very outmoded in terms of thinking but as an historical document, sure.
Achtung Panzer - Heinz Guderian
Key takeaways:
Interesting to see how WW1 ended, that it took both sides a fair while to work out how to deploy tanks most effectively and rejig the army around them.
Amazing that in the immediate aftermath of WW1 ze Germans were already planning WW2, all the thinking was how best to reorganise for the next attack, there was nothing defensive in their strategy.
Key takeaways:
Interesting to see how WW1 ended, that it took both sides a fair while to work out how to deploy tanks most effectively and rejig the army around them.
Amazing that in the immediate aftermath of WW1 ze Germans were already planning WW2, all the thinking was how best to reorganise for the next attack, there was nothing defensive in their strategy.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I should be praising you on actually reading a history book, but of course it's on that period. You should be a seasoned expert on that stuff by now.
Anyway one of the comments I've read on that book mentioned a translation error that ended up altering some info?
Anyway one of the comments I've read on that book mentioned a translation error that ended up altering some info?
Comment from Larssen?I am only through the first half of the book, and am very happy with Guderian's text and analysis. There are only occasional typos from lax editing, but when he gets to describing the major British and French offensives with large numbers of tanks in WWI, suddenly the German units defending against them are all Jaeger units (light infantry, originally with extra machine guns, used to augment cavalry formations to form a corps' advance guard early in the war). Every regiment and division mentioned is Jaegers. This really had me scratching my head, because there were only three German divisions in WWI that were composed of Jaeger regiments (Alpenkorps, Jaeger Division, and 200th Division), and none of these were present. It finally dawned on me what the problem must be: some older German printing and writing styles still popular in the 1930s (and later) had very similar "I" and "J" (not that odd: "J" and "Y" are modified forms of old Latin "I"). Someone must be have been looking at abbreviations for Infantrie Regiment (IR) and Infantrie Division (ID) at some point and mistaken them for JR and JD. Some translator should have his bippy slapped for this one. Anyone engaged to translate this work should have known better.
Acktcherly its the first WW1 book I've read.
Also not super interested in all the "The 3/27th Mild Hussars attacked the Sturmkartoffelnkopfs third brigade on a bearing of 72 degrees at 3:23pm but were counterattacked by 252 men of the Cologne reservists grenadier battalion for the loss of 11 officers and 3251 men thus bogging down the assault once again for the gain of 3'2" of front which was lost later in the day"
Exactly which regiment was which is not all that useful here.
Also not super interested in all the "The 3/27th Mild Hussars attacked the Sturmkartoffelnkopfs third brigade on a bearing of 72 degrees at 3:23pm but were counterattacked by 252 men of the Cologne reservists grenadier battalion for the loss of 11 officers and 3251 men thus bogging down the assault once again for the gain of 3'2" of front which was lost later in the day"
Exactly which regiment was which is not all that useful here.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-07-22 22:41:55)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
only the very most dry and academic of military history would recount it in that way (and they exist for their own, admittedly very niche, reason).
the two world wars are not exactly short on book-length treatments. you can find 100s if not 1000s of top-rate historians with very well written books on these topics.
the two world wars are not exactly short on book-length treatments. you can find 100s if not 1000s of top-rate historians with very well written books on these topics.
Did WW1 really need 1000s of books written about it?
10-20 Should have done the trick.
In this context the type of regiment and their equipment is a little bit relevant but we probably don't need to know much more than whether they were infantry, cavalry, machine gun companies or whatever combination. Artillery being separate enough.
10-20 Should have done the trick.
In this context the type of regiment and their equipment is a little bit relevant but we probably don't need to know much more than whether they were infantry, cavalry, machine gun companies or whatever combination. Artillery being separate enough.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-07-22 23:14:02)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I'm sorry but who sets the limit of what we need and don't need to know now? The number of memoirs alone that could have been written would overflow libraries. You could easily have more than "10-20" books on just the history and development of a small sample of the equipment during a part of one of the wars and each one could have their own merits and focuses.
