In article <Xns9904BA785F7B4agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

> comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:comadreja-t-239C66.14221931032007@news.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <Xns9902543322877agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
> > Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > Much
> >> > like "General Winter", as the Russian call the Russian Winter as an
> >> > ally in fighting wars, was a factor in helping push back the German
> >> > from Moscow in Dec. 1941, and with the Soviets' Operation Uranus
> >> > that destroyed the German 6th Army at Stalingrad.
> >>
> >> I didn't know that, but I'll have to remember it. In Russia, the
> >> Germans stalled twice in the winter, in both WWI and WWII. I guess
> >> it's kind of like the Afghan terrain, which is also a gerat ally to
> >> the locals, and generally only understood by them
> >
> > The Germans didn't stall in WWI because they didn't gain huge Russian
> > Empire territory until really the fall of Romanovs in March 1917.
> > Their main focus was the Western Front. The big similarity between
> > the Russians in WW1 and the Soviets in WW2 was both at first had a
> > problem in arming their armies, so many soldiers were instructed to
> > pick up rifles from their dead comrades.
> >
> > Even though it isn't the greatest research book, one of the most
> > readable books about the Eastern Front in WW1, I feel was written by
> > Winston Churchill.
>
> Would you be able to recommend a single book that is a readable and
> comprehensive overview of WW2? I'd like something as well written as
> "Blackhawk Down" or "Bright Shining Lie," both of which are page
> turners, regarding their respective wars.

I probably for the broadest of general history of the Second World
War, probably Martin Gilbert's the Second World War. John Keegan's
Second World War is also a very good choice. Something a little
different but a good read is Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won".

For gripping reading, Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" or "The Fall of
Berlin"...

I would also recommend the 1973-1974 ITV series, "World at War" it gives
some interesting perspectives, given much of it is interview style of
some of participants and eyewitnesses.

I can give more detail of certain area and certain time periods, like
pre-war, the Holocaust, the Desert War, Germany v. Russia, US
involvement and industrial production, UK's involvement and its battles
throughout the world etc, etc. etc.

comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
news:comadreja-t-5EAEA8.15525631032007@news.giganews.com:

> In article <Xns9904BA785F7B4agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
> Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>> comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:comadreja-t-239C66.14221931032007@news.giganews.com:
>> > In article <Xns9902543322877agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
>> > Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Much
>> >> > like "General Winter", as the Russian call the Russian Winter as
>> >> > an ally in fighting wars, was a factor in helping push back the
>> >> > German from Moscow in Dec. 1941, and with the Soviets' Operation
>> >> > Uranus that destroyed the German 6th Army at Stalingrad.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't know that, but I'll have to remember it. In Russia, the
>> >> Germans stalled twice in the winter, in both WWI and WWII. I
>> >> guess it's kind of like the Afghan terrain, which is also a gerat
>> >> ally to the locals, and generally only understood by them
>> >
>> > The Germans didn't stall in WWI because they didn't gain huge
>> > Russian Empire territory until really the fall of Romanovs in March
>> > 1917. Their main focus was the Western Front. The big similarity
>> > between the Russians in WW1 and the Soviets in WW2 was both at
>> > first had a problem in arming their armies, so many soldiers were
>> > instructed to pick up rifles from their dead comrades.
>> >
>> > Even though it isn't the greatest research book, one of the most
>> > readable books about the Eastern Front in WW1, I feel was written
>> > by Winston Churchill.
>>
>> Would you be able to recommend a single book that is a readable and
>> comprehensive overview of WW2? I'd like something as well written as
>> "Blackhawk Down" or "Bright Shining Lie," both of which are page
>> turners, regarding their respective wars.
>
> I probably for the broadest of general history of the Second World
> War, probably Martin Gilbert's the Second World War. John Keegan's
> Second World War is also a very good choice.

What's the readability quotient on these? Breadth is only one of my two
needs, because if it doesn't *demand* that I read it, I'll be lucky to
get 10% into it, before I lose interest. Maybe I'll go back to Shirer,
because in spite of it's ponderous heft, it's still a major page turner.

> Something a little
> different but a good read is Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won".
>
> For gripping reading, Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" or "The Fall of
> Berlin"...

Gripping is exactly what I want, but nothing with breadth, in this
category?

