In this topic, we will discuss history books.
I'm in the middle of reading pic related, so I chronicle some interesting things I come across I would like to share with /his/.
Discussing the origins of the Schlieffen plan:
>To achieve decisive victory, Schlieffen fixed upon a strategy derived from Hannibal and the Battle of Cannae. The dead general who mesmerized Schlieffen had been dead a very long time. Two thousand years had passed since Hannibal’s classic double envelopment of the Romans at Cannae. Field gun and machine gun had replaced bow and arrow and slingshot, Schlieffen wrote, “but the principles of strategy remain unchanged. The enemy’s front is not the objective. The essential thing is to crush the enemy’s flanks … and complete the extermination by attack upon his rear.” Under Schlieffen, envelopment became the fetish and frontal attack the anathema of the German General Staff.
>the shiites a short history
Obviously pleb tier but I like to get a general knowledge before diving into deeper books
>envelopment was the fetish of the German Staff of WW1
Yes, but calling it a "fetish" really isn't doing the idea credit. The idea itself is the basis for modern warfare from 1920s to around 1950 and a little bit beyond that. And really, the development of the idea of things like envelopment, insertion (which was the basis for Sturmtruppen groups and really where such thought began to first surface) and eventually armored warfare (which was entirely first concieved and developed by the British, but really put into practice and finalized by the German staff of WW2) was what sprang us forward from the retarded traditional doctrine we had in WW1.
When we consider the position of the German Empire's industrial capacity, manpower availability, and the overall position of it during die Erster Weltkrieg, it makes sense to want to conserve men and do so by developing this doctrine.
The thing which bothers me most about critics of the Schlieffen-Moltke plan is they rarely mention that the Germans came very close to pulling it off.
They might mention that the 1905 version was not the version they went to war with in 1914: it had gone under numerous modifications (namely the threat of resurgent Russia post 1907). More importantly was that Moltke the Younger was not a good leader, and was a horrible choice to lead it.
Had Moltke not begun to transfer divisions east just before the first battle of the Marne, or had Conrad's invasion of Galicia not been such a clusterfuck, you could argue that the war would have ended by Christmas if not sooner.
Something to think/debate about I guess?
just bought this bad boy, pretty psyched
>Friedrich Nietzsche was an Atheist in the sense that he lacked belief in God. It is unlikely that he was a Deist because he believed that outside world was bereft of meaning.
He also did not agree with the central teachings of Christianity.
Been a while since I've watched 'The Pacific' but I did just finish this book. I know that most people think 'Band of Brothers' was the better miniseries and you can certainly tell why 'The Pacific' was a harder story to tell, being that the script is pulled from numerous unconnected memoirs.
The Snafu character is so far removed from the book, he's just the amalgamation of numerous Marines mentioned in passing. One of his better scenes in the series, when he stops Sledge from harvesting gold teeth from a dead Jap, wasn't even him but some medic.Was a bit surprised the scene with the old Okinawan woman begging to be mercy killed was true, had assumed it was poetic license of a sort.
Still a year or two away but I'm hoping the third miniseries based on the Mighty Eighth is as good if not better than BoB.
>retarded traditional doctrine we had in WW1.
what retarded traditional doctrine
turning the enemy's flank is a centuries old idea
the entire race to the sea in the first weeks of ww1 was about trying to do literally that
Shelby Foote really needs no introduction, an undisputed god-tier historian.
1000 pages about my man Goebbels.
It's written like a novel, and yet is still painstaking in its detail. A very good read.
Any good books about Byzantine Empire for someone who never really read about it?
Balanced and well-written piece by Skidelsky (best known for his biographies of Keynes) on a figure highly controversial in British politics - who some people on /his/ won't stop posting
the 20 British Prime Ministers of the 20th century series is worth a read too, some of the best are Attlee (by David Howell), and Campbell- Bannerman (by Roy Hattersley, former Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer), all relatively short, well presented, and easy to read, great for travelling and light biographical reading
I don't understand what makes this book so controversial. Yes, it says the Muslim narratives are bullshit, people have been doing this for every single religion since the XIXth century, why was the author accused of racism and "Islamophobia" because of that?
Here's 2 I have on my waiting list, not specifically Akkadian, but you may find them useful
A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 - 323 BC, 2nd Edition
by Marc Van De Mieroop
Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization
by Paul Kriwacze
dunno about that, but Holland is working off an old 70s thesis of Hagarism that isn't well represented in Islamic Historiography anymore. It was kind of the first wave of contrarian thought, so maybe it'll swing back around. Islamic study is basically fucked because the Saudis don't want people digging around.
the historical accuracy of islamic accounts of muhammad and early islam have been questioned for centuries in the west, if not by muslims studying their own religion, it is kind of a meme like the "stick it to the racists" theme of guns germs and steel