(Part 2) Best workd war ii history books according to redditors
We found 775 Reddit comments discussing the best workd war ii history books. We ranked the 352 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
26. The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II
3 mentions
US Naval Institute Press
I think what u/Stnq may have been referring to is that there were six million other camp victims that were non-Jews such as homosexuals, Catholic priests, and the Roma.
I don't know if you're familiar with it it but Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust: A History Of The Jews Of Europe During The Second World War is absolutely amazing.
Anyone out there interested in Stalingrad should read Antony Beevors book of the same name. One of the best WW2 history books ever written, plenty of first person accounts mixed with excellent historical information and detailed analysis. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stalingrad-Antony-Beevor/dp/0141032405
As for love stories in Stalingrad LOL! Some soldiers did have relations with local women there, but it was of a more brief, commercial nature...
Yes! This case has always fascinated me. I need to read this book
I think a better question would be: "What evidence is there for the Holocaust?"
Put it this way: if 9/11 truthers provided evidence that was equivalent to what we have for the Holocaust, they would be ridiculed even more than they are now.
If you want an example check out Rudolph Hoss's confession. This was considered key to proving that the Holocaust happened but it turns out that he was tortured for three days before "confessing", as stated in Rupert Butler's Legions of Death.
I would also recommend reading The Six Million: Fact or Fiction.
I disagree. Japan wanted peace once it became obvious that they weren't going to win if the allies were willing to drop "unconditional surrender." They most likely were willing to agree for anything but the unconditional surrender wording was a psychological problem for the government and the populace whom was told for years that the Americans were coming to burn, pillage, and rape.
Japan was trying to contact America to show its intentions for peace through Russia. Stalin however wanted Japan to be completely defeated and thus obfuscated and never passed the info on to Roosevelt.
In addition there were political considerations for America to use the bomb. We had spent a lot of cash on the bombs. If we hadn't there would be lots of awkward questions about wasteful spending.
Those in command also were acting like children with a new toy who absolutely had to use it.
Src: I'm in Peru and don't remember the name of the book which is back in America. I'll try to get the name and author tomorrow.
Edit: I found it. History of World War 2 by B.H. Liddell Hart. Great book for anyone interested in WW2.
Sure.
War Against the Jews, Lucy Davidowicz
Face of the Third Reich, Joachim Fest
Auschwitz, A New History, Laurence Rees
All great reads, give a very thorough picture of Nazi Germany when read together.
This NPR piece goes over the James Leininger story at some length: https://www.npr.org/2014/01/05/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation
Also the podcast Skeptoid did an episode about it: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4612
And the family wrote a whole book about it:https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Survivor-Reincarnation-World-Fighter/dp/0446509345
Can someone post the quote where Chomsky says the U.S. had an "alliance" with the Nazis. This is rather vague language. I have read a lot of Chomsky and never read where he says this. It is a fact that many right-wing businessmen in the U.S. openly supported the Nazis prior to WWII, that U.S. corporations such as Ford supplied the Nazis with manufactures, that the U.S. enlisted former-Nazis to gather intelligence on the Soviet Union after WWII, and there were former Nazis who became part of right-wing regimes in West Germany and Latin America which were supported by the U.S.
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Americas-Recruitment-Nazis-Effects/dp/1555841066/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396398421&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=blowback+america%27s+recruitment+of+nazis
I have also seen numerous people claim that Chomsky "denied" the Khmer Rouge atrocities, but have never seen the actual quotes. The best they have come up with is that Chomsky underestimated the deaths, but Ed Herman addressed this in a response to Brad DeLong, who made similar claims. As far as I can tell Chomsky and Herman only claimed that the deaths were being exaggerated while ignoring similar atrocities committed by U.S.-backed genocide in East Timor. They never condoned Pol Pot. And they made the claims about Pol Pot's atrocities with the caveat that there may be "untold deaths" but that their figures were based on the best available evidence at the time.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/07/25/refuting-brad-delong-s-smear-job-on-chomsky/
I would also like to see the Chomsky quote that says, “whatever the Khmer Rouge may have done, it's more important not to allow my opponents to win, because they are evil, and it is morally wrong to allow evil to win.” This is just completely made-up horse shit.
He admits to only having read "pieces" of Chomsky. I wonder how much he has actually read. There is no substantive critique of anything Chomsky wrote in that entire interview. This guy probably hates Chomsky because he is an apologist for Israel.
As an addiotion to OP's comment if anyone reading this wants a good taste of French fuckery after WW2 you should check out the book : Small Wars, Faraway Places: Global Insurrection and the Making of the Modern World, 1945-1965 it's where I first really read of how much of a fucking headache the French managed to cause basically everyone else in the West.
