What ya reading? Version 425108

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Allies basically threw green troops with brand-new, often untested equipment against well-entrenched, well-armed, and experienced German formations. The ground they fought on was incredibly well-suited for the defense, and negated a lot of the Allied advantage in material and munitions.

Hastings makes the argument that the soldiers from the democracies weren't as effective as those from Germany or Russia because they had been raised to be tolerant, individualistic, and value human life. Of course they wouldn't be as good at war as young men raised in brutal totalitarian regimes.

They became better as the war progressed, and learned to hate as well as anybody. But they were never a match tactically for German troops, who could always hold off far larger numbers of attackers when on the defensive, and wrong-foot Allied units with bold counter-attacks of the sort that the Allies never did learn to carry out. Even Allied generals recognised the lack of enthusiasm Allied soldiers had for attacking, unless supported with total air dominance and plenty of armour.

Originally Posted by peter12

I think you are mainly talking about the failure of Operation Market Garden, correct? A failure born out of the carnage of Normandy, its ambition was only slightly exceeded by the risks and challenges of what they were trying to do.

I'm thinking about Anzio, which was a kind of pet project of Churchill's. He was obsessed with avoiding a head-on campaign against Germany by launching audacious schemes in the Mediterranean. He never understood logistics, and the simple truth that without absolute air control, the defenders of an amphibious assault could always reinforce the battle faster than the attackers. He also never understood how incredibly advantageous the terrain in Italy (and the Balkans) was to the defender. All lessons that you'd think he would have learned from the fiasco of Gallipolli.

Originally Posted by peter12

EDIT: Bah, you said WW2, but Catastrophe is about WW1. BTW Hastings is pretty Anglocentric, and has been criticized for diminishing the innovation and efforts of ANZAC and the Canadian Corps in actually ending the Great War.

Sorry, I typed Catastrophe but meant Armageddon. The premise of the latter book is that the last 9 months of WW2 were by far the deadliest, especially in civilian casualties, and that the Allies bear some responsibility with how tentatively and carefully they prosecuted the thrust into Germany. It's understandable that they were extremely frugal with the lives of their citizen soldiers, who themselves didn't have any great incentive to take risks. But, Hastings argues, the result was many millions of unnecessary deaths in Europe in the final months of the war.

[peter12]

Hastings makes the argument that the soldiers from the democracies weren't as effective as those from Germany or Russia because they had been raised to be tolerant and empathetic and individualistic. Of course they wouldn't be as good at war as young men raised in brutal totalitarian regimes.

I think Hastings has been criticized for approaching his histories as kind of meta-narratives, but ignoring the tactical actions that actually helped the Allies win the Battle of Normandy.

In the first two weeks after D-Day, the 1st Canadian Army stopped a number of German panzer counterattacks dead in their tracks. As one Canadian commander put it, "they treated us like we were f$%(ing Russians, and we ended up killing a good many of the fellows."

They became better as the war progressed, and learned to hate as well as anybody. But they were never a match tactical from German troops, who could always hold off far larger numbers of attackers when on the defensive, and wrong-foot Allied units with daring counter-attacks of the sort that the Allies never did learn how to carry out.

Even Allied generals recognized the lack of enthusiasm allied soldiers had for attacking, unless supported with total air dominance and plenty of armour.

Because the Germans were entrenched in ridges, and hedgerows. The terrain was ideal for the defender. Attacking was very costly, and casualites were enormous, especially for the infantry which suffered over 75% of casualties during the campaign. Combat was intense, and constant. Never mind that the Germans were driven from the field, and often, ended up surrendering in droves to Allied forces.

The myth of the invincible German warrior is just that. However, there were some elite German combat formations posted to Normandy, and they made the Allies pay dearly for whatever gains they were able to make. It didn't take long for Allied soldiers to hate their opponents.

German tactical doctrine, going back to WW1, emphasized loose forward lines with interlocking fields of fire with a large mechanized reserve held back for an immediate counterattack.

Anglo-Canadian doctrine was centred around meeting this counterattack with intense, concentrated fire from field, and anti-tank artillery. We were very effective. Read Marc Milner's Stopping the Panzers.

Sorry, I typed Catastrophe but meant Armageddon. The premise of the latter book is that the last 9 month of WW2 were by far the deadliest, and that the Allies bear some responsibility with how tentatively and carefully they prosecuted the thrust into Germany. It's understandable that they were extremely frugal with the lives of their citizen soldiers, who themselves didn't have any great incentive to take risks. But, Hastings argues, the result was many, many millions of deaths in Europe in the final months of the war.

