OT - American History

[AngryScientist]

i'll start out by saying that i am honestly embarrassed to admit the following:

i found myself involved in a discussion with a co-worker today, and quickly realized that my knowledge of American History is definitely lacking, big time.

-i have no idea why we were involved with WWI
-Vietnam War - i've heard lots of opinions and such, but really - what was going on there
-the Korean War - ??? i'll assume it had something to do with Korea, beyond that, i'm in the dark.

as i mentioned, i'm in no way proud of my ignorance, and today was somewhat of an eye opener.

can anyone recommend a good boor or two that doesnt read like a history textbook that can bring me up to speed on what our great country's history is, at the moment i'm particularly interested in the wars we were involved in, but general knowledge is good too.

obviously there are an overwhelming number of texts written, i dont know where to begin to select something comprehensive, well written that will hold my interest.

thanks all. :confused:

[rw229]

Maybe not the best source for information, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

[TMB]

i'll start out by saying that i am honestly embarrassed to admit the following:

i found myself involved in a discussion with a co-worker today, and quickly realized that my knowledge of American History is definitely lacking, big time.

-i have no idea why we were involved with WWI
-Vietnam War - i've heard lots of opinions and such, but really - what was going on there
-the Korean War - ??? i'll assume it had something to do with Korea, beyond that, i'm in the dark.

as i mentioned, i'm in no way proud of my ignorance, and today was somewhat of an eye opener.

can anyone recommend a good boor or two that doesnt read like a history textbook that can bring me up to speed on what our great country's history is, at the moment i'm particularly interested in the wars we were involved in, but general knowledge is good too.

obviously there are an overwhelming number of texts written, i dont know where to begin to select something comprehensive, well written that will hold my interest.

thanks all. :confused:


Why do you want to hang around with boors???

[akelman]

WWI is a puzzler, I'll admit, but you can find a decent accounting of what we were doing there in TJ Jackson Lears's Rebirth of a Nation. Lears is a historian, mind you, but the book is written in a style that you might find pleasing enough. From there, I heartily recommend Freedom from Fear, which is also penned by a historian, David Kennedy, but intended for general readers. Korea is a tougher nut to crack. The book of record on the subject is William Stueck's The Korean War. I think you'll find that it's a tougher slog than the Lears or Kennedy books, but it's where you want to go to understand the Cold War context that brought us to the Korean peninsula. Finally, on Vietnam you have many choices. But honestly, I think the best thing to do is to watch the PBS documentary series, Vietnam: A Television History. It's very beautifully done, very well told, and quite chilling. That said, if you really want a book, maybe start with Stanley Karnow's Vietnam. Like the Stueck, it's a bit dry and detailed, but it's pretty gripping nevertheless. You could also look at the brilliant A Bright and Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan, but that's quite a bit narrower.

When you decide you want to learn about the Civil War, let me know. At that point, I'll actually know something about the topic and can be much more useful to you. In the meantime, treat this project like your first century: go much slower than you need to, make sure you have sustenance along the way, stop frequently, and stay focused on having fun.

[AngryScientist]

thanks akelman! its getting to the colder months now, which means that i make a shift from hanging out on the patio drinking red at night to sitting in the office, drinking scotch and reading. this is my winter to embrace our history:)

[MattTuck]

-i have no idea why we were involved with WWI
-Vietnam War - i've heard lots of opinions and such, but really - what was going on there
-the Korean War - ??? i'll assume it had something to do with Korea, beyond that, i'm in the dark.



I doubt you'll find a book on all of these topics... but several books might cover the range.

I'm sure there are "political" answers to your questions, and then the real answers. In other words, there is not just one reason or one event that leads an entire nation into war.

These are highly simplistic answers.

WWI: Our allies were in it, ergo, we were in it.

Korea: Proxy war against Russia & the communists.

