[quote]SkyNett wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTIC, OK, you’re President Truman. It’s July 1945. What do you do?
(I don’t why I do this. I might as well be asking Daffy Duck but let’s run with it)
Push,
Why do you bother attempting to engage this total fucking idiot in a serious conversation?
Him and Lixy should get together and rim each other while they whine like cunts about the U.S.[/quote]
Lifty has posted far more intelligent material than you have. This post is the extent that you are capable of contributing. Your parents must be so proud.
Back on topic. The whole concept of a “war criminal” is silly. It’s war. This being said, if there ever were a criminal act in war, dropping nukes has to be up there. It simply is not a precision instrument. Even back then, they knew the damage it would do.
If you believe any aircraft-dropped bomb was a precision instrument in 1945, you are quite mistaken. Your logic would have had us avoid all conventional bombing as well, unless you claim it is a matter of scale and simultaneity: individually dropping thousands of conventional bombs on military targets in cities was acceptable perhaps, for some reason? Or do you claim the acts of the United States with regard to conventional bombing aimed at military targets in cities were “up there” as “criminal acts of war” ?
And yes, there was military importance to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if the Japanese had not surrendered, the loss of the industrial and port facilities there would have been of great importance. Though the intent certainly was surrender. Had it been possible to destroy the ports and industry with conventional bombing I would think that would have been done already. Would you have called that a crime had it been done with individual bombs, which due to the great inaccuracy of the era, inevitably would have killed many civilians? If not why not?
I trust you are aware that there was no location where truly vast damage could have been done to the Japanese military, and only or principally the military, from a single bomb. Or two such locations for two bombs. We can’t compare to options that didn’t exist, or at least cannot rationally do so. The only way to inflict potentially surrender-causing damage with just two bombs was as it was done (or being more extreme such as targeting Kyoto and/or Tokyo.)
It’s interesting you support the claimed intelligence of Lifticus’ posts on this. Perhaps you can answer the questions in my post that he so studiously ducked. (Well, of course you can: they are of the nature that anyone can, but doing so might not help a Truman-criticizing position, though unlike Lifticus it is not clear how far your position is in that direction. Though stating his acts were “up there” as “criminal acts of war” would seem to put anyone pretty deep in that territory.)
At any rate, I ask them of you. The post is not far back.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTIC, OK, you’re President Truman. It’s July 1945. What do you do?
(I don’t why I do this. I might as well be asking Daffy Duck but let’s run with it)
Push,
Why do you bother attempting to engage this total fucking idiot in a serious conversation?
Him and Lixy should get together and rim each other while they whine like cunts about the U.S.
Lifty has posted far more intelligent material than you have. This post is the extent that you are capable of contributing. Your parents must be so proud.
Back on topic. The whole concept of a “war criminal” is silly. It’s war. This being said, if there ever were a criminal act in war, dropping nukes has to be up there. It simply is not a precision instrument. Even back then, they knew the damage it would do.
LIFT is clueless on this subject and most that involve historical perspective. I don’t know if he’s just undereducated or his anarchist cultish zeal clouds potentially good judgment.[/quote]
Maybe. Read the post I was responding to and my response. Neither was specific to this thread. Write or wrong, when it comes to well thought-out arguments and posts, Lifty has been a more consistant contributer than the genius that attacked him.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If you believe any aircraft-dropped bomb was a precision instrument in 1945, you are quite mistaken.
[/quote]
My impression is that you are a pretty sharp guy. I think you know what I meant.
I don’t recall claiming anything was acceptable or unacceptable in war.
[quote
Or do you claim the acts of the United States with regard to conventional bombing aimed at military targets in cities were “up there” as “criminal acts of war” ?
[/quote]
No.
Ok
Was it not?
Again. I think the idea of war crimes is silly. Do you believe charges of war crimes are always just, without any political motivation or without any motivation to punish the loser in general? This is my point.
ok. What about options that did exist? Do you think no options existed?
i did no such thing.
I am not a WWII expert, nor an expert on military tactics. I have read a bit about WWII, but not any sources dedicated to the topic. I also haven’t read a thing specific to Truman. If you say he acted in the most prudent manner possible at the time, I will concede the point.
