German planning concerning the armored counteroffensive in Normandy

[Mori]

I said nothing of the sort. I mentioned the popular history books that started me when i was a teenager. Academic types may look down on socalled pop history but they make history accessible to normal people. Academics are not read by the general public and it is through socalled pop history that one develops an interest in military history or history in general. And pop history writers are actually better writers as people can actually understand what they write. And they make more money.
I do not remember having mentioned the names you quote. In this discussion i have mentioned Entscheidung im Westen which is very good. Anf i do read footnotes. It is where i find interesting primary sources and other books to acquire.
I told you before that you make a big mistake by your condescending attitude. I will just mention that i have read Gibbon on the roman empire and S.R. Gardiner on the english civil war. Also own most volumes of the Oxford history of England. And i could go on.

Clearly you overstate yourself. You throw random names of books you don't know more than the title. You wouldn't be able to name more than these, by the way.

And clearly your praise to pop history ("read by general public"+"better writers"+"make more money") gives it all. That's what you like, because it"s "understandable", that is, simplistic. And now for the smileys

[Aida1]

. Academic types may look down on so called pop history but they make history accessible to normal people. Academics are not read by the general public and it is through so called pop history that one develops an interest in military history or history in general. And pop history writers are actually better writers as people can actually understand what they write. And they make more money.

I suppose that depends on the audience they write for. For instance I would say (for example) Kurowski has done enormous damage to 'history in general' because he is inventing a version of history that better suits his sensibilities. As a result a good number of uncritical members of AHF will go to their grave believing and constantly referencing Kurowski's fictions.

Never read Kurowski so will not comment on that.

[Aida1]

I said nothing of the sort. I mentioned the popular history books that started me when i was a teenager. Academic types may look down on socalled pop history but they make history accessible to normal people. Academics are not read by the general public and it is through socalled pop history that one develops an interest in military history or history in general. And pop history writers are actually better writers as people can actually understand what they write. And they make more money.
I do not remember having mentioned the names you quote. In this discussion i have mentioned Entscheidung im Westen which is very good. Anf i do read footnotes. It is where i find interesting primary sources and other books to acquire.
I told you before that you make a big mistake by your condescending attitude. I will just mention that i have read Gibbon on the roman empire and S.R. Gardiner on the english civil war. Also own most volumes of the Oxford history of England. And i could go on.

Clearly you overstate yourself. You throw random names of books you don't know more than the title. You wouldn't be able to name more than these, by the way.

And clearly your praise to pop history ("read by general public"+"better writers"+"make more money") gives it all. That's what you like, because it"s "understandable", that is, simplistic. And now for the smileys

You are digging a very deep hole for yourself.

Just a short quote from History of the great civil war volume one 1642-1644. Nothing to do with this subject but i need to make a point.
" Preface. The present edition is substantially the same as the first , but a few slight alterations have been made in consequence of suggestions by reviewers and friends.The authorities I have consulted may be ascertained by the references given in the notes.The names of the pamphlets in the British museum are followed by the letters or numbers signifying the press mark. Of the inner life of the House of Commons we unfortunately know less during the Civil War than during the Long Parliament. D'Ewes, dissatisfied with the course of events, grows much more reticent than he had formerly been, and two other diaries , those of Whitacre and Yonge, which i have used , I believe for the first time, do not fully supply his place........"

Just had to get it out of my library.

[Aida1]

I said nothing of the sort. I mentioned the popular history books that started me when i was a teenager. Academic types may look down on socalled pop history but they make history accessible to normal people. Academics are not read by the general public and it is through socalled pop history that one develops an interest in military history or history in general. And pop history writers are actually better writers as people can actually understand what they write. And they make more money.
I do not remember having mentioned the names you quote. In this discussion i have mentioned Entscheidung im Westen which is very good. Anf i do read footnotes. It is where i find interesting primary sources and other books to acquire.
I told you before that you make a big mistake by your condescending attitude. I will just mention that i have read Gibbon on the roman empire and S.R. Gardiner on the english civil war. Also own most volumes of the Oxford history of England. And i could go on.

Clearly you overstate yourself. You throw random names of books you don't know more than the title. You wouldn't be able to name more than these, by the way.

And clearly your praise to pop history ("read by general public"+"better writers"+"make more money") gives it all. That's what you like, because it"s "understandable", that is, simplistic. And now for the smileys

The Oxford history of England Anglo Saxon England third edition Sir Frank Stenton.
"Preface to the third edition.
When my husband died on 15 september 1967 he left the third edition of his book unfinished, although he had been working on it for some years.He had had an interleaved copy of the book bound for him in our university bindery and had made a number of corrections, but he had not succeeded in systematically bringing it up to date.He had however written one long paragraph on the Domesday Book to replace the end of the chapter on that subject..."

Just to make a point.

[Mori]

Just a short quote from History of the great civil war volume one 1642-1644. Nothing to do with this subject but i need to make a point.
" Preface. The present edition is substantially the same as the first , but a few slight alterations have been made in consequence of suggestions by reviewers and friends.The authorities I have consulted may be ascertained by the references given in the notes.The names of the pamphlets in the British museum are followed by the letters or numbers signifying the press mark. Of the inner life of the House of Commons we unfortunately know less during the Civil War than during the Long Parliament. D'Ewes, dissatisfied with the course of events, grows much more reticent than he had formerly been, and two other diaries , those of Whitacre and Yonge, which i have used , I believe for the first time, do not fully supply his place........"

