That's fair. I agree the Pacific Theater is hard to understand. It's a tough combination of
really remote tiny island in the vast Pacific Ocean, no fixed front lines
complicated technology that was constantly changing, and mostly only ever used in that one specific conflict
very strange mindset from the Japanese leaders, with all the primary sources in old-fashioned Japanese
In my opinion there's still a lack of good books about the Japanese side of the Pacific war, for all those reasons. I know a lot of people like "Shattered Sword," but I found it limited. It's purely focused on just the one battle of Midway, which wasn't even the biggest battle of the war, and the authors can't read the Japanese primary sources. Still good at explaining the American carriers ops though.
I know David Glantz made a huge contribution to the study of the Eastern front by actually going to Russia, learning Russian, and digging into the Russian military archives that had never been studied by non-Russians before (and now closed off again). I found his books just too long and boring to get through as a casual reader, but I think a lot of other military historians now use him as a source. Stahel did the same thing, going to Germany and learning German so that he could actually read the primary sources. And not just the generals, who often lied or wrote propaganda, but the diaries of regular soldiers. Huge plus for him, in my opinion, where most of the older books just regurgitate the same limited information that was available in English. I never read Robert Citino but I'll check it out.
I did read "Wages of Destruction." I agree, fantastic book. Really helped me understand the various economic factors of the war, and how it's a lot more complicated than just adding up GDP or any other simple number. Because of that book, I now picture WW2 Germany as being much more low tech, closer to what we'd call a 3rd world country now- a country where most people lived in small farming villages relying on horses, with a very limited number of cars. Maybe not that different from the USSR. And then what a struggle it was for them to just keep basic things functional in their sprawling, rinky-dink empire.
Not a book but I liked this interview: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/interview-sarah-c-paine. She manages to put together a whole lot of different concepts together into a clear view of the past and how it effects current events.
Maybe controversial but I liked Richard Overy's books. "Blood and Ruins" shows how this didn't just start in 1940, it really was a global conflict that started in the 30s. "Why the Allies Won" argues convincingly that it wasn't simple determinism from the Allies GDP, but the result of a lot of hard and skillful effort from the Allies that won it.
Those horses were pretty damn useful in the eastern front, where vehicles were constantly getting stuck in the mud and there was a critical shortage of fuel. A towed artillery piece doesn't care whether it's towed by a horse or a truck. That clip is like the perfect example of American military arrogance, thinking that the high-tech, expensive way is the only way and not being able to imagine how people fight with simple weapons.
That arrogance is earned. The only reason we ever draw/lose/leave is because we aren't willing to firebomb whole countries into dust. Even in WW2 we tried for precision bombing while everyone else just let loose if they had the munitions. The critical shortage of fuel was another example of the backwards german "war machine". It isn't that people with sticks can put up a good fight, it is that the people with guns are unwilling to shoot all of them.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's fair. I agree the Pacific Theater is hard to understand. It's a tough combination of
In my opinion there's still a lack of good books about the Japanese side of the Pacific war, for all those reasons. I know a lot of people like "Shattered Sword," but I found it limited. It's purely focused on just the one battle of Midway, which wasn't even the biggest battle of the war, and the authors can't read the Japanese primary sources. Still good at explaining the American carriers ops though.
I know David Glantz made a huge contribution to the study of the Eastern front by actually going to Russia, learning Russian, and digging into the Russian military archives that had never been studied by non-Russians before (and now closed off again). I found his books just too long and boring to get through as a casual reader, but I think a lot of other military historians now use him as a source. Stahel did the same thing, going to Germany and learning German so that he could actually read the primary sources. And not just the generals, who often lied or wrote propaganda, but the diaries of regular soldiers. Huge plus for him, in my opinion, where most of the older books just regurgitate the same limited information that was available in English. I never read Robert Citino but I'll check it out.
I did read "Wages of Destruction." I agree, fantastic book. Really helped me understand the various economic factors of the war, and how it's a lot more complicated than just adding up GDP or any other simple number. Because of that book, I now picture WW2 Germany as being much more low tech, closer to what we'd call a 3rd world country now- a country where most people lived in small farming villages relying on horses, with a very limited number of cars. Maybe not that different from the USSR. And then what a struggle it was for them to just keep basic things functional in their sprawling, rinky-dink empire.
Not a book but I liked this interview: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/interview-sarah-c-paine. She manages to put together a whole lot of different concepts together into a clear view of the past and how it effects current events.
Maybe controversial but I liked Richard Overy's books. "Blood and Ruins" shows how this didn't just start in 1940, it really was a global conflict that started in the 30s. "Why the Allies Won" argues convincingly that it wasn't simple determinism from the Allies GDP, but the result of a lot of hard and skillful effort from the Allies that won it.
You have HORSES! What were you thinking!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=LyZK8k4gzyg
Those horses were pretty damn useful in the eastern front, where vehicles were constantly getting stuck in the mud and there was a critical shortage of fuel. A towed artillery piece doesn't care whether it's towed by a horse or a truck. That clip is like the perfect example of American military arrogance, thinking that the high-tech, expensive way is the only way and not being able to imagine how people fight with simple weapons.
That arrogance is earned. The only reason we ever draw/lose/leave is because we aren't willing to firebomb whole countries into dust. Even in WW2 we tried for precision bombing while everyone else just let loose if they had the munitions. The critical shortage of fuel was another example of the backwards german "war machine". It isn't that people with sticks can put up a good fight, it is that the people with guns are unwilling to shoot all of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link