I’ll just ignor my bullshit meter. I will try and convince myself that WWII was an anomoly in that it was the only conflict requiring the use of a nueclear weapon as the only sensable means of victory or resolution.
My sense is that history has been kind to Truman, just as it has been to FDR and others. But this is just my sense. I am about to read more about WWII. I have two that are queue now.
The War - An intimate history, 1941-45
Rise an Fall of the Third Reich
I am just getting started, so if anyone can recommend some sourses that are better than others, I would certainly add them to the list.
Your logic would have had us avoid all conventional bombing as well, unless you claim it is a matter of scale and simultaneity: individually dropping thousands of conventional bombs on military targets in cities was acceptable perhaps, for some reason?
I don’t recall claiming anything was acceptable or unacceptable in war. [/quote]
Not in those terms, but saying that a thing is “up there” as “criminal acts of war” at the least suggests opposition or a belief the thing should not be done.
Or at least it suggested it to me.
[quote]Though the intent certainly was surrender. Had it been possible to destroy the ports and industry with conventional bombing I would think that would have been done already.
Was it not?[/quote]
There had been some attempt at conventional bombing of the ports of Nagasaki but not to much effect. A Mitsubishi steel works was also hit, and (I suppose inadvertently) a hospital. But overall most certainly conventional bombing did not destroy the targets of importance.
I have no doubt at all that there are others, most likely here, expert (which I am not) on the limitations of our air power with regards to delivering conventional bombs to the Japanese mainland. But from what I understand we were a lot more limited in that than what was possible in bombing Europe.
(And in either theater, the severe inaccuracy of aerial bombing of that era meant that an enormous number of bombs had to be dropped to do much real damage to military targets, in most cases.)
[quote]I trust you are aware that there was no location where truly vast damage could have been done to the Japanese military, and only or principally the military, from a single bomb. Or two such locations for two bombs. We can’t compare to options that didn’t exist, or at least cannot rationally do so.
ok. What about options that did exist? Do you think no options existed?[/quote]
So far as I know the main other option considered was using the atomic bomb on Kyoto. Which would have been far more deadly.
[quote]It’s interesting you support the claimed intelligence of Lifticus’ posts on this.
i did no such thing.[/quote]
You had a post saying his posts were more intelligent than another person’s. Though I suppose if that other person’s posts were deemed stupid enough, then I would have been incorrect in taking a statement that Lifticus’ posts were more intelligent as having the meaning that his were intelligent. My mistake, if so.
It’s interesting you support the claimed intelligence of Lifticus’ posts on this.
i did no such thing.
You had a post saying his posts were more intelligent than another person’s. Though I suppose if that other person’s posts were deemed stupid enough, then I would have been incorrect in taking a statement that Lifticus’ posts were more intelligent as having the meaning that his were intelligent. My mistake, if so.
Though the intent certainly was surrender. Had it been possible to destroy the ports and industry with conventional bombing I would think that would have been done already.
Was it not?[/quote]
No those two cities had not been bombed yet. If they had been destroyed with conventional bombs it would not have had the same impact. The firebombing of Tokyo caused a firestorm that killed 200,000.
Firestorms were the very worst thing that could happen inside a city. London, Hamburg, Stalingrad, Dresden, Hiroshima all suffered firestorms. Which is why the bombing of them was so deadly.
[quote]
I trust you are aware that there was no location where truly vast damage could have been done to the Japanese military, and only or principally the military, from a single bomb. Or two such locations for two bombs. We can’t compare to options that didn’t exist, or at least cannot rationally do so.
ok. What about options that did exist? Do you think no options existed? [/quote]
There were no other options that would have had as favorable of a result. All other options would have resulted in a massive amount of deaths amongst the Allies and the Japanese.
The Japanese had standing orders to kill all allied POW’s the moment when the invasion of Japan began. So there would have been several hundred thousand dead Allied servicemen.
The Japanese had 5000 kamakaze ready to target the invasion fleet starting with the aircraft carriers. It would have been a massive repeat the USS Franklin.