Vietnam: Proxy war against Russia, more specifically, the strategic rationale was the "domino effect", that if certain South East asian countries went communist, democracy would be lost forever.

watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76wv2ybJelQ
Does it sound anything like the WMDs in Iraq argument? This is why history should be studied, or else we're doomed to repeat the mistakes of our past.

[gdw]

The Zimmermann Telegram by Barbara W. Tuchman is the book to read if you want to understand why the US went to war in 1917.
http://www.amazon.com/Zimmermann-Telegram-Barbara-W-Tuchman/dp/0345324250

[sg8357]

-i have no idea why we were involved with WWI
-Vietnam War - i've heard lots of opinions and such, but really - what was going on there
-the Korean War - ??? i'll assume it had something to do with Korea, beyond that, i'm in the dark.

WWI, you already have the right answer.
"Goodbye to All That" by Robert Graves if you want a feel of WWI.

Vietnam, "Paris 1919" by Margaret MacMillan,
Covers the origin of the Vietnam War, Uncle Ho attended Versailles Conference seeking Vietnamese independence. You also get to find out about how WWII, the Balkan wars (1990s edition),
and the whole mess in the Mideast got started.

Korea, "Team America World Police", an accurate portrayal of NK leadership.

[Lifelover]

You are not alone. Sounds like your knowledge base is just a little more advanced than mine. If it wasn't for the sequental thing, I might not have known there was a WWI.

Please, after you have studied up, report back on your findings.

[AngryScientist]

You are not alone. Sounds like your knowledge base is just a little more advanced than mine. If it wasn't for the sequental thing, I might not have known there was a WWI.

Please, after you have studied up, report back on your findings.

good to hear i'm not the only one. from early on i took an interest in engineering and all things scientific, history and liberal arts have always been in the back seat, hopefully i can regain some ground.

[rugbysecondrow]

My preference is to study history through the eyes of the players, an example would be Carl Sandburgs' Lincoln biographies (Early years,Prarie Years, Civil War years), offers a view of Civil War. The "First American" is a biography on Franklin that offers Revolutionary War insight. 1776 is also a good one about the Revolutionary war. For Vietnam, there is a book that discusses the relationship between Nixon and Kissinger (http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Partners-Robert-Dallek/dp/0060722304) which I think helps to understand Vietnam better. I find the people more interesting than the events, others are different and like the battles facts etc.

One of my favorites (if one could really enoy reading books like this) that offers war insight through the eyes of the soldiers is, "Dear America, Letters Home from Vietnam". http://www.amazon.com/Dear-America-Letters-Home-Vietnam/dp/0393323048/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283885597&sr=1-2. It publishes letters from soldiers on the front lines, then there is a narration that says what happended to these soldiers. It is chilling, sad and often happy all at once. Reading what these guys were going through, what was on their mind while there were doing it...it was eye opening and you don't view things the same after reading it, IMO.

Enjoy!

[mcteague]

For the Vietnam war Google "Gulf of Tonkin". A supposed attack on the US was used as an excuse to enter the war. The whole thing sounds like "weapons of mass destruction" and turned out to be just as much of a lie. War is politics by other means. Not an original statement but it still holds true.


"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering

Tim

[malcolm]

Many good history books are out there. Try and read the same history from different perspectives. Keep in mind while reading all history is by definition biased by the observer/recorder. American history is very different among various american observers and you can imagine if you were to read say the history of WW II from the japanese perspective.

[pbbob]

The Great War and the shaping of the 20th century by winter and baggett
this is the companion book for the pbs series 1996

Testament of Youth, by Vera Brittain for another feel of ww1
The First World War by Martin Gilbert

visit a museum, see a monument in a town near you for the impact of the war in that area.

[rugbysecondrow]

For the Vietnam war Google "Gulf of Tonkin". A supposed attack on the US was used as an excuse to enter the war. The whole thing sounds like "weapons of mass destruction" and turned out to be just as much of a lie. War is politics by other means. Not an original statement but it still holds true.


