- Thread starter
- #121
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
What website would you say is gòod to learn from please
ww2 help
- Thread starter Alecras234
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You may try to use the Wikipedia. But the World War I for Kids: End of WWI and Post War also seems to be fine too.
- Thread starter
- #123
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
your last post said, To be honest both of the sites are wrong. Now you're saying ww1 for kids is correct. im confused
Yes. The site for kids seems to be much closer to the correct info. It is quite logical that the threaty couldn't be signed by the three countires only becuase it would mean that neither Italy nor Germany didn't do that. The site for kids mentions the Big Four what is much closer to the number of countries that signed the main treaty. So IMHO it is better to know that there were four countries plus Germany that signed the pact than stay convinced that there were three only.. right?
- Thread starter
- #125
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
the Hundred Days Offensive on August 8th, is that all correct? and the battles along the Hindenburg line? World War I for Kids: End of WWI and Post War
Yes that's correct. The Hundred Days Offensive started on the 8th August 1918 and lasted to the 11th Novemeber 1918. The main battles of the offensive was the Battle at Amiens and Somma. Because of the Allied offensive Gemmans had to retred at the Hindenburg LIne. The Hindenburg Line run from the Cerny at Aisne River to Arras. The battles along the line were..Battle at Mont Saint-Quentin, Battle at Scarpe, Battle at Épehy, Battle at Ypres and Battle at Cambrai for instance . All of them allowaed the Allied forces to advance and break the German defences line there. As a result Germans understood that the war was over and asked for the cease-fire. The Armistice was signed in Compiegne on the 11th Novemeber 1918.
If you want you may read more here... Hundred Days Offensive - Wikipedia
If you want you may read more here... Hundred Days Offensive - Wikipedia
- Thread starter
- #127
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
Hi I've just watched a documentary about red arrows and battle of Britain flight, where do I start learning about ww2 aircraft?
Here... List of aircraft of World War II - Wikipedia
and you may try to find the books... and many, many others.
Complete Book of World War II Combat Aircraft
and you may try to find the books... and many, many others.
Complete Book of World War II Combat Aircraft
- Thread starter
- #129
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
this book any good?
- Thread starter
- #131
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
How did you learn about World War 2? i have seen lots of ww2 books but i don't buy them because i don't know what's right or wrong. i feel as though i can't learn because the information might be wrong. The books i bought on WW2 you said have wrong information in them, so i give up!
These mistakes in books can happen and there is no way to avoid them. I have learned and still learning reading different books ( also from different countries ) and compare the info from them. . Only In the way it is possible to find all the mistakes and inaccuracies in the books.So if you want to learn about the WW2 you shouldn't worry about if these are wrong or right. The different matter is the price of the books. Often it is better to buy two or three smaller ones for less cost than one big being very expensive.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,164
- Jun 25, 2013
In addition to what Wurger said, there are a lot of other reasons for differences between WW2 books:
> Many primary sources were simply not available until events such as the end of the USSR or 50-year rules. Two areas where these caused, or should have caused, changes in history were the Eastern Front, where information was buried in Soviet archives, and in the effects of codebreaking, where much of it was buried in British and US archives.
> Social norms have made some stories simply unacceptable. An example is the simple fact that German and Italian PoWs were frequently given more freedom and better accommodation, especially transport, than the African-American soldiers that were guarding them. This would not, for example, have been acceptable to mention in a 1950s or 1960s era popular history work, especially one for US publication.
>Many historians -- especially historians writing for the popular press -- can be sloppy, such as not questioning eyewitnesses (who are notoriously unreliable even about events they've directly observed) or assuming memoirists can be trusted (a non-WW2 example of this is Jefferson Davis, who was all about slavery as the driving cause for secession in his writings before losing the American Civil War and all about "states' rights" after). A more WW2-relevant one may be Stillwell, who detested Chiang Kai-shek, which colored everything Stillwell wrote and said.
> Ideological viewpoints. Extreme example: Holocaust deniers.
> Chauvinism. Obviously, related to ideology, but may result in historians ignoring contributions by other nations' forces or ignoring errors and outright malfeasance by their own. Related to both this and ideology is the poor coverage of Japanese, Italian, and Soviet technological developments.
> Narrow viewpoint. This frequently shows up with biographies, many of which approach hagiography,but it is also a factor with official histories, unit histories, and examinations (some of which are very good within their domain) of aircraft, ships, and ordnance.