Just had to get it out of my library.

I love it, it works great. Let me try to push even further.

Anyone could do a copy/paste of the electronic version of a book. You didn't do more than that. Actually, you didn't even show a photograph of your shelves. And anyone can read the 10 first lines of the preface of a book, what a proof of knowledge!

Look, I have a read a big book. I prove it now:
"Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressing gown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him by the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:' Introibo ad altare Dei'.

[Aida1]

And clearly your praise to pop history ("read by general public"+"better writers"+"make more money") gives it all. That's what you like, because it"s "understandable", that is, simplistic. And now for the smileys

Writers that make subjects accessible to the general public are more useful to society than those that(intensionally?) write in a way that people do not understand. I do not look down on authors that can write intelligibly neither on the general public that you seem to despise .

[Aida1]

Just a short quote from History of the great civil war volume one 1642-1644. Nothing to do with this subject but i need to make a point.
" Preface. The present edition is substantially the same as the first , but a few slight alterations have been made in consequence of suggestions by reviewers and friends.The authorities I have consulted may be ascertained by the references given in the notes.The names of the pamphlets in the British museum are followed by the letters or numbers signifying the press mark. Of the inner life of the House of Commons we unfortunately know less during the Civil War than during the Long Parliament. D'Ewes, dissatisfied with the course of events, grows much more reticent than he had formerly been, and two other diaries , those of Whitacre and Yonge, which i have used , I believe for the first time, do not fully supply his place........"

Just had to get it out of my library.

I love it, it works great. Let me try to push even further.

Anyone could do a copy/paste of the electronic version of a book. You didn't do more than that. Actually, you didn't even show a photograph of your shelves. And anyone can read the 10 first lines of the preface of a book, what a proof of knowledge!

Look, I have a read a big book. I prove it now:
"Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressing gown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him by the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:' Introibo ad altare Dei'.

You would be hard put to find an electronic version of the Oxford history of England i think You are going to end up in China if you continue digging down like this..

[Aida1]

[Aida1]

[Aida1]

IMG_20221028_122849 (1).jpg

[Aida1]

One always learns. Compressing jpgs was needed. The grapes will get very sour for one user now i know how to compress pics from my library.

[Mori]

That's just great, I didn't think it would work. Let's see if we can make it even better.

Is that a joke or are you reading Dutch translations of English authors such as Cornelius Ryan? You suggest you can't read them in English directly. It's great that you bought collections of books on some garage sale but what more than lining them on your cheap shelfbook?

Not to mention 1950-vintage and hagiographic book on Rommel by Lutz Koch. Seriously ?

You were careful not to show any of your books on WW2. Clearly because you are embarassed with them

[Tom from Cornwall]

in our university bindery …

Does it actually say “bindery”? I confess I’ve never heard of that term before.

Academic historians are absolutely widely read by the general public - you only have to browse the general history sections of a bookshop to notice the number of books on almost all subjects who are academics. Military history - and particular of the “Panzer steel” and “the Allies only won because they cheated” section - does seem to attract the popular historian of the most repetitive and one-eyed type.

If you have read Gibbon on the Roman Empire and wanted a synthesis of the most recent research I would suggest Peter Heather’s “Fall of the Roman Empire”. It shows how wrong much of the history we all thought we knew about the Romans and that period actually is.

Happy reading.

Regards

Tom

[Aida1]

in our university bindery …

Does it actually say “bindery”? I confess I’ve never heard of that term before.

Academic historians are absolutely widely read by the general public - you only have to browse the general history sections of a bookshop to notice the number of books on almost all subjects who are academics. Military history - and particular of the “Panzer steel” and “the Allies only won because they cheated” section - does seem to attract the popular historian of the most repetitive and one-eyed type.


Regards

Tom

I do not really think a 'the allies only won by cheating' section really exist as there is no cheating in war. It is not a game.

[Aida1]

That's just great, I didn't think it would work. Let's see if we can make it even better.

Is that a joke or are you reading Dutch translations of English authors such as Cornelius Ryan? You suggest you can't read them in English directly. It's great that you bought collections of books on some garage sale but what more than lining them on you cheap shelfbook?

Not to mention 1950-vintage and hagiographic book on Rommel by Lutz Koch. Seriously ?

You were careful not to show any of your books on WW2. Clearly because you are embarassed with them

I bought the two first Cornelius Ryan books when i was not even teached english in school. And one does buy books in ones native language when they exist. The other cornelius ryan i bought in english but is now replaced by an audio version. Lack of space. I bought several Rommel biographies over time as i am very interested in Rommel. The first one by Desmond Young i got from my parents and it started my interest in armored warfare. I do not look down on any author.
I never bought a book in a garage sale. And i love reading books . Always did starting in primary school.
I could never be embarassed by any books. I have no disdain for the socalled pop history.