Your ignorance is astounding. Go read some literature about the western front of World War II. When the Russians finally pushed back the Germans they would enter a city and level it. They would also tear small babies from their mother's arms and smash them up against trees or stab them with knives while the mother watched. Consider reading this book
I'm confused, I don't think this happened during the cold war. This was partly the job of Soviet Partisans in World War 2. They were used for guerrilla warfare and long-range reconnaissance patrol missions, but something simple as maps were given to officers and commissars. They were disorganized, but not that incompetent during the war. Even theoretical attacks had maps given out plenty, because logistics is the number one most important factor in war. I just do not believe that they decided to start using an even worse method of directing troops than giving out maps in the cold war.
"One of Suvorov's pieces of evidence favoring the theory of an impending Soviet attack was his claim regarding the maps and phrasebooks issued to Soviet troops"
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Design/dp/1591148065
This guys biography Fly For Your Life is hands down one of the best books I've ever read. His account of the Battle of Britain is exceptionally interesting. Definitely worth a read if you can find a copy.
No. Often it is written by the losers.
https://www.amazon.de/Lost-Victories-Brilliant-Military-Classics/dp/0760320543/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=lost+victories&qid=1570352411&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.de/Erinnerungen-Albert-Speer/dp/3548367321/ref=sr_1_5?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=albert+speer&qid=1570352378&sr=8-5
https://www.amazon.de/Panzer-Battles-F-Von-Mellenthin/dp/1862274592/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=franz+von+mellenthin&qid=1570352399&sr=8-2-fkmr0
And yes, this was a war against evil. It is as close to a black-and-white conflict as it gets. Their atrocities can't even compare.
I understand your sentiment but your history is off:
USSR lost entire armies, supply depots, trains loaded with equipment - in the first month of the German invasion. Thousands of planes and tanks turned useless by the Blitz. Millions of troops encircled.
USSR planned for 100% losses in terms or resupplies - but ended up needed much more as millions were thrown away in ill-conceived counter-attacks. This is where the aid from the US became needed.
According to modern day estimates the conquest of Finland in the winter was Impossible. The Red Army managed to do the Impossible, suffering tremendous losses.
From the perspective of the people, it was an unforgivable waste of life.
From the perspective of Stalin, it was a successful test of his slave army.
___
Again, the Myth that USSR was "unprepared" for the German invasion must be crushed.
It wasn't the lack of material preparation that caused the collapse - but the highly offensive stance of their mobilization that proved vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike.
Nazi Germany was an abomination, but the invasion of the USSR was a necessity at a point where Stalin was mobilizing to invade the Romanian oil fields and amassed the greatest invasion army in human history on western borders.
Some references:
Caveat: Some of V.Suvorov's conclusions are weak, and some evidence is off - but the general idea is brilliant and started a movement of research to properly support.
http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-WHO-STARTED-SECOND-WORLD-ebook/dp/B007WTZ372/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408717006&sr=1-1&keywords=icebreaker
There is massive evidence supporting the Offensive nature of Soviet mobilization, particularly the dismantling of defensive lines, de-mining of bridges, and positioning armies in front of natural defensive lines, instead of behind them.
Regarding German supplies, here's a perspective from the ground:
http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Combat-Soldiers-Eastern-Studies/dp/0700611223/
He describes events where Russian corpses lined the battlefield in seasonal layers, where machine gunners had to be replaced after breaking down mentally from the slaughter.
He also supports the evidence that Germans engaged USSR unprepared, to strike early and first, and were helped greatly by taking over supplies and equipment.
Video, Suvorov's lecture in 2009:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Clv-c6QdBs
Skip his joking at the start and watch the rest. He starts talking about USSR readiness about 29 minutes into this video.
Most level-headed sources I trust believe that the charge of Trump colluding with Russia has a very high bar to make and an even higher one to prove. I don't think anyone who is completely balanced in their thinking believes that Trump is guaranteed a collusion charge.
I'm divided on the Steele Dossier. What you're saying makes sense, but opinions more informed than mine are divided. I guess I kind of don't care? I just read Comey's book and I like what he said: I don't care if Trump peed on some sheets in Russia. This isn't the era of Bill Clinton where impeachment is considered for an ill-advised blow job.
I just read a great history of WWII and it was striking how Stalin interacted with Churchill and Roosevelt, both of whom felt like they were convincing Stalin to be their allies when in fact they were unable to see how easily they could be manipulated by a leader who wasn't beholden to his citizens.
One of my more practical fears is that Trump, a consummate narcissist, will fair no better with Putin than they did with Stalin, and that the compromises made on our behalf will be as damaging and far reaching as, for example, the abandonment of Poland after the defeat of Germany.
