World War 2

Try

'Power Politics, Whipping Up Fights Where There Aren't Any, Knocking Off People Cause Their Noses Are Too Long For Dummies'.

Serriously, I know of no book that is a starters guide, but if you want a good overview, Readers Digest did a book called 'The World At Arms'. Ususally Readers Digest isn't on any recommended reading list, but this has good maps, a reasonable overview, without getting too serious, and doesn't just focus on ther military side of the conflict.

If you really want a book to fascinate you, definitely get 'A World At Arms' (you read that right) by Weinberg.

It's huge (over 1000 pages), but an excellent book nonetheless. Mostly a political expose (e.g. D-Day gets about a paragraph).

It was so huge a conflict that one book doesn't really cut it.

If Joe is prepared to recommend 1000 pages, and I do agree that no small book would cover it, then I will suggest the six big volumes of Churchill's History of the Second Woeld War. In fact this ought to be on everyone's reading list over the course of a lifetime. Not because it is other thn a victor's view, it does contain all the history. A fantastic framework to then work away from with added references on individual aspects and contrasted visions of the events.

There is no shortcut to understanding the complexity of it, and Churchil's book starts with the cessation of the First World War and sets the twenty years history, the setting of the scene before the actual War starts at all. Without undertanding the "Why?" then understand the "How?" is rendered pretty much hopeless!

ATB from George

Worth a visit to the library and see what is available.They may have someone with a WW2 interest or point you towards a local who has.

Howard

Not a history of WW2 but a fascinating read, The Bunker by James P. O'Donnell. O'Donnell was a US Army officer who was released from active duty to be a reporter for Newsweek. This book recounts the final months of the Third Reich with interviews and some choice gossip.



US

Try this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0140128360/ref...id=1191310922&sr=1-1

Nice and cheap too

Anything by Stephen Ambrose, for a perspective from the US.

Phil Barry

A.J.P Taylor's masterly 'The Origins Of The Second World War' and Angus Calder's 'The People's War'. The latter giving a unique perspective on the war from an ordinary civilian's point view.

I suspect that any reasonably detailed overview of the whole war will be very tedious - the subject matter is so vast. In the great scheme of things the UK was probably not central to WW2. I suggest that reading really interesting books which bring aspects of the war alive and give you an idea of what it was like to live through the war will more stimulating and whet your apitite for further further reading. So some 'unputdownable' books:
Anthony Beevor - Stalingrad
Anthony Beevour - Berlin the Downfall 1945
and the great classic of the war:
Vasily Grossman - Life and Fate

quote:

Originally posted by David McN:
... In the great scheme of things the UK was probably not central to WW2...

Ludicrous comment...

Perhaps this is what happens when you read only selected and exciting parts of the history, however tedious you may find the big picture.

George

uk effort not central to ww2

is that boy off his head

during european campaign us had a milloan men in the campaign but that was everybody not fighting troops

however lest we forget ussr lost more people than will ever be known

if it wasnt for patton us army would still be in the cotentin penisula

mike

David

I have to agree with the above. If that was a throwaway comment then it was ill thought out.

The central event of World War 2 was probably the Battle of Britain. If Britain had fallen in 1940, then there is no way Russia could have held out (particularly without Anerican material support which could not have been got to them) and the Americans would have faced a hostile Asia and Europe with no allies to speak of.

Without the Battle of Britain no Stalingrad, No D-day etc, etc.

In short the Germans and Japanese win.

That seems pretty central to me.

My recomendation is not for a book but for the BBC World At War series.

Epic in scope but with an emphasis on oral history rather than editorial content. You might be able to borrow it from your library perhaps?

Bruce

Thanks guy's. There appears to be plenty to get stuck into. Looking forward to it. I bet if this thread runs long enough i won't have to buy any books, it'll all just flood out here - especially with comments like GB not central to WW2......

Thanks again.... My girlfriend can now rest easy - i asked for a WW2 book for Christmas and she didn't know where to start - like me!!!

ATB

Paul

It has to be a matter of opinion. There is no doubt that Britain played a major part in the war, but in terms of armaments, scale and casulties for instance the German - Russian campaigns were much more important and if Hitler had not operated on the Eastern Front we would have been swamped. Just start getting aquainted with the numbers:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_World_War_2

Dear David,

You will have to do better than that. I believe the term for statements like yours is "revisionism."