If information is presented in specificity it should probably be as accurate as possible, or at least errors addressed in follow-up editions. That doesn't mean all material should be presented as dry lists ofc, not all readers are going to be doing a research project on it, performing analysis and cobbling together an amateur historian video for youtube. But who are you to say that anything beyond a Total War style presentation of arrayed forces is a waste?
If information is presented in specificity it should probably be as accurate as possible, or at least errors addressed in follow-up editions. That doesn't mean all material should be presented as dry lists ofc, not all readers are going to be doing a research project on it, performing analysis and cobbling together an amateur historian video for youtube. But who are you to say that anything beyond a Total War style presentation of arrayed forces is a waste?
Imagine reducing something as destructive, widespread, lasting and portentive as the FIRST WORLD WAR into something only worth a few hundred pages, split among "10-20" books. "That should do the trick."
Wowsers.
Wowsers.
The marginal gain from each extra book above, say, 100 is going to be pretty small.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Clearly communicating events and context of the past as years go by can require different language and tonality to impart to generation after generation, including as more discoveries are made, and information unsealed. The lens needs polished! Cutting it at (hurr-durr) 10-20 books for a series of events that claimed tens of millions of military and civilian lives, just boggles.
Entire books have been written about single battles alone, or a family's experiences, or the memoirs of some official. Far more value than your at least book's worth of material here about your opinions on Chinese, Indians, Jews, and blacks.
Entire books have been written about single battles alone, or a family's experiences, or the memoirs of some official. Far more value than your at least book's worth of material here about your opinions on Chinese, Indians, Jews, and blacks.
Great but 100 years and 1000s of books later is there really much more to be learned?
Couldn't these people be more usefully employed, making mars rockets for example?
Couldn't these people be more usefully employed, making mars rockets for example?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Are you making any Mars rockets, or are you still sitting around with your thumbs up your vent watching your company fall apart at the seams?
Presently building a robot which will make my Mars rocket for me.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Anyway you have a needlessly cynical notion of what can be expected in terms of unique contributions, thoughts, and analysis in books about the world wars. Which actually makes me feel a bit sad for you, since I thought this stuff was your jam. That's some self-imposed color blindness.
"10-20 books max." Bruh, there's way more than 10-20 subjects alone that could be written about at book length in terms of either of the wars, and in several different ways depending on purpose, audience, or knowledge at the time of publication.
"10-20 books max." Bruh, there's way more than 10-20 subjects alone that could be written about at book length in terms of either of the wars, and in several different ways depending on purpose, audience, or knowledge at the time of publication.
Great, but do you think there's an upper limit to the number of books which can be written about WW1, or any subject?
100,1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 ?
Beyond some point there's simply no new material.
100,1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 ?
Beyond some point there's simply no new material.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Why does there need to be a limit established? It should be enough that there is a demand. That nothing new can be learned by anyone from a new book on a topic previously written about is fake as heck news. You mentioned not being enamored of dry fact/date presentation. That right there is demand for a more narrative presentation. Someone researching the history of a particular military unit would find exhaustive detail very useful and welcome.
Some of the books on the world wars in your collection probably cite more than 10-20 works at the end.
We're talking about history, not semiconductor catalogs.
Some of the books on the world wars in your collection probably cite more than 10-20 works at the end.
We're talking about history, not semiconductor catalogs.
you truly are an idiot. did your mum drop you on your head?Dilbert_X wrote:
The marginal gain from each extra book above, say, 100 is going to be pretty small.
a global conflagration and the end of several hundred years of european empire can be summed up by 20 eggheads in a few thousand pages? laughing my ass off. you could write 20 books on austria-hungary alone.
I managed 40+ pages on pipe sizing, but so what really?
Once 20 books on austria-hungary have been written do we need another 20, and another 20, and another 20 after that?
There comes a point where there's no more value and literally no-one cares.
Once 20 books on austria-hungary have been written do we need another 20, and another 20, and another 20 after that?
There comes a point where there's no more value and literally no-one cares.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-07-23 18:24:03)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
imagine being as ignorant as you are about what history as a subject is, and what historians do, and actually having the gumption to turn it into a personal virtue.
not big and not clever.
not big and not clever.
