Military History Books

As you would expect, typical History Channel stuff. I do think thought that the Coast Gaurd one was very informative adds a lot of value to the set. Great gift for the military buff on your gift list.

The collection of documents contained in the book provides a good look at major problems and issues spanning the entire three-hundred (say from the founding of Jamestown) or so years of American military history. Of particular interest to me was General Patton's commentary on the U.S. Army's position on tanks during the period between World War I and World War II.

There are also some articles on doctrine and on the establishment of a professional standing army. The documents do a good job of tracing the evolution of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force. In the end, the book provides a good collection of opinions on important subjects in the military's past and present.

I am a social studies teacher and my jaw dropped reading these short tidbits on historical events -- this is such a great writer in easy-to-understand language. My students love it when I tell them stuff like this you'll never find in a textbook.

This book was nice distraction. To be honest, the first time I saw it and looked at the format I thought it wouldn't be that good but actually I was pleasntly surprised. Although I was familiar with many of the stories, Beyer managed to surprise me with a few new angles on some of these bits of trivia. Better yet, he came up with several new stories I had never heard.

Great book. I look forward to more of this type.

I usually stick with known writers like David McCullough, Walter Isaacson, and Stephen B. Oates. This time I went for a new name and I'm glad I did. I had read about the little known reason why Mr. Lincoln had ordered a raid on Libby Prison in Richmond, but it had never been so interestingly explained as Mr. Beyer does in this book. It's by far one of the best books on military history that I've read. I'll describe it as having a good sense of drama with a scholar's meticulous attention. Unlike my newest one, "Kill Me If You Can", Beyer's book is one that anyone interested in military history will enjoy. No, this is not a veiled commercial. I'll assure you that unless you're an exception, you'd hate my book. Truthfully, I'm beginning to believe my motive for writing it was to see just how many people I could alienate. Bob Miller

This book is full of interesting little tidbits that are only a page spread long each, perfect for the coffee table or bathroom. It's great for whetting your appetite for a particular historical event, which, in my case, usually sends me to other books or online to find out more detail.

Short and to the point.
"Slightly" biaised to the winners point of view

Jeremy Black accomplishes exactly what he intends to do - he helps the reader to reframe & rethink many long-standing, taken-for-granted, assumptions and myths about military history. This book is a true innovative gem about military history that sparkles in a droll sea of otherwise banal commonality. This book should be on the shelf of every professional military careerist - especially those who believe that good military policy, theory, strategy, operations, and tactics begin with a solid grasp of good military history. This is a book for those who actually understand the essence of good military history - or those who want to learn about it. Afterwards, you will think about new concepts and perspectives regarding military history in ways you never dreamed of.

This book captures a variety of salient issues that all affect how we assess military effectiveness: an over-reliance upon 'junk' history, heavy technology bias in military thinking, Eurocentricness & American-centricity, a dysfunctional separation of land-vs-sea combat, preoccupation with nation-state conflicts -vs- the general continuum of conflict, a generally unfocused "political" guidance for a very wide range of highly important military issues, and our all-too-often cultural 'myopicness' in military understanding and approach.

You should disregard any myopic 'scholarly' critique that falsely purports to know exactly what the vast majority of military history readers want. Instead, you should focus on what you know you want. You should disregard any myopic 'scholarly' critique that would falsely degrade a book simply because it is written in a culturally different style of English than one is normally use to. For without doubt, there are numerous foreign writers whom average Americans as well as highly regarded academics find their foreign style of writing a bit rough in reading. ( And "Herr Clausewitz" is surely at the top of that long list.) Instead, you should focus on the content of new concepts and perspectives - not miniscule nuances in writing style.

If anything, this book may overwhelm the average (or below average) reader only because it is heavily laden, page-to-page, with a plethora of new concepts and perspectives by a master military historian - who has looked at military history from every side of a military Rubik's Cube - and knows exactly what he is talking about.

You cannot read this book only once - for if you love military history, this book WILL captivate you.

Bottom line: this book fills a much needed gap in reviewing the state of military historiography and its themes. This alone makes it worthwhile for military historians to read this book.