I don't know, man. Again I have to go with Comey here (it really was a good book): I want Trump to succeed. I want any president to succeed. I just fear that he's not capable of it.
[Treblinka] (http://www.amazon.com/Treblinka-Jean-Francois-Steiner/dp/0452011248) made a huge impression on me, another great read if you want to know what it was like
Are you interested in books regarding this topic? If so, have you heard of the book called Soul Survivor? It was a great read and I hope it helps you as the topic appears to be similar.
Another great book is called The Boy Who Knew Too Much. This book deals with a little boy whose past life was a baseball player.
Good luck OP. I hope you are able to find answers to help you and your son ❤
https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Survivor-Reincarnation-World-Fighter/dp/0446509345
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1401952739/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1573329365&sr=8-2
> The Maginot line worked in that the Germans never attacked it directly.
False.
Army group C attacked it along its entire length from the 14th to the 25th of June.
According to Mellenthin's "Panzer Battles", they breached it easily. But by then, it was largely irrelevant.
>Nazi Germany killed millions after only having existed for just over a decade.
So how many millions will it be then? Is it the commonly regurgitated 6 million number, which has been seen in jewish-owned newspapers since 80+ years back? Or perhaps the more recently mentioned 11 million instead? Hmmm... You know, wouldn't it be funny if large populations could disperse from countries? Especially if their kind was unpopular for whatever reason. HMM, REALLY GETS THE NOGGIN JOGGIN.
>Even if you don't believe in the holocaust, or are a revisionist about it, Nazi Germany instigated a war
They didn't instigate shit. Ethnic germans were being put in danger and harassed on a regular basis in former german territories, Britain (Churchill) and France refused SEVERAL peace offers. Even after the acts of 'aggression', and even after the whole fucking war started he WAITED while people within his nation begged him to act quicker. It takes a few minutes at most out of your life to find this sort of information. You have the time to write out this wall of text so you should have no problem finding sources that detail all this.
>B-but m-m-muh evil n-natzees .... :((((
Sorry to say it but there's no excuse for this kind of dishonesty.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelspecial/d-39863503.html
https://archive.org/stream/AdolfHitler-AnOverlookedCandidateForTheNobelPrize/AdolfHitler-NobelPrize_djvu.txt
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/resource/document/HITLER1.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/nca/ftp.py?imt/nca/nca-06/nca-06-3469-ps-04
https://www.quora.com/Did-Hitler-try-to-make-peace-with-Churchill-several-times
https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Rejected-Hitlers-1933-1940-ebook/dp/B00M5K8OEM
> Vad jag vet så invaderades Polen pga att dem slaktade 50,000+ tyska minoriteter ( https://www.scribd.com/doc/53056883/Hans-Schadewaldt-1940-the-Polish-Atrocitites-Against-the-German-Minority-in-Poland#scribd) som fanns kvar där efter WWI. Det var alltså Polen som försökte utrota Tyskarna. De vägrade även acceptera flertalet av Hitlers fredförfrågningar: https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Rejected-Hitlers-1933-1940-ebook/dp/B00M5K8OEM och tillslut såg Tyskland inget annat val än att invadera Polen för att rädda de Tyska minoriteterna.
De polska massakrarna finns det ingen källa på. Det var snarare tyskarna som mördade polacker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)
Om det hade hänt hade det nämnts här, vilket det inte gör.
Dessutom nämns inte den första källan du länkade på författarens wikipedia-sida. Namnet på artikeln var snarare ett namn på en tysk propagandaartikel som nämns i Bloody Sunday-artikeln jag länkade ovan.
What the World Rejected kom ut 1940. Tror du Tyskland hade fri press under kriget? Nä. Det är rätt uppenbart att det är propaganda. Han jobbade dessutom för tyska regeringen under kriget.
Och vilka "fredsförslag"? Att annektera Österrike, ockupera Tjeckoslovaken och invadera Polen är knappast att yrka för fred. Gå inte på nazistpropagandan.
>Står givetvis inte på nåns sida i WWII, men finns ju perspektiv som aldrig tas upp. Är ingen historieexpert men vad jag vet så var agerandet mot Sovjet försvar mot deras invasion mot Europa. Man ville rädda Europa mot Bolshevism. Ifall Sovjets mål var att stoppa Nazityskland, varför invaderade de då även Finland, baltikum, östeuropa etc? Men detta känns ju rätt off-topic nu.^
Skydda Europa mot bolshevism genom att invadera Tjeckoslovakien , Polen, Nederländerna, Belgien, Luxemburg, Danmark, Norge och Frankrike? Visst. Och Baltstaterna + Finland ingick i Molotov–Ribbentrop-pakten. Tyskland sålde ut dem till Sovjet i utbyte mot att de inte skulle gå emot dem i Polen.