"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering

Tim

It helps if the point is illustrated, such as a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11...is that what you mean by a supposed attack or were you just quoting?

[Joellogicman]

WWI: Our allies were in it, ergo, we were in it.

The Brits and French were not really our allies. Their empire-driven foreign policy was quite often at odds with U.S. goals at the time.

U.S. banks and wealthy individual investors bought a lot of British bonds though.

[Joellogicman]

It helps if the point is illustrated, such as a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11...is that what you mean by a supposed attack or were you just quoting?

Although the quote sure makes sense vis-a-vis 9/11 and the Iraq War or the current all Muslims are out to get us mid-term electioneering.

[majorpat]

Viet Nam: try "Street Without Joy" by Bernard Fall for why we ended up there and the early years. Also, "Once, a Warrior King" by David Donovan.
World War I we entered very late in the game, sent vastly fewer troops than the other major combatants and were able to bask in the glory of victory with comparably less suffering. To break it down grunt style: WWI was essentially the end of imperial Europe and set the stage for the conflict of the nation-states of WWII. Almost too many books about WWII to mention but a good description of combat is "And No Birds Sang" by Farley Mowat or "Goodbye Darkness" by William Manchester.
Korea was all about communism and most certainly was a proxy war against Russia. Actually kind of a proxy-proxy as we ended up battling mostly the Chinese. A good historiographical book is "The Marines of Autumn" by James Brady or better yet, "Colder than Hell" by Joe Owen true account about the Chosin Reservoir.
I tend to recommend written accounts of troops on the ground as that was what I was. Good reading!
Pat

[Ken Robb]

A classic best-seller about the origins of WW I is Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August". William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" covers the European Theater of WW II very well. Perhaps just as good but less well-known is Alan Bullock's "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny".

A really neat overview of domestic American History is "Westward Expansion" by Ray Billington one of my very favorite professors from my college days. He is a follower of the theory of Frederick Jackson Turner who has come in for some criticism by some modern historians but I think there is more fact than fiction to their theories.

Have fun with your investigations.

[BengeBoy]

This 4-DVD set is a really good overview of WWI:

http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-Complete/dp/B0009S2K9C/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1283907441&sr=8-4

This book, by John Keegan (who is British), is a classic single-volume overview of the War:

http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-John-Keegan/dp/0375700455/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283907600&sr=1-8

As you may know, America was not really in WWI until the very end, and so the two histories above are more about the war, and only peripherally about America's involvement.

If you want to an interesting book about the end of the war, try this -- it's about the last day of the fighting in WWI, and tells the story that even though everyone knew the war was over there was still a lot of fighting going on as individual military units fought over meaningless scraps of territory. In addition to telling that story, the book has a good overview of the whole war:


http://www.amazon.com/Eleventh-Month-Day-Hour-Armistice/dp/0375760458/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283907738&sr=1-1

[Joellogicman]

As you may know, America was not really in WWI until the very end, and so the two histories above are more about the war, and only peripherally about America's involvement.

U.S. casualties in WWI were more than 117k killed and 200+k injured. That is more than twice our losses in Viet Nam.

If the U.S. had thrown in its lot with Germany - assuming it could have ever got its troop past the blockade - the war could easily have gone the other way.

Even if the U.S. had done the more logical thing and stayed out altogether the more likely result would have been the combatants just stopped fighting rather than the surrender and one sided treaty.

[csm]

WWI was about steamships and transatlantic crossings.
the Duke was just a ruse.

[BengeBoy]

U.S. casualties in WWI were more than 117k killed and 200+k injured. That is more than twice our losses in Viet Nam.

I didn't mean to minimize the U.S. participation, in terms of importance on the outcome of the war or the U.S. sacrifice. I only meant to compare the U.S. involvement w/ the impact on the major European countries.