Every man, woman and child was expected to become a kamakaze and those who refused would have been executed by the Japanese army. Right now the Okinawan islanders are suing the Japanese government for just this reason.
Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th. On August 7th the Nakajima J9Y Kikka flew for the first time. With a service ceiling over 36,000 feet this jet aircraft would have been able to shoot down B29’s. This event made the B29 delivery system obsolete because the Japanese now had a plane that would be capable of shooting them down.
So in other words the B29/atomic bomb weapon system had reached it’s use by date. Within a short time the Japanese would have been shooting down B29’s and the US would not have had a reliable way to deliver atomic bombs.
Then there is the issue of bomb production. The original plan for the Manhattan project was for there to be three tests one of the Uranium bomb and two of the Plutonium bomb. But the fissile materials were the rarest elements on earth. They were so rare that after the trinity test went well that the Uranium bomb and second Plutonium tests were cancelled. Instead they used the bombs on the Japanese.
If they hadn’t done that they would have had to wait until 1946 for the next bomb to be available. Then they would have had to use an airplane that was vulnerable to being shot down by jets which the Japanese would have had flying by then.
The bottom line is this. The fissile material was rare so Atomic bombs were hard to produce. The B29 delivery system was on the verge of becoming obsolete and unable to reliably deliver bombs without getting shot down. Truman had a narrow window of opportunity where he could drop atomic bombs with impunity. He could either act decisively and go for the jugular or he could have dicked around with his thumb up his ass and waited for the window of opportunity close on him.
[quote]
The only way to inflict potentially surrender-causing damage with just two bombs was as it was done (or being more extreme such as targeting Kyoto and/or Tokyo.)
It’s interesting you support the claimed intelligence of Lifticus’ posts on this.
i did no such thing.
Perhaps you can answer the questions in my post that he so studiously ducked. (Well, of course you can: they are of the nature that anyone can, but doing so might not help a Truman-criticizing position, though unlike Lifticus it is not clear how far your position is in that direction. Though stating his acts were “up there” as “criminal acts of war” would seem to put anyone pretty deep in that territory.)
At any rate, I ask them of you. The post is not far back.
I am not a WWII expert, nor an expert on military tactics. I have read a bit about WWII, but not any sources dedicated to the topic. I also haven’t read a thing specific to Truman. If you say he acted in the most prudent manner possible at the time, I will concede the point.
I’ll just ignor my bullshit meter. I will try and convince myself that WWII was an anomoly in that it was the only conflict requiring the use of a nueclear weapon as the only sensable means of victory or resolution. [/quote]
There is only one sensible way to fight, be it a street fight or a world war. You fight to win. When you get the opportunity to take the other guy out you do it, you don’t fuck around. That way you don’t take unneccessary damage. Those bombs had an immediate effect. They ended the war ended the killing and prevented a lot of unneccessary bloodshed.
[quote]
My sense is that history has been kind to Truman, just as it has been to FDR and others. But this is just my sense. I am about to read more about WWII. I have two that are queue now. [/quote]
History isn’t being kind to Truman when you have assholes like Stewart calling him a war criminal for ending the war as quickly as possible in order to save lives and there isn’t an outcry of protest against Stewart. There was a time in this country where Stewart would have been looking for a new job for talking such bullshit.
This is the definitive history it earned the Nobel prize in 1953.
The Second World War (Six Volume Boxed Set) (Paperback)
by Winston S. Churchill
“After the end of the World War of 1914 there was a deep conviction and almost universal hope that peace would reign in the world. This heart’s desire of all the peoples could easily have been gained by steadfastness in righteous convictions, and by reasonable common sense and prudence.”
But we all know that’s not what happened. As Britain’s prime minister for most of the Second World War, Winston Churchill–whose career had to that point already encompassed the roles of military historian and civil servant with a proficiency in both that few others could claim–had a unique perspective on the conflict, and as soon as he left office in 1945, he began to set that perspective down on paper. To measure the importance of The Second World War, it is worth remembering that there are no parallel accounts from either of the other Allied leaders, Roosevelt and Stalin. We have in this multivolume work an account that contains both comprehensive sweep and intimate detail. Almost anybody who compiles a list of such works ranks it highly among the nonfiction books of the 20th century.