>Detta känns ju mest som Marxism / Kommunism dock?
Ja, och all socialism är baserad i Marx och de som kom efter honom. Antimarxistisk socialism är motsägelsefullt.
>Han gillade givetvis inte idéerna som spreds i Sovjet, och har till och med gett dig nu att Nazi självklart inte var ren Socialism, givetvis. Men att de hade världens största välfärd etc gör de till ett nationalistiskt vänsterparti för mig. F.ö Är inte alla workers of the world? T.om dom som äger företag är ju arbetare. Dom som inte är workers är väl dom som sitter hemma och lever på bidrag.
Kapitalägare räknas inte in som "arbetare". De klassar in i den regerande klassen. Återigen, läs Marx (eller allafall wikipediaartikeln) så förstår du.
>Att fördela resurser? Det är ju precis det ett välfärdsystem är, vilket användes i Nazityskland.
Genom att lura befolkningen totalt genom Mefo Bills? och sätta landet i större ekonomisk kris än hyperinflationen på 20talet? Tysklands statsskuld 1939 var enorm och utan att beslagta guldet från Österrike och Tjeckien hade landet kollapsat flera år tidigare. Alla pengar lades på att rusta upp armén. Mer läsning finns här.
Och nu har jag inte ens nämnt folkmordet på judar som började redan 1938, eller när de började massterilisera "oönskade" via Aktion T4. Låter det folkligt och att sätta folket först?
I specialize in the Eastern Front of WWII, but there are quite a few 'genres' of books that I can recommend.
General accounts:
When Titans Clashed
Russia at War
Thunder in the East
Absolute War
Hitler's War in the East
The Road to Stalingrad
The Road to Berlin
A Writer at War
THE ROLE OF THE SOVIET UNION IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR: A Re-examination
Why Stalin's Soldiers Fought: The Red Army's Military Effectiveness in World War II
If you're interested in memoirs I'd suggest:
Blood on the Shores
Over the Abyss
Sniper on the Eastern Front
GUNS AGAINST THE REICH: Memoirs of an Artillery Officer on the Eastern Front
PANZER DESTROYER: Memoirs of a Red Army Tank Commander
Through the Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War on the Eastern Front, 1942-1945
Red Road From Stalingrad: Recollections Of A Soviet Infantryman
Red Star Against the Swastika: The Story of a Soviet Pilot over the Eastern Front
Penalty Strike: The Memoirs of a Red Army Penal Company Commander, 1943-45
BUT NOT FOR THE FUEHRER
Through Hell for Hitler
A Stranger to Myself: The Inhumanity of War : Russia, 1941-1944
Barbarossa:
War Without Garlands: Barbarossa 1941/42
BARBAROSSA DERAILED: THE BATTLE FOR SMOLENSK 10 JULY-10 SEPTEMBER 1941 VOLUME 1: The German Advance, The Encirclement Battle, and the First and Second Soviet Counteroffensives, 10 July-24 August 1941
Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East
Kiev 1941
Operation Typhoon: Hitler's March on Moscow, October 1941
THE VIAZ'MA CATASTROPHE, 1941: The Red Army's Disastrous Stand against Operation Typhoon
What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa
War of Annihilation: Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941
Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union
For Stalingrad/Leningrad:
STALINGRAD: How the Red Army Survived the German Onslaught
Leningrad: State of Siege
Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad
To the Gates of Stalingrad: Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942
Armageddon in Stalingrad: September-November 1942
Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler's Defeat in the East, 1942-1943
The 900 Days: The Siege Of Leningrad
Kursk:
The Battle of Kursk
Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943: An Operational Narrative
Air War:
Barbarossa: The Air Battle July-December 1941
Stalingrad: The Air Battle: 1942-January 1943
Kursk: The Air Battle, July 1943
Bagration to Berlin: The Final Air Battles in the East 1944-1945
Black Cross/Red Star : Vol. 1, Operation Barbarossa 1941
Black Cross / Red Star: The Air War Over The Eastern Front, Vol. 2 - Resurgence: January - June 1942
Black Cross Red Star: The Air War Over the Eastern Front Volume 3
German Army:
War of Extermination: The German Military in World War II
Hitler's Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich
The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture
The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality
The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler's Foreign Soldiers
Partisans:
Defiance
Stalin's Guerrillas: Soviet Partisans in World War II
Holocaust/Genocide:
Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine under Nazi Rule
Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine
Erased: Vanishing Traces of Jewish Galicia in Present-Day Ukraine
The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization
The Holocaust in the Soviet Union
Hopefully the above will do for a start.