French losses were about 4% of the total population -- that would be like 12 million casualties in the U.S. today. Something like 15% of all French men born between 1885 and 1895 died in the war; it was truly a "lost generation" for both several major nations in Europe. Britain suffered 60,000 casualties (dead and wounded) on the first *day* of the Battle of the Somme; I think the majority were before noon.

A small story, which I think supports the point of the original post here.

I never knew much about WWI, until I moved to England for a few years. My wife and I were visiting various D-Day sites in France (her father fought there), and I started noticing that in all the small churches -- even in Normandy -- the list of local French war dead was always much longer for WWI than for WWII. I had never seen lists that long in any small town church in the US, and it suddenly hit me that I had only a vague idea of the scope of WWI. I started reading at that point, it was a revelation.

To bring this back to cycling - one of my goals at some point is to spend a couple of weeks riding the distance of the Western Front. A lot of sites I'd like to visit; you could do it easily in 2 weeks.

[Joellogicman]

French losses were about 4% of the total population -- that would be like 12 million casualties in the U.S. today. Something like 15% of all French men born between 1885 and 1895 died in the war; it was truly a "lost generation" for both several major nations in Europe. Britain suffered 60,000 casualties (dead and wounded) on the first *day* of the Battle of the Somme; I think the majority were before noon.

The impact WWI had on the great Western European powers of the 19th Century remains curiously understated.

On a side note - popular scuttlebutt is the French do not good soldiers make. In fact, through WWI, France was as vigorous a martial power as any. Its navy did not quite meet the standards of the Brits (but then no other nation's navy did until the U.S. jumped ahead in WWII), but its ground forces were formidable.

Current French attitudes toward military conflict make all the sense in the world to me considering the losses it suffered in WWI.

[mcteague]

It helps if the point is illustrated, such as a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11...is that what you mean by a supposed attack or were you just quoting?
Didn't I suggest you Google "Gulf of Tonkin"? Did you? The reference was Vietnam, not WWII or 9/11. Pearl Harbor was the result of several things including pressure the US was putting on Japan via an oil embargo. 9/11 was a terrorist attack which was not perpetrated by a country. So, we go to war against a tactic? Then we get lied to about Iraq. I am no conspiracy freak but, often, things are not as they are presented by our leaders.

Tim

[Cantdog]

It's okay, you're a scientist and not supposed to know anything about history.

[BengeBoy]

Current French attitudes toward military conflict make all the sense in the world to me considering the losses it suffered in WWI.


+1...which reminds me of a great book about the Battle of Verdun:

http://www.amazon.com/Price-Glory-Verdun-1916/dp/0140170413/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283984942&sr=8-1

[csm]

Didn't I suggest you Google "Gulf of Tonkin"? Did you? The reference was Vietnam, not WWII or 9/11. Pearl Harbor was the result of several things including pressure the US was putting on Japan via an oil embargo. 9/11 was a terrorist attack which was not perpetrated by a country. So, we go to war against a tactic? Then we get lied to about Iraq. I am no conspiracy freak but, often, things are not as they are presented by our leaders.

Tim

State-Sponsered terrorism. Don't think for a minute that there wasn't rejoicing among some of the middle eastern states as well as financial support from same.
and while we were pressuring the Japanese economically, it doesn't add up to reasons for a military attack.

[Joellogicman]

State-Sponsered terrorism. Don't think for a minute that there wasn't rejoicing among some of the middle eastern states as well as financial support from same.

Iraq almost certainly did not provide financial or logistic support. On the other hand, financial support may well have come out of Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. spent a trillion dollars attacking the one, and spends billions protecting the other.

Curious that.

[Joellogicman]

+1...which reminds me of a great book about the Battle of Verdun:

http://www.amazon.com/Price-Glory-Verdun-1916/dp/0140170413/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283984942&sr=8-1

Sounds interesting.

[csm]

Iraq almost certainly did not provide financial or logistic support. On the other hand, financial support may well have come out of Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. spent a trillion dollars attacking the one, and spends billions protecting the other.