If you're familiar with Black's work, you're already familiar with many of the themes in the book. However, the book captures all of them and then some. He basically addresses six "problems" he sees in "the state of military history as generally consumed by the public at large:" too much of a Eurocentric (and American) focus; a technological bias in explaining military capability; a focus on leading powers and dominant military systems; a separation of land and sea conflict; a focus on traditional state vs. state conflict; and a lack of focus on "political tasking" in the setting of force structure, doctrines and goals, and in the judging of military success. His argument isn't necessarily that these aspects of military history are wrong, only that they ignore other aspects that lead to a fuller understanding of the world -- it skews the perspective.

Black also reviews how military historians have treated warfare since the beginning of the early modern period with chapters on 1500-1815, 1775-1918, and 1914 to today. Although I've read his opinions on many of these themes, there's enough new in the book to make it interesting, and he pulls it together in a more thoughtful manner. In fact, Black refers to it as a "thought book" with a global perspective.

The book is not an easy read and it's not because of differences between American and British writing styles. Black is always a difficult read, as anyone who has read his other books can attest. As an American who has lived in the UK for seven years, and who earned his Masters in War Studies at King's College London, I can tell you there are plenty of other British military historians who are easier to read (Such as Michael Howard, Brian Holden-Reid, Max Hastings, and Colin S. Grey.) Having said that, he may be tough to read, but he's worth it...especially with this book.

Some critiques are NOT culturally sensitive, intelligent, or insightful - nor are they competent, "scholarly" critiques.

In defense of this fine book versus misguided `unscholarly' critiques {especially by the arrogance of those who might openly beg the moniker of "scholar"}, one should be aware of several fundamental nuances that are highly important:

1) The true merit/worth of any book is embedded deep within the intellectually salient, insightful, timely and prescient concepts that a book presents for review and discussion. It is actually quite irrelevant whether or not a book is "perceived" as containing dreadful prose with awkward syntax by some personal standard. There are many highly intelligent and insightful people who don't speak, write, or read the King's English - and most Americans fall under that category. Yet, this small flaw in writing does not and should not detract from recognizing true intelligence and insightfulness - at least not to those who are truly intelligent and insightful and deserving of the title "scholar".

2) The concepts presented in Jeremy Black's book "Rethinking Military History" are indeed intellectually salient, insightful, timely, prescient, and, without doubt, highly irreverent to those who are hopelessly doomed as only be able to think in the drudgery of old, obsolete, paradigms that no longer work. It is only because some folks are hopelessly doomed to think inside the trap of flawed obsolete thought patterns that they cannot understand true intellectual insightfulness when they see it - which is precisely why they can't "see" anything that doesn't coincide with their stodgy mentality. This book is for those who want intellectual stimulation with fresh new insights on the vast and convoluted subject of military history - it is NOT a book that is for those who are intellectually challenged on the subject of military history. However, it is a book that requires the reader to actually think and reflect - something that many self-professed `scholars' have forgotten how to do. It is NOT a book about battles and leaders, nor is it a "lessons learned" type book. It is a book for the kind of professional development that can only be accomplished through reading and reflecting upon unusual concepts and new ideas.

3) Jeremy Black is a "British" military historian - and the British culture versus the American culture are often noted for being separated by a common language. This small insignificant fact may help account for the misperception that Black's prose is dreadfully laden with faulty syntax and other unpardonable faux pas. Of course, the true cognoscenti can see beyond such small issues, and they automatically ask the question " Awkward syntax by what standard - the British cultural standard or the American cultural standard?

If you seriously purport yourself to be a `scholar' of military history - a true scholar who craves intellectual stimulation with fresh new insights - then read, think and reflect upon Jeremy Black's book "Rethinking Military History" !