It is here that I think Hastings is just clueless. Allied engagements in Operation Totalize and Tractable tied up significant numbers of elite German formations, and drove them from the battle. German tactical doctrine was also misguided. Large division sized counterattacks during the battle actually sealed the German's fate, and ended up creating the Falaise Pocket, which was sewn shut by combined Canadian, Polish, and British attacks - eventually destroying over half of German men and material in Normandy. It has since been compared to a Stalingrad of the West.

Going on the attack in Northwest Europe, and into the Rhineland, Allied soldiers faced some of the most concentrated, well-defended positions in all of Europe. Casualties were enormous, sometimes in excess of 200% of starting strength (no wonder Canada had a conscription crisis), and as I said, was nearly constant.

Meanwhile, the Russians in the East were nearly peasant soldiers. Poorly trained, but decently equipped, they were butchered by entrenched German soldiers to such a degree that casualties actually caused a demographic crisis that probably still effects Russia to this day.

[CliffFletcher]

Armageddon starts in September '44, after the Normandy breakout. Hasting's argument is that the war in the West could (and should) have been over by Christmas, if the Allied armies had pressed the Germans more aggressively. He blames incompetence on the part of Allied commanders, and a lack of aggression by the soldiers on the ground. He cites many comments by Allied commanders, like James Gavin, expressing extreme frustration at the habit of Allied ground troops to halt as soon as they encountered opposition and wait for armour and air support. This enabled the Germans to routinely cover their retreat with a small holding force, and pull back to prepared positions, where the sequence would be played out again in a day or two. Allied troops were also prone to retreating pell-mell when hit by counterattacks, not stopping until they were far back in the rear.

Professor Sir Michael Howard, who possesses the unusual distinction of being both a military historian and a veteran of combat against the Wehrmacht, wrote frankly:

“Until a very late stage of the war the commanders of British and American ground forces knew all too well that, in a confrontation with the German troops on anything approaching equal terms, their own men were likely to be soundly defeated. They were better than we were: that cannot be stressed too often. Every Allied soldier involved in fighting the Germans knew this was so, and did not regard it in any way humiliating. We were amateurs…fighting the best professionals in the business…We blasted our way into Europe with a minimum of finesse and a maximum of high explosive.”

Anyway, it's worth a read if you have an interest in the broad strokes of the late war, particularly the enormous cost in civilians lives.

[Magnum PEI]

Anybody read the Knausgaard books? I got the first one from the library to see what the hype was about. Started it today, seems dull and depressing.

[kermitology]

Just started reading All The Light We Cannot See. I can understand why it won the Pulitzer for literature. So far I'm really enjoying it.

[jeffporfirio]

Can you guys recommend a Neil deGrasse Tyson book suitable for an extremely smart teenager (and loves science) going into grade 10?

Thanks

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

Can you guys recommend a Neil deGrasse Tyson book suitable for an extremely smart teenager (and loves science) going into grade 10?

Thanks

Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, they might like that?

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

Can you guys recommend a Neil deGrasse Tyson book suitable for an extremely smart teenager (and loves science) going into grade 10?

Thanks

Does it have to be Neil deGrasse Tyson? What sort of science?

Somewhat accessible physics books (they do sorta get into the math but also use visualization techniques to help people get it):

Leonard Susskind - The Cosmic Landscape
Brian Greene - The Elegant Universe or The Fabric of the Cosmos

Somewhat accessible chemistry/genetics books:

Matt Ridley - Genome
James Watson - The Double Helix (there is plenty of criticism of his account of the discovery and characterization of DNA including the undervaluing/discrediting of contributions from female colleagues, but this is a good book anyway - really gives those unfamiliar, a glimpse into the scientific method)
Sam Kean - The Disappearing Spoon (a bunch of interesting chemistry related stories).

I'll try to think of some other interesting ones. Joe Schwarcz is a Canadian chemist who's written tons of interesting books on chemistry and science in everyday life as well.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

Can you guys recommend a Neil deGrasse Tyson book suitable for an extremely smart teenager (and loves science) going into grade 10?

Thanks

Death by Black Hole

[jeffporfirio]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Does it have to be Neil deGrasse Tyson? What sort of science?

