Topic: World War 2

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Clark's Barbarossa is rather superseded by more recent research. Beevor's Stalingrad and Berlin: The Downfall are better popular histories. For an overview of the Great Patriotic War, Richard Overy's Russia's War is probably the best English language narrative history. Both Beevor and Overy correct some of the myths perpetuated in Clark's history; not Clark's fault, as he didn't have access to Soviet archives at the time he wrote it.

I think it depends what you are looking for. Given it was first published 55 years ago it is clearly going to be behind the curve in terms of academic military historiography. But in literary terms it is still exceptional and for me has a certain 'artistic' merit that some of the more conventional academic history lacks.

Horses for courses really. I was a pretty unfashionable history student in that I still saw it as an art as much as a science.

[Zeb]

That's why I specified if you're up to reading Glantz. I'm not, which is why I rely on other historians' summaries of his work. I really don't recommend Glantz unless you've finished Beevor, Overy and so on and still hanker for more detail. That said, I once read Erickson, so I've gone through dry histories before (although I don't remember a single bit of his volumes).

Glantz really isn't that bad. In spite of the length difference, just looking at them now, eg Barbarossa Derailed is very readable in comparison to eg Kharkov. Certainly no harder to read than Halder's War Diary (which he leans on heavily in volume 1 for the German side). But think we'll differ on this as I really don't see where one necessarily must come before another. Like for this thread Stumbling Colossus would seem absolutely on point to some of the issues and I'd not say avoid it if you hadn't read Overy's views on why Mark Harrison and Adam Tooze must be wrong about the Soviet war economy. D:

edited: added 'derailed' for clarity.

[CHOPPER]

I think we'll win

[Sangria]

Glantz really isn't that bad. In spite of the length difference, just looking at them now, eg Barbarossa Derailed is very readable in comparison to eg Kharkov. Certainly no harder to read than Halder's War Diary (which he leans on heavily in volume 1 for the German side). But think we'll differ on this as I really don't see where one necessarily must come before another. Like for this thread Stumbling Colossus would seem absolutely on point to some of the issues and I'd not say avoid it if you hadn't read Overy's views on why Mark Harrison and Adam Tooze must be wrong about the Soviet war economy. D:

edited: added 'derailed' for clarity.

From what I've heard, Sven Hassel might be on a par with Halder as far as a history of WWII goes.

[Riquende]

I think we'll win

On account of the fact that they don't like it up 'em.

Actually, I prefer 'Allo 'Allo.

[Zeb]

From what I've heard, Sven Hassel might be on a par with Halder as far as a history of WWII goes.

Interesting take. Certainly a niche one. Unless one of those names confused with someone else.

[Sangria]

Interesting take. Certainly a niche one. Unless one of those names confused with someone else.

Halder is held to be the primary mythmaker of WWII, deemed to be trustworthy by the Americans because he'd been deposed and imprisoned by Hitler, and entrusted with writing a history of the war from the German side, he proceeded to shape the narrative by writing his own version of events and destroying evidence that contradicted it. This narrative being that Hitler was the culprit of all evils, along with the SS, and the Wehrmacht as a whole was largely blameless. More recent histories have tried to debunk this, drawing on accounts that escaped Halder's notice combined with Soviet records.

[Yorkykopite]

I think we'll win

Well, we always beat the Germans.

And tonight will be no exception.

Although we do appear to have Rommel in command. Which is interesting.

[Red-Soldier]

On account of the fact that they don't like it up 'em.

Actually, I prefer 'Allo 'Allo.

More of a Top Secret man myself.

[Nobby Reserve]

I think we'll win

I think you'll find the US of A goddam won.

[Riquende]

More of a Top Secret man myself.

It was recommended to me as a friend's favourite movie and in theory my cup of tea (love Airplane, Naked Gun etc), but I literally got halfway through and turned it off.

[ljycb]

Any suggestions on good books to start off with on the Second World War?

Appreciate everyone’s recommendations on this. Thank you. Going to get a few ordered on payday.

[Riquende]

I think you'll find the US of A goddam won.

Defeated the Commie Nazis single handedly.

[Red-Soldier]

It was recommended to me as a friend's favourite movie and in theory my cup of tea (love Airplane, Naked Gun etc), but I literally got halfway through and turned it off.

Strange.

I watch Top Secret, Airplane and Airplane 2 every now and then.  They just don't make films like that anymore.

[Jiminy Cricket]

This thread put me in mind of when I was back in the UK a couple of years ago - I caught a few repeats of The World at War. I do not recall watching any other episodes since I was kid - the series had always stuck with me. And watching a couple of episodes, it was just as brilliant as I recalled.

If anyone is interested in first account histories and documentaries, this series is mesmerizing stuff. It dates from the early seventies, so there were plenty of people - with very interesting experiences - still around to be interviewed. Looking at the Wiki page, it seems that this remains the most expensive factual series ever produced. There is also a book, where much more material (interviews) are relayed (which did not make the cut for television). I think there is zero chance of a television like this being made again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War

Has anyone here read the book? Would you recommend it?

[Dr. Beaker]

For me it has to be, Adolf Hitler: My Part In His Downfall, by Spike Milligan.

[Sangria]

This thread put me in mind of when I was back in the UK a couple of years ago - I caught a few repeats of The World at War. I do not recall watching any other episodes since I was kid - the series had always stuck with me. And watching a couple of episodes, it was just as brilliant as I recalled.

If anyone is interested in first account histories and documentaries, this series is mesmerizing stuff. It dates from the early seventies, so there were plenty of people - with very interesting experiences - still around to be interviewed. Looking at the Wiki page, it seems that this remains the most expensive factual series ever produced. There is also a book, where much more material (interviews) are relayed (which did not make the cut for television). I think there is zero chance of a television like this being made again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War

Has anyone here read the book? Would you recommend it?

This series is the definitive English language overview documentary of WWII. The book I had I would say is a decent basic primer, but there are lots of books with that title, and there are better popular histories out there that are more recent (since good history books are more numerous than good history series). The Max Hastings books include more recent research, and are just as readable.

[Dr. Beaker]

This thread put me in mind of when I was back in the UK a couple of years ago - I caught a few repeats of The World at War. I do not recall watching any other episodes since I was kid - the series had always stuck with me. And watching a couple of episodes, it was just as brilliant as I recalled.

If anyone is interested in first account histories and documentaries, this series is mesmerizing stuff. It dates from the early seventies, so there were plenty of people - with very interesting experiences - still around to be interviewed. Looking at the Wiki page, it seems that this remains the most expensive factual series ever produced. There is also a book, where much more material (interviews) are relayed (which did not make the cut for television). I think there is zero chance of a television like this being made again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War

Has anyone here read the book? Would you recommend it?

Downloaded World at War about five years ago an me and Mrs. Beaker binge watched the whole thing in about a month!

[losCHUNK]

World at War is one of the 1st I remember watching, I think you can find the series on youtube, is still one of the best.   Ken Burns: The War is one that always comes to mind n all, the one he did on Vietnam was better.

[Sangria]

For me it has to be, Adolf Hitler: My Part In His Downfall, by Spike Milligan.

His tour of old battlegrounds led of course to his part in Life of Brian. Did some acting on set, then trekked off to see the old battlefields where he and his Eighth Army mates used to be.

And if you're interested in comedians writing WWII memoirs, may I point out Quartered Safe Out Here by George MacDonald Fraser, about a less frequently covered theatre of war (Burma with Slim's Forgotten Army). Although Fraser makes it plain that he saw nothing of a theatre, merely marching back and forth for no discernable reason before hearing of Slim's strategic brilliance that involved Fraser marching back and forth.

"I went off to renew acquaintance with projector, infantry, anti-tank, commonly called the Piat. It was the British counterpart of the American bazooka, and might have been designed by Heat Robinson after a drunken dinner of lobster au gratin. It's easy to describe, and I may have forgotten some of its finer points, such as its exact measurements, but I'll do my best.

From memory, then, it consisted of about four feet of six-inch steel pipe, one end of which was partly cut out to leave a semi-cylindrical cradle about a foot long, in which you laid the bomb. At the other end of the pipe was a thick butt pad which fitted into your shoulder when you lay on the ground in a firing position, the body of the pipe being supported on a single expanding leg. The bomb, a sinister black object fifteen or so inches overall, had a circular tail fin containing a propellant cartridge, a bulging black body packed with high explosive, and a long spiked nose with a tiny cap which, when removed, revealed a gleaming detonator.

Within the body of the pipe was gigantic spring which had to be cocked after each shot:you lay on your back and dragged the Piat on top of you, braced your feet against the projecting edges of the butt pad, and heaved like hell at something or other which I've forgotten. After immense creaking the spring clicked into place, and you crawled out from under, gamely ignoring your hernia, laid an uncapped bomb gently in the front cradle, resumed lying firing position, aligned the barleycorn sight with gleaming nose of the bomb, pressed a massive metal trigger beneath the pipe, thus releasing the coiled spring which drove a long steel plunger up the tail fin of the bomb, detonating the propellant cartridge, you and the Piat went ploughing backwards with recoil, and the bomb went soaring away - about a hundred yards, I think, but it may have been farther. The whole contraption weighed about a ton, and a bombs came in cases of three; if you were Goliath you might have carried the Piat and two cases."
 - George MacDonald Fraser

[Sangria]

World at War is one of the 1st I remember watching, I think you can find the series on youtube, is still one of the best.   Ken Burns: The War is one that always comes to mind n all, the one he did on Vietnam was better.

Have you seen his documentary on the Black Space Program? I found the letter from Sullivan Carew immensely moving.

[TipTopKop]

Strange.

I watch Top Secret, Airplane and Airplane 2 every now and then.  They just don't make films like that anymore.

"I know a little German"

Brilliant film.

[classycarra]

Have you seen his documentary on the Black Space Program? I found the letter from Sullivan Carew immensely moving.

".. but shit woman, it is cold as fuck up here"

Haha, thanks for the heads up of this parody. Almost perfect, as someone who's watched most of his 20 hour baseball documentary! Community did a good episode parodying Burns too, over a pillow-fight war.

EDIT: turns out the writer who made that, wrote the Community episode!

[Zeb]

Halder is held to be the primary mythmaker of WWII, deemed to be trustworthy by the Americans because he'd been deposed and imprisoned by Hitler, and entrusted with writing a history of the war from the German side, he proceeded to shape the narrative by writing his own version of events and destroying evidence that contradicted it. This narrative being that Hitler was the culprit of all evils, along with the SS, and the Wehrmacht as a whole was largely blameless. More recent histories have tried to debunk this, drawing on accounts that escaped Halder's notice combined with Soviet records.

Mmm. Not sure where that's from but 'more recent histories' can only mean 'most of the work in the past half a century'. Seems a take curiously devoid of the context of why the Americans were happy with making such distinctions in the years after Nuremberg too. Don't see the parallels to Hassel unless it's by a very uncritical reader of memoirs and diaries.

[Sangria]

Mmm. Not sure where that's from but 'more recent histories' can only mean 'most of the work in the past half a century'. Seems a take curiously devoid of the context of why the Americans were happy with making such distinctions in the years after Nuremberg too. Don't see the parallels to Hassel unless it's by a very uncritical reader of memoirs and diaries.

Basically the Halderian narrative that the Wehrmacht was largely free of war crimes was complete bollocks. It was all directed to free people like him from criticism and divert it to Hitler who couldn't refute it as he was dead. More recent research has shown that the Wehrmacht was in fact deep in all the Nazi stuff that Halder tried to whitewash them from. Arnold Schwarzenegger probably has a better idea of what was going on than the old Halderian narratives would give you.

A great film, but one instilled in that fiction, is Cross of Iron by Sam Peckinpah. The normal soldiers are held to be guilty of some general crime that all Germany is guilty of, but without specifics. The officers are noble but guilty in the same way. But the only individual shown to be guilty of specifics is the Nazi. The Nazi is held apart from the other soldiers, who are only doing their best in difficult conditions.

That's the Halderian narrative for you. And it's bollocks.

[Yorkykopite]

Loads of good Second World War films. 'Thin Red Line' by Terrence Malik and the Russian film 'Come and See' are my faves.