Without the UK, there would have been no victory over Nazism, Fascism, and Nationalism. It is really that simple.

It was very touch and go! May I suggest reading the Churchill as mentioned above. Probably too long to be of interest, but at least you would know how close to loosing we came!

ATB from George

david i can forgive you if you are american as you have had a limited view of world history


enigma
won the war for usa and gb and france

and contrary to fim versions

we got it first so there

and our dear allies the pole virtually smuggled the component parts of v1 and v2 so we could

develop a defence

many lost their lives

anyway this is the padded cell

go read and learn

usa did build the sherman but the brits put a gun in it which could a kill tiger tanks

i could go on but i wont cause murphys law is coming on

mike

never in the field of human endeavour is so much screwed up by american authors

ps wiki equals spurious unsubstantiated nonsense

mike

i'm afraid i have to jump into the fray here, having just seen yet another ww2 doc. the other night.

1. i second reco. of churchill's multi-vol. ww2 history. i read it as a child, and it was, for me, a page-turner. possibly not the most scholarly history, but the man was there in the thick of it and that counts for a lot. as stated above, it is too large a slice of history to cover properly in one vol., so perhaps just read a summary and then go on to works on specific aspects that interest you. do read about enigma...

2. the idea that g.b. was not central to ww2 is absurdist nonsense. i assume this was thrown up as a punching bag. yes, 20 or 30 million died in russia, but however tragic that was and is, there is something supremely elegant about the fact that, for a few weeks, the fate of western civilization in the best sense was dependent on a handful of british-made fighters and the boys flying them.

Dear Artie,

Thanks for splendidly summing up the Churchill. It is partial in respects, but nothing is left out. In one respect it is also crucial in that it shows the attitude of the leader of the British Government at the time as well. And it is a real page-turner, such is the readability of Churchill's prose, though it certainly is terribly long.

If one looks into the precarious situation in the Spring and Summer of 1940, it soon becomes obvious that the result could easily have gone the other way. What was preserved at that time was the possibility of Allied Victory at a much later stage, and after some terrible sacrifices from this most diverse collection of Allies. Has there ever been a more unlikely Alliance than between the US and UK, with the USSR at a not much later time in the War? As Churchill wryly observed, "You walk with the Devil, across the bridge...."

ATB from George

What's really odd about the whole WW2 thing. Every time I read a book about it or see a documentary on it, I find a part of myself secretly rooting for the Nazi's. Very strange but it maybe due to the fact that I know they are going to lose and therefor they are the underdog.


Also, evil has a certain fascination that good doesn't seem to manage on paper and on film. Let's face it, more people read about Adolf Hitler than Winston Churchill.



US

Dear Unstoppable,

Sadly, all too sadly, there is a popular modern fascination with evil!

At least you have seen the problem, so once again I can only hope that you examine the side that defended more civilised values and find an ultimate revulsion in those who brought the world to such a close brush with loosing to the evil forces, which cost so dearly to defeat.

Because I started my interest in this late I never had a fascination with the Nazis and their cohorts - only revulsion. I am sure there is too much Television on the Nazis, which somehow almost glorifies their technical wizardry and almost incredible work ethic, whilst not making nearly plain enough just how demented and deranged were their ideas, plans, and actions.

The idea of the Nazis and their cohorts being the underdogs, worthy of some sneaking sympathy is rather frightening to me.

All the best from George

Paul,
a small stocking filler showing things from the viewpoint of the Axis powers might also be in order. So does anyone know one?

quote:

Every time I read a book about it or see a documentary on it, I find a part of myself secretly rooting for the Nazi's.

god yhere are so many arses in the world

are you american

do you know nothing of what happened in europe in world war 2

try watching schindlers list and see how easy it is to go yea nazis

shoot the little girl

i feel an expletive coming on as the only way to express a my sense of horror at these throw away opinions

f88k



how can people think this

sorry

mike

Oxgangs, if only you improved your choice of words, layout and writing style a little.

It's very stream of consciousness, isn't it?