Feldgrau.net

As a student of "real history" it seems fairly obvious to me now that much of what passes for contemporary history and "conventional wisdom" consists of nothing more than the organized contstruction and perpetuation of myths, Nowhere is this more evident than most "written by the victors" chronicles of our "great crusade", the "good war"--World War II. Recently, I've read five books that shatter many of these myths and force me to reflect back on much of what I thought I knew about conduct and ethics regarding the western democracies' roles in that conflict (and others). My conclusion is that "just war" is largely a myth, and then, as today, the guiding principles that our democracy was founded on have been and continue to be subverted for causes less noble than what we are led to believe reading comic book history.

1.Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, by Patrick Buchanan
2.After the Reich, The Brutal History of Allied Occupation, by Giles MacDonogh
3.Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory, by Norman Davies
4.The Fire by Joreg Friedrich
5.Human Smoke, by Nicholson Baker.

Ive attached reviews of each in separate topics so that each can be discussed individually if desired.

Would it been perhaps better to review the books yourself instead of mostly quoting others???

Thanks Uncle Joe. You're right, and I plan on it; Because I've been onsumed with other things, I havent had as much time to devote to this as I wanted to. Ive actually started several of my own reviews--just havent completed them yet. I guess I just wanted to get some discussion going first.

best wishes,

erik

I have to agree with Uncle Joe here. If you are going to post a review, it ought to be your own. Instead, you post reviews from people that probably most of us have never heard of with no further explanation. What exactly was your purpose and how did these books come to your attention?

John

John P. Moore wrote:I have to agree with Uncle Joe here. If you are going to post a review, it ought to be your own. Instead, you post reviews from people that probably most of us have never heard of with no further explanation. What exactly was your purpose and how did these books come to your attention?

John

Hello John,

Seems like the obsession with protocol and procedure here is getting a bit fanatical, and is overshadowing content and substance. As i said, i wanted to generate some discussion in advance of posting my own reviews. Apparently, the semi-comatose state of this forum is preferred to lively discussion. Please go ahead and delete the accompanying 5 topics, as for some reason I'm not able to edit my own posts. thanks.

Erik

Seems like the obsession with protocol and procedure here is getting a bit fanatical, and is overshadowing content and substance. As i said, i wanted to generate some discussion in advance of posting my own reviews.

When it comes to research and reviews protocol and procedure is king. There is no substance when you post on a topic like this one and don't provide any unique or independent content of your own. Have you read these books in question?

Oops, in the removed threads folder!