In the opening volume, The Gathering Storm, Churchill tracks the erosion of the shaky peace brokered at the end of the First World War, followed by the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and their gradual spread from beyond Germany’s borders to most of the European continent. Churchill foresaw the coming crisis and made his opinion known quite clearly throughout the latter '30s, and this book concludes on a vindicating note, with his appointment in May 1940 as prime minister, after which he recalls that “I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.”
Their Finest Hour concerns itself with 1940. France falls, and England is left to face the German menace alone. Soon London is under siege from the air–and Churchill has a few stories of his own experiences during the Blitz to share–but they persevere to the end of what Churchill calls “the most splendid, as it was the most deadly, year in our long English and British history.” They press on in The Grand Alliance, liberating Ethiopia from the Italians and lending support to Greece. Then, when Hitler reneges on his non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union (the very signing of which had proved Stalin and his commissars “the most completely outwitted bunglers of the Second World War”), the Allied team begins to coalesce. The bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese makes the participation of the United States in the war official, and this is of “the greatest joy” to Churchill: “How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end no man could tell, nor did I at that moment care. Once again in our long island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutilated, safe and victorious.”
But as the fourth volume, The Hinge of Fate, reveals, success would not happen overnight. The Japanese military still held strong positions in the Pacific theater, and Rommel’s tank corps were on the offensive in Africa. After a string of military defeats, Churchill’s opponents in Parliament introduced a motion for a censure vote; this was handily defeated, and victory secured in Africa, then Italy. By this time, Churchill had met separately with both Roosevelt and Stalin; the second half of volume 5, Closing the Ring, brings the three of them together for the first time at the November 1943 conference in Teheran. This book closes on the eve of D-day: “All the ships were at sea. We had the mastery of the oceans and of the air. The Hitler tyranny was doomed.”
And so, in the concluding volume, Triumph and Tragedy, the Allies push across Europe and take the fight to Berlin. President Roosevelt’s death shortly before final victory against Germany affected Churchill deeply, “as if I had been struck a physical blow,” and he would later regret not attending the funeral and meeting Harry Truman then, instead of at the Potsdam conference after Germany’s defeat. Churchill himself would not be there for the conclusion to the war against Japan; in July of 1945, a general election in Britain brought in a Labor government (or, as he refers to them, “Socialists”), and he resigned immediately, for “the verdict of the electors had been so overwhelmingly expressed that I did not wish to remain even for an hour responsible for their affairs.”
Product Description
Churchill’s six-volume history of World War II – the definitive work, remarkable both for its sweep and for its sense of personal involvement, universally acknowledged as a magnificent historical reconstruction and an enduring work of literature. From Britian’s darkest and finest hour to the great alliance and ultimate victory, the Second World War remains the pivotal event in our century. Churchill was not only its greatest leader, but the free world’s most eloquent voice of defiance in the face of Nazi tyranny. His epic account of those times, published in six volumes, won the Nobel Prize in 1953.
Voices from the Third Reich, was an interesting read.
From Publishers Weekly
The result of a collaborative editorial effort by two German veterans of WW II and an American college professor, these recollections from more than 150 Germans cover a wide range of experience, civilian and military, during the Nazi era. Many of those interviewed, who were children or teenagers when Hitler came to power, speak frankly about the allure of National Socialism and of the “adaptations” forced on them, internally and externally, during the war. As the editors point out, heroism and self-sacrifice are evident in many of the statements, but so are egoism and self- deception. The book challenges certain assumptions common among non-Germans: that most citizens of the Third Reich were fully aware of the crimes perpetrated by the regime; that the survivors of that generation are conscious of a burden of guilt; and finally that older Germans are happy to forget the war. The men and women included here recall their attitudes and behavior in compelling and painful detail.
