propaganda they were going to drop on the islands to try to win over the islanders the Japanese were invading.
So the planes would line up like they had torpedoes and bombs, buzzed the ships, and dropped a bunch of paper on them.
The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors is a book about the destroyer escorts that rode with the escort carriers and took on the Japanese navy. It covers every destroyer's crew and most of the escort carriers, explaining who was in charge, their story, and all the reasonings they had for what they did. It's really a great book and I'm kinda tearing up thinking of how great a sacrifice they were making.
Zoup did a pretty cool video about it.
I would highly recommend picking up The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors: The Extraordinary World War II Story of the U.S. Navy's Finest Hour
You certainly have to respect a man that said, "A large Japanese fleet has been contacted. They are fifteen miles away and headed in our direction. They are believed to have four battleships, eight cruisers, and a number of destroyers. This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can." The entire fight of Taffy 3 was, most certainly, bravery in the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.
Except that few did anything heroic. Instead, they suffered far higher death rates than average I.Q. soldiers, and got normal soldiers killed around them as well.
"Many military men, including William Westmoreland, the commanding general in Vietnam, viewed McNamara’s program as a disaster. Because many of the substandard men were incompetent in combat, they endangered not only themselves but their comrades as well. Their death toll was appallingly high."
https://www.amazon.com/McNamaras-Folly-Low-IQ-Troops-Vietnam-ebook/dp/B0108H60MG
"The low IQ soldiers were incompetent in combat, putting themselves and their comrades in danger. Inevitably, their death toll was appallingly high."
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/11/01/mcnamaras-morons-vietnam-was-war-for-profit-american-lives-be-damned/
For those interested:
All mine are WWII books.
The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors - Story of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, a Destroyer Escort, and a David vs. Goliath battle between a small US fleet and a huge Japanese fleet.
Neptune's Inferno - story of the USN at Guadalcanal.
Ship of Ghosts - Story of the USS Houston
Clash of The Carriers - About the Marianas Turkey Shoot
In Harms Way - The story of the USS Indianapolis, a crusier that delivered the core of the nuclear bombs used on Japan, and the secret sinking and horrible story of her survivors.
Shattered Sword - a new story of the battle of midway.
That's all right, no doubt, 'but':
> This meant that yet again the German Armored forces where exposed to counter attacks. And indeed the French did attempt more counter-attacks, however, they where unorganized - and French Armour was not consolidated into large formations rather instead they where distributed in several smaller formations and distributed along the front lines.
Well, I find the expression 'unorganized' for 'misleading'. The French were rather 'over-organized'. The actual problem was that the French command and control structure, and pace of operations, were 'custom-tailored' to the pace of operations from WWI. Thus, they simply couldn't keep up with developments of May 1940.
Countless units were ordered into counterattacks, but usually didn't receive their orders on time, and couldn't reach designated starting points on time - because their headquarters were far too far in the rear, and because they lacked even telephone connections (not to talk about most of army-level headquarters not even having a single radio). Result was that by the time the orders would reach commanders in the field, the situation usually experienced a fundamental change: say, the Germans either forced the unit to withdraw, or passed by its flank. Furthermore, French commanders didn't trust themselves to act on their own (nor were actually granted permission to do so - and that by their very own field regulations).
In most of cases, the result was that the counterattacks were cancelled even before they were launched - and majority of units ordered to stabilise a frontline and build-up a defensive frontline, 'instead'. Or to withdraw.
The few counter-attacks that were actually launched were run haphazardly and generally insufficient. Amid growing chaos there were actually just three attempts of counterattacks at 'operational level'. Except for Arras, these were those at Stone (this village south of Sedan changed hands some 17 - or more - times between 13 and 20 May), and then de Gaule's attempt to reach Montcornet (spelling?) - which was destroyed by Luftwaffe's Stukas, although highly promising, and - at least early on - quite effective, too. Even most of these have not really 'worked', because of poor, slow command and control.
> These tenets for Combined Mobile & Armored Warfare would be put into place in the Blitz of Poland...
There was no 'Blitzkrieg'-style of thinking during the Poland campaign: that one was still fought along decades-old theories of 'Kesselschlacht'.
Recommended read (actually a 'must read' to this topic): Karl-Heinz Frieser's The Blitzkrieg-Legend.
Here what I've picked up
On War by Clausewitz
MCDP 1 Warfighting
FMFRP 12-18 Mao Tse-tung on Guerrilla Warfare
FMFRP 12-13 Maneuver in War
On Grand Strategy
The Art of War by Baron De Jomini
Just and Unjust Wars (apparently it's on the Commandant's reading list too)
Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle
Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla
Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century
The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan
Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare
Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat
Deep Maneuver: Historical Case Studies of Maneuver in Large-Scale Combat Operations (Volume 5)
JP-1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States
DoD Law of War Manual
The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics
Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS
Napoleonic Warfare: The Operational Art of the Great Campaigns
The Air Force Way of War: U.S. Tactics and Training after Vietnam
Strategy: A History
LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media
The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World
MCTP 3-01C Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery
Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis
The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 1: Invasion – Insurgency – Civil War, 2003-2006
The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 2: Surge and Withdrawal, 2007-2011
Illusions of Victory: The Anbar Awakening and the Rise of the Islamic State
Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare From Stalingrad to Iraq
The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy
Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime
This is all I can name off the top of my head right now
In book form, this is the gold standard: https://www.amazon.com/AK-47-Grim-Reaper-Frank-Iannamico/dp/0982391854
Erwin Rommel DONT REAL!!!!!.
You could try The Korean War: A History by Bruce Cumings. It gives a good introduction into the conflict and is very critical of the USA's role and behaviour in the war. Or you could try his "Origins of the Korean War". I've heard good things about those two volumes but haven't read them myself.
I agree on all points except the efficiency of the soviet system. Collectivization may be bad for peacetime economies but it worked minor miracles for the Soviets during the war. In 1943 the Soviet Union produced half as much steel as Germany and used it to make literally twice the number of tanks. For all their technological sophistication the germans never mastered mass production.
[source]
I agree, i have read the book cover to cover at least 5 times, it has so much value.
Davids book is here
I can also suggest these:
Cpl. Forrest Guth: 'E' Company, 506th PIR, 101st Airborne Division
Biggest Brother : The Life of Major Dick Winters, The Man Who Led the Band of Brothers
Currahee!: A Screaming Eagle at Normandy
Brothers In Battle, Best of Friends (By William "Wild Bill" Guarnere and Edward "Babe" Heffron)
Beyond Band of Brothers: The War Memoirs of Major Dick Winters
and anything else by Steven E Ambrose is fantastic , especially citizen soliders and wild blue.
It's actually a quote from "Rules for Radicals". It's a must read for just about any politician worth his or her salt. It's basically a political warfare manual. Read that, "The Prince", "On War" and "The art of war" and you will have a pretty good understanding of what they are actually doing up there. There are several other books I'd recommend if you really want an understanding, but those are a good start.
I guess certain anthropologists want to 'give back' to the communities they study, and obviously that'll take place in a charity kind of way on a capitalist basis. That isn't very specific to anthropology though, and you can find tons of critiques of NGOs on the internet.
A more interesting critique of anthropology is how it arose from the colonial encounter in order to better rule colonial subjects, justify their inferiority, and so on. A decent Marxist book on this is J. Fabian's Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, but it has been acknowledged by liberal mainstream anthropologists for a long time.
The US military uses something called "Human Terrain Systems" in which they basically employ anthropologists to help them with imperialism. There's a fairly recent book on this titled Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in the Service of the Militarized State. From what I know it's written from a left-liberal perspective, but it obviously can be really easily linked to a scientific Marxist analysis of imperialism.
Anyway, there's much more to anthropology than it being a weapon of imperialism. Marx & Engels were extremely keen on anthropology and its discoveries' connection to their politics. They wrote loads about it, most famously in Engels's The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, which is actually based on Marx's Ethnological Notebooks. Anthropology continued to play a pretty important role in Marxism, including Lenin encouraging ethnographic studies in order to better administer the USSR.
I can't give you much on American public opinion, but I can address your third point.
In the few years of division before war (1945-50), North Korea implemented a lot of really popular policies. This included land reform that parceled out property to the common people; empowering women to work outside the home; schools and daycares; and public work projects. At the same time, South Korea was busy attempting to stamp out leftists and prevent a left-leaning state from springing up and ousting the pro-American dictatorship in place.
After the war, South Korea was still a dictatorship attempting to stamp out leftist opposition. Remember, this is the height of the Cold War. Priorities being what they were, the leadership in South Korea was more concerned with maintaining power than rebuilding. North Korea, with the support of both China and the Soviet Union, was able to immediately turn attention to reconstruction. South Korea remained under dictatorship/military rule for decades. They didn't elect a civilian president until 1993. It's difficult to imagine, because South Korea today is a massive developed economy, but North Korea was doing objectively better for a long time.