[Zeb]

Basically the Halderian narrative that the Wehrmacht was largely free of war crimes was complete bollocks. It was all directed to free people like him from criticism and divert it to Hitler who couldn't refute it as he was dead. More recent research has shown that the Wehrmacht was in fact deep in all the Nazi stuff that Halder tried to whitewash them from. Arnold Schwarzenegger probably has a better idea of what was going on than the old Halderian narratives would give you.

A great film, but one instilled in that fiction, is Cross of Iron by Sam Peckinpah. The normal soldiers are held to be guilty of some general crime that all Germany is guilty of, but without specifics. The officers are noble but guilty in the same way. But the only individual shown to be guilty of specifics is the Nazi. The Nazi is held apart from the other soldiers, who are only doing their best in difficult conditions.

That's the Halderian narrative for you. And it's bollocks.

Right. But which credible historians have been writing that since, say, Lidell Hart? And do the omissions in eg Halder's War Diaries therefore place them on a par with a Hassel novel? Or is that just hyperbolic nonsense?

[Sangria]

Right. But which credible historians have been writing that since, say, Lidell Hart? And do the omissions in eg Halder's War Diaries therefore place them on a par with a Hassel novel? Or is that just hyperbolic nonsense?

Hyperbolic yes. But modern historians don't think highly of Halder's version of events where they are contradicted by other sources. If there is nothing better, it will do. And given his position as the US's favoured German military historian with full control of the German archives, quite often there had been nothing better (since other German commanders jumped on his narrative as suiting their agenda). Modern revisionist historians prefer other sources where possible.

[Zeb]

Hyperbolic yes. But modern historians don't think highly of Halder's version of events where they are contradicted by other sources. If there is nothing better, it will do. And given his position as the US's favoured German military historian with full control of the German archives, quite often there had been nothing better (since other German commanders jumped on his narrative as suiting their agenda). Modern revisionist historians prefer other sources where possible.

It's a source like any other, yeah, with weaknesses and strengths and you have the ability to check across for what is said and what isn't. Just surprised that this is something being portrayed as 'and only NOW have modern revisionist historians discovered that people don't tell the truth about the horrible crimes they committed and enabled'. I thought Speer's mythologising was the last of the major debunkings back in the mid-to-late 90s.

Maybe it's just the natural delay in between eg a film from the 70s making an impression and what's being written about the subject at the same time being made into a film.

[Sangria]

It's a source like any other, yeah, with weaknesses and strengths and you have the ability to check across for what is said and what isn't. Just surprised that this is something being portrayed as 'and only NOW have modern revisionist historians discovered that people don't tell the truth about the horrible crimes they committed and enabled'. I thought Speer's mythologising was the last of the major debunkings back in the mid-to-late 90s.

Maybe it's just the natural delay in between eg a film from the 70s making an impression and what's being written about the subject at the same time being made into a film.

I've seen Speer's debunking in main headlines, but scarcely anyone outside history buffs have heard of Halder, but Halder has been the driver behind the main thrust of the pro-Wehrmacht narrative, which have been nearly universal among German primary sources. Also, Halder had the advantage of being punished and imprisoned by Hitler, and thus free of Nazi taint, whereas Speer was clearly a Nazi and thus easily discredited. So I'd say that Speer's bias is more completely debunked, whereas Halder's bias is still undergoing that process.

[Zeb]

I've seen Speer's debunking in main headlines, but scarcely anyone outside history buffs have heard of Halder, but Halder has been the driver behind the main thrust of the pro-Wehrmacht narrative, which have been nearly universal among German primary sources. Also, Halder had the advantage of being punished and imprisoned by Hitler, and thus free of Nazi taint, whereas Speer was clearly a Nazi and thus easily discredited. So I'd say that Speer's bias is more completely debunked, whereas Halder's bias is still undergoing that process.

Yeah, just weird to see the cycle of stuff which was 20 years old when I was reading suddenly placed as new and radical. Halder's role post-war in working with the Americans on a politically expedient mythology also doesn't really detract from the value of his war diaries, done before then, as a source. If Halder's become a lightning rod for some historians then they're going to go wild when they find out about Rommel.

