The ASL Book Club

[djohannsen]

I just finished reading Zaloga and Madej's The Polish Campaign 1939. The book begins with about 100 pages on Polish operational doctrine, Polish military organization, and Polish equipment (providing context [primarily economic] for some of the limitations in the preceding). Then, a brief description on the Polish deployment prior to 01 Sept (discussing some of the flaws), followed by a fairly brief operational account of the German invasion.

One feels that the authors are giving a fairly impartial account of events, and take pains to dispel some of the more ridiculous and persistent myths (cavalry charges against tanks, etc). The authors also point out that this was no easy campaign for the Germans (over 800 tanks knocked out and several hundred aircraft shot down and over 16,000 KIA for the Wehrmacht), despite overwhelming advantage in men and material. They conclude that it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Poles fought much more tenaciously than the French/Belgian/British not all that many months later.

The book is a quick read, but provides a side of the story that I had not before read. Highly recommended to anyone with an interest in the early war and who would welcome a perspective different from the Blitzkrieg/Wehrmacht focus that is more typically found.

 

[Bob Walters]

I just finished reading Zaloga and Madej's The Polish Campaign 1939. The book begins with about 100 pages on Polish operational doctrine, Polish military organization, and Polish equipment (providing context [primarily economic] for some of the limitations in the preceding). Then, a brief description on the Polish deployment prior to 01 Sept (discussing some of the flaws), followed by a fairly brief operational account of the German invasion.

One feels that the authors are giving a fairly impartial account of events, and take pains to dispel some of the more ridiculous and persistent myths (cavalry charges against tanks, etc). The authors also point out that this was no easy campaign for the Germans (over 800 tanks knocked out and several hundred aircraft shot down and over 16,000 KIA for the Wehrmacht), despite overwhelming advantage in men and material. They conclude that it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Poles fought much more tenaciously than the French/Belgian/British not all that many months later.

The book is a quick read, but provides a side of the story that I had not before read. Highly recommended to anyone with an interest in the early war and who would welcome a perspective different from the Blitzkrieg/Wehrmacht focus that is more typically found.

Von Manstein briefly discusses the problems of the Poles faced and the flaws of their deployments and their overall plan in "Lost Victories." A more detailed analysis would be very interesting.

 

[djohannsen]

Von Manstein briefly discusses the problems of the Poles faced and the flaws of their deployments and their overall plan in "Lost Victories." A more detailed analysis would be very interesting.

Zaloga and Madej make the point that the Polish deployment was not strictly (or even primarily) a military decision. Poland feared that if they did not defend the frontiers that Germany could simply grab Polish land unopposed, thereby not initiating war. Additionally, Poland counted on England and France more vigorously upholding the Polish-British Common Defense Pact. If France had energetically struck against Germany, many of the forces committed against Poland would likely be drawn back west and the forward deployed Polish forces might not have been cut off. There were, though, problems that might have been foreseen. The lack of mechanization of the Polish army made it very unlikely that a delay and withdraw strategy could ever have been effective against the German army which could advance more quickly than the Poles could retreat (a retreat hampered by lack of transport/mechanization and exacerbated by the dominance of the Luftwaffe).

The book has whetted my appetite to learn more - there are just very few English sources that contain much information from the Polish perspective.

 

[Bob Walters]

Zaloga and Madej make the point that the Polish deployment was not strictly (or even primarily) a military decision. Poland feared that if they did not defend the frontiers that Germany could simply grab Polish land unopposed, thereby not initiating war. Additionally, Poland counted on England and France more vigorously upholding the Polish-British Common Defense Pact. If France had energetically struck against Germany, many of the forces committed against Poland would likely be drawn back West and the forward deployed Polish forces might not have been cut off. There were, though, problems that might have been foreseen. The lack of mechanization of the Polish army made it very unlikely that a delay and withdraw strategy could ever have been effective against the German army which could advance more quickly than the Poles could retreat (a retreat hampered by lack of transport/mechanization and exacerbated by the dominance of the Luftwaffe).

The book has whetted my appetite to learn more - there are just very few English sources that contain much information from the Polish perspective.

That echoed much of what von Manstein said. He also pointed out what could have been done but he noted that ultimately even if they had had a reasonable deployment it would have been unlikely to help much.

 

[djohannsen]

That echoed much of what von Manstein said. He also pointed out what could have been done but he noted that ultimately even if they had had a reasonable deployment it would have been unlikely to help much.

Without more energetic help from the French, the Poles were doomed. I don't recall exactly, but something like a 3:1 ratio of German to Polish forces, and much bigger gaps than that in tanks and aircraft and artillery. Due to the limited resources provided by the agrarian Polish economy, their forces were very infantry heavy and very light on support weapons and logistic capacity.

 

[Bob Walters]

Recall also that the USSR invaded from the other side.