The cult-of-personality didn't really begin until the transition of power from Kim Il-Sung to Kim Jong-Il. While the elder Kim had legitimate credentials for leading the party and the state, Kim Jong-Il... not so much. So the veneration of Kim Il-Sung was designed to legitimize Kim Jong-Il's succession. That amazing state education implemented in interwar years turns out to be a perfect vehicle for indoctrination. The economic descent of North Korea is more linked to the winding down of the Cold War: without the Soviet Union and China providing resources and manpower, North Korea's economy stuttered. The country became isolated from the global economy (the same global economy that finally pulled South Korea into Asian Tiger status). This was followed by a famine in the 1990s and the collapse of the state distribution system. North Korea hasn't recovered.
It's hard to imagine how sudden this shift must have seemed. Imagine someone born in Korea, say, in the year 1910. This person is born the same year that the Korean king is ousted, and Korea annexed into the Japanese empire. If they were left-leaning politically, they might go to China in their late teens/early twenties and fight in the Chinese civil war, or perhaps join an anti-Japanese guerilla organization. Age thirty-five, their country is split in two, and they probably have relatives on either side of the border. Age forty, open war between countrymen. The literature from this period is heart-wrenching. Some parents had children fighting for opposing sides, and loyalties were divided.
After the war, if this person is in North Korea, they enjoy an adulthood of fairly secure living, with work and education and land to own. But by the age of eighty, this person will have also seen their grandchildren starving to death, and their children possibly hauled off to re-education or work camps.
If this person is in South Korea, they will have watched as Americans slipped into old colonial institutions and continued the persecution of leftists. They will have worried about getting work and getting food; education is a luxury. But by age eighty, they will have seen successful democratic protests, and seen their grandchildren buy cell phones, and go to world-ranked universities, and never worry about food.
Twentieth-century Korean history is fascinating. So many changes within such a short period of time.
Some random thoughts inspired by the video:
My sources:
The Korean War: A History by Bruce Cumings
This is the book on the Korean War, one of the earlier "revisionist" academic works. It might give some insight into American perceptions of the "Forgotten War." It's the book that I would recommend to anyone wanting to get a decent overview of the Korean War, because it addresses the issues with American scholarship (i.e. it's very biased about socialism).
"Everyday Life in the North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950" by Suzy Kim
This looks at the interwar years in North Korea, with particular focus on land reform, education, and women.
"The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950-1960" by Charles K. Armstrong
This looks at the socialist "fraternity" of states, and how Chinese/East German/Soviet aid was integral to North Korea's rebuilding and economic success in the immediate post-war period.
This entire issue of Cross Currents on "(De)Memorializing the Korean War: A Critical Intervention" is a useful look at how different players recollect the war in the aftermath.
If you can find it, I also recommend "Socialist Korea: A Case Study in the Strategy of Economic Development" by Ellen Brun and Jacques Hersh. It was written in the 1970s, and might give an interesting perspective on how people were explaining North Korea's progress at the height of its success.
> How's a shill supposed to learn to overthrow our democratic processes?
With this book, actually.
His book from WWI is Infantry Attacks and he never got a chance to edit his journals from WWII into its intended sequel but they were published by his son as The Rommel Papers.
In addition to many of the other books that others have listed (namely Kissinger and Mearsheimer) I have listed a few other books that I would highly recommend reading.
And because you are interested in learning more about the Middle East, be prepared to read. A lot. The Middle East is a far more complex place than most people imagine and understanding the region requires a great deal of knowledge. I have been studying the Middle East for nearly a decade and I still feel like there is so much that I do not know. I would start by reading reputable news sources every day. Places like The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, Financial Times, are the Los Angeles Times are good English language news sources that you should look at. Additionally, I have written up a suggested reading list for learning about the Middle East, though it is a bit more security-related since that's my area of expertise. I hope it helps. And feel free to ask any questions if you have them.
Books - International Relations, Theory and Beyond
Books - General History of the Middle East
Books - Middle East Military History
Books - Middle East Terrorism and Substate Violence
Books - U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East
I haven't read this edition, but the Jane's guide is pretty good from my childhood memories!
A rebuttal in support of Hitler was a Christian, was anti-Catholic (or had significant issues with the Vatican - even though the Vatican and Pope gave tacit support to the Nazis), and that Hitler's Table Talk (the source of most of the "Hitler was not a Christian") is a flawed source (unless the original German edition (in German) is used).
{from previous post re: Hitler and his strong Christian moral and belief
foundation}
Nazism, based upon and supported by Christian morals and tenets, and
lead by and staffed by True Christians^TM , is responsible for the
largest (by death toll) genocide in modern history. Perhaps you have
hear of this genocide? The Holocaust (Lower figures (5-6 million) are
for the Jewish genocide, and the higher figures (11-17 million) is for
the total killed in all Nazi genocides and War Crimes.)
Adolf Hitler was a God fearing Christian and promoted, and advocated
for, Christianity; Hitler was a really good Christian.
The evidence is credible and overwhelming that Hitler was (1) a
Christian, (2) held Christian values (as Hitler saw them), (3) was
informed of his morality that he put into policy from Christian
doctrine/dogma/morality, and (4) all indications were that that if
Hitler had created the fascist empire he worked towards, this empire
would have continued to use Christianity as a means (one of many) to
maintain control over the populace.
Adolf Hitler labelled himself as a Christian and promoted, and advocated
for, Christianity in the Nazi ideology; and used violence and genocide
to promote Christianity for the sake of Christianity as part of the Nazi
Party regime.
In Hitler's own words....
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”
Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a
political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on
his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted
in Freethought Today April 1990
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator.”
Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46
And let's not forget Hitler's book, Mein Kampf - My Struggle:
Unabridged edition of Hitlers original book - Four and a Half Years of
Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and
Cowardice,
where the morality was informed and supported by Hitler's Christian
beliefs and canon Christian morality.
And, and try to stay with me here OP, I have actually researched the
assessment of historians that have claimed that Hitler was an atheist
(irreligious and an opponent of Christianity) and find their evidence
and arguments lacking and often based heavily, and often primarily, upon
a series notes from private talks between Hitler and others (Hitler,
Adolf. Hitler's Table Talk: His Private Conversations, 1941-1944.
Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1953) which depicted Hitler as an
anti-Christian atheist, but where the sources usually referenced were
actually translated from a French version and not the original German;
and that the French translation radically altered the original meaning
of the German (Carrier, R.C., 2003. "Hitler's Table Talk": Troubling
Finds. German Studies Review, 26(3), pp.561-576). In the 3rd edition of
Table Talks, the faulty translations are acknowledged in the Forward
(but, oddly, without any correction of the translations in the
subsequent text).
While it can be concluded that Hitler became anti-Catholic (or more
specifically, anti-Pope and anti-HolySee/Vatican) and criticized many
aspects of Catholic, and other Christian sect, tenets, as well as
questioning many of the supernatural Christian claims - this criticism,
in and of itself, especially against the very wide variance of Christian
tenets and beliefs, as well as the expressed public affirmation of
Christian belief, tenets, traditions, and morality, by Hitler, at best,
allows one to conclude that Hitler was not a "mainstream" Christian.
But to posit that Hitler was atheist/irreligious and a not a Christian
requires a better argument to avoid the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Bottom line - Hitler's Table Talk: 1941 - 1944, by H.R. Trevor-Roper, is
a questionable source (and shown to be fraudulent at least in part),
and the quoted material requires verification from another source.
Edit:
As to Richard Overy's work as a source in support of 'Hitler is not a Christian,' In Overy's book,
Why the Allies Won, Overy references Hitler: Table Talks from editor Hugh Trevor-Roper. Which is the English translation of the French (flawed) version of Table Talks (and not a direct English translation of the original German edition. As this source to Overy has been shown to be flawed (a flawed and misleading translation), Overy as a source to the Christian beliefs of Hitler is suspect, and the argument from authority highly questionable.
Edit 2:
Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War. A search of my copy of Evan's book, The Third Reich at War also reveals that Evan used "Trevor-Roper, Hugh R., The Last Days of Hitler (London, 1962 [1947]). ——, ‘The Mind of Adolf Hitler’, in Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk vii-xxxv." Which has the same flawed information as used by Overy. And like Overy, using Evans as a source to the Christian beliefs of Hitler is suspect, and the argument from authority highly questionable.
As to Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, I do not have a copy nor the time (currently) to track the text down - so no direct rebuttal.
This, I presume? Link for the curious. I will have to find a copy.
I would strongly suggest checking out Bruce Cumings and his work on the Korean War: The Korean War: A History (Modern Library Chronicles) https://www.amazon.com/dp/081297896X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_WrGeAb5MKNTAV
He does a great job talking about US war crimes, how MacArthur underestimated the fighting ability of the North Koreans (many of whom had fought on the communist side in the Chinese Civil War and were crack troops) because of racism, the atmosphere of McCarthyite USA, and more.
Here is a free YouTube interview with him: https://youtu.be/ba3dgDUtE9A
This is a very large topic in philosophy. The two best books to start with are Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars and Jeff McMahan's Killing in War which together form the groundwork for much of what people sy about the ethics of war.
Given the ever-escalating use of technology and the limited effectiveness of 'blow everything up', the cost has probably gone up considerably. Fortunately, stuff like drones and withdrawing partially from Afghanistan/Iraq has eased the pressure dramatically on military recruiting so I think things have gotten a lot better re 'moral waivers' and scores.
