[ThirdTerm]

I've been reading the book above since January and I managed to reach the final chapter. I bought it because a Cambridge historian is the author. Tombs' defensive posture on British colonialism is expected because Oxbridge historians do not write apologetical accounts of British history. John Darwin's empire books such as "After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire" are almost revisionist and he is a Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford. I have recently ordered "The Battle for Moscow" by David Stahel online.

In November 1941 Hitler ordered German forces to complete the final drive on the Soviet capital, now less than 100 kilometres away. Army Group Centre was pressed into the attack for one last attempt to break Soviet resistance before the onset of winter. From the German perspective the final drive on Moscow had all the ingredients of a dramatic final battle in the east, which, according to previous accounts, only failed at the gates of Moscow. David Stahel challenges this well-established narrative by demonstrating that the last German offensive of 1941 was a forlorn effort, undermined by operational weakness and poor logistics and driven forward by what he identifies as National Socialist military thinking. With unparalleled research from previously undocumented army files and soldiers' letters, Stahel takes a fresh look at the battle for Moscow, which even before the Soviet winter offensive, threatened disaster for Germany's war in the east.
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/su ... ?format=HB

[The Sabbaticus]

Game of Thrones book 5.

Book 4 was completely bereft of Tyrion. At least he resurfaced in book 5.

[Silviarose]

The Goldfinch

[Heisenberg]

Game of Thrones book 5.

Book 4 was completely bereft of Tyrion. At least he resurfaced in book 5.

I wasn't a fan of book four at all. Within about 100 pages, Jamie and Arya were the only characters I gave a damn about. It made the next 900 a bit of a struggle.

[The Sabbaticus]

I wasn't a fan of book four at all. Within about 100 pages, Jamie and Arya were the only characters I gave a damn about. It made the next 900 a bit of a struggle.

It does paint a rather damning portrait of Cercei though, but overall it fell short. Brienne makes for a very poor substitute of Tyrion.

[B0ycey]

Game of Thrones book 5.

Book 4 was completely bereft of Tyrion. At least he resurfaced in book 5.

The urge to be pedantic is difficult to resist...

[The Sabbaticus]

Pedantic?

[B0ycey]

Pedantic?

It means critical of minor detail. There is no Game of Thrones book 5.

*Relief*

[Drlee]

Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall (War Memoirs Vol. 1)
Spike Milligan

[skinster]

Reading about AIPAC at the moment, the most powerful lobby group in America. It explains well why 99% of American politicians are puppets for a foreign government.

[The Sabbaticus]

It means critical of minor detail. There is no Game of Thrones book 5.

*Relief*

Oh, the 'sell it separately because the book was too large' angle. It would have been too large though.

[MB.]

I have recently ordered "The Battle for Moscow" by David Stahel online.

Stahels revisionist approach to the German side of the Eastern front is excellent. I highly recommend this series for a readable operational level analysis of the 1941 battles. Stahel does not shy away from controversial subjects, and his research into the German archives is backed by legendary Red Army historian David Glantz, who provided some of the campaign maps. Really excellent stuff.

[Oxymoron]

Stahels revisionist approach to the German side of the Eastern front is excellent. I highly recommend this series for a readable operational level analysis of the 1941 battles. Stahel does not shy away from controversial subjects, and his research into the German archives is backed by legendary Red Army historian David Glantz, who provided some of the campaign maps. Really excellent stuff.

Can you give example of revisionism? I am interested, always like to view historical things from other point of view.

[MB.]

Notably, Stahel makes three critical revisionist arguments, although these are very rich volumes so obviously I am simplifying.

1) Germany lost the war in the east by about August - September 1941. By the numbers at this point German industrial production, notably of AFVs and other mechanized equipment was falling dramatically below Soviet output. In other words, losses during Barbarossa had already made victory impossible.

2) the huge manuever victories, notably at Kiev and Bryansk, although technically massive material victories, in fact we're self defeating as they just generated massive partisan forces behind the lines which proceeded to cripple the German supply lines leading up to Moscow, which itself, was a fordoomed operation since there was no possible way given winter conditions and German exhaustion and Soviet reserves for the Germans to win.

3) Hitler's interference in the Army command caused most of this, but worse was his failure to manage the war politically. His campaign promises were totally unrealistic and he treated his allies very badly during this time. Propaganda also became less effective because of allied counter propaganda and also since the war was not going the way Hitler intended. His fixation on Frederick the great- like decisive battles, without the political control required to actually win the war, literally doomed Germany to defeat.

[Oxymoron]

Notably, Stahel makes three critical revisionist arguments, although these are very rich volumes so obviously I am simplifying.

1) Germany lost the war in the east by about August - September 1941. By the numbers at this point German industrial production, notably of AFVs and other mechanized equipment was falling dramatically below Soviet output. In other words, losses during Barbarossa had already made victory impossible.

2) the huge manuever victories, notably at Kiev and Bryansk, although technically massive material victories, in fact we're self defeating as they just generated massive partisan forces behind the lines which proceeded to cripple the German supply lines leading up to Moscow, which itself, was a fordoomed operation since there was no possible way given winter conditions and German exhaustion and Soviet reserves for the Germans to win.

3) Hitler's interference in the Army command caused most of this, but worse was his failure to manage the war politically. His campaign promises were totally unrealistic and he treated his allies very badly during this time. Propaganda also became less effective because of allied counter propaganda and also since the war was not going the way Hitler intended. His fixation of Frederick like decisive battles without the political control required to actually win the war literally doomed Germany to defeat.

Interesting to note for some reason Germany did not go into war production until like 1943 .

I do not think even taking Moscow would have helped that much aside delaying the inevitable. I mean perhaps they could have consolidated in Belarus and Ukraine, and fought a Fabian war until an armistice.

[Potemkin]

Interesting to note for some reason Germany did not go into war production until like 1943 .

They were afraid of a repeat of the collapse of 1918. It was the economic hardship of ordinary German civilians due to the British blockade which led to massive unrest, strikes and disturbances, which ultimately led to Germany's capitulation. Hitler was determined that this would not happen again, hence the delay in shifting the economy onto a war footing during WWII.

[MB.]

I think Potemkin is correct. William Shirer makes clear in his Berlin Diaries, that Allied blockade, strategic bombing, and propaganda was having a profound impact on German civil society in terms of the home front. For political and presumably personal reasons, Hitler was not willing to take the required measures in 1941, but this is a political question less a military one. I'm open to explanations about why Germany failed to move to a total war footing in 1941 since the military evidence is overwhelming that they should have.

[Decky]

Germany did not want to properly mobilise women into factory work like sensible countries did as they were right wing idiots. They were defeated by their foolish ideology. I am sure Frollein will be able to tell us more about Kinder, Küche, Kirche.

[Frollein]

No, no, and no. Well, I make excellent cakes...

[Frollein]

No, no, and no. Well, I make excellent cakes...

Oh, and they did mobilize women - into the ammunition factories, as anti-aircraft assistants, radio operators, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany#In_the_army_.28Wehrmacht.29

eh, sorry... hit quote instead of edit...