Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

I have not, but the Jellicoe book has me keen for more and so have this on order. I will let you know. I guess Making Sense of the Troubles will have to take a back-seat for now....

I found Rules of the Game to be a difficult read.

warspite1

It arrived today - I am moist with anticipation!! [:)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch



I found Rules of the Game to be a difficult read.

warspite1

It arrived today - I am moist with anticipation!! [:)]

warspite1

First couple of chapters in and....... this is GOOD!! [&o]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

This one seems interesting:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ed-7734885

If the author is correct, it seems the NAZI's could have had the bomb around May/June 1946?

What if?: The Germans had attacked Poland in March '41 rather than September '39? I think he did promise the navy not until 1941?

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

The argument that Germany attacked Poland for economic reasons comes from a British Marxist historian with no proof for his theory...some other British historian debunked him.

The reason Hitler attacked Poland was ideologically driven.

Re the former - no idea, you lost my interest at Marxist Re the latter - without wishing to state the bleedin' obvious, Hitler wanted Lebensraum in the East and poor Poland was always in the way .

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Actually, the German economy was doing quite well. Zero unemployment, 8% GDP growth, and inflation near zero. The problem was that there was high deficit spending, and a high national debt. The Germans had a way around some of that with an IOU system within the Industrial community. The economy was cooling off from its high in 1937. GDP in 1938 was less than 1937, and 1939 less than 1938.

The argument that Germany attacked Poland for economic reasons comes from a British Marxist historian with no proof for his theory...some other British historian debunked him.

The reason Hitler attacked Poland was ideologically driven. I don't know about the British economy, but the one that would have mattered the most to Germany was France, and they were a basket case until 1939 when they began their re-armament...and even then there was trouble in the streets concerning the economy...how that would have played out over another year and a half? The beginning of the war settled these issues.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Re the former - no idea, you lost my interest at Marxist Re the latter - without wishing to state the bleedin' obvious, Hitler wanted Lebensraum in the East and poor Poland was always in the way .

Not sure why I would lose your interest at Marxist.

Sorry for stating the bleeding obvious then. I think what you wrote would fall under "ideological"?

Here (from Wikipedia):

A major historiographical debate about the relationship between the German prewar economy and foreign policy decision-making was prompted in the late 1980s, when the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason claimed that an economic crisis had caused a "flight into war" in 1939. Mason argued that the German working-class was opposed to the Nazi dictatorship in the over-heated German economy of the late 1930s.[53] However, Mason’s thesis was debunked by historian Richard Overy who wrote that Germany's economic problems could not explain aggression against Poland and that the reasons for the outbreak of war were due to the ideological choices made by the Nazi leadership. For Overy, the problem with Mason's thesis was that it rested on the assumptions not shown by records.[54] Overy argued that there was a difference between economic pressures induced by the problems of the Four Year Plan, and economic motives to seize foreign industry, materials and reserves of neighboring states

Is AJP Taylor the historian you refer to? He had some good insights, but most of his conclusions about Hitler were wrong.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Has anyone read the Robert Harris trilogy - Imperium, Lustrum, Dictator - and have any opinions on the books?

ORIGINAL: british exil

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Has anyone read the Robert Harris trilogy - Imperium, Lustrum, Dictator - and have any opinions on the books?

I read the books a few years back and quite enjoyed them. I got a bit of the feeling of ancient Rome and its inhabitants. Got the feeling that I was learning whilst enjoying a great story.

I read Imperium in 2007, so can't remember too many details, but I do know that I read the Lustrum in the follow up. I didn't know that Dictator had been printed, too little time to read nowadays, with real life, gaming and family.
Will have to order it for my holiday reading though.

In my opinion well worth reading.

Mat

Mat

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Have you read Gordon's Rules of the Game - if so how does it compare?

warspite1

I have not, but the Jellicoe book has me keen for more and so have this on order. I will let you know. I guess Making Sense of the Troubles will have to take a back-seat for now....

I found Rules of the Game to be a difficult read.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Has anyone read the Robert Harris trilogy - Imperium, Lustrum, Dictator - and have any opinions on the books?

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Has anyone read the Robert Harris trilogy - Imperium, Lustrum, Dictator - and have any opinions on the books?

I only read Lustrum and I enjoyed it.

If you are looking for fictional books during the Roman Empire I can recommend Fire in the East by Harry Sidebottom. It is the first book in a series and focus on a besieged city during the second half of the third century. The protagonist is sent to the city to protect it from an expected attack by the Sassanid Persians.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

I have not, but the Jellicoe book has me keen for more and so have this on order. I will let you know. I guess Making Sense of the Troubles will have to take a back-seat for now....

I found Rules of the Game to be a difficult read.

warspite1

I understand what you mean. I am almost halfway through and while the opening chapters about the build up to the battle were brilliant, the last few chapters have proven something of a trial.

It seems pretty clear where the author is going with all this but in order to make his case, does he really need to talk about the guest list for the (future) King George V's wedding, the fact that George's elder brother was intellectually challenged! or Evan-Thomas's links to the Royal Family??

Meanwhile back at sea with the Mediterranean Fleet, the author at least provides many diagrams to help explain key points, but there is still much that a non-sailor would find hard to follow.

Still enjoying the book overall, but I cannot wait for the point to be made so we can get back to the battle!!

ORIGINAL: Zorch
Yes, he belabors his point a little too much.