Somewhat accessible physics books (they do sorta get into the math but also use visualization techniques to help people get it):

Leonard Susskind - The Cosmic Landscape
Brian Greene - The Elegant Universe or The Fabric of the Cosmos

Somewhat accessible chemistry/genetics books:

Matt Ridley - Genome
James Watson - The Double Helix (there is plenty of criticism of his account of the discovery and characterization of DNA including the undervaluing/discrediting of contributions from female colleagues, but this is a good book anyway - really gives those unfamiliar, a glimpse into the scientific method)
Sam Kean - The Disappearing Spoon (a bunch of interesting chemistry related stories).

I'll try to think of some other interesting ones. Joe Schwarcz is a Canadian chemist who's written tons of interesting books on chemistry and science in everyday life as well.

I'm out of thanks, but really "thanks".
No it doesn't have to be deGrasse Tyson, and those are excellent recommendations.
My son is going into grade 10, with straight A's, love all things science, especially physics, astronomy and chemistry...thanks again.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Just started reading All The Light We Cannot See. I can understand why it won the Pulitzer for literature. So far I'm really enjoying it.

Oddly I was drawn to the book only because of the beautiful picture of St Malo on the cover. A quick look to see what is was and I bought it.

Certainly did not regret.

[Spuds_Buckley]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I just finished Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale, and thought it was excellent. If you're a fan of her and haven't read it, I'd definitely recommend it.

I'm reading the post-apocalyptci MaddAddam trilogy also by Atwood. Just finished the 2nd book in the series. Each of the first two books are told from the point of view of entirely different characters, but there are connections between them.

It's pretty dark material, but very well written. I'll have to check out Handmaid's Tale after I'm done this series.

[troutman]

I liked MaddAddam quite a bit.

Any of these recommended?

Sex Object: A Memoir - Valenti
The Lost Time Accidents - Wray
Chaos Monkeys: Inside the Silicon Valley money machine - Martinez
Every Anxious Wave - Daviau
The Three-Body Problem - Liu
The Gene: An Intimate History - Mukherjee
I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life - Yong

[Locke]

The MaddAddam trilogy was awesome. One of my favourites, to the point where I re-read it fairly regularly.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by troutman

I liked MaddAddam quite a bit.

Any of these recommended?

Sex Object: A Memoir - Valenti
The Lost Time Accidents - Wray
Chaos Monkeys: Inside the Silicon Valley money machine - Martinez
Every Anxious Wave - Daviau
The Three-Body Problem - Liu --
The Gene: An Intimate History - Mukherjee
I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life - Yong

Whole trilogy is highly recommended

[Eastern Girl]

I'd love to hear a man's take on Sex Object.

[JohnnyB]

Just finished Hillbilly Elegy and The Book of Joy. Hillbilly Elegy was a good insight into a certain American demographic and how lives in that ("hillbilly") demographic play out.
The Book of Joy, which is basically an account of conversations between the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu is fine. Nothing special for the genre though.

Also continuing to gradually work my way through the Malazan series by Stephen Erikson. On Reaper's Gale now. A series well worth looking into for any fan of epic fantasy who wants a series to fill enormous swathes of time.

[indes]

Just finished reading the latest Mitch Rapp book written by Kyle Mills.

He's done a really good job of emulating Vince Flynn, pretty excited for the movie!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Just finished Hillbilly Elegy and The Book of Joy. Hillbilly Elegy was a good insight into a certain American demographic and how lives in that ("hillbilly") demographic play out.
The Book of Joy, which is basically an account of conversations between the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu is fine. Nothing special for the genre though.

Also continuing to gradually work my way through the Malazan series by Stephen Erikson. On Reaper's Gale now. A series well worth looking into for any fan of epic fantasy who wants a series to fill enormous swathes of time.

I finished Hillbilly Elegy a few months back and I guess I was sort of mixed. At points I thought it was really insightful and very good. At other points it wasn't that great. The insightful and interesting parts definitely outweighed the other though and by a large margin I think.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Just finished Hillbilly Elegy

Hillbilly Elegy is sitting on my nightstand in my pile of "to be read" books. I'm looking forward to the read. However, just received Almost Human: The Astonishing Tale of Homo Naledi and the Discovery That Changed Our Human Story and had to start on that. Got about 8 chapters in last night, and it's pretty interesting so far. I was mildly worried that it might be very dry but Berger has a nice writing style. I haven't reached any of the parts written by the co-author, Hawks, yet, so it may change. The main voice so far though, is that of Berger.