Your favorite WWII history topics?

[8ballrollin]

A few years back I really enjoyed getting into the politics of the early part of the war. John Lukacs is my favorite in the area. Lukacs doesn't always read really well, he doesn't have a very smooth style, but the facts and subject are great.

He breaks down the events of a short time period - like a week, covering the political particulars with the future of nations at stake.

Two I’ve read…
"The Duel: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill and Hitler"

http://www.amazon.com/Duel-Eighty-Da...1891140&sr=1-6

"Five Days in London: May 1940"

"Five Days" really gets into the guts of Churchill vs. Halifax and Chamberlin. Some may think it dry, but the detailed politics of him convincing his own party to take on Germany, even alone in necessary, I find fascinating. As Lukacs describes Churchill did not win the war in 1940, but he could have lost it and didn't.

http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-Lond...395133-2425504

[Black Diamond Bay]

What went on in the US during the war is fascinating to me. It's very odd to think of a time when men were drafted and shipped overseas. No protests, no demonstrations, they just went. They even volunteered. People just seemed to accept that there were prices to be paid for peace and security. As much of a flare of patriotism 9/11 created, I have my suspicions that it was a far cry from what Americans felt after Pearl Harbor. They were seemingly so unified, far beyond what I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. For good and bad...indiscriminately locking up all the Japanese in concentration camps wasn't really one of our finest moments.

I used to be really interested in all the gruesome details of what went on in the battles in Europe. To some extent I still am, but while I was at BYU I did some reading about the Nazi medical experiments, and the torture the Nazis used on American POW's, and it was very disturbing. Then my last year at BYU I wrote a paper on PTSD in Vietnam vets. I had to read some of the journals and first-hand accounts. Although granted that's Vietnam and not WWII, I decided I didn't really have the head or the heart for any of it. I felt emotionally traumatized for days afterwards, and it still bothers me to think about some of the stuff I read. I've never felt the same about getting into the nitty gritty details of what goes on in a war.

Now I'm content with thorough overview. It really changed the way I think about war. I have more appreciation than I can express for the sacrifices that were made for future generations. Maybe this makes me mentally weak or something, but I really don't think I have the capacity to handle anymore reading like that.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I once knew a guy who shared my passion for WWII history, particularly the European theater, but once he confessed to me that his interest waned considerably after Stalingrad and El Alamein when everything sarted to go to hell for the Germans (my friend's name was Wagner). I'm the opposite. I love the conquest of Germany. True tales of armageddon are facinating to me. I've also always really loved Stalingrad; what a story. Of course the Normandy invasion is awesome.

You need to meet my neighbor, Seattle. During WWII, he was in the 45th Infantry Division under General Bradley's command in Sicily and was also involved in the Napoli-Foggia campaign later in 1943. He is a fantastic person and doesn't think he did anything special. My boys have spent hours with him listening to his war stories. (So have I).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Clark Addison

I have no sympathy for the Germans, but I can relate to your friend. I have read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich several times, and the story of the rise of Naziism from a ragtag bunch of losers to the lords of Europe is fascinating. Despite your hatred for what the Nazis do and stand for, when Stalingrad comes along there is a little bit of sense of let down. All of the accomplishments are thrown away by bad decisions. My rational brain says "thank goodness", but there is a small piece that says "such a shame, it was all for naught". One of the reasons for this is that the book (obviously) focuses on the Germans, so you know them all very well by the time of Stalingrad. Also, there are many elements of a real underdog story. Pity the underdogs were such a bunch of psychopaths. (Now, of course, I will never be called as a General Authority or elected President, since this post will be pulled out as evidence of my obvious pro-Nazi sympathies )

I would imagine that most WWII buffs will have read this book, but for others, it's a fascinating and very detailed account (approx. 1,000 pages), but not difficult to get through at all. Shirer doesn't get into deep analysis for the most part, but as a report of what happened, by whom, and where, it is excellent.

I agree. The story of Hitler's rise from literal hobo to evil emperor is one of the most facinating stories ever told. I love the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It's just a little dated, but the writing is so great, and he takes you clear back to Martin Luther to find the seeds of National Socialism.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You need to meet my neighbor, Seattle. During WWII, he was in the 45th Infantry Division under General Bradley's command in Sicily and was also involved in the Napoli-Foggia campaign later in 1943. He is a fantastic person and doesn't think he did anything special. My boys have spent hours with him listening to his war stories. (So have I).

You're lucky to have such a neighbor. I can't fathom what those guys did. It makes me feel guilty every day. I just hope I would have risen to the occasion as they did. The amazing thing is so many of them seem at first blush so ordinary. They're not.