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Library Journal
A thoroughly fascinating and occasionally depressing series of excerpts from hundreds of interviews of West German and Austrian survivors of the Nazi years. In 16 thematic chapters the authors have collated brief statements on topics such as the war, genocide, resistance, women, children, simple survival, and daily affairs. The contributors come from a wide variety of backgrounds and persuasion. The result is an intriguing and troubling picture of those who made the Third Reich. Two perhaps unavoidable shortcomings mar this otherwise excellent project. First, the excerpts are very brief portions of rather lengthy interviews; the reader wishes for a more representative and cohesive sense of each respondent. Second, no East Germans are included. It would have been fascinating to see how that very different postwar political culture might have colored recollections of the Third Reich. Highly recommended.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
If you believe any aircraft-dropped bomb was a precision instrument in 1945, you are quite mistaken.
My impression is that you are a pretty sharp guy. I think you know what I meant.
Your logic would have had us avoid all conventional bombing as well, unless you claim it is a matter of scale and simultaneity: individually dropping thousands of conventional bombs on military targets in cities was acceptable perhaps, for some reason?
I don’t recall claiming anything was acceptable or unacceptable in war.
[quote
Or do you claim the acts of the United States with regard to conventional bombing aimed at military targets in cities were “up there” as “criminal acts of war” ?
No.
And yes, there was military importance to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if the Japanese had not surrendered, the loss of the industrial and port facilities there would have been of great importance.
Ok
Though the intent certainly was surrender. Had it been possible to destroy the ports and industry with conventional bombing I would think that would have been done already.
Was it not?
Would you have called that a crime had it been done with individual bombs, which due to the great inaccuracy of the era, inevitably would have killed many civilians? If not why not?
Again. I think the idea of war crimes is silly. Do you believe charges of war crimes are always just, without any political motivation or without any motivation to punish the loser in general? This is my point.
I trust you are aware that there was no location where truly vast damage could have been done to the Japanese military, and only or principally the military, from a single bomb. Or two such locations for two bombs. We can’t compare to options that didn’t exist, or at least cannot rationally do so.
ok. What about options that did exist? Do you think no options existed?
The only way to inflict potentially surrender-causing damage with just two bombs was as it was done (or being more extreme such as targeting Kyoto and/or Tokyo.)
It’s interesting you support the claimed intelligence of Lifticus’ posts on this.
i did no such thing.
Perhaps you can answer the questions in my post that he so studiously ducked. (Well, of course you can: they are of the nature that anyone can, but doing so might not help a Truman-criticizing position, though unlike Lifticus it is not clear how far your position is in that direction. Though stating his acts were “up there” as “criminal acts of war” would seem to put anyone pretty deep in that territory.)
At any rate, I ask them of you. The post is not far back.
I am not a WWII expert, nor an expert on military tactics. I have read a bit about WWII, but not any sources dedicated to the topic. I also haven’t read a thing specific to Truman. If you say he acted in the most prudent manner possible at the time, I will concede the point.
I’ll just ignor my bullshit meter. I will try and convince myself that WWII was an anomoly in that it was the only conflict requiring the use of a nueclear weapon as the only sensable means of victory or resolution.
My sense is that history has been kind to Truman, just as it has been to FDR and others. But this is just my sense. I am about to read more about WWII. I have two that are queue now.
The War - An intimate history, 1941-45
Rise an Fall of the Third Reich
I am just getting started, so if anyone can recommend some sourses that are better than others, I would certainly add them to the list.
[/quote]
Sifu is right.
There is no better source with which to start than Winston Churchill’s 6 volume history. It is also is a demonstration of the mastery of language, writing, research and memory, all by one individual who had command–for better and for worse-at the center of the War.
There is no better source with which to start than Winston Churchill’s 6 volume history. It is also is a demonstration of the mastery of language, writing, research and memory, all by one individual who had command–for better and for worse-at the center of the War.
[/quote]
Except for its huge, gaping hole called the Eastern Front.
I’m divided on the merits and morality of dropping the bomb. But two things should be borne in mind:
Eisenhower, who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and then president (maybe the best of the twentieth century), felt the use of the atomic bomb was unnecessary:
"…in [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”
Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
Admiral Leahy and General MacArthur both felt the same way.