Not wrong. Clear a village and shoot those you wish to get rid of at the edge of town.
About 10 years ago I started reading "The Holocaust" by Sir Martin Gilbert
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805003487/qid=1063220017/sr=1-1
Heavy going.
I really enjoyed B H Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War. It's a quite in-depth analysis of the war down to the level of individual divisions and day-to-day strategic and tactical decisions. Fairly detailed but still quite easy to read.
He's a British historian/military strategist/soldier who was a big proponent of mechanisation and indirect warfare before and during WW2. He had extensive interviews with German generals after the war which are relied on in this book and published elsewhere. There is a bit of debate about him inflating his own role after the war I think but I don't know a great deal about that. Either way its a very good book to look at the military aspects of the war rather than the political.
The British in Malaya were successful for a number of reasons.
They were mainly fighting against ethnic Chinese and had the support of a large portion of the local Malay population. If ethnic Chinese were suspected of being/supporting the rebels, the British simply deported them back to a China they had little or no connection with.
The British also had the extremely charismatic General in charge of the operation who had the respect of friend and enemy alike. Ethnic Malays also had Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was widely respected as a Malay nationalist and not seen as a stooge of the "imperialist" west. He continually negotiated with rebel leader Chin Peng, who according to author Michael Burleigh "[Peng's] pride would not permit him to recognize that the Tunku represented a genuine national movement that was achieving independence".
The "hearts and minds" strategy employed was also very successful at getting rebels to surrender and be "rehabilitated". These former rebels would then help the British track down their former comrades. Ethnic Chinese were also encouraged to join the Malayan civil service, which had previously been dominated by the Malays.
Burleigh leaves his section in Small Wars, Faraway Places a bit open ended:
"Was the Malay emergency really won through the 'hearts and minds' and the herculean efforts of a charismatic general? Or did victory result from prior establishment of population and spatial dominance through military force, with hearts and minds warfare as a parenthesis before the democratic co-option of Chinese elites? Few of the basic conditions in Malaya were evident in Vietnam, whether under the French or or later the US and its local ally, so its vaunted lessons are not really applicable"
Sauce:
Small Wars, Faraway Places by Michael Burleigh
I fully subscribe to this, in fact and leaving aside the bleeding of Stalingrad, many of the German staff officers though they could deal and contain the Red Army by 1943, they have learned enough to stop them.
It is true that Soviets used masses of infantry and tanks but there is quite some myth here, Soviet reserves were indeed huge but came to nearly exhaustion around the Battle of Kursk, they also needed rest and replenishment and Germans were actually closer to deal effectively with the Russian wave than many think. Excellent first hand account in:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panzer-Battles-Major-General/dp/1862274592
I often recommend this one as opposed to Guderian's writting since Mellenthin did command in the front line.
The Unwomanly Face of War: An Oral History of Women in World War II
Here is the mobile version of your link
> Hitler blew it by trying to fight on two fronts.
He didn't have much of a choice.
>The Soviets made the greatest sacrifice of any nation and were betrayed by the west right after the war
How were they betrayed? They were allowed to keep half of Europe. The "West" allowed Poland, whose sovereignty the war was ostensibly fought over, to simply be absorbed into their empire...
Treblinka by Jean Francois Steiner is an excellent book getting into how a death camp operated etc. It is very readable.
hey man, could i ask you a question? just real quick, but where did you hear that? i'm just always intrigued when i see really crazy people making crazy claims, and i've always wanted to hear crazy reasoning
see, i've read that it was 5.9 million jewish deaths (source). at least 1 million of the jews killed were children (source).
now you go
One of my favorites on the US side is Thunderbolt! by Robert Johnson. If you're interested in the China-Burma theater (or want to start learning) I'd recommend Into the Teeth of the Tiger and God is My Copilot.
Bader's book mentioned by /u/thebroadwayflyer is a biography and not an autobigraphy, for what it's worth. If you're not 100% set on autobiographies then Bader's Reach for the Sky and Robert Tuck's Fly For Your Life are good. One RAF autobiography I enjoyed was To War in a Stringbag by a pilot who flew Swordfish during some big and important events during the war.
Also Treblinka and Man's Search for Meaning. Treblinka because the prisoners fought back and destroyed the death camp. Man's Search for Meaning because it shows the struggle survivors had to find a reason to live after the Holocaust altered their picture of what kind of world we live in.
