Currently half-way through Eric Bergerud's "Fire In The Sky", an excellent and very thorough examination of the air war in the South Pacific. From the aircraft, tactics, strategy, and airfield construction/defense of both the Allies and Japanese, to the terrain, climate, logistics, and diseases that affected all the combatants, he goes into great detail in explaining what it was like to undertake an aerial campaign in a theater unlike any other.
The book I believe was "Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer who was from Alasce-Lorraine and served in Gross Deucsthland Division. Forgive my spelling! I read it in or about 1973. There was also another one, I can't remember the title, but it was written by a man who served in the SS Wiking Division. It was also very good.
If Forgotten Soldier is indeed the book I think it was I read it many years ago and it WAS a scorcher. Possibly the only book I've ever read from the point of view of an ordinary German soldier on the Easter front. I especially remember the scene he describes of the landscape of Russian winter. Land totally flat, snow 10 feet deep as far as the eye can see. Tanks, trucks, all vehicles in fact frozen solid to the ground. The only contrast, the line of ants (Germ soldiers walking) stretching from horizon to horizon. The only thing moving in the distance growing larger and larger is a big black object that turns out to be a VW with an officer standing up in the sun roof giving orders as he passes each group.
I want to recommend Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fisher. It is about the Revolution from the disastrous battles of New York to the battles of both Trenton and Princeton and the winter campaign that followed which saved the Revolution from defeat. Great book.
I just recieved a book titled "FORT PILLOW" So far its been staying the course of history. I'm in the 2nd chapter and you can clearly see a note of hatred and discontent of some of the white officers in comd of the colored troops. As they feel that thier West Point training should have them in comd of white troops and the so called "Volunteer officers should be religated to being the wet nurses of the Nigra's" (these ring knockers arn't willing to call them soldiers) Thats all for now will post more later.
I received a new book last week, titled "The Depths of Courage: American Submariners At War With Japan, 1941-1945", by Flint Whitlock & Ron Smith. I was really looking forward to reading this one as it received a good review in the book club I ordered it through.
While the book has some good moments in relating the experiences of a number of sub veterans during the war, overall it's been disappointing so far because of a number of historical errors...errors that might be understandable in a junior high history book but not (IMO) from an "acclaimed" historian as Mr. Whitlock. The two most glaring examples I've come across so far has been the exertions that:
there were six Japanese carriers involved in the Battle off Cape Engano during the Battle of Leyte Gulf and all "six" were sunk;
USS Tang sank 13 ships on her fifth and last patrol. Mr. Whitlock is apparently claiming what was originally credited to Tang as fact and makes no mention of the fact that only 7 of the 13 ships could be confirmed in post-war records.
Judging by what I've read so far, one would get better accuracy from Wikipedia. It's not going to be on my read again list anytime soon.
The story of the USS Houston and HMAS Perth, The death railway, and one of the most incredible gunfights of the war. Story told by survivors of both ships and survivors of the lost battalion (second battalion 131st field artillery, 36th infantry division, Texas National Guard)
2. Dreadnaught, by Robert Massie. This an excellent book about the arms race between Germany and Great Britian which led to WW1. The assination of the Arch Duke was just an excuse to start the war.
Yes indeed, Dreadnaught should be made required reading for anyone involved in the study of military history. One that is very good on leadership and career officer types is "Once an Eagle" by Anton Meyer. Its historical fiction, but the man knows his subject.
Yes, quite a few novels and fact books are that way. I write and I hate writing "Filler" that"s usually the background conversation in the novel, in the other it's the tech gobblity-gook.
Swords Around a Throne, a study of Napoleon's Grande Armee. Not a battle history but a comprehensive study of everything from the frontline Grunts to the doctors and everything in between. Very well written and informative.
A classic and fascinating read is Barbara Tuchman's GUNS OF AUGUST, about the outbreak of WWI in 1914.
On the fiction side, there's CROSS OF IRON, about WWII on the Russian front, from the German point of view. The protagonist is a Feldwebel (I think), meaning sergeant.
Been a while sence finished "Ft Pillow" and it was a death trap. The location was in a low area for ease to the river. Entrenchments were only partly dug. The barbets for the arty were set in a way that what infy there was couldn't do proper job of defence. The colored arty boys gave as good as they got and gruginly gained the respect of thier white counterparts. Once the rebs were in the works and union troops were surendering they were shot anyway whether they be white or colored. The officers were treated worse if cought. Gen'l Forest could have ordered the prisnors not be killed but didn't give that order until much later in the day after a building used as a hospital that had many wounded white and colored was put to the tourched. Many of the white union soldiers that were killed were from the area and treated the families of those who were serving Forest very poorly and those rebs were returning the kindness 3 fold. Its worth the time to read its not a real big book.
Here are some of the Book's I've read or reread recently. That Devil Forrest,By John A. Weyth.First with the Most, Robert S. Henry. Stonewall of the west,BY Craig L. Symonds. I reading a Book Titled,The Richmond Raid, By John Brick.First Edition, 1963. Seems to be a decent book. Based on fact.
The worst pseudo-military book I ever read was one called. "Gettysburg; Some thoughts on the Battle." It was written by a professor from Indiana who was a complete and utter idiot. The man had no concept of warfare what so ever, yet he tries to write and explain the thinking and actions of the main participants. He makes an absolute fool of himself. He dismisses the fact that Longstreet's jumping off point for his attack was under direct observation from Federal artillery observers on three sides. Says "that was of no consquence." Then says in the same chapter that it "Doesn't really take that much time to turn a column of men around." Then he says, "He can't understand why Longstreet put so much emphasis on being observed by the Federals because of so many trees around to shelter his movements." Maybe this turkey should have walked into or been hit over the head with the sign that says, "This area did not have the growth of trees and foliage in 1863 that it has now." Funny, I saw it when I was there? I wrote him a ten page letter rebutting his book and it was returned to me by the university that published the book. They said in their letter that they did not subscribe to the views contained in the book. I found out the gent's address and sent to him. As I expected "NO" return answer.
I do believe that was the same book I used as fire starter at Gettysburg this year to kindle my cooking fire to offset the dampness from the on/off showers. That is about the only value that book had. He never looked at the Brady Co. photos of the area to see alot of the area was farmland.
In The Warrior Generals, the author is tripping over himself to drive home his propaganda point. Wouldn't have been a bad book otherwise, but the Civil War stopped being about serious military study a long time ago.