See also McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War, Gregory 2015.
Liddel Hart's Strategy. Its used at west point in military history classes. Hart is an uninspiring historian but a brilliant strategist.
Nice review you have. Have you read The Grim Reaper. That book has lots of great information in it.
"The composition and leadership of the insurgents were changing. As the FREs (Former Regime Elements) weakened, (Col. Brian) Drinkwine received warnings that foreign fighters were infiltrating into the Jolan, including the arch-terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi...On a night raid two Egyptians were arrested in an apartment with slogans supporting bin Laden scrawled in sheep's blood on a wall. Neighbors told a reporter that foreign fighters were threatening people who played Western music, styled their hair, wore revealing clothes, or even sold wood to contractors for the Americans."
"We heard the Islamic fundamentalists were starting to taunt Saddam's guys, saying the old army guys didn't have the balls to take on the Americans...We saw a change in tactics."
"The Iraqis never tired of talking, issuing long litanies of complains, making passionate promises of stability, and stoutly denying the presence of foreign fighters. The Fallujans were good people, fighting to protect their city. If the Americans would stop firing and pull out, all would be well. It was never clear, though, who spoke for the fighters. Those with the power of the guns remained shadowy figures, never mentioned by name."
"During the third week of April...Bremer's experienced deputy...chaired four sessions...to resolve the siege... Every day rusted and broken weapons were turned in as symbols of progress while the violence continued. As for expelling the terrorists, the negotiators denied they existed. Foreign fighters, they said, were a myth and an excuse to punish the city."
"(American LtCol Byrne asked) 'Can we agree that we share the same goals? That we both want the heavy weapons and the foreign fighters removed from the city, do we not?' (Former regime LCol. responded:) 'That is an American story. There are no foreign fighters...we take care of security by ourselves. If you are not here, there is no problem.'"
"(Muhhamad Latif, a colonel in the intelligence branch who had been imprisoned for seven years by Saddam) and the city elders met with Mattis, explaining that the people of Fallujah wanted no help from outsiders...Latif denied there were any foreign fighters in the city"
"Foreign fighters from Syria and Saudi Arabia trickled into the city. The insurgents organized a ruling council, called the Mujahadeen Shura, which moved into a mosque in the center of the city and issued written passes for Arab journalists to visit the 'liberated' city...The reign of the Taliban had descended on Fallujah."
"Neither the American nor the Arab press called particular attention to the proliferation of terrorist safe houses in Fallujah, while the city elders vehemently denied Zarqawi existed."
"'For the sake of your city,' Mattis said, 'you must tell Zarqawi and the Syrians to leave. They are killing your innocent fellow countrymen.... Get them out.'" (Chief negotiator Imam Abdullah Janabi replies) 'Someone gives you bad information... there are no foreigners here. You bomb innocent people. We only protect our homes when you come to destroy.'"
-- No True Glory - A Frontline Account of the Battle of Fallujah
Then you NEED to read Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors which I think is the definitive book on the battle off Samar
Recommended reading: Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War where he spends quite a bit of time discussing this idea originally from Ibn Khaldun.
I'd translate loosely as "socially cohesiveness" / "tribal loyalty".
My 47 bro, let me introduce you to The Grim Reaper. You need this motherhuncher, I assure you.
This concept was actually a really big interest of mine in my graduate career (though specifically as it related to the Roman Empire). Peter Turchin has written some good and approachable books on how political instability rises as populations approach their maximum possible density.
​
His first book on the subject that reads very nicely: https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Rise-Fall-Empires/dp/0452288193
​
A short (though fairly jargon-y) article on these effects on Roman instability: http://peterturchin.com/PDF/Turchin_SDEAS_2005a.pdf
You can pick some tactic and call it blitzkrieg, but it was not what others call blitzkrieg. In the end it was just just normal German maneuver warfare.
German generals had the same opinion and modern historians agree with that.
The best and definitive source on the issue is Karl-Heinz Frieser's The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West
"Blitzkrieg" was never planned as a blitzkrieg. The “miracle of 1940” was a result of three factors;
I'm gunna buy it. I need other book suggestions to make it $25 for free shipping.
Here are some of my suggestions to others:
>The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual (Paperback)
>by John A. Nagl
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226841510
>Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam (Paperback)
>by John A. Nagl
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226567702
>War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier (Paperback)
>by Smedley D. Butler
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0922915865
>Cultivating Exceptional Cannabis: An Expert Breeder Shares His Secrets (Marijuana Tips Series) (Paperback)
>by DJ Short
>http://www.amazon.com/Cultivating-Exceptional-Cannabis-Breeder-Marijuana/dp/0932551599
This work?
Might be a decade old, but I don’t think there’s anything newer, aside from their primary product which is a whopping $1500. One day I’ll get to look inside one of these, but that day is not soon.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Coup-d%C3%89tat-Practical-Handbook-Revised/dp/0674737261/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=YHMJ10C4NXAJY6Y5E4W7
Infantry Attacks by Erwin Rommel is a good basis for beginning to learn about the larger picture of strategy. This is also a good read "Military Strategy: Principles, Practices, Historical Perspectives" by John M. Collins.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002ACSNQE/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813124379/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9562915719/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
this one so you know what will be used against you https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226841510/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
From Mao Tse-tung
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0252068920/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
this one would be one of the better ones for HK https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813124379/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0873649214/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574885553/ref=ppx_od_dt_b_asin_title_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
There are others, but these were handy from my collection.
Different book, but I read this years ago. There may be more info in it about contingency plans that I just don't recall.
https://www.amazon.com/Currahee-Screaming-Eagle-at-Normandy/dp/0440236304/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518555847&sr=1-1&keywords=Currahee
Well, it's worth remembering that the term "Tall Ship" refers to any traditionally-rigged sailing vessel, which covers hundreds of years of evolution in sailing technology, hence the mechanics of sailing, say, the Roseway, a 1925 Gloucester fishing schooner, are vastly different from sailing the Kalmar Nyckel, a replica of 1625 Dutch pinnace.
That being said, the best book I can recommend is Seamanship in the Age of Sail. It's a modern book, but based on contemporary sources, gives a very thorough explanation of how a 17th-19th century Man-of-War would have been rigged, sailed, and manuevered.
https://www.amazon.com/Janes-Aircraft-Recognition-Guide-Fifth/dp/0061346195
Also as to why they aren't being made anymore I'd venture the internet is the major reason.
Short and simple answer: Germany was really really good at playing up the idea that they had a technological and numerical edge over the French and BEF. They also used a number of deceptive practices to convince the Allies they had more forces on their Western Frontier than they actually did. This gave the French and the British pause on any major offensive actions in Western Europe, and they decided that maintaining a defense posture against an inevitable German offensive was the best strategy for the time being.
Longer answer: As I previously mentioned, the French and the British forces deployed in France during the Phoney War didn't do much. The plan that had been agreed upon by both parties several weeks into the war was to build up their forces and maintain defensive positions in Western Europe, utilize the Maginot Line (which brief sidenote: worked as expected contrary to popular belief) and await the eventual German offensive, which they believed the main thrust of which would most likely come through the Low Countries. Attempts were made to get the Belgian government to allow the Allies to move into their territory to give themselves even more breathing room against a German offensive, but the Belgians, fearing a German invasion if they granted this request, denied it.
Now the French did engage in the Saar Offensive four days after the start of the war, but this operation was half-hearted at best. Initially it called for up to 40 divisions of the French Army to push rapidly into Western Germany. 30 Divisions did end up coming up to the border areas, but only 11 actually crossed into Germany, and even then, they only advanced 5 miles at the furthest before the decision was made to halt the advance and to undertake defensive positions before withdrawing entirely.
French forces eventually withdrew back to their starting positions along the Maginot Line, and aside from German counter attacks against gains the French continued to hold onto, no major offensives took place on the part of the Allies until the end of the Phoney War. This was in large part due to the idea that Germany held an advantage in air and manpower on the Western front, and that any attempts to offensively engage with or neutralize it would come at a high cost. Years of Nazi propaganda as well as common deception methods (making a big show of moving around the forces you did have, radio transmissions in the open to ghost divisions, etc) helped to mask the hollow shell that was Germany's forces in Western Germany while operations in Poland took place (and while they recovered, the invasion of Poland took did take its toll on Germany's military) were mostly to thank for the Allies decision to dig in and wait.
The irony in all of this, is that Germany only had about 23 divisions at the ready to defend against any Allied offensive into Germany while operations in Poland continued to take place. The Luftwaffe also had significant shortages of aircraft in Western Germany at this time due to having the majority of its ground attack aircraft deployed for operations in Poland. Had the Allies known that they held a significant manpower and airpower advantage, it's still hard to say if they would have undertaken any major offensive operations against Germany. Though the opportunity to hamper if not defeat Germany was certainly there during the Phoney War.
If you're interested, I recently spoke at length about all of this on the AskHistorians Podcast. Check it out here!
