Just a heads up, the Amazon link for the new printing editions of Background to Betrayal appears to lead to a page that no longer exists ie the page is gone. When I search for the new print edition of the book through Amazon, it also no longer comes up. Who knows if this is temporary or permanent (and deliberate), but for now the books can be bought through the publisher for the new prints.
It is, I might go in and add that. I thought it was somewhat less good than his Jackson books so it wasn’t I had kept on a list to include for this, but it is still quite good and interesting
At least for the Schlesinger book, you and the ISI are in full agreement. It's on their list of the Fifty Worst Books of the 20th Century: "Whig History sees past ages striving bravely to become...us. In Schlesinger’s Boddhisatva history, every age has a liberal Enlightened One who comes to battle the conservatives."
The best I read was 1924 (The Year That Made Hitler) By Peter Ross Range. It explains well what was happening in 1924 that wasn't due to the Nazi's or Hitler. How unstable the society was, how the people needed a new method.
The WW1 comment is interesting. I've rarely come across anything outside of some quite late war stuff which didn't portray the Germans as superior on the ground. The problem is that they fighting a different war, especially to the British. Britain essentially besieged Germany, the onus fell on Germany to break the siege.
If you have time to read the book, it really is quite interesting. The impression you described is the one I had as well before reading it. Much of the details he brings into it in the way he applies in those to showing how the war happened did change my view somewhat and towards a more positive one of the Germans, even in the early war stages that made what they did make a good bit more sense strategically
Of course they lost, but he shows that was much more because of American involvement, which was brought about by the German political machine being buffoonish than the German military war effort being a poor one, particularly in the early stages
Tactically the Germans were better than their opponents in World War I. Strategically, they were a disaster from the moment they decided to try to defeat France first. France gets a lot of deserved criticism for the cult of the offensive and Plan 17 and the later offensives in the Champagne region. The Germans were the real believers in the cult of the offensive, at least in 1914.
The book covers this well and explains their strategy. I had the same impression as you describe here before reading it, but walked away significantly more impressed with their war effort
This isn’t accurate. America joining was the nail in their coffin, as shown in this one, not the British, who they had essentially defeated in the field much as the French had been by the time America showed up. Or at least that’s his argument, which he supports well
The Amazon lists have just got even longer
Many such cases😂
Just a heads up, the Amazon link for the new printing editions of Background to Betrayal appears to lead to a page that no longer exists ie the page is gone. When I search for the new print edition of the book through Amazon, it also no longer comes up. Who knows if this is temporary or permanent (and deliberate), but for now the books can be bought through the publisher for the new prints.
Darn, thanks for the heads up. I’ll look into it
Agreed on Tom Holland’s book.
I am shocked it gets so much attention. It was terrible
His book Millennium was much better.
Remini's book on Henry Clay is also good.
It is, I might go in and add that. I thought it was somewhat less good than his Jackson books so it wasn’t I had kept on a list to include for this, but it is still quite good and interesting
At least for the Schlesinger book, you and the ISI are in full agreement. It's on their list of the Fifty Worst Books of the 20th Century: "Whig History sees past ages striving bravely to become...us. In Schlesinger’s Boddhisatva history, every age has a liberal Enlightened One who comes to battle the conservatives."
Ha, that is quite interesting. ISI is a pretty good resource, from what I remember, but I haven't read that article
Schlesinger's book is so bad
He was the house scribe of self-flattering liberalism. Probably wouldn’t even be allowed in the same room with today’s Left.
Oh no you weren’t actually supposed to read The Missing Billionaires in full!
(Try it in audiobook for an extra fun time)
Hahaha. Knowing what happened with LTCM does make their bizarrely complicated and esoteric financial decision making matrix much more entertaining
The best I read was 1924 (The Year That Made Hitler) By Peter Ross Range. It explains well what was happening in 1924 that wasn't due to the Nazi's or Hitler. How unstable the society was, how the people needed a new method.
Sounds interesting, I’ll add it to my reading list!
thanks for the rec on the myth of the great war
The WW1 comment is interesting. I've rarely come across anything outside of some quite late war stuff which didn't portray the Germans as superior on the ground. The problem is that they fighting a different war, especially to the British. Britain essentially besieged Germany, the onus fell on Germany to break the siege.
If you have time to read the book, it really is quite interesting. The impression you described is the one I had as well before reading it. Much of the details he brings into it in the way he applies in those to showing how the war happened did change my view somewhat and towards a more positive one of the Germans, even in the early war stages that made what they did make a good bit more sense strategically
Of course they lost, but he shows that was much more because of American involvement, which was brought about by the German political machine being buffoonish than the German military war effort being a poor one, particularly in the early stages
Lee? Really such a great American?
Yes
Tactically the Germans were better than their opponents in World War I. Strategically, they were a disaster from the moment they decided to try to defeat France first. France gets a lot of deserved criticism for the cult of the offensive and Plan 17 and the later offensives in the Champagne region. The Germans were the real believers in the cult of the offensive, at least in 1914.
The book covers this well and explains their strategy. I had the same impression as you describe here before reading it, but walked away significantly more impressed with their war effort
Their war effort was impressive but hopeless once the British joined the war. Their priority should have been keeping the British out at all costs
This isn’t accurate. America joining was the nail in their coffin, as shown in this one, not the British, who they had essentially defeated in the field much as the French had been by the time America showed up. Or at least that’s his argument, which he supports well
Britain joining doomed them via the blockade. Had Britain stayed out of the war, they could have won in 1915
If you read the book you might understand Mosier’s argument. Just saying “the British won the war” over again gets this discussion nowhere.
The Germans lost the war despite knocking Russia out and having a superior Army. If their Army wasn’t the problem, their strategy was.
The British didn’t win the war. They just ensured that Germany was destined to lose a long war