What Book Are You Reading at the moment?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ok, its not a book as such:

warspite1

How do you read these? Do you climb up a ladder and then sort of perch on the gargoyle?

[fodder]

Staying with the early Pacific war and with the same author. (that does not happen often)Next book off of the yet to be read pile is
"In the Hands of Fate" The Story of Patrol Wing Ten 8 December 1941-11 May 1942.

[warspite1]

Sadly I am really struggling with The Naval War in the Baltic. Getting through to the end of this is proving to be a bit of a chore.

This is the first Seaforth publication that has disappointed. There is just too much that doesn't relate to the naval war, and what there is is too much of a jumble, too abstract and nowhere near detailed enough. Shame.

[Curtis Lemay]

I just got a copy of "The Republic for which it Stands". The latest volume in the Oxford History of the United States:

https://global.oup.com/academic/content ... us&lang=en&

The first volume in this series was published in 1982, which was when I bought that one. It's now 36 years and nine volumes later and there are still three volumes to go. I'm wondering if I'll live to see the last one.

This one covers 1865 - 1896 (Reconstruction & The Gilded Age).

[warspite1]

All this talk of who started WWI, I think I'll read The Sleepwalkers (Clark) again. From memory this was quite a slog but ultimately satisfying. The author argues against Fischer's idea (and others) that there was a German plan to start a war and that instead, the politicians of the major powers essentially sleptwalked their way to war...

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

All this talk of who started WWI, I think I'll read The Sleepwalkers (Clark) again. From memory this was quite a slog but ultimately satisfying. The author argues against Fischer's idea (and others) that there was a German plan to start a war and that instead, the politicians of the major powers essentially sleptwalked their way to war...

Now you shame me into beginning with it. [:D]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

All this talk of who started WWI, I think I'll read The Sleepwalkers (Clark) again. From memory this was quite a slog but ultimately satisfying. The author argues against Fischer's idea (and others) that there was a German plan to start a war and that instead, the politicians of the major powers essentially sleptwalked their way to war...

Certainly the various leaders had a lot of misconceptions...sadly, this could be said about most wars.

[Jagdtiger14]

Ok Warspite, what was it you wanted to discuss? I'll let you start. Can we also not use insulting language towards each other please? Thanks!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Ok Warspite, what was it you wanted to discuss? I'll let you start. Can we also not use insulting language towards each other please? Thanks!

warspite1

I will post my review of the book and my questions from the other thread.

This is a very poor effort.

It avoids one star on the basis that the author writes in a very clear, easy to read style - and he makes the occasional pertinent point. But as a history of the episode, the book is - shall we be kind and say it is fundamentally flawed? Simple, basic facts are wrong - Huntziger's 2nd Army don't appear to have been involved in the defence of the Meuse apparently and there is the rather shameful - if not downright dumb - inference that 400 SS troops were massacred by the Durham Light Infantry. Then there is the contention that the fighter command had 1,400 ultra-modern fighters - which he not only mentions twice but then adds that only 100 were sent to France.....

But then, working largely from secondary sources, the author has nothing new to add and so needs an angle to sell the book. That the British sought to withdraw and in so doing did not inform the French and Belgians, is not new, and as a result the author - no doubt in order to get the book published - needs to be as sensationalist as he can. He ends up simply repeating the same thing - each time in slightly different ways - over and over.

He provides little, if anything, by way of context for decisions that were made. There is a brief chapter in which he concedes the French were responsible for the loss of the Meuse, and he also comments on the brilliance of the evacuation operation, but otherwise there is no attempt to provide any sense of balance to the piece, and the portrayal of Lord Gort does the author no credit. All French and Belgians in and around Dunkirk and beyond were apparently desperate to attack the Germans but the British simply wanted to go home.

To give just one example of what the author misses out in order to make his monotonously repeated point; the author makes great play of the fact that the British supposedly cut and run at Arras for no good reason other than a wish to save their own skins. Gort's superior at that time was General Blanchard, commanding the French First Army Group. Blanchard's aide General Fauvelle had a meeting with Weygand and Reynaud in which Fauvelle confirmed to the French CinC and President that the French 1st Army was "so weak it would be unwise to expect it to ever mount a counter-attack" and that in his opinion he was expecting "a very early capitulation". The author does not mention this meeting - nor does he make any comment on the state of the French forces at the time. Similarly there is no comment on General Billotte's state of mind at the time. Balanced? I don't think so.

Many (most?) French historians today are honest enough to admit that the French were defeated by the time the British began to think of evacuation and if one wants to read properly researched books that tell the true story in a balanced, grown up fashion there are plenty of better books - and documentaries - on the subject.