Sources:
The Rise of Germany, 1939-1941 (The War in the West) by James Holland
Case Red: The Collapse of France by Robert Forczyk
Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy
A good book to read is [McNamara's Folly] (https://www.amazon.com/McNamaras-Folly-Low-IQ-Troops-Vietnam-ebook/dp/B0108H60MG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1551118791&sr=8-1&keywords=mcnamara%27s+folly+the+use+of+low-iq+troops+in+the+vietnam+war). If you've never really dealt with the mentally disabled it's helpful to think of them in terms of physical capabilities. Asking a mentally disabled person to live independently in a house and take care of it is about like giving a 5'0", 100 pound college girl a job with a jackhammer on a demo crew. If you can't do the job no amount of motivation or punishment will make you able to do the job.
Another analogy is like ordering your dog to do your taxes. Whose fault is it when your taxes don't get done right and on time?
The republican party likes to hold up the image of the welfare queen who could work but she's milking the system out of laziness. Hope that you get someone like this. Most of them aren't. Most of them can't work because there is literally nothing they are capable of doing that holds any value to an employer.
I think I read this as a Reader's Digest Condensed Book as a kid. I think I read it 5x
https://www.amazon.com/Currahee-Screaming-Eagle-at-Normandy/dp/0440236304
My personal go-to is the Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide. It's not 100% up-to-date, but it still has a picture of most aircraft you'd expect to see, and some that you will appreciate being able to identify down the road!
If you're interested in the techniques behind this stuff, this is my favorite book on the subject: Harland's Seamanship in the Age of Sail.
It's worth owning if you're REALLY into it (or you do it for a job), but you should try finding it at a library or something. It's basically an owner's manual for an 18th century ship.
A great question. And I can see that there are now two Mongo experts in the field of battle!
Subutai/Tusobodai as he was actually called, overran more territory than any known commander in the history of warfare.^1
He did this through his sheer brilliance in logistical and imaginative strategy. If Genghis Khan was the soul of the Mongolian Empire through its rise. One can argue that it was Subotai who later wielded the sword that allowed the Mongolians to conquer nearly half of Europe, nearly all of Asia and the only nation thus far to have defeated the descendants of the Russian people (The Empire of Rus)
Subutai also used unconventional tactics that at our age would seem very normal and common sense, but Subutai would later be recorded as arguably the very first commander to use Siege weapons in an offensive manner in a non-siege battle. You could almost say that he was the first to use artillery in the ancient world.^2
If you have any more questions I can definitely answer them too!!
It's a great question.
Hello, I highly recommend that you read Bruce Cuming's amazing The Korean War: A History for a more nuanced understanding of how many Koreans, both North and South, feel about the Korean War.
Different parts of Korean society view the War differently, just like how even to this day different parts of American society view the Civil War differently.
Having said that, the conventional and triumphalist view of the Korean War being a great victory for the South and US is not the entire picture! Like anything in history, it's a more complicated and nuanced matter that has many different angles to it. Many in South Korea, to this day, are still very upset at the South Korean government over the many massacres it conducted during the War against it's own civilian population. The book I mentioned above delves more into this, but in the years before and during the Korean War, the South Korean government conducted a campaign of "anticommunism," where many innocent South Koreans were brutally murdered, especially in the provinces of Jeolla do and Jeju do.
Because of these tragic events, even to this day, there is visible division within Korean society geographically, where the Western provinces of Korea have a deep seated distrust of conservative governments, such as the current Lee Myung Bak administration.
Under the previous Korean administration when Roh Moo Hyung (yes, he's the dude who killed himself, although many Koreans think it was the current president, Lee Myung Bak, who drove Roh to suicide) was president, there was a [Truth and Reconciliation Commission] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Korea)) established to help uncover and come to peace with the darker parts of Korean history. Under it, more has come to light as to how horrible and common these massacres were.
EDIT: hyperlink issue seen below
I'm just going to leave this here.
It's a pretty interesting book, I was working on a fantasy book that involves a coup and got it for research.
The most prominent book on the subject - ['Coup D'Etat] (https://www.amazon.com/Coup-d%C3%89tat-Practical-Handbook-Revised/dp/0674737261/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=M9AWGX6YMAYW08JSEXT8) by Luttwak states that coup leaders need to have the support of mid-level military leaders and control over units nearest to the nexus of power ie Washington DC.
So, unless the coup leaders are able to subvert the loyalty of serious elements of the US military (which is difficult as it is a conservative, volunteer organisation), their coup will fail.
Weaponizing Anthropology David H. Price
https://www.amazon.com/Weaponizing-Anthropology-Science-Militarized-Counterpunch/dp/1849350639
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/484365/pdf
Hey, that's from Seamanship In The Age Of Sail! Here's a few other drawings that OP might enjoy:
http://imgur.com/a/gyvlj
Basically there's conflicting evidence regarding that fact it ended the war. The Japanese government tried to negotiate surrender - anything less than unconditional would be unacceptable due to threat to GEACS.
2. US strategic bombing survey published its conclusion Japan would likely have surrendered without the bomb.
3. Germany had surrendered so the Soviet Union was entering the war and Japan would have surrendered to prevent Okinawa in Kyushu, it was believed over 2/3 million would die according to figures of 1 death for every 4 Japanese in Okinawa.
Argument that it prevents war in the future:
It seems to be a historical fallacy that bombing civilians helped or that Japan was any different to the rest of us:
4.Land war use air force to isolate enemy forces by attacking mil supplies/communications/transport which had been used by US Air Force great effect before D Day
It's very hard to justify:
There's an idea of double effect - one effect must be intended, one foreseen but non intended. The good must not be outweighed by evil secondary effect. Ramsey states the good must not be produced by means of evil effect.
There's an idea of a supreme emergency permit any degree collateral damage, we could have flown at higher altitudes avoid anti aircraft fire even though bombs may kill non combatants.
That would have not violated discrimination as not intentional.
To ensure that it wasn't the means of victory we could have had more bombs assigned to particular military targets.
Walzer, basically the book you really need to read if you're interested in this kinda stuff (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Unjust-Wars-Historical-Illustrations/dp/0465037070) his own example of supreme emergency shows that once decision is taken to target non combatants it's actually not effective as it creates a cycle of attack.
I don't think I've really answered your question, but provided you information why some people could try to justify it as not a war crime/ as a war crime.
P.S. Hope it makes some sort of sense.
Need to include the manual in the list: https://www.amazon.com/Coup-dÉtat-Practical-Handbook-Revised/dp/0674737261
I checked em out...
["The Military Revolution" ]
(http://www.amazon.com/Military-Revolution-Innovation-Rise-1500-1800/dp/0521479584/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396059549&sr=1-4&keywords=Geoffrey+Parker)
by
[Geoffrey Parker]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Parker_(historian))
["Battles of the 30 years war"]
(http://www.amazon.com/Battles-Thirty-Years-War-Contributions/dp/0313320284/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396059822&sr=1-1&keywords=battles+of+the+30+years+wars)
by
[William Guthrie]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Guthrie_(historian))
["Warfare in the 17th century"]
(http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Seventeenth-Century-Smithsonian-History/dp/006089170X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396060084&sr=1-1&keywords=Warfare+in+the+17th+century)
by
[John Childs]
(http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n82-90965/)
["History of the art of war"]
(http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warfare-History-Art-War/dp/0803265859/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396066515&sr=1-1&keywords=History+of+the+art+of+war)
by
[Hans Delbruck]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Delbruck)
["Infantry Attacks"]
(http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Attacks-Marshall-Erwin-Rommel/dp/1607963353/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396066713&sr=1-1&keywords=Infantry+Attacks)
by
[Erwin Rommel]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel)
["Achtung Panzer"]
(http://www.amazon.com/Achtung-Panzer-Cassell-Military-Classics/dp/0304352853/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396066882&sr=1-1&keywords=Achtung+Panzer)
by
[Heinz Guderian]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian)
No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah, by Bing West.
Amazon Link
> experts in the study of culture
Almost all of the people who are prominent in the field of anthropology have been funded for their entire careers by governmental and in most cases military agencies. Their credibility as an expert in anything besides how best to write a grant application and other similar bureaucratic functions is zilch, zip, nada, nothing, a great Big Void.
A recent poll suggests 90 percent of Native Americans are not offended by the nickname of Washington’s NFL franchise
I do not use the nickname. But I bet if I was a fan of the team I would use the nickname and people criticizing the nickname-users should go back to their third grade Sunday school lesson about the one who is without sin gets to throw the first stone.
Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State
Ah knew it would be one of the two. Not sure exactly what subjects they cover in the first year at Sheffield but at SOAS we start with 20th century Korea.
The main two books we used were A New History of Korea and Korea's Twentieth Century Odyssey. These two books cover the whole recent history in general and then we had readings within this for each section (colonial time, war, Park Chung-hee rule etc).
I will try and give some of the titles I can remember.
Colonial Era- Colonial Modernity in Korea,
Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea,
Offspring of Empire: The Koch'ang Kims and the Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism
War: The Korean War: A History
Park Chung Hee- Korea's Development Under Park Chung Hee,
Reassesing the Park Chung Hee Era
And we finished on a section on Korean identity. Unfortunately the only book I can remember from that was Ethnic Nationalism in Korea.
