What Book Are You Reading at the moment?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
I just started "The Blitzkrieg Legend", by Karl-Heinz Friezer.

I read that book many years ago, and remember a couple of anecdotes from it...for instance during the German invasion of France, the French supreme headquarters had one radio...and the radio operator took two hours off every day for lunch. Another one was how a German tank commander was so frustrated that his tank couldn't dent a French tank at point-blank range that he dismounted and attacked the French tank with a hammer. Didn't end well for him...

IIRC his overall conclusion was that "France was an unplanned but successful blitzkrieg. Russia was a planned by unsuccessful blitzkrieg."

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: UP844

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Me too [:)]

[Conspiracy Mode ON]

What if Curtis LeMay actually were the sales promoter for Alan Tooze's books?

[Conspiracy Mode OFF]

warspite1

[Conspiracy Mode ON]

Was he standing on a grassy knoll? Oh no hold on - it was Ranger Joe that promoted the book. What if they are in league with each other. Lemay on the grassy knoll while RangerJoe is in the book depository?.... I think we should be told......

[Conspiracy Mode OFF]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: UP844

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Me too [:)]

[Conspiracy Mode ON]

What if Curtis LeMay actually were the sales promoter for Alan Tooze's books?

[Conspiracy Mode OFF]

But I posted where you can download it for FREE!

Of course, you could still download it but the PDF has all of the graphs and charts.

But I don't think that Curtis Lemay could handle both the logic and the economics of that book.

[Zorch]

'The Shining Path: Love, Madness, and Revolution in the Andes', about the bloody Marxist insurgency in Peru, and the people who defeated it. Absolutely chilling.

[warspite1]

Made a start of Wages of Destruction (Tooze). Reading the introduction at the moment and I think its fair to say that this book will take some time to get through. The economics are difficult to follow, but the book appears to be written as though one has a degree in the subject.

All I know about the Gold Standard is this.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

[UP844]

Most reviews I found praise the "easy language" Tooze uses [;)]. I suppose they were written by economists.

I had to spend some time to get a basic understanding of the economic terms mentioned in the book and then the book became much less easier to read. Definitely a "must read" book, in my opinion.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: UP844

Most reviews I found praise the "easy language" Tooze uses [;)]. I suppose they were written by economists.

warspite1

Yes, they must have been. I mean trying to understand the complexities of the devaluation / the Gold Standard / reparations and the relationship between the USA, Germany, France and Britain, exchange and currency controls - and how they all fit together is a lot to ask of the layman!! And that's just part of the introduction.

[RFalvo69]

I started "Mussolini Unleashed" by MacGregor Knox. I have only begun but I already noticed that author quotes a lot of primary Italian sources by Italian authors who I judge to be very reputable (like Renzo de Felice); this is something that should be obvious, but I'm amazed by how seldom it happens.

[TulliusDetritus]

re Adam Tooze, this guy is one of the finest historians today. I'm swallowing everything he writes (Twitter included). Maybe you guys are too used to *military* historians, as opposed to the real stuff or *proper* historians

And that's what Tooze is. Yes, the economics might be complicated if you're not used to them, but they are indispensable if you want to grasp *proper* historians and history. It's never too late to learn at least the basics.

[loki100]

So finished Ingrao Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815 found it fascinating and really well written. its not really much of a military history book (the Seven Years War is disposed of in a couple of pages) but domestic and international politics are deftly handled (esp if like me you have pretty ropey background knowledge of the dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe at this period).

For the first time I actually understood what kicked off the Thirty Years War and how it fitted with wider power and religious conflicts. Also the way the Hapsburgs first embraced a mono-confessional state for the unity then ditched it as part of their sustained modernisation in the 18C.

The bit of his thesis I didn't buy was that the French Revolution set back the process of modernisation and democracy across Europe. His view is basically everyone was absorbing modern economics (cameralism and its variants), states were becoming more secular, justice less harsh then this thing happened that set it all back by linking those types of reforms to violent revolution.

Not convinced, but also the first time I've seen this argument made. Not sure if its a product of a political world view (if so Ingrao keeps his well hidden beyond a clear sympathy for the Hapsburgs) or a function of taking a central European perspective?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: loki100

So finished Ingrao Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815 found it fascinating and really well written. its not really much of a military history book (the Seven Years War is disposed of in a couple of pages) but domestic and international politics are deftly handled (esp if like me you have pretty ropey background knowledge of the dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe at this period).