Follow-up comment
Look, suppose I write a book on Barbarossa. I write that Germany invaded the Soviet Union with 7,000 tanks and they were all PZKW IV’s. Regardless of anything else I write, that comment would surely make you believe that the author, and his conclusions, should be treated with extreme caution. What it wouldn’t do – regardless of whatever else was in the book – would make you think that the book qualifies for ‘Awesome’ territory (which you say the Harman book is). Harman states that Fighter Command had 1,400(!) 'ultra-modern' fighters in 1940 - and you don’t see any possible flaws with the book?

I would love the chance to understand why you put it in the 'awesome category' given much of its content is false, and statements are based on half truths or simply statements made with no attempt to try and support or back up what he is stating with any kind of supporting evidence.

[aaatoysandmore]

"War of the Lance" a novelette. [:D]

[Jagdtiger14]

Harman states that Fighter Command had 1,400(!) 'ultra-modern' fighters in 1940 - and you don’t see any possible flaws with the book?

Are you disputing the number, quality, or both?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Harman states that Fighter Command had 1,400(!) 'ultra-modern' fighters in 1940 - and you don’t see any possible flaws with the book?

Are you disputing the number, quality, or both?

warspite1

With regard to this 'fact' I am certainly disputing both the number and the quality.

But remember this is more than that. I don't want this to become just a discussion on the campaign (although of course that will naturally and quite necessarily feature heavily). I also want to discuss the presentation of the 'facts', the research carried out, the sources, and what 'new' information this author has actually brought to the party. Re the 'fact' above, the author quotes this number in Chapter 4 but does not say from where it comes and I have never seen this from any other source. His notes to chapter 4 - one short paragraph - seem to refer mostly to the army, and 'Official British Histories, taken with a pinch of salt'????

You have championed this book across a number of threads and a couple of forums as being 'awesome' and using 'info released after Britain's Secrets Act expired on the info'. You also states 'It reveals war crimes and deception of her [UK] allies worse than you could imagine than what happened at Mers-el-Kebir'. But I can't see that it does.

When I think of 'awesome' books I think of, for example, Shattered Sword. This book seeks to explain the battle in almost forensic detail - and truly dispels myths. Importantly, in so doing the authors state where their new information comes from, they explain the source of the myths and why they believe them wrong. This author troubles himself with no such effort.

I presume you have read other books on the Western Front in 1940 and so am really keen to understand what elevates this work into the 'awesome' category and is not just some hack trying to sell a book on a subject much written about by making a number of unsubstantiated statements that he hasn't bothered to properly research or explain.

[warspite1]

Looking forward to this - out next week [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Looking forward to this - out next week [:)]

warspite1

Well one rave review at least [:)] I can't wait.
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/ ... novel-book

[warspite1]

Well the book arrived on time - thank-you Amazon - and I have put to one side the two books I'm currently reading to get this read. As was expected, this is unputdownable. I love the way this guy writes, I love what he writes about and the attention to detail. A full review to be written once the book is finished.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Looking forward to this - out next week [:)]

Let's pretend for a moment that someone didn't know ANYTHING about this author or these books. How (other than involving so-called dangly bits) would you describe them?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Looking forward to this - out next week [:)]

Let's pretend for a moment that someone didn't know ANYTHING about this author or these books. How (other than involving so-called dangly bits) would you describe them?

warspite1

Well one could legitimately describe them as being the dogs dangly bits - however as I have been asked to use other verbiage, I'll try this.

Robert Harris writes, in the main, about fictional characters that he sets within historical events - e.g. Pompeii, Munich, Enigma (Bletchley Park) or historical what-ifs e.g. Fatherland (the Germans win WWII).

His books - essentially thrillers - are, in the main, unputdownable page-turners. He has a clear, easy to understand writing style and his historical knowledge is highly impressive - he seems to know all the minutiae and inner workings of his subject matter (one wonders how he knows so much) that enrich his work. For example in Munich he describes Downing Street in 1938 and the workings of the various secretaries and parliamentary aides, he brings the likes of Neville Chamberlain and co alive. He does the same for the Germans and the offices of Hitler, Ribbontrop et al, all the while weaving the historical characters within and around his own characters.

He is a tremendously talented story teller, the fact that he writes about events that interest me e.g. WWII and The Roman Empire obviously helps too.

[FlyByKnight]

Harry Tutrtledove's "American Empire: the Victorious opposition" after getting through the previous books over the Summer. I'm really looking forward to "Settling Accounts".

[Aurelian]

Alexander Kent's Richard Bolitho series.

[roguewarrior155]

'Give Your Heart To The Hawks' A Tribute to the Mountain Men - by Win Blevins