Hope this helps a little. You do a year abroad in your second year right? Some of my classmates in my year abroad were from Sheffield Uni.
https://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Attacks-Marshall-Erwin-Rommel/dp/1607963353/189-2702265-0313642?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Infantry Attacks by the great Rommel himself. My Grandfather had a copy of it, it's a fascinating book.
For fiction go and read All Quiet on the Western Front.
Strategy by B.H. Liddell Hart sounds perfect for you. It's pretty dense but very detailed.
I really enjoyed this book on Operation Mincemeat: https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Mincemeat-Bizarre-Fooled-Assured/dp/0307453286
If you're looking to read it, the Howard/Paret translation is the most common and readable translation. It was originally published in three volumes, but it is one work and is published now as the full text. Avoid the Penguin translation or any abridgments unless you need some kindling. Here's a link to the Howard/Paret translation on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/War-Indexed-Carl-von-Clausewitz/dp/0691018545/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457787735&sr=8-2&keywords=On+War
If you're looking for old three volume editions as collectibles, good luck.
A good book to read is, The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen. He explains in depth the cycle of insurgency.
But to answer OPs question. Yes military action is vital to ending terrorism. I look at terrorist groups no differently as gangs in the USA. They exist mainly because no effective government or order exists in those areas. If we stopped patrolling lets say Baltimore would you expect an increase or decrease in gang activity? You’d see an increase like we did after the Freddie Grey incident which led to a wave of homicides.
So can we flood the area with cops/military? In the short term yes it’ll suppress the gangs/terrorist. But in the long term you have to address/fix why they exist.
Don't know the origin, but I learned it when I picked this worn paperback book up (back in the 80s or early 90s). It's a first-person account of training and then parachuting into Normandy in WWII, and they sung the song then for sure.
https://www.amazon.com/Currahee-Screaming-Eagle-at-Normandy/dp/0440236304
Maybe they're not.
The Sinchon Massacre really happened but it was carried out by South Korean troops against the people they saw as communist sympathizers. The Americans just stood aside and let it happen. And then, once the North Koreans re-took the county they massacred most everyone of any consequence left alive assuming they must've been collaborators with the ROK troops. The 35,000 figure is disputed but would be the total murdered by the troops of both sides. But the North Koreans pretend it was all done by the Americans which is pretty much untrue.
But a few years ago this book was published and in the review in the New York Times it is written that:
"The most eye-opening sections of “The Korean War” detail America’s saturation bombing of Korea’s north. “What hardly any Americans know or remember,” Mr. Cumings writes, “is that we carpet-bombed the north for three years with next to no concern for civilian casualties.” The United States dropped more bombs in Korea (635,000 tons, as well as 32,557 tons of napalm) than in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. Our logic seemed to be, he says, that “they are savages, so that gives us the right to shower napalm on innocents.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/books/22book.html?_r=0
If what he says is true, that the U.S. dropped more tons of bombs on North Korea in three years than were dropped in the entire Pacific Theater of WW2, would it be surprising that 10% of North Korea's civilian population at the time, 3,000,000 people, in such a small country, were killed in B-29 attacks?
Yes. The part about setting up a tent and cleaning a weapon was something specifically mentioned in a study conducted by the RAND corporation, they're a think tank that serves the Pentagon.
The part about comprehension and communication probably relates to the high casualty rate suffered by MacNamarra's Morons in Vietnam. They lowered the IQ standard, and the low IQ soldiers had 3x the likelihood of getting killed. I'm not sure how that is corrected for MOS, the low IQ troops would be unlikely to be chosen for relatively safe duties on base, but the stats are pretty striking. Naturally, these poorly qualified soldiers were mixed with regular soldiers, and they endangered those guys. Additionally, they would have contributed to the utter breakdown of discipline at the end of the war.
I usually prefer to get people interested in reading philosophy obliquely, through pop. philosophy or fiction with philosophical themes. So much depends on what you are interested in...
Fiction:
A good overview like Sophie's World
Military Ethics / Social Responsibility Starship Troopers
Science and Faith Contact
Somewhat easy philosophy
Ethics: The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill
Mind: Consciousness Explained
War: Just and Unjust Wars
Oh what specifically?
As far as East Asia/Indian Ocean stuff, Robert Kaplan is a pretty good introduction. His book Monsoon is a really good primer on the history of the Indian Ocean region, and it's ongoing (and increasing) importance in international politics. His new book Asia's Cauldron is promising, I haven't read it yet but it is a contemporary and forward looking take at the South China Sea and its role in shaping the future of international relations in the region. I actually just bought it the other day and will be reading it soon (spending the next 18-33 months abroad doing various things). Kaplan's books tend to be a very readable mix of history, personal anecdotes, and political analysis. Sometimes he can get a bit full of himself, especially in sections of Monsoon, but he does a great job at making what he writes accessible to a wide audience while still being at least interesting to read for academics.
For a primer on broad international relations, International Politics is a great starting point. This was my introduction to the field, and while it can be quite dense, it is very informative. It is a collection of essays and articles that is aimed at an intro level IR class (100 level), so while it is certainly on the academic side of things, it is still very approachable, so long as you have the patience to occasionally look up terms and concepts, for someone with no academic background in the subject.
As far as a general reading on grand strategy, I have only heard amazing things about Charles Hill's Grand Strategies. Basically it examines military grand strategy from a historical perspective, the politics behind the strategy, and also ties it into popular literature (such as Shakespeare) in order to make the concepts approachable and digestible for the average person.
For modern military theory that is applicable to today's world, and probably worth understanding given what has been going on in the world for the past decade and what continues to happen, you might be interested in David Kilcullen's The Accidental Guerrilla. Kilcullen has two major books on insurgency, one is Counterinsurgency which is a higher level approach to the topic, while Accidental Guerrilla is a distillation of his observations and studies on counterinsurgency viewed put into a framework that would be easier for the average person to understand.
Admittedly I am a bit biased, as Francis Fukuyama is a family friend, but his latest works The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay are great looks into how and why the state system arose, as well as flaws in political systems, corruption, etc.
His earlier (and more famous) book, The End of History and the Last Man is still a very interesting read, although without the proper framing it can be a bit odd in the current global political climate. It works off of a concept that I think is best described in Phillip Bobbit's The Shield of Achilles, which Bobbit terms the "long war". The grand concept of the Long War is that the game changing interstate conflicts throughout history have predominantly been between different types of states. It is a bit of a Darwinist look at state politics and political order, seeing different political models (democracy, communism, fascism, monarchy, etc) as directly competing, and there being a series of successors. The End of History works off of a similar premise, basically saying that once the Soviet Union collapses (it was originally formulated as a series of articles in the late 1980s), Liberal Democratic Capitalism would be the predominant political system, and that it would mark the "end of history" as we knew it up to that point. History had been dominated by massive regional and worldwide conflicts between states that often differed in structure, and that once all the major powers had pretty much gotten to the point of L-D-C, then interstate conflict as we knew it would cease to exist. Obviously conflict still exists, but it is much harder to imagine a World War III in todays world, despite tensions with Russian and China, than it would be just 30 years ago.
I'm not all that up to date on modern military theory since most of my knowledge is from military history and not contemporary theory (although the two are, as one would expect, highly intersectional) - I do read some modern war journals and listen to talks on modern war theory though, although relatively rarely.
I'm hardly an expert on the matter (although I'm fairly certain know enough to recognize when someone has no idea what they are talking about). I just read a lot in college, and sucked up whatever I could from the library. I also liked reading a lot of primary sources, including things like reports from field exersises/war games/intel reports/naval excercises. One time I even read the entire
One of my favourites was this book on inter-war German reforms during the Weimar era. Rise and Fall of the Great Powers is another favourite of mine (although I never got to read the whole thing, it's a fucking massive book and I never had the time so) - it's especially good if you want to see some of the economic factors of warfare and tracking them through history. Clausewitz' On War is a classic primer on military and is practically ubiquotous - but it's also old as fuck and is far more important for showing some of the roots of modern (in the broad sense of Victorian/post-Victorian, not 21st century) - treat it like you would The Wealth of Nations.
The section about Jamaica was absolutely wild. Honestly, reading that book, there were sections where I had to put it down for a second, go, "Jesus fucking Christ" and push back the existential terror, then continue on. Like the bit about how those raiders in Mumbai had to kill a lot of Westerners - not to prove any political point, but because the command center needed a big Twitter presence to provide on-the-fly intel to the raiders, and the easiest way to get Twitter to start paying attention was to kill people who are part of a network that uses Twitter. All those little details really blew my mind.
He doesn't paint a very hopeful picture for the future of the planet. On the flipside, though, the fact that a dude who participated in counter-insurgency operations can see clearly that a lot of future threats will be "wars without enemies" (or whatever he refers to resource scarcity/infrastructure failure as) is kind of heartening. His arguments about effective governance and management of infrastructure also kind of shows that the end game of counter-insurgency studies is basically going to be, "Govern fairly and give people what they need to live, then they won't try to kill you." It'll just be curious to see how many people like Kilcullen reach that logical conclusion.
I'm hopefully going to crack into The Accidental Guerrilla tonight.
> I think humans have a natural aversion to violence, that just makes sense from a self-preservation aspect, I think the glorification of violence is something that is taught to us.
You have that backwards, violence is a base urge, it comes from instincts, a desire for peace has been in bedded through education and human conscientiousness.
Humans will also never change.
If you want a better understanding you could buy this book, I highly recommend it.
The Collapse of Complex Societies
War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires
Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall
Genes, Peoples, and Languages
The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution
The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood
"AK-47: The Grim Reaper" by Frank Iannamico
Amazon Link
> I don't want war on the peninsula at all but there is no denying the North started the WAR (Not civil war)
How the fuck was the Korean War not a civil war? Korea was united for about a thousand years. The best evidence for the Korean War being a civil war is that right up until the eve of the war, thousands of Koreans were travelling north and south of what would become the border, just like right before the American Civil War Americans commonly crossed what would become the border between the USA and CSA without a second thought. You would not expect this behavior if these Koreans expected to lose their homes and be unable to go back (which is exactly what happened, and families were ripped apart as a result). In fact, as late as 1956 some of these migrants thought they might still be able to go home. In Barbara Demick's book "Nothing to Envy" she refers to a South Korean conscript name Tae-Woo who was trapped north of the border; he was holding on to hope he might be able to go back until 1956, when the DPRK issued him and others like him official citizenship documents.
Your entire comment talks about the two Koreas like they're as different as France and Germany. This is, again, like talking about the Civil War as "the War of Northern Aggression" except even more laughable because at the eve of the Civil War America was still brand spanking new, whereas Korea had been a unified country for a fucking millennium.
>I don't want war on the peninsula at all but there is no denying the North started the WAR (Not civil war) and push south Korea down to Busan. At which point the UN intervened and sent a majority USA force to help the south Koreans.
SK only existed because of US support. The DPRK wanting to drive out American imperialists isn't an invasion, it's a brilliant fucking idea actually.
>You either a troll or uneducated on the politics and history of the Korean peninsula.
Lmao I'm actually highly well read on Korean history, unlike you. It's simply not the opinion of many or most Korean war scholars that the North unequivocally "started" the war, and it's laughable to claim it didn't start as a civil war.
If you want to talk politics and history, read a fucking book. Here's a good start.
U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual. Leete la seccion sobre sabotaje. Ya sabes lo que tienes que hacer, if you know what I mean...
Also look up Seamanship in the Age of Sail
Nice guy. Notice how he mentions studying Marx! and urban ecology.
what he is doing is called military anthropology
While it was written in 1968, Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook is easily convertible to a fantasy milieu. it's the strategy and tactics you want.
> France's defeat within mere weeks was unprecedented and shocked the world. However this stands more as evidence of Germany's sheer military power, and not as any nation's inherent 'weakness'.
Actually, depending on how you define "military power," it's not hard to argue that France was militarily more powerful than Germany in 1940. Two highly recommended books (links to reviews):
A choice quote from the first review:
> Ernest R. May, a professor of history at Harvard and the author of ''Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France,'' will have none of this. Panzer-like, he sweeps it aside as myth. France and its Allies, he points out, had more trained men, more guns, more and better tanks and more bombers and fighters than did Germany.
And from the second:
> Frieser argues persuasively that Germany took several huge risks by attacking France, Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands (the Western Allies) on May 10, 1940. Germany was unprepared for anything more than a very short war and chose a strategy (thrusting through the supposedly impenetrable Ardennes, crossing the Meuse, and driving to the Atlantic Coast) that could have been frustrated in a half-dozen ways by the Western Allies, especially France. [...] Frieser's narration of Sichelschnitt is buttressed by extensive data--including production numbers, weapon comparisons and useful logistical information in addition to troop numbers and dispositions. The data and discussion serve to underline both the numerical and the marginal qualitative equipment inferiority of the Wehrmacht in 1940 relative to its Allied opponents.
In these arguments, the Germans were materially inferior to the French, and a big part of their victory was due to luck. The Germans' surprise attack through the Ardennes was a huge gamble; if the French had caught on to it earlier, the Germans would have lost catastrophically.
This isn't to take credit away from the Germans—luck smiles on those prepared to seize it, and they sure did seize it in those six weeks. But even though the Germans' military skill was higher than the French, it's hard to argue that that was enough to guarantee a crushing victory like they achieved.
Even if AQ does not exist in the manner you think it does, the ideology behind it is a driver for actions that people have undertaken. That means that it does exist and has had an effect on the world. You can deny that a main organization exists, or that they undertook certain actions, but you cannot deny that the idea of them has driven people to actions. That in itself means it exists in some way. I take it on step further and believe this idea was created by an organization in a way to propagate itself (Edit: Their ideology). My real world evidence comes from trusting of real world accounts presented to me second hand, but I do trust the sources that have encountered them in real life.
Further edit: Read this book and tell me this man has written several items on a related topic including a group that doesn't exist.
I give up. You are wasting your time with me lol. But I enjoyed the discussion.
If youre interested in learning more about foreign policy, terrorism, and war, I suggest you read Michael Waltzer's Just and Unjust Wars. Quite the interesting read.
Looks like the dictator in your scenario has been doing some reading.....
Yes!
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Mincemeat-Bizarre-Assured-Victory/dp/0307453286/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462819898&sr=1-1&keywords=operation+mincemeat
It was a ruse to make the Germans think the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Italy thus causing them to misallocate their defensive resources. It worked.
> War is becoming automated. We don't march 40,000 troops across an open field to take a town anymore.
Do I have a book for you....
http://www.amazon.com/No-True-Glory-Frontline-Fallujah/dp/0553383191
It's never okay. Here, read "The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual" and it will educate you on how you defeat a terrorist/insurgent force, here's a hint, it involves not killing civilians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalashnikov_rifle
Not a source, but a rundown of what is officially called what.
https://www.amazon.com/AK-47-Grim-Reaper-Frank-Iannamico/dp/0982391854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467931122&sr=8-1&keywords=AK-47%3A+The+Grim+Reaper
This is the book that has most of the information, if you don't want to buy it or find a online copy to download here's a quick slideshow made by an AK expert with pictures from the book that explains some of the history behind the name.
http://imgur.com/a/aK7fX#0iO9QKJ
Other than that you're going to need to learn Russian or use google translate to find information from Russian sources (as I have from time to time). There's not much info on this in English because the US government was the first to learn about and name the gun they found out through spying and they named it the "AK-47", and the name stuck in the English language.
Probably. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Currahee-Screaming-Normandy-Donald-Burgett/dp/0440236304
I wouldn't plan on killing people either and I'm not defending suicide bombers. You might benefit from reading The Accidental Guerrilla. It might give you a broader view on the world.
Strategy: The Indirect Approach - by B. H. Liddell Hart - this was required reading for Israeli military officers for many years.
A flippant response might read "Your list, with 'The Annotated' [0 - 4] prepended to each entry". Less glibly, I concur with /u/dvdvh, that it is necessary to build a broad recognition of the landscape of history before one goes exploring the geological forces that shaped it. This can be accomplished by picking your favorite time, place, or culture, querying a suitable encyclopedia entry, taking notes if desired, and expanding from there; I personally find the histories of Hungary [5] and Uzbekistan (Sogdiana/Transoxiana) [6] to hold criminally low profiles in the lay-historian's mindset.
For historical perspectives orthogonal to any one physical dimension, I would recommend military histories, which, truer to your own suggestions, can be classical original sources, e.g. Xenophon's "Anabasis" [7], so long as one is willing to research details assumed known by the authors. B. H. Liddell Hart's "Strategy" [8] specifically takes the position that military science prerequisites a knowledge of precedents, and so provides it.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Iliad-Homer-Annotated-H-ebook/dp/B005Y0MWUC
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Comedy-Translated-Annotated-Illustrated-ebook/dp/B00SIWHOWO
[2] On this point I must bend "The Annotated" to "The Reader's Companion to": https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Cervantes-Companions-Literature/dp/0521663873
[3] https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019953621X/
[4] https://www.amazon.com/Fyodor-Dostoyevsky-Annotated-critical-Biography-ebook/dp/B0057JQ206
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hungary
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Uzbekistan
[7] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Anabasis
[8] https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Meridian-B-Liddell-Hart/dp/0452010713
OK Google:
(1) In September 1944, FDR met Churchill in Hyde Park, New York, and made the Hyde Park Agreement, in which both agreed that if the US succeeds in the ABomb development, it would be used on Japan, and not on Germany.
(2) Following the surrender of Nazi Germany on May 7, 1945, Churchill kept on urging Truman to hold the Potsdam meeting to end the WWII as soon as possible. However, Truman kept on postponing it until the first ABomb test day on July 16, 1945. The Potsdam meeting was scheduled to be held on the following day, July 17.
(3) On May 8, 1945, US summoned Japan to accept “unconditional surrender.” (The idea of unconditional surrender was a FDR’s idea, and was first mentioned at Casablanca Conference on January 24, 1943.)