Black sees some major problems in military history today:
1. Eurocentricity-especially in western Europe and the USA.
2. Technology bias in explaining military cabability and fascination with technology.
3. A focus on leading powers and dominant military systems.
4. A separation of land from sea conflict in most analysis.
5. A focus on state to state conflict rather that use of force within states (except for major civil wars).
6. A lack of focus on political tasking in the setting of force structures, doctrines and goals, and in judging military success.
He also identifies several trends, noting that the emphasis on technology is too great; there has been a primitivization of non-western combatants, and that military history has a very battle centered approach. Black calls for lowering barriers between history and social sciences work on war and violence. Why? There has been too much emphasis on operational accounts.
Military history now is the "last stronghold of the Whig interpretation." He urges us to beware of any one "western way of war" (as does John Lynne), meta-narratives, paradigms and mono-causal explantations. He emphasizes diversity of military practice: there is no single western way of war...War is pluralistsic in its character.
There has also been a trend to simplify the non-western military history.
He also calls for a debate on how to explain military change: we can't just assume that it's a mechanisitic or an automatic search for efficiency to maximize force. Traditional military histories avoid using cultural approach, which is related to war and society. With regard to assessing operational capabilities, Black says that care should be taken to avoid focusing too much on resources and technology, especially weapons systems and in the history of asymmetrical warfare.
He also seems to reject Keegan's work to some degree, especially the "Face of battle approach": it shows a timeless quality of men facing combat which may not take into account that battle is much more culturally conditioned and varied.

All of this is important to the current state of military history, and should be the subject of great debate. The problem is this: the vast majority of people who read military history (and thus buy the books on the shelves) want books about battles and leaders, especially with a dramatic, fast paced narrative OR they are military/defense professionals either in uniform or civilians, who want professional development/"lessons learned" type books. The reading audience does not want cultural history overlays to their "trumpets and drums" books, nor do they want to see race, class and gender as the focus of this subject. Black covers this fairly well in the first chapter of the book.
The problem with THIS book though is that Black's prose is truly dreadful. An editor with some backbone should have turned it back to him and said "make it readable." The book is so poorly written, with severely awkward syntax, etc. that its impact will be limited because so few people will be able to tread the whole thing.

"On Common Ground" encapsulates the the journey of reconciliation embarked upon by veterans of the 28th Infantry Regiment, 8th Infantry Division during their visit to Europe in 1999. The film culminates in a meeting of American and German veterans who opposed one another in the deadly Huertgen Forest Campaign during the fall of 1944. "On Common Ground" lends a real-life look at the best of "Saving Private Ryan," and "Band of Brothers" combined. The emotions expressed by the American and German veterans, and the memories they share about their war time experiences are priceless. The film combines veteran interviews with historical themes throughout. The instrumental character is Michael Eliasof, president of the 28th Regiment Association, and a gifted story-teller. Of the thirty-man platoon who landed with Eliasof at Utah Beach on July 4, 1944, only six survived the war. The producers chose to focus on the veterans and allow them to tell their own stories. We see a true to life heart retching experience, reminiscent of "Saving Private Ryan" in an American military cemetery. Here, Stephen J. Butko of Pittsburgh, Pa. visits the grave of a fallen comrade. In 1944, Butko was offered a promotion from private to sergeant. He refused, but recommended his friend Elmer M. Miller get the job instead. Miller was killed two days later, and Butko has blamed himself ever since. Butko was eventually evacuated with combat exhaustion, and his segments are some of the most honest and moving in the film. Allowing the veterans to tell the whole story, presents problems, however. A more careful campaign structure on the 8th Division, would have provided a more solid framework from which to support the veteran's perspective. There was a military historian, Steve Bowman with the group, but apparently, most of his comments wound up on the editing room floor. The vets mention the various campaigns - Normandy, Brittany, Huertgen Forest, the German cities of Duren and Cologne, the Ruhr Pocket, liberating the concentration camp at Wobbelin, and eventual link-up with the Russians - but, only briefly. Anyone not familiar with the 8th Division, an outfit that sustained a 140% casualty rate, will not be any more informed from this documentary. A more careful telling of the campaigns would have underscored the ordeal these brave vets endured. The view from the foxhole was a narrow one. Grand strategy did not trickle down to the M-1 toting grunt. For instance, Eliasof contends that the Americans could have "advanced through the valley near Aachen, and been to the Rhine River in days" instead of fighting for months in the Huertgen Forest (He is referring here to the "Aachen Gap"). Likewise, a German veteran reinforces this claim by stating he is amazed that the Americans entered the Huertgen Forest in the first place. The film leaves it at that. The American strategy, of course was not that simple. But this is the crucks of the controversy that has vailed the Huertgen Forest Campaign ever since. The producers tightly kept the lid on a perpetual can of worms. To lend "professionalism," the producers injected brief comments by Tom Brokaw and Walter Cronkite. Cronkite was a war correspondent who accompanied combat units in Europe, and a much loved grandfather figure. Brokaw, getting more mileage out of the success of his "Greatest Generation" book, is a suave talking head. He is a top-notch professional journalist, not an historian, and by no means an expert on the history of WWII. Lastly, the producers chose to add a bitter controversy about German concentration camps and whether or not "ordinary Germans" were aware of their existence at the time. Eliasof wisely concludes that the German infantrymen opposing him apparently did not know of the true nature of the camps. The German infantryman, argues Eliasof, like his American counterpart, was merely trying to survive the riggers of combat, and was most likely not any better informed about the camps existence than Eliasof and his buddies were. One German admitted he had some knowledge of them, but assumed they were forced labor camps, and that the prisoners were fed and treated reasonably well. Others, claim they were totally unaware of their existence until after the war. Interestingly, two of the German veterans reveal that today, they are looked down upon by the younger generation of Germans (including members of their own families) as "murderers" for having been in the German military, and not opposing Hitler. As a spokesman of his own generation, he pleads with the viewers to reconsider this sentiment. The producers add a rebuttal (special feature) by Daniel Goldhagen, author of the book _Hitler's Willing Executioners_. Goldhagen's book is required reading in colleges. He argues that all Germans, at every level of society knew about the existence of the camps, and because of that knowledge, are deemed "perpetrators" in the Holocaust. On the one hand, this topic certainly cannot be ignored. The Holocaust was horrible beyond description. Since the 8th Division did take part in the liberation of the Wobbelin concentration camp, these vets saw the ghastly results with their own eyes. On the other hand, one gets the feeling that the German veterans who agreed to meet with the Americans in the Huertgen in 1999, were set-up and pummelled by the producers with the added weight of Goldhagen. But unfortunately, living with this dark chapter in German history is a fact of life for all Germans. If anything, the film brought that out. With American and German World War II veterans dying at an alarming rate, this film is indispensable for its historic value. I hope it finds it way to PBS, or other educational cable channels, so a wider range of viewers will benefit from its content. Despite this mild critique, this documentary comes highly recommended. Gregory Canellis son of Sgt. Nicholas Canellis, 13th Infantry, 8th Division 1941-1945 (deceased 1962).

It's an excellent film. I never truly felt like I understood the sacrifices and trials that our soldiers went through in World War II. The reunion between the American soldiers and the German soldiers makes you think.

Nothing can really substitute for listening to the accounts of the soldiers themselves who fought in war. Much has been written by former soldiers of their trials in combat but rarely are they recorded in an interview. This is an excellent compilation, well recorded and produced, of such accounts from a cross section the various campaigns of WWII. Not many veterans open up to discuss war to their family or anyone so listening to these heroes is a rare exception. My father, a veteran of the ETO, saw horrible combat as he battled through France and into Nazi Germany but never mentioned a word of it to his children. These interviews help fill in some of the gaps in understanding the war from their perspective. Thanks to those soldiers who reopened those painful moments to be recorded for others to hear. Even if you are not a student of history I recommend these just for the inspiring stories themselves.

Doughty's book covers exactly what it says. It provides a good overview of American military history beginning basically with the colonists' battles with Native Americans. This book really shines in its discussion of the technology behind warfare and how it affected key battles. For example, its sections on the technology of World War I (machine gun, plane and tank) are carried through when discussing World War II. I felt the authors did a good job of trying to create a logical flow of progression. Though I'm not sure if killing more people faster is "progress" but I digress.

There are also smaller sections on important military commanders. The authors also have no problem calling a spade a spade and telling the reader who did a bad job. And based on the Civil War section lots of people did lots of bad jobs.

There are, obviously, more in-depth studies of all the military actions and technology discussed in the book. But the importance of the book is to tie all of these facets together and create a larger view of American military history. Overall, the book did a good job creating a sense of evolution of western warfare.

As a big fan of military aviation with a solid background of electromagnetics, I am always expecting a film like this for each stealth aircraft and I think I've got one.

From the early history and experience of bombing to the design of stealth technology, this film goes through every detail. The explanation and illustration of the techniques, including stealth technology and aerodynamics, are without doubt the strength of this DVD. This is what impresses me most. For the stealth technology, I rate this film even better than "Stealth Technology" released by THC in 2006. Generally speaking, this film does a great job on technical explanation, simple and clear, so that it is very educative as well.

The bonus features of this DVD are also enjoyable and worth watching. They include 3D tour of B-2, slideshow, Whiteman AFB......etc. If you are a US citizen, you can even reserve a tour in Whiteman AFB!

In my opinion, this film is professionally made and it won't let you down.

This has been very delighful to watch for me and should be so for any person who is interested in military analysis. This DVD is designed especially for B-2 fans like me. It even contains "How to become a B-2 pilot" guide which although being very interesting is a pain for me cause I'm never gonna be one for about a hundred reasons...

This is a splendid 8 CD set with an essential selection of radio broadcasts from the era of the Second World War:
CD 1 - Churchill speaks after the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany; The attack on Pearl Harbor; German radio propaganda.
CD 2 - Eastern Front broadcasts from France and Germany.
CD 3 - Western Front broadcasts including a harrowing eyewitness account of the Bataan Death March.
CD 4 - Report of the Allied Air Force over Japan and Germany.
CD 5 - Complete show of the "Fighting Army Air Force" from the summer of 1945.
CD 6 - Battlefront broadcasts from Guam and a "Fighting AAF" broadcast.
CD 7 - Broadcasts from the battlefront on Iwo Jima.
CD 8 - The surrender broadcast of General Wainwright on Corregidor in 1942 and General MacArthur's 1945 speech on the return to the Philippines.

Narration is mercifully limited on this set and the cost is a great value. There is no clamshell case but the package contains liner notes and reviews the content on the CD's.
A must-have keepsake for enthusiasts of Old Time Radio in America.

This was a very interesting glimpse into the life of soldiers in WWII, and contains some interesting radio broadcasts from the era.

The quality of the audio is on par with the technology available for the time and the publishers did not run it through any filters, (or if they did some of it was very poor quality to begin with). However, this product does deliver on what it advertises.

Its historical significance is only appreciable, to those who already study the events of WWII; this product is in no way a solid tool to use, other than enhancing existing resources with some interesting audio clips.

If you are looking for some audio clips from the era, and will not mind the (understandable) quality issues of the clips, then this may be a good product for you.

Not much of a review really but a good read with good ilistrations.

It is one of the best books of the series. It is well described of the battles leading up to leipzig and the leipzig battle its self. Many good battle pictures along with the 2d and 3d battle maps. I highly recremend it for you napoleonic fans or theose who want this book fore their collection.

The author does a nice job of breaking down the intricies of Leipzig and the smaller battles that lead up to it into clear and understandable points. As mentioned by another reviewer, there is an outstanding order of battle which is very helpful given the number of leaders on hand for this conflict.

Interesting points brought to light by Mr. Hofschroer are the conflicting agendas of the Allied Nations and the challenges that posed in formulating an effective strategy. Also detailed were the resource limitations and political pressures facing Napolean, that contributed to his defeat at Leipzig.

My only complaints are that there isn't the a biography section on the commanders that is prevalent in many of the Osprey books. This is more a limitation of the publisher's format than a fault of the author. In addition, the maps are not up to the usual standards of this series.

This author also wrote a book on the battle of Lutzen & Bautzen which occurred in the spring campaign, prior to this confilct. For greater appreciation of the Leipzig text, I would recommend reading the other before hand (although this is not necessary)

This volume is an excellent overview of the decisive campaign in Germany that untimately decided the fate of Napoleon's Empire. Written by an acknowledged authority on the Prussian and German armies of the period, it gives an authoritative viewpoint of the events and battles leading up to the largest battle of the Napoleonic Wars, the three day slugfest at Leipzig.

The narrative flows very well and is easy to follow, and it is packed with information, even though it had to follow the somewhat strict regimen of the Osprey guidelines. Profusely illustrated as are all Ospreys, the pictures are very well chosen, and the color plates are a mixture of artwork by Richard Knotel, Bellange, K.H. Rahl, Rabe, J.A Klein, and Krause. Only one appears to be by the staff artists at Osprey, which is a change.

There are very good descriptions of the armies of the main belligerents in the campaign, including the Swedes. The orders of battle are exhaustive and accurate, and are useful for both historians and wargamers.

Errors are few. The two most noticeable concern the Grande Armee. First, the author states that at the Battle of Kulm 'Vandamme's Corps had been wiped out.' Actually, the I Corps, Vandamme's, lost almost half at Kulm, the rest broke out of the allied trap and escaped. They were reorganized and placed under the command of General Mouton, Count of Lobau. They were later captured with St. Cyr when Dresden capitulated. Second, the author mentions that the garrisons Napoleon left in Danzig and the lower Elbe 'were largely veterans of the 1812 campaign with experienced officers.' The fact of the matter is, that most of the troops in these garrisons only became veterans as they endured the fighting during their respective sieges in this campaign.

These slight errors, however, do not detract from the overall impact of this volume. This is a carefully researched and well-written book that stands on its own, and can be used as a reference for the campaign with confidence.

I highly recommend this book on Leipzig. It is a valuable additionn to any Napoleonic library, and is listed in the Recommended Reading List of the newest edition of A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars by Esposito and Elting, which is a superb recommendation in itself.

The dramatizations were not very good in this one. They also didn't present as many facts as I had hoped. I saw a different knights templar documentary on the history channel and it was far far better than this one. This one is ok. Mildly entertaining, and some decent info.

WARNING -- this entire documentary is included as a bonus on disk 2 of "Crusade: the Crescent and the Cross", also made by the History Channel. Not only that, but at the time I am writing this review, "Crescent and the Cross" is selling for less than $15, for 2 disks, with bonus material, while this DVD, "Knights Templar" is selling for about $22 and contains no bonus material at all.

"Knights Templar" is a good, not great, documentary. The story is very good, if brief, but the film footage is definitely NOT up to the History Channel's usual quality. They use a lot of Black and White footage from what looks like a very low budget film -- people swinging weapons like they don't know what to do with them. No actual actors performing for the camera, just background footage with voice-over.

My recommendation -- if you are interested in the history of the Knights of the Temple of King Solomon, buy this DVD, but as the bonus disk in "Crusade: The Crescent and the Cross". That, by the way, is a GREAT DVD!

DVD shows a lot the same images and there are no visits to remaining castles in the world or so. Its the whole time narrating with few asthonishing images.

The history channel usually does a good job at mixing the informative side of history with the Hollywood side of visual effects and this episode is no different. With clips of fighting, knights on horseback, actual geographical video and their new technology of 3D maps, they do an outstanding job of giving you a full understanding of the terrain mentioned and the layout of the events covered. The Knights of Templar are very much shrouded in mystery so the daunting challenge was handled well in not just covering what is known but logical explanations to a lot of the unanswered questions left behind. I don't want to go into any detail and give anything away for those who have not seen it, but, from conception to their demise, from logical motive of their creation to how they fared in battle it is all covered in an easy to follow and informative way. These knights played such a huge part in history and it is all covered; first standing army since Roman times, first real bankers, historians, what did they find in their tunneling under the Temple of Solomon? And as I said, what they don't have legit answers for they have experts with logical explanations and hypothesis. I thought I knew a lot about them, but really learned a great deal. Recommended highly.