For all the idiotic talk about “beating the mean out of them,” even AFTER the atomic bombs Japan did not surrender unconditionally! The emperor remained in place, and as others have posted here, Japan still largely whitewashes its history and refuses to admit its crimes, especially in China and Korea. Drop the demand for unconditional surrender, and it seems likely that we would have come to a negotiated peace without killing another quarter of a million civilians.
As for the Germans, speaking as a former dual-citizen, the Holocaust had a lot more to do with Germany’s post-WWII aversion to war than defeat on the battlefield, or the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in air attacks.
And for those of you arguing that there is no such thing as a war crime, by that logic you don’t have any kind of a leg to stand on in denouncing terrorism or even 9/11. If targeting civilians is legit when we do it, it’s legit when they do it. Pretty simple.
Eisenhower: “It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’.”
and
even AFTER the atomic bombs Japan did not surrender unconditionally!
So, even though the Japanese were very interested in finding “some way out,” they STILL refused to surrender after one of their major cities was obliterated, and almost didn’t surrender after a second met the same horrible fate.
Man, that’s some concern for “face.”
Or, maybe they had little interest in surrendering at all…
Another piece of info to add into this discussion: It wouldn’t have just been Japanese and Allied soldiers that would have suffered in the event of a ground invasion. The Japanese housewives and other women in each neighborhood were actively training to resist with weapons, primarly the naginata (a pole arm likened to the halbred).
And of course the citizens on Okinawa had already found out what happened to “innocents” when the enemy approached; they were given hand-grenades and instructed to blow themselves and their families up, or to otherwise commit suicide.
It was a key element of the Japanese (warrior) culture that NOTHING is as bad as surrendering. Death was by far the preferable alternative. [/quote]
Well said. I can only imagine the number of (women, children and elderly) suicides that would have occurred had there been a ground invasion.
With the impending victory of American troops, civilians often committed mass suicide, urged on by the fanatical Japanese soldiers who told locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: “There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers (to blow themselves up).”[19] Some of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians who committed horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture. Some of them threw themselves and their family members from the cliffs where the Peace Museum now resides.
Thanks for the recommendations. I am going to buy the Churchill books on CD. I spend an insane amount of time in the car for work every week, so this is the best format for me right now.
For anyone else interested, the original book additions are:
The Gathering Storm
Their Finest Hour
The Grand Alliance
The Hinge of Fate
The Closing Ring
Triumph and Tragedy
The CDs are of the the 4 volume set that does cover all 6 original volumes. Each are about 10hrs. The CDs available from audible.com:
Milestones to Disaster
Alone
The Grand Alliance
Triumph and Tragedy - not available yet.
Hopefully by the time I get to the last one, it is available.
There is no better source with which to start than Winston Churchill’s 6 volume history. It is also is a demonstration of the mastery of language, writing, research and memory, all by one individual who had command–for better and for worse-at the center of the War.
Except for its huge, gaping hole called the Eastern Front.[/quote]
There is no better source with which to start than Winston Churchill’s 6 volume history. It is also is a demonstration of the mastery of language, writing, research and memory, all by one individual who had command–for better and for worse-at the center of the War.
Except for its huge, gaping hole called the Eastern Front.
What would you recommend reading on this?[/quote]
I’d just be wary of starting with Churchill, as great a writer as he was, etc. I’m a Churchill admirer, but the man made a lot of mistakes, and I think his history glosses over that to some extent.
More importantly, as I said, he pretty much ignores the Eastern Front, due to both lack of information and Cold War politics. That was where the war was won. Period. The Germans never had less than 2/3 to 3/4 of their divisions there, usually including the Wehrmacht and SS’s best.
I’ve never read a big comprehensive history of the Eastern Front, which is something I plan on doing in a couple months. But I’m told David Glanz’s books are good on the operational military side, Omer Bartov has written the definitive stuff on the ideological/race war nature of the war in Russia. For a ground level view, I read Stephen Fritz’s “Frontsoldaten” recently, it’s not bad, but you’d be better off just getting Guy Sajer’s “The Forgotten Soldier,” which Fritz quotes from extensively anyway.