(4) However, the “unconditional surrender” is a term used for an army but not for a country. It has no definition in the International Law, and under the Law of War, “unconditional surrender” in the sense used before the modern period could never be established legally in the 20th century. Thus the term bewildered not only Japan but everyone else including US law philosophers, US generals like Eisenhower, or even Churchill. (After the War, a leading US philosopher of law and the International Law, Hans Kelsen, who taught at University of Harvard and California, Barkely said with a laugh that there is NO WAY Japan as a country had accepted “unconditional surrender.”)
(5) Joseph Grew, the former ambassador to Japan suggested from his experiences to Truman on May 28, 1945 that if the US agrees to keep the Emperor, Japan would surrender immediately.
(6) Pursuant to the Quebec Agreement (August 19, 1943), which imposed restrictions on US’s use of atomic bombs without prior consent by Britain, Truman requested Churchill at the beginning of June 1945 to sign in consent to use of ABombs on Japan. Churchill signed on this agreement “Operational Use of Tube Alloys” on July 1. Note that neither FDR nor Truman had never asked Britain for the same consent for Germany.
(7) Stimson agreed to Grew's idea and proposed it to the President on June 16, 1945. MacArthur also wrote that the Japanese would fight till the last person if the US would not promise to preserve the Emperor. Later, only Byrnes, who newly came to the office on July 3, 1945 disagreed and opposed.
(8) The Imperial Council of Military Leaders in Japan passed a resolution to negotiate terms of surrender through Soviet on June 22, 1945, without any knowledge of the US ABombs. The US found Japan started this negotiation in the same month of June 1945, and Omar Bradley, first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US Army, reported to Truman after the Battle of Okinawa that Japan was in effect defeated and that it was trying to negotiate the terms of surrender. MacArthur also said to the General Staff Office that the War is over.
(9) Six out of all the seven Five Star Generals and Admirals were against the use of ABombs with a view that Japan would surrender without them.
(against: MacArthur, Eisenhower, Marshal, Arnold, Nimitz, Leahy)
(10) Preservation of the Emperor was included in the US official proposal for the condition of Japan's surrender.
(11) However, on the way to Potsdam on Augusta, Byrnes succeeded in persuading Truman to remove the clause on the Emperor. Grew, Stimson and others were not on the ship.
(12) On July 16, 1945, in Potsdam, Truman received a message “Babies satisfactorily born," meaning that the first ABomb test “Trinity” as a part of the Manhattan Project was successfully carried out by the Los Alamos Laboratory and the US Army in a desert of New Mexico.
(13) Stimson arrived at Potsdam after the ABomb test, and asked Truman to re-include the clause of preserving the Emperor. But Truman very strongly refused by saying you can go home if you do not like it.
(14) During the first meeting in Potsdam on July 17, Truman asked Stalin, when Soviet would invade Japan. Stalin replied August 15. (Japan had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet. But in Yalta Conference held from February 4 to 11, 1945, FDR secretly agreed with Stalin to give Soviet some parts of Japan in return for breaking the pact and invading Japan.) Truman wrote on this day's dairy that "He'll be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini Japs when that comes about.” This means that if Truman uses ABombs BEFORE August 15, the purpose for the use would be something other than ending the War.
(15) On July 25, 1945, Truman told Stimson to use the atomic bombs on Japan, and wrote on this day's diary that he is sure that the Japs will not accept the Potsdam Declaration.
(16) The Potsdam declaration was issued on July 26 without a clause to preserve the Emperor, and was not signed by Soviet confusing the Japanese. It was Truman that refused signing by Stalin. Even though the Soviet was not directly involved in a war against Japan at that time, it had already informed Japan in April 1945 that it would not extend the Non-Aggression Pact. Thus from the Japanese perspective, the Soviet was in a position that could attack Japan as an Allied Forces anytime.
(17) On the same day, July 26, Truman gave commands to drop the ABombs on the earliest “clear" day after August 3, exactly one week after the Potsdam Declaration. The commands included detailed instructions to accompany with observation aircraft to record the effects of the ABombs. Note that the BOTH commands for the two atomic bombs, the first Uranium one dropped in Hiroshima and the second Plutonium one dropped in Nagasaki, were given on the SAME day. Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz knew about the commands.
(18) Just before the planned Soviet's invasion date, the US dropped the ABombs on August 6 and 9, 1945. The B-29s were accompanied by an observation aircraft and another to film and photograph the bombings. The observation aircraft dropped several devices in various parts of the cities to register changes in temperatures, atmospheric pressures, etc., during the explosions. Three of the devices were later collected and are displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum today. Los Alamos National Laboratory registered in its official record about the dropping of ABombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the two "experiments” were successful.
(19) Upon hearing the news, the Soviet commenced the invasion of Manchuria on August 9, sooner than the previously planned date of August 15.
(20) On the following day, August 10, the Emperor issued an Imperial decree to accept the Potsdam Declaration. The reason for surrender, according to the Emperor as recorded in the Imperial Record (昭和天皇実録) declassified in 2015, was the Soviet’s invasion because Japan no longer had an ability to hold a two-front war. (Already other 66 civilian cities were completely destructed by the US’s indiscriminately bombing that the destruction of two more cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, could not trigger capitulation.) Subsequently, Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration on August 15.
(21) Truman said in a TV announcement that the US dropped ABombs that they "invested” two billion dollars.
(22) As early as in September 1945, "The Armed Forces Joint Commission for Investigating Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan,” lead by Col. Ashley W. Oughterson who arrived in Japan on September 1, 1945, was formed and commenced large scale investigations. Some 1,300 Japanese doctors and scientists were pulled into the investigation examining more than 20,000 adult patients and other 17,000 children. A wide range of experiments on patients were conducted disguised as treatments, examining reactions by victims against injections of various chemicals such as adrenaline. The policy, according to the doctors involved, was “What can be tested, should be tested." The results of these research and experiments were summerized in a 181 volume report of more than 10,000 pages, but the results were never made public, and the reports were directly sent to the US Army while their existance was kept secret. The reports are now kept at the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA.
(24) On July 1, 1946, a confidential report, "UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY: JAPAN'S STRUGGLE TO END THE WAR,” prepared by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) was reported to Truman concluding that "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
(25) The Emperor Hirohito was not prosecuted in the Tokyo Tribunal, and he stayed as the Emperor. The position of the emperor was also kept under the new constitution which was illegally (by International Law) forced by the US. So the whole hustle about the preservation of the Emperor did not mean anything at all in the end.
(26) In his memoirs, Truman wrote "Japanese are beast. So are treated as."
(27) An acclaimed book "Just and Unjust Wars," written by a prominent US political philosopher at Harvard, Michael Waltzer, condemns the uses of atomic bombs as crimes. Waltzer also accuses the US Government for not even trying to negotiate with the Japanese to surrender before the dropping of the bombs. He says it was a double crime in the sense that the US did not try to avoid, and the bombs were dropped on civilians cities. This book is used as a text book at West Point today.
Operation Mincemeat - Ben Macintyre
or Agent Zigzag - Ben Macintyre
If you like Charlie Wilson's War you'll like either of these two. They are about the British counter-intelligence efforts during world war two. It is funny how bizarre, yet successful some of their efforts were.
I highly recommend them.
>WW2 is a perfect example of logistics winning the war.
>
~>Turns out when you have enough bombs/napalm to remove four/five of their cities it isn't that hard to win the war.
Preeminent historians would disagree with those statements.
Jane's books are a good thing to start with:
Like http://www.amazon.com/Janes-Aircraft-Recognition-Edition-Guides/dp/0061346195#productDescription_secondary_view_pageState_1415834288638
https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Meridian-B-Liddell-Hart/dp/0452010713
The US took a break to have an election in 2004...and it wasn't going all that well in the first place. Source
Try this one - https://www.amazon.com/Janes-Aircraft-Recognition-Guide-Fifth/dp/0061346195
I don't own it, I just like pretty much anything that flies. I was lucky enough to be birding in the Columbia gorge in central WA when an F18 came screaming downriver and rolled up over the canyon wall right in front of me.
Doing is not the only thing that happens. Sometimes intelligence just is the limiting factor. This was established in the Vietnam War.
Although I do not have a detailed understanding, I found the following interesting (I interpreted it as, the outcome of the initial invasion could (should?) have been completely different, subject to the outcome of initial engagements/strategies), that you may also:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Blitzkrieg-Legend-1940-Campaign/dp/1591142954
I'd say sadly most of the interesting sources are in french and not really translated. And sometimes out of print in France too.
I know the blitzkrieg legend about the 1940 campaign, but it's about military stuffs. Maybe it's too specific for you.