> I would also recommend the 1973-1974 ITV series, "World at War" it
> gives some interesting perspectives, given much of it is interview
> style of some of participants and eyewitnesses.

I love ITV, but I won't have a prayer of finding these to rent, and I'm
not gonna cough up $20 a disk for an 8 disk set.

> I can give more detail of certain area and certain time periods, like
> pre-war, the Holocaust, the Desert War, Germany v. Russia, US
> involvement and industrial production, UK's involvement and its
> battles throughout the world etc, etc. etc.

That'd be nice, but unfortunately, I can't put you on my shelf and pull
you down on a hot summer's day, when I need to chase away the ennui.
Unless you're an HB-7+, that is.

In article <Xns9904BC74EA113agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

> comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:comadreja-t-E74C29.15000031032007@news.giganews.com:

>
> That wopuld seem to be a serious strategic blunder, based on not having
> learned the lessons of history. Perhaps it's 20/20 hindsight, but the
> Russians get dumped on every year, by General Winter, so their hardiness
> should be common knowledge. Peter the Great ws the only period of
> enlightenment they've ever had, in their brutal history, although
> Gorbachev tried and failed.

Russia has had many tried to reform or keep its government together,
Tsar Alexander II tried, Prime Minister Petr Stolypin during the reign
of Tsar Nicholas II etc. Russia is a tough place to govern for a myriad
of reasons.

Russia also has done the same thing when they had foreign invaders,
suffer enormous losses in the beginning, learn from their mistakes,
trade space for time, and then punished their invaders in way
unimaginable to the invaders, like the Swedes in the 18th Century, the
French in 19th Century and the Germans in 20th Century.

Basically in a nutshell, two countries that should never ever be
invaded, Russia and China, no matter how tempting it is to the invader.
>
> > I was a history major, I read alot of books about modern history from
> > 1870 onwards, and know the different histographies for the rise of
> > Nazism and WW2. Much like how the Area Bombing was a complete waste
> > of British and American Resources. Ian Kershaw's biographies on
> > Hitler give a very good perspective on what was going in Germany and
> > inside the Reich Chancellory.
>
> Of course we can assume that you've read Shirer?

Shirer is sort of looked down upon. He is good for a general read, but
he didn't really documented his work that he based his writings on. He
also wrote it before more extensive knowledge of the Bundesarchiv and
the fall of the Soviet Union brought out more stuff understanding how
the Third Reich worked. I don't mind him, but I would read others to
get some other perspective on the subject.

Books like Heinz Hoehne (Höhne) "The Order of the Death Head" or Ian
Kershaw's two part biography on Hitler are probably better reads.

I liked Shirer's book on the collapse of French during 1940, "The
Collapse of Third Republic".

comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
news:comadreja-t-FC9DE4.16133131032007@news.giganews.com:

> In article <Xns9904BC74EA113agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
> Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>
>> comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:comadreja-t-E74C29.15000031032007@news.giganews.com:
>
>> That wopuld seem to be a serious strategic blunder, based on not
>> having learned the lessons of history. Perhaps it's 20/20 hindsight,
>> but the Russians get dumped on every year, by General Winter, so
>> their hardiness should be common knowledge. Peter the Great ws the
>> only period of enlightenment they've ever had, in their brutal
>> history, although Gorbachev tried and failed.
>
> Russia has had many tried to reform or keep its government together,
> Tsar Alexander II tried, Prime Minister Petr Stolypin during the reign
> of Tsar Nicholas II etc. Russia is a tough place to govern for a
> myriad of reasons.
>
> Russia also has done the same thing when they had foreign invaders,
> suffer enormous losses in the beginning, learn from their mistakes,
> trade space for time, and then punished their invaders in way
> unimaginable to the invaders, like the Swedes in the 18th Century, the
> French in 19th Century and the Germans in 20th Century.
>
> Basically in a nutshell, two countries that should never ever be
> invaded, Russia and China, no matter how tempting it is to the
> invader.

'Yes' on '1' and and 'no' on '2'. Don't you think that the Japs made
pretty short work of the coastal and near inland portion of China, and
that if they hadn't blundered by hitting us, they could have diverted
their resources to holding that chunk to this very day? The Sea of
Japan didn't stop them the way it the English Channel stopped Hitler.

>> > I was a history major, I read alot of books about modern history
>> > from 1870 onwards, and know the different histographies for the
>> > rise of Nazism and WW2. Much like how the Area Bombing was a
>> > complete waste of British and American Resources. Ian Kershaw's
>> > biographies on Hitler give a very good perspective on what was
>> > going in Germany and inside the Reich Chancellory.
>>
>> Of course we can assume that you've read Shirer?
>
> Shirer is sort of looked down upon. He is good for a general read, but
> he didn't really documented his work that he based his writings on.

Wasn't he the correspondent for the NY Times?

> He also wrote it before more extensive knowledge of the Bundesarchiv
> and the fall of the Soviet Union brought out more stuff understanding
> how the Third Reich worked. I don't mind him, but I would read others
> to get some other perspective on the subject.
>
> Books like Heinz Hoehne (Höhne) "The Order of the Death Head" or Ian
> Kershaw's two part biography on Hitler are probably better reads.

After reading Sheehan, I've developed a blind loyalty to Times
correspondents, because their writing is as readable as the daily paper.

> I liked Shirer's book on the collapse of French during 1940, "The
> Collapse of Third Republic".

That must be a good story.

 
"Agent Smith" <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9904C7A361195agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.33.102...
> comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:comadreja-t-FC9DE4.16133131032007@news.giganews.com:
>
>> In article <Xns9904BC74EA113agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
>> Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>>
>>> comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:comadreja-t-E74C29.15000031032007@news.giganews.com:
>>
>>> That wopuld seem to be a serious strategic blunder, based on not
>>> having learned the lessons of history. Perhaps it's 20/20 hindsight,
>>> but the Russians get dumped on every year, by General Winter, so
>>> their hardiness should be common knowledge. Peter the Great ws the
>>> only period of enlightenment they've ever had, in their brutal
>>> history, although Gorbachev tried and failed.
>>
>> Russia has had many tried to reform or keep its government together,
>> Tsar Alexander II tried, Prime Minister Petr Stolypin during the reign
>> of Tsar Nicholas II etc. Russia is a tough place to govern for a
>> myriad of reasons.
>>
>> Russia also has done the same thing when they had foreign invaders,
>> suffer enormous losses in the beginning, learn from their mistakes,
>> trade space for time, and then punished their invaders in way
>> unimaginable to the invaders, like the Swedes in the 18th Century, the
>> French in 19th Century and the Germans in 20th Century.
>>
>> Basically in a nutshell, two countries that should never ever be
>> invaded, Russia and China, no matter how tempting it is to the
>> invader.
>
> 'Yes' on '1' and and 'no' on '2'. Don't you think that the Japs made
> pretty short work of the coastal and near inland portion of China, and
> that if they hadn't blundered by hitting us, they could have diverted
> their resources to holding that chunk to this very day? The Sea of
> Japan didn't stop them the way it the English Channel stopped Hitler.
>
>>> > I was a history major, I read alot of books about modern history
>>> > from 1870 onwards, and know the different histographies for the
>>> > rise of Nazism and WW2. Much like how the Area Bombing was a
>>> > complete waste of British and American Resources. Ian Kershaw's
>>> > biographies on Hitler give a very good perspective on what was
>>> > going in Germany and inside the Reich Chancellory.
>>>
>>> Of course we can assume that you've read Shirer?
>>
>> Shirer is sort of looked down upon. He is good for a general read, but
>> he didn't really documented his work that he based his writings on.
>
> Wasn't he the correspondent for the NY Times?

Shirer is best known for his work with CBS radio, although he worked for the
Chicago Tribune and Hearst news services before he joined Murrow & co.

And I agree with your assessment of his work, although Berlin Diary and The
Nightmare Years are useful re: Germany.

In article <Xns9904C7A361195agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.33.102>,
Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

> > Shirer is sort of looked down upon. He is good for a general read, but
> > he didn't really documented his work that he based his writings on.
>
> Wasn't he the correspondent for the NY Times?

He was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune and then CBS News (ie CBS
Radio Network), he sort of did a scoop, broadcasting either live or at
the Compiégne for the French-German Armistice in June 1940. He had a
falling out with CBS News in the late 1940s. "Rise and Fall of Third
Reich" is a good introductory into the subject but it is not looked upon
by academics as the way to study or analyze Nazi Germany.
>
> > He also wrote it before more extensive knowledge of the Bundesarchiv
> > and the fall of the Soviet Union brought out more stuff understanding
> > how the Third Reich worked. I don't mind him, but I would read others
> > to get some other perspective on the subject.
> >
> > Books like Heinz Hoehne (Höhne) "The Order of the Death Head" or Ian
> > Kershaw's two part biography on Hitler are probably better reads.
>
> After reading Sheehan, I've developed a blind loyalty to Times
> correspondents, because their writing is as readable as the daily paper.

I've read "Bright Shining Lie" and it is a very good book.
>
> > I liked Shirer's book on the collapse of French during 1940, "The
> > Collapse of Third Republic".
>
> That must be a good story.

One of the first book about the defeat of France and it is still held in
awe is "Strange Defeat" by Marc Bloch, who later joined the French
Resistance, and was killed by the Gestapo.

comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote in
news:comadreja-t-B886F4.00351501042007@news.giganews.com:

> In article <Xns9904C7A361195agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.33.102>,
> Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>
>> > Shirer is sort of looked down upon. He is good for a general read,
>> > but he didn't really documented his work that he based his writings
>> > on.
>>
>> Wasn't he the correspondent for the NY Times?
>
> He was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune and then CBS News (ie CBS
> Radio Network), he sort of did a scoop, broadcasting either live or at
> the Compiégne for the French-German Armistice in June 1940. He had a
> falling out with CBS News in the late 1940s. "Rise and Fall of Third
> Reich" is a good introductory into the subject but it is not looked
> upon by academics as the way to study or analyze Nazi Germany.
>>
>> > He also wrote it before more extensive knowledge of the
>> > Bundesarchiv and the fall of the Soviet Union brought out more
>> > stuff understanding how the Third Reich worked. I don't mind him,
>> > but I would read others to get some other perspective on the
>> > subject.
>> >
>> > Books like Heinz Hoehne (Höhne) "The Order of the Death Head" or
>> > Ian Kershaw's two part biography on Hitler are probably better
>> > reads.
>>
>> After reading Sheehan, I've developed a blind loyalty to Times
>> correspondents, because their writing is as readable as the daily
>> paper.
>
> I've read "Bright Shining Lie" and it is a very good book.

It won the Pulitzer Prize and eighteen months at #1 on the NYT Best
Seller's List, baby! AFAIK, it's the best there is, although I there's
also "The Best & The Brightest," which won David Halberstam his
Pulitzer.

I loved Halbestam's "The Fifties," but "B&B's" language is too flowery
and pretentious to seem authentic. Just the facts, man. Maybe I should
have started with ch. 2.

I'd recommend "Blackhawk Down," too, which is so well written that you
could probably get through race it in a day, if your reading speed is as
high as I suspect it might be.

>> > I liked Shirer's book on the collapse of French during 1940, "The
>> > Collapse of Third Republic".
>>
>> That must be a good story.
>
> One of the first book about the defeat of France and it is still held
> in awe is "Strange Defeat" by Marc Bloch, who later joined the French
> Resistance, and was killed by the Gestapo.

I just started watching "The Bridge at Remagen," last night, and it's
shaping up to be a four star movie. The Germans are presented as
sympathetically as the Allies, with the real assholes being der Furor
and his insiders, as well as the occasional Gestapo prick.

That seems plausible to me, because I was of the opinion that most of
the Germans were just following Hitler, and not particularly
enthusiastic believers in his wild ideology. And that includes the
German generals, whose main interest was simply in being good generals.

And besides, "go along to get along," is just human nature.

In article <Xns9905611109B05agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

> his wild ideology.

Speaking of, the documentary we were discussing the other day about Nazi
mysticism was on TV again. It was on the Discovery Times channel, and I
think was produced by D.T. It was "Nazism: Occult Conspiracy." Very good.

Ilene B

In article <comadreja-t-5EAEA8.15525631032007@news.giganews.com>,
comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote:

> I would also recommend the 1973-1974 ITV series, "World at War" it gives
> some interesting perspectives, given much of it is interview style of
> some of participants and eyewitnesses.

That series is spectacular. Lots of images that take you by surprise,
very telling stuff.

I also read "900 Days" about the siege of then-Leningrad. I'm blocking
the name of the author but I remember he is well respected.

Ilene B

In article <ileneb-4BCFB6.17064201042007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ilene Bilenky <ileneb@shore.net> wrote:

> In article <comadreja-t-5EAEA8.15525631032007@news.giganews.com>,
> comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I would also recommend the 1973-1974 ITV series, "World at War" it gives
> > some interesting perspectives, given much of it is interview style of
> > some of participants and eyewitnesses.
>
> That series is spectacular. Lots of images that take you by surprise,
> very telling stuff.
>
> I also read "900 Days" about the siege of then-Leningrad. I'm blocking
> the name of the author but I remember he is well respected.

It was Harrison Salibury, the NYT Moscow Correspondent, and writer of
other renown books, including one on years of the Russian Revolution.


If I remember correctly more people died during the siege of Leningrad
than the combine total of casualties of the UK and the US in the Second
World War.

In article <comadreja-t-A76C97.14551201042007@news.giganews.com>,
comadreja <comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote:

> It was Harrison Salibury, the NYT Moscow Correspondent, and writer of
> other renown books, including one on years of the Russian Revolution.
>
Right. Thank you.
>
> If I remember correctly more people died during the siege of Leningrad
> than the combine total of casualties of the UK and the US in the Second
> World War.

I think "900 Days" said one million people. Then, the Russians lost some
20 million civilians and, I think, some 7 million soldiers. I've always
thought that, without Germany bleeding itself white on the Eastern
Front, the Allies couldn't have successfully invaded the Western. Even
if Russia sat it out, I don't think Germany could have been defeated.

Of course, that opinion wasn't taught to American students much during
the Cold War. And it is only an opinion.

Ilene B

On Mar 31, 6:00 pm, comadreja <comadrej...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <1175196812.631480.22...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "8MilesHigh" <avianat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The Czechs still harbour a lot of resentment that their preparations
> > to resist Hilter weren't backed up by France and Britain.
>
> > Sometimes, the Usenet coughs up the most surprising things.
>
> I was a history major, I read alot of books about modern history from
> 1870 onwards, and know the different histographies for the rise of
> Nazism and WW2. Much like how the Area Bombing was a complete waste of
> British and American Resources. Ian Kershaw's biographies on Hitler
> give a very good perspective on what was going in Germany and inside the
> Reich Chancellory. I just wish I spoke and read German, because it make
> reading some primary source documents much more interesting, like the
> Hossback Memorandum (1937), or the minutes from the Wannsee Conference.
> (1942)

If you ever got to Berlin, to see Wannsee, the Olympic Stadium,
Spandau , The Soviet Memorials and Potsdam for yourself, feel free to
email me at the above.

I read Beevor's The Fall of Berlin the first time I visited. In the
city east, many buildings still have the scarring from WWII and the
home made tunnels through the basements. To visit the forests and
plains where hundreds of bodies are still unearthed every year from
the last battle, is pretty dang mind blowing while reading Beevor's
account.

I don't speak German, but once you puzzle out the basic structure
(which is damn hard) it almost never contradicts itself with idiom or
slang. Words strictly adhere to their root meanings, so it becomes
fairly easy to acquire vocabulary. You should give it a shot. Lots
of people find that reading German is much easier than trying to speak
it.

bel

In article <ileneb-F4E83E.17314502042007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ilene Bilenky <ileneb@shore.net> wrote:

> I think "900 Days" said one million people. Then, the Russians lost some
> 20 million civilians and, I think, some 7 million soldiers. I've always
> thought that, without Germany bleeding itself white on the Eastern
> Front, the Allies couldn't have successfully invaded the Western. Even
> if Russia sat it out, I don't think Germany could have been defeated.

I think you are right, but I would still disagree. I think the US, UK
and their allies would had defeated Germany without the help of the
Soviet Union. It would had been much bloodier and devastating for
Western Europe, (I don't how much more it could be) probably triple to
quadruple US,UK and other nations casualties, but the industrial
production of the US and the UK would overwhelm Germany in the end. It
took Germany years to finally put their industrial base on a war economy
footing, even then their achilles heel was always petroleum.

As long as the Allies had air superiority, they would had won.

Besides The Americans and British had better leadership. Hitler was
largely to blame for the escape of British Troops from Dunkirk in 1940,
the disasters of Stalingrad and the battle of Falaise Gap (1944) He
probably shorten the war in months to years with his bungling as well as
keeping Germany over extended with troops that were needed elsewhere
like having close to 500k troops in Norway, and many troops in Greece.
If he kept his reserves east of the Rhine, he could cause much more
headaches to the Allies than his actions with the Battle of the Bulge,
for example.

>
> Of course, that opinion wasn't taught to American students much during
> the Cold War. And it is only an opinion.

Both sides tended to ignore each other's help. It is still
unfathomable what the Soviet Union did, they transferred their
industrial production to Siberia and in two years time was outproducing
Germany. The losses in people and material was still beyond imagination.
However, the Soviet Leadership was pretty incompetent, and only start to
win, when Stalin gave more leeway to Zhukov and other generals. Alot of
their suffering was very much self inflicted, whether from purging the
Soviet Military in the 1930s to appeasing Hitler after the fall of
France. The US helped the Soviets immensely during WW2, and they
wouldn't won the war without US help,whether it was foodstuffs,
industrial equipment, certain refine products that the Soviets couldn't
make in large quanitites. The Soviet may have ended the war a stalemate
if they were left to their own devices, but the US helped them become an
offensive force.

The US gov't and most of its citizens, I believe never realize that
the Soviets fought the greatest land war in Human History, and they not
only won it, but they destroyed their enemy and its nation in the
process.

Ilene Bilenky <ileneb@shore.net> wrote in news:ileneb-21AB58.15561229032007
@comcast.dca.giganews.com:

> In article <Xns9902AB95B96D4agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.17.102>,
> Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you remember the winter scenes in the Ardennes Forest, in "Band of
>> Brothers"?
>
> No, but my father lived through it, and is happy to tell tales. Still
> occasionally wakes up screaming in the middle of the night, swearing at
> the Germans who have him pinned down.

Was your Dad in the same division as the guys in "Band of Brothers"?

In article <Xns99089F278E347agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.33.102>,
Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

> Was your Dad in the same division as the guys in "Band of Brothers"?

No. He was a "replacement troop," taken away from his training group and
tossed up to the front to make up for the terrible casualities.

He also didn't like "Band of Brothers." Not sure why. He used to take
me to all the war movies, "Marines Let's Go," "The Longest Day," "The
Victors" and so on. The Pacific war didn't interest him (although he
knew it had to be fought) but as a first-generation son of Ukranian
Jews, he was very happy to fight the Germans.

Ilene B

Ilene Bilenky <ileneb@shore.net> wrote in
news:ileneb-359453.17360504042007@comcast.dca.giganews.com:

> In article <Xns99089F278E347agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.33.102>,
> Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>
>> Was your Dad in the same division as the guys in "Band of Brothers"?
>
> No. He was a "replacement troop," taken away from his training group
> and tossed up to the front to make up for the terrible casualities.
>
> He also didn't like "Band of Brothers." Not sure why. He used to take
> me to all the war movies, "Marines Let's Go," "The Longest Day," "The
> Victors" and so on. The Pacific war didn't interest him (although he
> knew it had to be fought) but as a first-generation son of Ukranian
> Jews, he was very happy to fight the Germans.

Albeit a Replacement, he was still a member of a specific division. I
skimmed the Wiki on The Bulge, and there were 2 armies in it, Patton's
3rd and the 8th. There were also 5 infantry divisions - 2, 28, 75, 99 &
106, 5 armored divisions, 4 & 7 - 10, and 2 airbore divisions - 82 &
101. This last was the "Band of Brothers."

May I assume that your dad was neither armored nor airborne, leaving him
in either one of the infantry divs or the armies? Do any of those
numbers look familiar to you? I'd like to try to track down on ebay
your dad's division's combat history book, so you can at leats have the
option to refuse it.

I spend a lot of time studying my dad's, and it shows all their
movements, along with a breakdown of all the various copanies and their
tasks. Your dad was in one of those companies, and would probably be
very moved to see a book like this.