Curious that.

my comment was not saying Iraq sponsered it. Though Hillary and company did a bang-up job convincing us that they needed a regime change. And yes, I know she had some help from W on that.

[Joellogicman]

my comment was not saying Iraq sponsered it. Though Hillary and company did a bang-up job convincing us that they needed a regime change. And yes, I know she had some help from W on that.

Hillary got us into GWII? You mean all those prez press conferences demanding the crazed but obviously punchless dictator to turn over the WMDs - (as if he hadn't lost his war machine in GWI) - never happened?

I mean I know I was working a lot of hours back then. Maybe the msm was only feeding me the GW and Republican Congressional leaders harping on about Saddam (they had the majority in both houses then - right?) to mislead me.

[rugbysecondrow]

Didn't I suggest you Google "Gulf of Tonkin"? Did you? The reference was Vietnam, not WWII or 9/11. Pearl Harbor was the result of several things including pressure the US was putting on Japan via an oil embargo. 9/11 was a terrorist attack which was not perpetrated by a country. So, we go to war against a tactic? Then we get lied to about Iraq. I am no conspiracy freak but, often, things are not as they are presented by our leaders.

Tim
Let's not pretend your quote was relating to a specific battle. I will quote your quote " All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
You then go on to draw comparisons to Iraq.

I simply pointed out that an actual attack is sufficient to rise the masses. We can disagree politically, but don't be coy about your intent. In any event, if what you and Joel want is a rehashing of early 21 century American history, I think you will find willing participants, but also a quickly closed thread.

[tribuddha]

FWIW I took a great poli sci class in college..the professor claimed WWII was about oil..japan was trying secure the pac rim for oil and germany wanted the middle east ( we secured some kind of a deal to protect Saudi in like 1938) and he said Korea was about tin ( seems there is a very narrow band where the mineral exists and Korea is at the center.. not saying oit is true.. but it wass a very interesting series of lectures

[dd74]

The histories as to why we entered WWII vary. I've heard it was a self-stimulus package on our part to get the U.S. out of residuals from the Great Depression.

[rugbysecondrow]

FWIW I took a great poli sci class in college..the professor claimed WWII was about oil..japan was trying secure the pac rim for oil and germany wanted the middle east ( we secured some kind of a deal to protect Saudi in like 1938) and he said Korea was about tin ( seems there is a very narrow band where the mineral exists and Korea is at the center.. not saying oit is true.. but it wass a very interesting series of lectures
I have read a similar explaination.

[oldpotatoe]

i'll start out by saying that i am honestly embarrassed to admit the following:

i found myself involved in a discussion with a co-worker today, and quickly realized that my knowledge of American History is definitely lacking, big time.

-i have no idea why we were involved with WWI
-Vietnam War - i've heard lots of opinions and such, but really - what was going on there
-the Korean War - ??? i'll assume it had something to do with Korea, beyond that, i'm in the dark.

as i mentioned, i'm in no way proud of my ignorance, and today was somewhat of an eye opener.

can anyone recommend a good boor or two that doesnt read like a history textbook that can bring me up to speed on what our great country's history is, at the moment i'm particularly interested in the wars we were involved in, but general knowledge is good too.

obviously there are an overwhelming number of texts written, i dont know where to begin to select something comprehensive, well written that will hold my interest.

thanks all. :confused:

10,000 day war..Vietnam.

http://www.amazon.com/10-000-Day-War-Vietnam/dp/0312790945/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284812552&sr=1-2

[dumbod]

You cannot get a real feel for WWI unless you go to Europe. The US was only involved for about a year so there was not a huge impact. Go to any small town in Britain, France, Germany, etc. They all have a memorial to the men that were lost in the Great War. It essentially wiped out a generation of men from those countries.

The carnage was beyond that of anything that had been experienced before. It took generals four years to learn that you couldnt just charge machine guns.

It was probably the stupidest war of all time (and that is covering a lot of ground)