[TSC]

I've seen Speer's debunking in main headlines, but scarcely anyone outside history buffs have heard of Halder, but Halder has been the driver behind the main thrust of the pro-Wehrmacht narrative, which have been nearly universal among German primary sources. Also, Halder had the advantage of being punished and imprisoned by Hitler, and thus free of Nazi taint, whereas Speer was clearly a Nazi and thus easily discredited. So I'd say that Speer's bias is more completely debunked, whereas Halder's bias is still undergoing that process.

Read Speer’s book back in the late 90’s I think.  Content primarily focused on architecture etc unsurprisingly, but below that some political insight. 

Fascinating thread this and some useful links for anyone interested (history not everyone’s cup of tea of course), so thx.  Fwiw in terms of the education system here (uk) from memory GCSE focused on ww1 with a little bit of ww2.  Also heavily focused on Russian revolution, Cold War and US history from war of independence.

A-level was much more focused on ww2 in some detail from perspective of various countries involved.  Fascinating (for me anyway) and have to confess beyond watching doc’s etc such as ‘world at war’ etc haven’t done a lot of reading into things (since a-level which was some time ago for me) so various links/references are appreciated.

[Andy_lfc]

In my younger days I read the abridged version of Winston Churchill's 'Second World War'.  At the time I was not so well versed in Churchill's questionable (to put it mildly) views and policies - I found it to be a really impressive feat and gave really interesting personal insight in to the workings at the top of the government at the time.  It also has a fair amount of bravado and is of course pretty biased! I would be really interested to understand how others view this book, especially as so many here have a far greater knowledge of this period than I do? 

In the past I have read Beevor's Stalingrad and Berlin, some Hastings (Bomber Command, Nemesis), The Holocaust by Martin Gilbert among others but all at least 15 years ago so I am a bit rusty on the details!

[Zeb]

Churchill's an entertaining read so long as you've clocked he's writing for his own legacy. There's a lot of important people who are barely mentioned by Churchill in spite of being integral to high level decisions made by the British government and whose work Churchill is quite happy to embrace as his own.

Alan Brooke's diary was a post-war corrective when it came out, even its censored form, or was outside popular histories. Stuff like, "And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the population of the world imagine that Churchill is one of the Strategists of History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no idea what a public menace he is and has been throughout this war! It is far better that the world should never know, and never suspect the feet of clay of this otherwise superhuman being. Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again."

[Yorkykopite]

"Why does the Prime Minister fight every parliamentary debate like it's a battle, and every battle like it's a parliamentary debate". Or words to that effect. Aneurin Bevan in the House of Commons, 1942.

[TSC]

"Why does the Prime Minister fight every parliamentary debate like it's a battle, and every battle like it's a parliamentary debate". Or words to that effect. Aneurin Bevan in the House of Commons, 1942.

Former likely applies to our current PM and thankfully can’t make same comparison re the latter.

[liverbloke]

Churchill's an entertaining read so long as you've clocked he's writing for his own legacy. There's a lot of important people who are barely mentioned by Churchill in spite of being integral to high level decisions made by the British government and whose work Churchill is quite happy to embrace as his own.

Alan Brooke's diary was a post-war corrective when it came out, even its censored form, or was outside popular histories. Stuff like, "And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the population of the world imagine that Churchill is one of the Strategists of History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no idea what a public menace he is and has been throughout this war! It is far better that the world should never know, and never suspect the feet of clay of this otherwise superhuman being. Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again."

ah, history, always written by the victors

[Sangria]

ah, history, always written by the victors

Not necessarily. See Halder.

[Yorkykopite]

ah, history, always written by the victors

This is often said and simply isn't true. I can think of a million exceptions from Indian historical accounts of British imperialism in the sub-continent to French descriptions of the Retreat from Moscow.

[liverbloke]

This is often said and simply isn't true. I can think of a million exceptions from Indian historical accounts of British imperialism in the sub-continent to French descriptions of the Retreat from Moscow.

you get my point - it's the popular 'myths' that enter the general consensus and therefore gain an idealistic 'truth'

of course your point is valid - as proof of this is now is how we are dealing today with the historical consequences of the slave trade (even though that 'history' was always there hidden under the covers of imperialist conquest)

but 'we' won ww2 and the 'other stuff' isn't as important as that