For the first time I actually understood what kicked off the Thirty Years War and how it fitted with wider power and religious conflicts. Also the way the Hapsburgs first embraced a mono-confessional state for the unity then ditched it as part of their sustained modernisation in the 18C.

The bit of his thesis I didn't buy was that the French Revolution set back the process of modernisation and democracy across Europe. His view is basically everyone was absorbing modern economics (cameralism and its variants), states were becoming more secular, justice less harsh then this thing happened that set it all back by linking those types of reforms to violent revolution.

Not convinced, but also the first time I've seen this argument made. Not sure if its a product of a political world view (if so Ingrao keeps his well hidden beyond a clear sympathy for the Hapsburgs) or a function of taking a central European perspective?

Consider the reaction of the other countries to the French Revolution and then Napoleon.

Also, go to France and name a pet pig Napoleon! [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

So finished Ingrao Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815 found it fascinating and really well written. its not really much of a military history book (the Seven Years War is disposed of in a couple of pages) but domestic and international politics are deftly handled (esp if like me you have pretty ropey background knowledge of the dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe at this period).

For the first time I actually understood what kicked off the Thirty Years War and how it fitted with wider power and religious conflicts. Also the way the Hapsburgs first embraced a mono-confessional state for the unity then ditched it as part of their sustained modernisation in the 18C.

The bit of his thesis I didn't buy was that the French Revolution set back the process of modernisation and democracy across Europe. His view is basically everyone was absorbing modern economics (cameralism and its variants), states were becoming more secular, justice less harsh then this thing happened that set it all back by linking those types of reforms to violent revolution.

Not convinced, but also the first time I've seen this argument made. Not sure if its a product of a political world view (if so Ingrao keeps his well hidden beyond a clear sympathy for the Hapsburgs) or a function of taking a central European perspective?

warspite1

Never heard this either. I guess it could make sense in so far as something like the revolution could make the establishments react in two ways:

- lets give some leeway to the prols - we don't want this happening here
- lets batten down the hatches to deter the prols - we don't want this happening here

To my mind the latter would be more likely.... but I have no examples to provide - just gut feel based on the way humans usually react to potentially revolting peasants [;)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: loki100

So finished Ingrao Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815 found it fascinating and really well written. its not really much of a military history book (the Seven Years War is disposed of in a couple of pages) but domestic and international politics are deftly handled (esp if like me you have pretty ropey background knowledge of the dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe at this period).

For the first time I actually understood what kicked off the Thirty Years War and how it fitted with wider power and religious conflicts. Also the way the Hapsburgs first embraced a mono-confessional state for the unity then ditched it as part of their sustained modernisation in the 18C.

The bit of his thesis I didn't buy was that the French Revolution set back the process of modernisation and democracy across Europe. His view is basically everyone was absorbing modern economics (cameralism and its variants), states were becoming more secular, justice less harsh then this thing happened that set it all back by linking those types of reforms to violent revolution.

Not convinced, but also the first time I've seen this argument made. Not sure if its a product of a political world view (if so Ingrao keeps his well hidden beyond a clear sympathy for the Hapsburgs) or a function of taking a central European perspective?

warspite1

Never heard this either. I guess it could make sense in so far as something like the revolution could make the establishments react in two ways:

- lets give some leeway to the prols - we don't want this happening here
- lets batten down the hatches to deter the prols - we don't want this happening here

To my mind the latter would be more likely.... but I have no examples to provide - just gut feel based on the way humans usually react to potentially revolting peasants [;)]

I think that the second one was more likely at first, then the unrest which lead to other happenings like the 1848 unrestful situations, among others.

Bismarck later did the first one which is one reason why Germany as the first Nation-State to have a government retirement system, at least that is what I learned.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: loki100

So finished Ingrao Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815 found it fascinating and really well written. its not really much of a military history book (the Seven Years War is disposed of in a couple of pages) but domestic and international politics are deftly handled (esp if like me you have pretty ropey background knowledge of the dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe at this period).

For the first time I actually understood what kicked off the Thirty Years War and how it fitted with wider power and religious conflicts. Also the way the Hapsburgs first embraced a mono-confessional state for the unity then ditched it as part of their sustained modernisation in the 18C.

The bit of his thesis I didn't buy was that the French Revolution set back the process of modernisation and democracy across Europe. His view is basically everyone was absorbing modern economics (cameralism and its variants), states were becoming more secular, justice less harsh then this thing happened that set it all back by linking those types of reforms to violent revolution.