Zaczyna się to z "The Gathering Storm". Przygotuj się na długą jazdę. Edit: http://www.amazon.com/Winston-Churchill-GATHERING-ALLIANCE-CLOSING/dp/B005NS30ZG
There are good people on the right. Those good people weren't out there marching alongside neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups to save a symbol that venerates oppression and treason. Any decent person probably wouldn't show up to begin with, and certainly would get the fuck out of that crowd at first sight of the chaos and presence of neo-Nazi groups, or even join the group actively protesting their presence. I wouldn't consider someone who marches alongside Antifa to be a decent, upstanding person either. They're enablers at minimum.
​
History can be learned in many ways. For example, the Internet exists. Also books and museums. I've never seen a statue of Hitler in my life, yet I'm well aware of the darkness that was the Holocaust and have a clear understanding of what happened in that time period. Here's a nice book anyone can comprehend, well-available at public libraries. It's not difficult to open a book or find the information online.
​
I've never seen a statue of Robert E. Lee in my life either, yet somehow I'm quite aware of what happened well before the Civil War, what led to it, and the aftermath. The Civil War and Reconstruction are one of the most heavily-covered topics in any high school US History course. I didn't need to see a statue in a park to understand the darkness of that ideology. Nor did I need to see a statue to know Robert E. Lee was a sack of shit as an individual who opposed black suffrage after the war ended, refused to even trade black Union POWs for the lives of his own men because he saw black people as property, took black people in his invasion of the north and enslaved them, and openly stated slavery was "necessary for their instruction as a race." He's absolutely not a human worth idolizing with a statue in public squares.
​
But if you insist on and believe in the value of public statues as historical education pieces, it would be simple enough to put up a statue telling the stories of slaves, rather than venerating the people who literally waged war against their nation to retain the institution of owning humans.
​
Statues are a symbol of respect and veneration when they're placed in a public square. Move the statues to a museum (which is mostly what's happening with the Confederate statues), where they're placed in a historical, educational context and don't serve as a symbol of veneration for oppression and slavery. That's fine. Anyone who genuinely opposes that, especially enough to protest the removal from a public square, has their shit out of whack and is likely harboring some level of prejudice -- where I come from, we don't call them good people.
You are wrong about the Soviets.
Read this Book, one of the best books about second world war and incredibly intense!
https://www.amazon.com/Unwomanly-Face-War-History-Women/dp/0399588728
Also great: https://www.amazon.de/Ivans-War-Life-Death-1939-1945/dp/0312426526
> Var svälten i Ukraina ett medvetet drag för att utrota det ukrainska folket?
Nej, inget sånt är bekräftat, det var inte heller min poäng, utan bara ett exempel på hur vänsterideologin kan se ut, och hur man kanske bör vara lite försiktig med att ge en godhetsstämpel till vänstern och ondska till höger. Vem bryr sig om vilket "folk" nån tillhör, poängen är att människor dör pga en ideologi och människovärdet är lika för alla.
> Varför tror du de invaderade tex Polen och Sovjet och redan från första dagen började utrota befolkningen?
Vad jag vet så invaderades Polen pga att dem slaktade 50,000+ tyska minoriteter ( https://www.scribd.com/doc/53056883/Hans-Schadewaldt-1940-the-Polish-Atrocitites-Against-the-German-Minority-in-Poland#scribd) som fanns kvar där efter WWI. Det var alltså Polen som försökte utrota Tyskarna. De vägrade även acceptera flertalet av Hitlers fredförfrågningar: https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Rejected-Hitlers-1933-1940-ebook/dp/B00M5K8OEM och tillslut såg Tyskland inget annat val än att invadera Polen för att rädda de Tyska minoriteterna.
Står givetvis inte på nåns sida i WWII, men finns ju perspektiv som aldrig tas upp.
Är ingen historieexpert men vad jag vet så var agerandet mot Sovjet försvar mot deras invasion mot Europa. Man ville rädda Europa mot Bolshevism. Ifall Sovjets mål var att stoppa Nazityskland, varför invaderade de då även Finland, baltikum, östeuropa etc?
Men detta känns ju rätt off-topic nu.
> Läs Marx, specifikt Kommunistiska Manifestet
Detta känns ju mest som Marxism / Kommunism dock?
> Tror du Hitler som enligt dig är så vänster trodde på den idén? Nej, han hatade allt vad socialism hette.
Han gillade givetvis inte idéerna som spreds i Sovjet, och har till och med gett dig nu att Nazi självklart inte var ren Socialism, givetvis. Men att de hade världens största välfärd etc gör de till ett nationalistiskt vänsterparti för mig.
F.ö Är inte alla workers of the world? T.om dom som äger företag är ju arbetare. Dom som inte är workers är väl dom som sitter hemma och lever på bidrag.
> Visa mig ett fascistiskt land som gjort det eller ens försökt.
Att fördela resurser? Det är ju precis det ett välfärdsystem är, vilket användes i Nazityskland.
I SAID GOOD DAY
P.S. You're thinking of The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War
Why is it that what you consider the most authoritative histories of the holocaust don't mention Gypsies, gays, homosexuals, or the disabled?
139571701| > United States Anonymous (ID: 4Ywe+GRO)
>>139571044
>again, where is the proof he was tortured into confessing this?
Its holohoax studies 101, how could you not have heard of this?
>get a 404
I didn't, maybe its the VPN you're using, here's the archive so you can't claim you didn't see it:
https://archive.is/O88Fp
>Rudolf Hoss stated at the Numerburg trials how he made it possible for the gas chambers to exterminate ten times as many people as the ones at Treblinka. His detailed accounts of the holocaust is confirmed by documents and other eyewitnesses as well.
But unfortunately contradicted by Auschwitz museum itself.
Also, how does
X + 2m;
X + 4m;
and X + 1.5m
all equal 6m at the same time?
Rudolf Hoess: Commandant of Auschwitz:
>"I was treated terribly by the [British] Field Security Police. I was dragged to Heide and, of all places, to the same military barracks from which I had been released eight months before by the British. During the first interrogation they beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear."
http://mailstar.net/Hoss-Memoirs.html
Captain Bernard Clarke (interviewed by Rupert Butler):
>"The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: 'Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.'"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Legions-Death-Enslavement-Military-Classics/dp/1844150429
>Hellstorm (1:09:02)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUt-yxJODxI [Embed]
Thanks, I found it on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Enemy-at-Gates-Battle-Stalingrad/dp/1568523688
another book that along the history/ww2 subject that is on my read list
A Woman in Berlin; diary account of the Russian occupation of Berlin
http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Berlin/dp/1844081117/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251327755&sr=8-2
Here's one place you could start.
EDIT: Here is an excellent opinion piece you could start with that gives insight into the current political system in the U.S.: Confessions of a Republican Operative
For background you might consider:
Democracy in America - By Alexis de Toqueville
You might also look at - Heavenly Discourse - by Charles Erskine Scott Wood - if you look up and become familiar with all the characters mentioned in this series of essays it will give you a good foundation for the U.S. during the period of World War One. Many of the same interests which were in conflict then, are still in the same conflicts now.
Here is a quote from the book:
>Pupils are brought up to a superstitious reverence of the dead past. They are taught a flag idolatry that blinds the youth to the fact that today the flag at home stands for suppression of free speech, free press, free theater, personal freedom, and abroad, stands for conquest and rule and looting of weaker peoples. The flag - the piece of bunting - is made holier than that resistance to oppression which gave it birth. Let any one advocate evolution, change, progress, freedom - and a mob is loosed against him - a mob taught intolerance in the schools; taught that the individual can be ordered, commanded, bullied, crushed; falsely taught that the flag still stands for democracy and freedom, and that patriotism and loyalty mean devotion to a free country of noble ideals. As a matter of fact, the country is owned by a few, very few, and the ideals are the piratical ideals of an imperialistic oligarchy - suppression of slaves at home, conquest and exploitation of new territory and new slaves abroad.
Every bit as true today as it was then.
Btw if you enjoy the history of World War Two, I highly recommend The History of the Second World War - by Liddel Hart.
>That's an interesting read because the book I read on the subject seemed to make the argument that the brutality was quite effective.
>https://www.amazon.com/Small-Wars-Faraway-Places-Insurrection/dp/0143125958
Well yeah, the brutality was effective because as I said, you cause enough casualties, it's going to have an effect. The brutality goes beyond torture to mass killings and rape. I mostly know Burleigh for his stuff on Nazi war crimes, didn't realize he had anything recent. Even there he talks lot about the immorality of Nazi tactics.
>This is all good if the crux of my argument was the overall effectiveness of torture or the programs.
>However it isn't. The crux is that in either of these operations at some point torture CERTAINLY provided correct information. And even if it literally only happened ONCE it would disprove the original statement, and that is all that my argument hinges on.
No? Your error rate is so high that any given piece of intel derived from torture is likely wrong so you cannot know that it's accurate and rely on it without confirmation. It's hard to operate on intelligence derived from torture. The whole data set is unreliable. You might as well guess. If it happens to be right once, great, but even then, the information would be accurate despite the use of torture, not because of it.
I will give you that in the moment during an ongoing situation, torture can be effective to get intelligence quickly to end the situation. However in a protracted setting, it's not. And even in an emergency situation, asking directly and being nice to the subject will typically yield better and more reliable information, as well as prolong the subject's usefulness.
I'd look into the books by Anthony Beevor...Stalingrad, The Fall of Berlin, The Second World War.
Edit: Words and links and stuff
The Second World War by Winston Churchill?
I'm going to take the time to address each point that you posted.
Reviewing the website that you linked, some points are easily debunked while others require a little but more time.
For example:
> Nobody was torturing anyone in the 1960s' West Germany, yet they told the same story.
Its common knowledge, even before Butler's book, in which he documents the torture (https://www.amazon.com/Legions-Death-Enslavement-Military-Classics/dp/1844150429/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Legions+of+Death+butler&qid=1568626309&sr=8-2), that the Allies tortured confessions and stories of gassing, exterminations etc., out of the Germans during Nuremberg.
One of the favorite methods being testicle crushing.
American judges, Generals, lawyers, Senators openly commenting on the sham of a trial that was Nuremberg.
If these are the type of "facts" youre presenting, the revisionists would seem to have a very strong case.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html
Fly For Your Life
A really interesting but book is Year Zero by Ian Buruma. It's about 1946 and covers the chaos that followed the end of the war, stuff seems to often be overlooked.
https://www.amazon.com/Year-Zero-History-Ian-Buruma/dp/B01L9EITNU
i would start with a biography of Eisenhower.
“Eisenhower in War and Peace” by Jean Edward Smith
here is a great book by this USMC general James "mad dog" Mattis
but the guy is real interesting and there are several books about him.
its one of those subjects where a few perspectives doesn't really let you have the full picture of it. understanding the different mechanisms at work are really quite interesting. like how the need of research and development, from operation paperclip to say how the microeconomics of different senators and congressmen are basically bought and sold by lobbyists from "defense" companies. maybe a book on the early days of lockheed martin would be of interest, or perhaps some biographies on the folks who worked on the manhattan project.
there are more abstract ones out there kind of interesting on the societal structures of how this thing forms. not so much about one individual story more commentary on society than anything.
On nazi scientists in american programs
(https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000855FPC/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I2LC91CV9GI78T&colid=388LMJNXN4FBU)
by Frederick Lewis Allen] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000855FPC/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I2LC91CV9GI78T&colid=388LMJNXN4FBU)
that's probably enough to get you started
Small Wars, Faraway Places: Global Insurrection and the Making of the Modern World, 1945-1965
Icebreaker. WHO STARTED THE SECOND WORLD WAR? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007WTZ372/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_bJEezb04JJPT4
Polish did a lot of revenge crimes against German civilians after the war, lots of rape and murder. French were a bit more distanced from all the German atrocities, I think in France it mostly just involved getting back at French people who fraternized with Germans during occupation. That slooty woman who slept with the German commander would probably have her hair shaved, paraded through the streets, and run out of town, if she was lucky.
There were a lot of very angry people in postwar Europe and they didn't always take out their anger peacefully.
You should read Year Zero if you're interested. Very interesting account of the conditions in Germany and Japan right after the war
I love Freakonomics, though I am skeptical about how it will transcribe to film. My issue with Michael Moore and what I saw of The Corporation is that they are so rife with commentary about their obvious bias. I understand that you create a documentary to sway people to a certain point of view, but I think immediately jumping to "soulless machine" style claims cheapens what could be insightful views. The world exists in shades of gray and, although many Corps/Institutions could definitely be truthfully painted as dark gray, very few (if any) exist as the black Moore often suggests.
I saw Zeitgeist, and my issue with extravagant claims like that are that they very rarely are backed by extravagant evidence. Although it is really undeniable that the US government ran with 9/11 as an excuse for everything, I'm certainly not a truther. They made a valid point regarding economic motives for the wars of the 20th century. I think Hart's History of the Second World War is an interesting read on the economic causes/stresses of WWII and (to a lesser extent) WWI.
Regarding business, I haven't seen TWAtM, but you may like Food Inc which is not without it's own bias, but raises some interesting questions. Supercapitalism is an interesting book that, I feel, does a great job at pointing out flaws in our society while simultaneously explaining how and why it is that way (e.g. there is a piece on how Walmart screws over its workers while providing a service that caters specifically to this disenfranchised group).
TL;DR I think that watching documentaries for answers is dangerous, as many are really thinly veiled propaganda, but they can be good source for inciting questions. My recommended viewing/reading are linked to a reference. Thanks for the suggestions!
Read a book.
>Antony Beevor's excellent Stalingrad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(book)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stalingrad-Antony-Beevor/dp/0141032405 (the "bought together" is worth a look - I have all three)
" Antony Beevor is the renowned author of Stalingrad, which won the Samuel Johnson Prize, the Wolfson Prize for History and the Hawthornden Prize for Literature, and Berlin, which received the first Longman-History Today Trustees' Award. His books have sold nearly four million copies."