Here's an amazon links for everything I can think of:
[The Burning of the World by Bela Zombory-Moldovan] (https://www.amazon.com/Burning-World-Memoir-Review-Classics/dp/1590178092)
[Poilu by Louis Barthas] (https://www.amazon.com/Poilu-Notebooks-Corporal-Barrelmaker-1914-1918/dp/0300191596/ref=pd_sim_b_22?ie=UTF8&refRID=08182FWK7NN6N9QSEAF7)
[Infantry Attacks by Erwin Rommel] (https://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Attacks-Marshall-Erwin-Rommel/dp/1607963353)
[Outside Verdun by Arnold Zweig] (https://www.amazon.com/Outside-Verdun-Arnold-Zweig/dp/1908754524)
[Storm of Steel by Ernst Juenger] (https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Steel-Penguin-Classics-Deluxe/dp/0142437905)
[Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves] (https://www.amazon.com/Good-Bye-That-Autobiography-Robert-Graves/dp/0385093306)
Here is the desktop version of your link
There is a book called Operation Mincemeat as well: https://www.amazon.ca/Operation-Mincemeat-Bizarre-Assured-Victory/dp/0307453286
It's amazing! There is so much detail about how every aspect of the operation was so meticulously planned, it'll leave you in awe of how amazing the British spies were. And you'll finally understand why Britain had hundreds of spies in Germany, while Germany had every single one of her spies caught and turned by British intelligence.
"Operation Mincemeat: How a Dead Man and a Bizarre Plan Fooled the Nazis and Assured an Allied Victor" by Ben Macintyre is a wild ride: "Near the end of World War II, two British naval officers came up with a brilliant and slightly mad scheme to mislead the Nazi armies about where the Allies would attack southern europe. To carry out the plan, they would have to rely on the most unlikely of secret agents: a dead man." https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Mincemeat-Bizarre-Fooled-Assured/dp/0307453286/ref=sr_1_1?crid=21KI22HQYKNG4&keywords=operation+mincemeat&qid=1573404413&s=books&sprefix=Operation+min%2Cstripbooks%2C179&sr=1-1
This video is a decent introduction to the topic, mainly focusing on tank production (the part before the timestamp is about the battle of Kursk, mostly). Why The Allies Won has a chapter that's fairly in-depth about the differences in production methods as well.
It's hyperbolic, but he is a very good general and did literally write the book on counterinsurgency.
https://www.amazon.com/Marine-Corps-Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual/dp/0226841510
The 101st was no secret.
They were badass as fuck and the Krauts knew it.
Your comment still kicks ass, though!
If you haven't read Donald R. Burgett's series of first-person accounts, YOU MUST!
Curahee! A Screaming Eagle at Normandy is the first one.
It's the With The Old Breed by E.B. Sledge of the ETO.
You'll want to read "Just And Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations" by Michael Walzer:
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Unjust-Wars-Historical-Illustrations/dp/0465037070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289580586&sr=8-1
It is dated, but it's a good place to start.
jane's guides, and time / spotting
The book about this by Ben MacIntyre is an insanely fun read. Highly recommend.
https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Mincemeat-Bizarre-Assured-Victory/dp/0307453286
Here is why I'm not wrong regarding these issues:
Torture is less effective than other methods of interrogation as you can see in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, and testimony from former FBI agents. However, more importantly, torture is immoral and violates the principals on which America was founded.
If you're suggesting I'm wrong about Trump supporting torture, I would suggest that you read the following articles:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/trump-torture/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-torture/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-torture-waterboarding_us_5775d740e4b04164640f6597
----
Attacking civilians, like torture, undermines America's long standing position that it tries to be a force for good. Additionally, it radicalizes large portions of the populace of any nation we are in against us; since people are unsure if they will be targeted and are more likely to know people who died. For better options, I'm going to suggest reading David Kilcullen's books Counterinsurgency and The Accidental Guerrilla.
Here is evidence that Trump supports attacking civilians:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-i-would-intentionally-kill-families-to-defeat-isis-b5484a36a7a2#.o3xtgsik4
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-reiterates-sire-to-murder-terrorists-families-a6912496.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/donald-trump-mosul-iraq.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/10/11/donald-trump-wants-a-sneak-attack-on-mosul-but-reality-is-more-complicated/
----
Regarding climate change, I'm going to link NASA's page regarding it as it contains more links and evidence than I would take the time to link here.
These articles demonstrate that Trump does consider climate change a hoax:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/the-candidates-on-climate-change/
----
Though Stop & Frisk may find some criminals, it was clearly racist in its implementation. Despite finding white criminals at a higher rate than black or hispanic criminals, whites were stopped far less.
Here is Trump supporting Stop & Frisk:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/nyregion/what-donald-trump-got-wrong-on-stop-and-frisk.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/28/trumps-false-claim-that-stop-and-frisk-was-not-ruled-unconstitutional/
The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual
I got my undergrad in History (with an emphasis on Military History) and am working on a masters in Military History. My last class was Military Though and Theory, and we read Makers of Modern Strategy. I LOVED the book. Also, if you're gonna buy Clausewitz, be sure to get the Howard/Paret version.
Two badasses talking about one badass's actions that earned him a spot amongst the Gods? Hngggggg
Also, if you guys haven't already, definitely check out all of Bing West's other books, especially No True Glory. He paints a very real, vivid, accurate, and what I feel is non-biased picture of Iraq at the time, as well as how Fallujah came to fall [and eventually be retaken].
It also chronicles the life of one of daily inspirations.
Bodies actually do bounce surprisingly enough.
Source: "Currahee!" by Donald Burgett
Good book by the way
For tips on this exact subject, check out Richard Overy's book Why the Allies Won - it's an excellent summary of why the Allies won World War II, and a number of ways that allied manpower, organization, technology, industry, and morale contributed to allied victory. Even with a super-metal, Germany could likely have caused more damage, conquered more territory, but still lost the war.
Also, most senior officers put out public reading lists every year - so you might try searching that way too.
Seaman ship in the age of sail is a good one.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0870219553?pc_redir=1395279573&robot_redir=1
The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor is marvelous aswell
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0486402207/ref=pd_aw_sims_1?pi=SL500_SY115
And if your interested about knots
The Marlinespike Sailor
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0070592187/ref=pd_aw_sims_6?pi=SL500_SY115
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0870219553?pc_redir=1395279573&robot_redir=1
You want studies or a book?
One of the most profound books i have ever read is this on how states rise and fall. It's the most enlighting thing I have ever read, it changed how I view the world fundamentaly
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0452288193/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0452288193
Its a popular book without the mathematical models behind it
Here is the mathematical version
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691116695/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0691116695
But its quite expensive and only available as hardcover but there should be a different version coming out soon
For the study on cooperation this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0996139516/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1517513099&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=Peter+turchin&dpPl=1&dpID=41Ux9xQvfIL&ref=plSrch
On cultural evolution this books makes an incredible strong argument
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691178437/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0691178437
On how religion influences pro social behaviour this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691169748/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517513482&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=Ara+Norenzayan&dpPl=1&dpID=61TgLU80vIL&ref=plSrch
The one i red was in turkish and had 750+ pages. This link has 700+ pages so i think this should be true.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691018545?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0691018545&linkCode=xm2&tag=theclausewitzhom
Sorry for long wait :( i'm a sailor, couldnt check earlier.
I am only answering further because I looked at your artwork and it is nice, and it seems you did not pursue the anthropology thing further, which is a good thing. So there's the possibility you're not completely aligned with the US anthropology cult, with its known problems, prejudices and motivations.
I am glad you pointed out various Maya are still around, this is important to educate people on. After all, if they weren't around any more, who would the US have to finance the assassination of in central america through ongoing genocidal schemes?
Your follow up statement that "I'm led to believe that their view of the downfall would be as varied as the countries across which they are spread" does suggest that you have in fact talked to Maya people, and are aware that there was no "collapse" at all, and are aware there is no single Mayan people, and are aware that the ongoing changes in various Maya cultures in history, like the histories of most cultures, aren't particularly sudden or mysterious. These were the main issues with your previous post.
Maya peoples know their history, have maintained their oral and written records, and there is no huge mystery of their history.
There is only the american anthropologists and archaeologists who continue to claim that there is a mystery here or there, while they ignore actual history kept by non-white and non-american peoples. (I qualify this with 'white' because the non-white american anthropologists I know do not have this belief, nor do the non-american white anthropologists.) These are bizarre claims and are among the many reasons that american anthropologists are regarded with skepticism and ridicule by much of the rest of the world anthropological communities.
Worthwhile reading to decolonize the minds of those who have been through US or similarly minded anthro programs.
Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State
From Racism to Genocide: Anthropology in the Third Reich
Darkness in El Dorado
Custer Died for Your Sins
Indians and Anthropologists
Read all these. Then proceed.
Which book are you referring? "The man who never was" (that also inspired the movie of the same name); "Operation Heartbreak" (by Duff Cooper); or "Operation Mincemeat" (by Ben Macintyre)?
Ain't that the truth! I not too long ago got this [https://www.amazon.com/AK-47-Grim-Reaper-Frank-Iannamico/dp/0982391854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527280971&sr=8-1&keywords=the+grim+reaper+ak+47](1,100 page book) and now I want every variation ever made pretty much. The addiction is REAL! LOL
PS-I Clearly suck at formatting
Not being petty; read this book and about 70 others
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Allies-Won-Richard-Overy/dp/039331619X