Not convinced, but also the first time I've seen this argument made. Not sure if its a product of a political world view (if so Ingrao keeps his well hidden beyond a clear sympathy for the Hapsburgs) or a function of taking a central European perspective?

warspite1

Never heard this either. I guess it could make sense in so far as something like the revolution could make the establishments react in two ways:

- lets give some leeway to the prols - we don't want this happening here
- lets batten down the hatches to deter the prols - we don't want this happening here

To my mind the latter would be more likely.... but I have no examples to provide - just gut feel based on the way humans usually react to potentially revolting peasants [;)]

Britain is an example of the latter, where the government stopped every attempt at reform until the 1830s. Remember Peterloo? And the rotten boroughs?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: loki100

So finished Ingrao Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815 found it fascinating and really well written. its not really much of a military history book (the Seven Years War is disposed of in a couple of pages) but domestic and international politics are deftly handled (esp if like me you have pretty ropey background knowledge of the dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe at this period).

For the first time I actually understood what kicked off the Thirty Years War and how it fitted with wider power and religious conflicts. Also the way the Hapsburgs first embraced a mono-confessional state for the unity then ditched it as part of their sustained modernisation in the 18C.

The bit of his thesis I didn't buy was that the French Revolution set back the process of modernisation and democracy across Europe. His view is basically everyone was absorbing modern economics (cameralism and its variants), states were becoming more secular, justice less harsh then this thing happened that set it all back by linking those types of reforms to violent revolution.

Not convinced, but also the first time I've seen this argument made. Not sure if its a product of a political world view (if so Ingrao keeps his well hidden beyond a clear sympathy for the Hapsburgs) or a function of taking a central European perspective?

warspite1

Never heard this either. I guess it could make sense in so far as something like the revolution could make the establishments react in two ways:

- lets give some leeway to the prols - we don't want this happening here
- lets batten down the hatches to deter the prols - we don't want this happening here

To my mind the latter would be more likely.... but I have no examples to provide - just gut feel based on the way humans usually react to potentially revolting peasants [;)]

His argument is more than that the ruling classes got spooked by a suspicion that reform would lead to revolution. He argues that one reason the 3 Hapsburg rulers of the mid/late 18C embraced reform was partly out of cameralism as a doctrine but also a suspicion that without reform the risk of peasant revolts would grow.

Its why the argument he makes sounds odd - his argument is the French revolution soured the intellectual case for reform, secularism etc. Thats the bit I don't buy. I mean yes there were movements incl German romanticism and British high Tory/Whig views that utterly rejected such reforms at an intellectual level. But equally there were no shortage of political legacies that in one way or another drew on the revolution as their point of departure?

The way he presents it is that the latter didn't really exist. But he notes how concepts of equality before the law survived Francis' reactionary rejection of some of the reforms started by his grandmother etc. I think it might be because the book makes no pretence of being a 'people's history' but firmly the perspective of the rulers and their close elite and that group probably did turn their back on reform? Its just an odd end to an otherwise very informative book.

[stonie]

I am listening to the Dune series on Audible. Now on book 5. Just discovered this series and it holds water well as a groundbreaker science fiction novel of its time. Arguably the first one in the series is the best still, but the later ones are very enjoyable as well

[CaptBeefheart]

I recently started the "Destroyermen" series. It's an interesting and entertaining SciFi/Alt-History-type series where a Wickes Class four-stacker (DD-163) finds itself on an alternate Earth in March 1942 (after the Battle of Balikpapan) where species evolved differently.

EDIT: I didn't find Tooze too hard to fathom, although I did once take a class called "International Finance and Trade." The problem with Hitler was he didn't trust the global system to provide him with what he needed. After reading Tooze I realized why the Allies created Bretton Woods, GATT, the IMF, World Bank, etc.

Cheers,
CB

[TulliusDetritus]

Just started Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945 by Robert Dallek (1979). A book that I should have read many moons ago, I suspect. So far so good.

One of the books that I read this summer: Sonderkommando by Shlomo Venezia. An exceptional testimony, one of the rare Auschwitz's sonderkommando prisoners that managed to survive to tell his story.

re the Holocaust I highly recommend these three authors: 1) Primo Levi's [trilogy]; 2) Primo Levi; and 3) Primo Levi...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Made a start of Wages of Destruction (Tooze). Reading the introduction at the moment and I think its fair to say that this book will take some time to get through. The economics are difficult to follow, but the book appears to be written as though one has a degree in the subject.

All I know about the Gold Standard is this.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

warspite1

I am really loving this book. So many golden nuggets to be found. I love the comment on Hitler's order for what ammunition should be prioritised for the attack on France........

[SuluSea]

The Bible and The New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden