History and histories

[BernieCarbo]

Herbert or J. Edgar?

As for me, I enjoy Halbetstam's work. I enjoyed Foote"s Civil War series and McCullough's book was fantastic. I'm not much for alternative history. There are a few historical novels I like.

I kind of avoid historical fiction and alternative history as well, but I do make an exception when it comes to the Middle Ages, because unless you were part of the royal class, not much was written down. I really enjoyed Pillars Of The Earth by Ken Follet a lot, and although there is no way to know how close the peasant life was depicted, it was certainly believable, and the description of how the European cathedrals evolved was very interesting.

[RedFanT]

I prefer the American Civil War, the Roman Empire, and World War Two-era. My favorite writer? I am a huge fan of reading J.F.C. Fuller, even if he had his biases. He is primarily a military history writer, and has been long dead, but he has covered numerous eras--including the ones I am interested in, and is considered the father of modern tank warfare (and even the inventor of what would become the blitzkrieg during WWII). For the American Civil War, I have no favorites, although Fuller wrote a great comparative analysis of the generalship of Grant and Lee.

[George Anderson]

I am a big European history buff, particularly eastern European and Russia. To tie in a little with the Cobb thread, Russian history is a perfect example of how the media presented something completely different from reality. For instance, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the formal scrubbing and sanitizing of events ended, a treasure trove of new information became available.

One of the first post-Soviet era books I read was Gulag by Anne Applebaum. It is a comprehensive study of the system of Gulags presented from every angle, and I couldn't put it down. One reviewer said it quiet well: "With the possible exception of a few books on the Holocaust, this is the single most painful work of non-fiction I've ever encountered. The portrait of the Soviet work camp system that Applebaum develops examines, in painfully minute detail, every single aspect of life in and around the Gulag system, from the highest levels of Soviet politburo administration, down to the lowliest starving, walking damned in the most far flung Siberian penal cell."

This book is a good example why history needs to be reexamined. If you read stories of the Soviet "camps" in the New York Times in the 30's, they were very complimentary of the Stalin and his Gulags (check out Walter Duranty). Many people aren't aware of it, but there were also a lot of Americans sent to the Gulags. Many of them traveled to the Soviet Union during the depression because of these stories, not understanding that anyone who was different in any way would probably be arrested. The real stories are still coming out, and whether it's one man like Cobb, or an entire culture, we should be accurate as possible.

A little off topic but I have a great interest in Russian history having been over to Russia twice with adopting my daughter. But my best friend is also married to a Russian woman who came over to the USA in her early 20's. Her mother came about 10 years later. The only information they got over there on world events was from the Russian government. They had been taught in school that Russia had won certain wars and conflicts with other nations when in reality they did not. My friend said it was kinda comical to compare what they were told by the Russian government what had happened in world history to what really did happen.

[BernieCarbo]

Exactly, and we have the same problem here, although it isn't so extreme. And it's why we need to question everything and take nothing at face value. There are some good journalists and some very bad ones, but the most important thing to remember is that journalists <> researchers. Their job is to sell the news first and foremost.

[dfs]

My reading is eclectic....I recently read the great war by Peter Hart. It was as good as advertised. I thought I new a good deal about WWI. I learned more.

[dabvu2498]

A little off topic but I have a great interest in Russian history having been over to Russia twice with adopting my daughter. But my best friend is also married to a Russian woman who came over to the USA in her early 20's. Her mother came about 10 years later. The only information they got over there on world events was from the Russian government. They had been taught in school that Russia had won certain wars and conflicts with other nations when in reality they did not. My friend said it was kinda comical to compare what they were told by the Russian government what had happened in world history to what really did happen.

Russian historiography is almost as interesting as Russian history. I guarantee there are still some crazy things being taught in history classes in Russian schools up to this day.

If you're in to Russian history, I recommend the Russian Rulers Podcast. It's done by a guy named Mark Schauss who really does his research and then does a good job compacting that into a podcast. His voice is not the greatest, but I rarely listen to one where I don't learn at least a little nugget.

As for my own reading, I've gotten more into reading memoirs in the last few years. At least the biases are apparent and I don't have to read 4th person source material to help figure out where the "angles" are coming from. The George HW Bush memoir was my most recent. The early chapters were quite informative.

[RedsBaron]

I am particularly interested in history regarding the American Revolution, the American Civil War and World War II, but just about anything history is interesting to me. Looking around my study as I type this I see several volumes by Stephen Ambrose, including D-Day and Citizen Soldiers and his biographies of Eisenhower and Nixon, among others; I liked his writing and was saddened when questions were later raised about him.
I have several books on WWII by Max Hastings and Antony Beevor, but my favorites of that war are probably John Keegan's opus, Gerhard Weinberg's opus, and the six volume The Second World War by Winston Churchill (man, could Sir Winston write!). I have two autobiographies of Chuck Yeager, his "Yeager" and its sequel, "Press On!," the later autographed by Yeager when I met him.
I liked Jon Meacham's American Lion about Andrew Jackson. I loved David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed, and his Washington's Crossing was also very good.
I also like historical fiction by Herman Wouk and by Jeff Shaara.

[UKFlounder]

I like the Civil War era. James McPherson, Gary Gallagher, Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton all have written some great books on the war

My favorite book, however, is Creating a Confederate Kentucky by Anne Marshall. It's more sbout memory than the actual war, but explains a lot about Kentucky's history.

Regarding Lincoln, I also liked A. Lincoln by Ronald White and Lincoln at Peoria by Lewis Lehrman in addition to those mentioned above. White's "Lincoln's Greatest Speech" was good as well

I'm going to try to read about Reconstruction more this year. I could use a better underdtanding of that time.

[BernieCarbo]

I am particularly interested in history regarding the American Revolution, the American Civil War and World War II, but just about anything history is interesting to me. Looking around my study as I type this I see several volumes by Stephen Ambrose, including D-Day and Citizen Soldiers and his biographies of Eisenhower and Nixon, among others; I liked his writing and was saddened when questions were later raised about him.
I have several books on WWII by Max Hastings and Antony Beevor, but my favorites of that war are probably John Keegan's opus, Gerhard Weinberg's opus, and the six volume The Second World War by Winston Churchill (man, could Sir Winston write!). I have two autobiographies of Chuck Yeager, his "Yeager" and its sequel, "Press On!," the later autographed by Yeager when I met him.
I liked Jon Meacham's American Lion about Andrew Jackson. I loved David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed, and his Washington's Crossing was also very good.
I also like historical fiction by Herman Wouk and by Jeff Shaara.

I liked Ambrose's books a lot, despite the later revelations that there were a lot of mistakes. But whatever, he had a talent for driving the main points home.

Have you read Rick Atkinson's trilogy? It's one of the best WWII series I've ever read. Ironically, the first two books focused on North Africa and Italy where there haven't been a lot of previous books, and they were much better than the third book on the war in Europe post D-Day. That last one seem very rushed, but it's ok because there are so many other books for that part of the war, so it worked out. But there first two were very good.

[RedsBaron]

I liked Ambrose's books a lot, despite the later revelations that there were a lot of mistakes. But whatever, he had a talent for driving the main points home.

Have you read Rick Atkinson's trilogy? It's one of the best WWII series I've ever read. Ironically, the first two books focused on North Africa and Italy where there haven't been a lot of previous books, and they were much better than the third book on the war in Europe post D-Day. That last one seem very rushed, but it's ok because there are so many other books for that part of the war, so it worked out. But there first two were very good.

No, I haven't read Atkinson's trilogy, although I understand it is very good. You're right: Much of WWII history books almost seem to be premised on the theory that the war against Germany began with the D-Day invasion.

[RiverRat13]

I read a great biography of Lincoln a couple of years ago. Will have to think who wrote it as my copy is at my parents' house in Georgia.

Seth Grahame-Smith?

[BernieCarbo]

No, I haven't read Atkinson's trilogy, although I understand it is very good. You're right: Much of WWII history books almost seem to be premised on the theory that the war against Germany began with the D-Day invasion.

Yes, a lot of people don't realize that there were several big D-Days in Africa and Europe before Jun 1944, and our troops had already been fighting in Europe for over two years. Very enlightening.

Two of the biggest things I got from it was a better understanding of the French role in the war (and removes the sophomoric myth that the French are weak and cowards) and the revelation of just how bitter the fighting in Italy was. German documents were revealed where soldiers stated that the fighting was worse than the Eastern front, and officers even forbid them from discussing among themselves just how bad it was because of moral issues.

[marcshoe]

Seth Grahame-Smith?

The most accurate Lincoln bio ever.

[marcshoe]

btw, this is one of the best sweeping American histories I've read, covering the period between the War of 1812 and the ACW.

What Hath God Wrought by David Walker Howe

This covers political, economic, and social history. Howe is pretty anti-Jackson, fwiw, often directly contradicting Jon Meacham's take on events, such as whether Jackson was at least a semi-aware bigamist. He believes that John Quincy Adams, not Jackson, deserves credit for moving the nation forward. It's an incredibly interesting book in the Oxford series, coming between The Glorious Cause and The Battle Cry of Freedom. It's a bit of a scandal that this one's lesser known than those, but it isn't a war book. It did win a Pulitzer, though.

[TRF]

Anything and everything about The British Isles leading up to and just after the Norman Invasion. There is a great fictional Robin Hood book called Sherwood set in this time period by Parke Godwin. Really good.