Dilbert moving the goal posts. First 10-20 books is enough for WW1, and now 20 books is enough for Austria-Hungary. Dilbert knows. Dilbert wrote 40 pages on pipe sizes once. Follow Dilbert, master hobbitses.
Didn't actually say that.
Reading comprehension FTW
Reading comprehension FTW
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
history is interpretive. we bring to bear our own moment, our own era's ideas, precepts and presuppositions, on an historical topic.
i can think of any number of examples of changes in historiography, new avenues, new insights, new schools and models.
the annales school? fucking marxism/historical materialism? 'great men' history? the history of ideas?
to use a concrete example, how about the change, occasioned by new archaeological evidence (and technology) as well as a changing contemporary political sense, from roman history oriented around kings/emperors and setpiece battles, wars and conquest, to one oriented around ordinary working romans? for hundreds of years our sense of the everyday, mundane life for a roman citizen was basically unexamined. now there's a plethora of books which excavate – literally – the topic of life for the 'little guy'. it took a modern and democratic era, with its own historians, to even bother looking there.
or how about how marx's 18th brumaire basically invented political economy and reading louis napoleon's life in a totally different way? considering vast and impersonal forces – economic but also socio-political, and so on – at work beneath the manifest surface of society? which in turn created an entire theoretical framework for reading the events of the past? i could go on.
the sheer overwhelming stuff of history, the totality of material that amounts to something like an objective 'truth', is almost limitless. any individual historian can only bring to bear their own interpretation of the 'facts', such as they are. there is so much more to history than just assembling the dates, names, figures and events and putting them down in the right consecutive order. even an exhaustive account of these 'facts' would only amount to a paltry take on the whole 'truth' of it.
mindboggling this has to be explained.
i can think of any number of examples of changes in historiography, new avenues, new insights, new schools and models.
the annales school? fucking marxism/historical materialism? 'great men' history? the history of ideas?
to use a concrete example, how about the change, occasioned by new archaeological evidence (and technology) as well as a changing contemporary political sense, from roman history oriented around kings/emperors and setpiece battles, wars and conquest, to one oriented around ordinary working romans? for hundreds of years our sense of the everyday, mundane life for a roman citizen was basically unexamined. now there's a plethora of books which excavate – literally – the topic of life for the 'little guy'. it took a modern and democratic era, with its own historians, to even bother looking there.
or how about how marx's 18th brumaire basically invented political economy and reading louis napoleon's life in a totally different way? considering vast and impersonal forces – economic but also socio-political, and so on – at work beneath the manifest surface of society? which in turn created an entire theoretical framework for reading the events of the past? i could go on.
the sheer overwhelming stuff of history, the totality of material that amounts to something like an objective 'truth', is almost limitless. any individual historian can only bring to bear their own interpretation of the 'facts', such as they are. there is so much more to history than just assembling the dates, names, figures and events and putting them down in the right consecutive order. even an exhaustive account of these 'facts' would only amount to a paltry take on the whole 'truth' of it.
mindboggling this has to be explained.
Last edited by uziq (2021-07-23 20:34:01)
Dilbert_X wrote:
Didn't actually say that.
Reading comprehension FTW
"20 books on Austria-Hungary are enough. 20 books on WW1 are enough."Once 20 books on austria-hungary have been written do we need another 20
A very reasonable paraphrase of your recent posts on this thread. You don't grasp the concept of history books, and when it's laid out you just tuck yourself into this blanket of nonsense. You probably have a yawning cat ready to go to make up for your lack of a good argument.
"Shouldn't need more than 20 books on the 20th century, next. 20 more?! Excessive! Redundant!"
i use the word a lot, but pity is really what i feel for
dilbert. so absolutely closed to the world and so many genuinely stimulating and intriguing things about it. reading his little airport history books and declaring the rest moot.
google search nietzsche’s words on ‘the last man’ in zarathustra. the smug complacency, the fixed thinking, the limited concerns: it’s literally him. sad nonce.
dilbert. so absolutely closed to the world and so many genuinely stimulating and intriguing things about it. reading his little airport history books and declaring the rest moot.
google search nietzsche’s words on ‘the last man’ in zarathustra. the smug complacency, the fixed thinking, the limited concerns: it’s literally him. sad nonce.