> Sloppiness. The most persistent example of this is the almost worshipful treatment of German aeronautical developments. Quite a lot of that is seen on this site (example: I've seen many people tout the Bf109's "superior aerodynamics," which is rather surprising at its zero-lift drag coefficient was about 40% greater than average for single-engine WW2 fighters and 70% greater than that of the P-51).
> Many primary sources were simply not available until events such as the end of the USSR or 50-year rules. Two areas where these caused, or should have caused, changes in history were the Eastern Front, where information was buried in Soviet archives, and in the effects of codebreaking, where much of it was buried in British and US archives.
> Social norms have made some stories simply unacceptable. An example is the simple fact that German and Italian PoWs were frequently given more freedom and better accommodation, especially transport, than the African-American soldiers that were guarding them. This would not, for example, have been acceptable to mention in a 1950s or 1960s era popular history work, especially one for US publication.
>Many historians -- especially historians writing for the popular press -- can be sloppy, such as not questioning eyewitnesses (who are notoriously unreliable even about events they've directly observed) or assuming memoirists can be trusted (a non-WW2 example of this is Jefferson Davis, who was all about slavery as the driving cause for secession in his writings before losing the American Civil War and all about "states' rights" after). A more WW2-relevant one may be Stillwell, who detested Chiang Kai-shek, which colored everything Stillwell wrote and said.
> Ideological viewpoints. Extreme example: Holocaust deniers.
> Chauvinism. Obviously, related to ideology, but may result in historians ignoring contributions by other nations' forces or ignoring errors and outright malfeasance by their own. Related to both this and ideology is the poor coverage of Japanese, Italian, and Soviet technological developments.
> Narrow viewpoint. This frequently shows up with biographies, many of which approach hagiography,but it is also a factor with official histories, unit histories, and examinations (some of which are very good within their domain) of aircraft, ships, and ordnance.
> Sloppiness. The most persistent example of this is the almost worshipful treatment of German aeronautical developments. Quite a lot of that is seen on this site (example: I've seen many people tout the Bf109's "superior aerodynamics," which is rather surprising at its zero-lift drag coefficient was about 40% greater than average for single-engine WW2 fighters and 70% greater than that of the P-51).
As an example of what Swampyankee is talking about, Winston Churchill won the Nobel prize for literature for his History of World War Two. He had a team of researchers to help and unprecedented knowledge and access to records of events of which he was actually involved in. Despite this, whatever you think of it (it is a good read) it cannot be right because he was not allowed to mention the full extent of the cracking of German codes. By the time the activities at Bletchley Park and elsewhere was allowed into the public domain Churchill had died.
- Thread starter
- #135
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
so i can read any ww2 book even if it's wrong?
Of course you can. The fully wrong books about WW2 don't happen often. Usually it is a matter of a couple of wrong dates, pic captions or names etc.. sometimes there can appear mistakes for reasons Swampyankee mentioned above. But mostly it is quite easy to find them especially if you read another book about the same.
- Thread starter
- #137
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
so i could read this book, even though you said the paragraph i posted was wrong?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,164
- Jun 25, 2013
Excluding books such as Holocaust denial tracts, it's not so much wrong as incomplete or outdated. Wurger posted one great example of a history which was outdated by information released long after the work was written (Churchill had access to the information, but wasn't going to use it). The solution is to read multiple books, and try to cross national boundaries to include reputable historians from multiple countries.
Yes you can read that book. But please try to find another book of another author for comparing the info provided by both of them. And follow Swampyankee's advice and keep your mind open. The selection of WW2 books is realy huge and the multiple books from multiple countries are really a great help in the learning.
- Thread starter
- #140
Alecras234
Senior Airman
- 346
- Sep 6, 2018
Hi I found a book in kindle format called ALayman's Guide to Ww2, it's interesting but I'm already confused. The first chapter is titled Hype and hyperinflation.Here is first page. The First World War left Germany in a state of chaos . The German Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, fled to Holland and was replaced by the first democratically elected government in its history. On 11 February 1919 Friedrich Ebert, the leader of the German Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands – SDP), was elected as the first President of the new German Republic and he took control of a Germany that was volatile. What's democratically? And Fredrick Ebert was German president, yes? The first chapter goes on forever.