 

[djohannsen]

Recall also that the USSR invaded from the other side.

Yep (on the 17th, IIRC), and that eliminated any possibility of scattered holdouts in the east or further delaying the inevitable by (possibly) another couple of weeks. I don't know the situation in the USSR well enough to know whether the Soviets would have still jumped in to carve up Poland if England and France had more vigorously upheld their treaty obligations (though I know the situation in France and England, only two decades removed from "The War to End All Wars," well enough to know that neither was going to spring energetically into another war).

 

[Bob Walters]

Yep (on the 17th, IIRC), and that eliminated any possibility of scattered holdouts in the east or further delaying the inevitable by (possibly) another couple of weeks. I don't know the situation in the USSR well enough to know whether the Soviets would have still jumped in to carve up Poland if England and France had more vigorously upheld their treaty obligations (though I know the situation in France and England, only two decades removed from "The War to End All Wars," well enough to know that neither was going to spring energetically into another war).

If Britain and France had acted by invading Germany it would have been no threat to the USSR.

 

[kcole4001]

... Zaloga and Madej's The Polish Campaign 1939. .....

Just ordered a copy!

 

[kcole4001]

.........

My Vietnam reading appetite having been whet, I've now started Mark Bowden's 'Hue 1968'. I'm only up to page 70 or so, however I'm enjoying his presentation of the events leading up to the battle from both the American and Vietnamese perspective.

Another good one is 'Pleiku' by J.D. Coleman.
It covers the 1st Cav's initial airmobile campaign in good detail.
Very good read.

 

[djohannsen]

Just ordered a copy!

I hope that you enjoy the book.

Another good one is 'Pleiku' by J.D. Coleman.
It covers the 1st Cav's initial airmobile campaign in good detail.
Very good read.

I've got a copy of this on the stack next to my bed and hope to get to it soon. Maybe I need to move it further up the queue.

 

[Yuri0352]

Another good one is 'Pleiku' by J.D. Coleman.
It covers the 1st Cav's initial airmobile campaign in good detail.
Very good read.

Thanks!
I'll look for it.

 

[Yuri0352]

I finished Mark Bowden's 'Hue 1968' last week. Highly recommended, especially for those ASL'ers planning on playing the new Hue HASL.

I'm currently enjoying a respite from military reading and reading a few books on Native American history. After that, I am planning on starting Mark Zeulke's 'Tragedy at Dieppe'.

 

[djohannsen]

I've recently read two good books. First, Lieven's "Russia Against Napoleon." This book, after starting with a bit of a review of Russia's military, takes one through not only the 1812 campaign in Russia, but also the 1813 campaign in Prussia and the 1814 campaign in France. The perspective is Russian, providing a nice counter-point to the (usual) French perspective. As I am relatively new to Napoleonic history, I am not entirely sure that the author does not overstate Alexander's role and ability (in contrast to, say, Clauswitz description of the Russian campaign), but it's still an excellent book and a pleasure to read. The second is Jamieson's "Crossing the Deadly Ground: United States Army Tactics 1865-1899." The author doesn't seem to draw strong conclusions (so I'm not entirely sure what his thesis is), but the book is none-the-less an interesting chronicling of a little documented period of US military history. The taking of stock after the US Civil War and search for alternatives to the two lines deep elbow-to-elbow advance is an interesting topic. In addition to treating the evolution of infantry tactics (growing emphasis on skirmishing and individual marksmanship), the author gives equal time the cavalry (the role of the saber and mounted vs. dismounted fighting) and the artillery (the dawning of indirect artillery fire). All this is set against the backdrop of the continuing reality of fighting the native tribes in the West. I feel that this book could have been better, but it is still very much worth the effort to find.

P.S. It just struck me that neither of the books that I discussed here are in any way related to ASL or WWII. If this is too far off topic, please let me know and I can delete this post.

 

[Yuri0352]

I've recently read two good books. First, Lieven's "Russia Against Napoleon." This book, after starting with a bit of a review of Russia's military, takes one through not only the 1812 campaign in Russia, but also the 1813 campaign in Prussia and the 1814 campaign in France. The perspective is Russian, providing a nice counter-point to the (usual) French perspective. As I am relatively new to Napoleonic history, I am not entirely sure that the author does not overstate Alexander's role and ability (in contrast to, say, Clauswitz description of the Russian campaign), but it's still an excellent book and a pleasure to read. The second is Jamieson's "Crossing the Deadly Ground: United States Army Tactics 1865-1899." The author doesn't seem to draw strong conclusions (so I'm not entirely sure what his thesis is), but the book is none-the-less an interesting chronicling of a little documented period of US military history. The taking of stock after the US Civil War and search for alternatives to the two lines deep elbow-to-elbow advance is an interesting topic. In addition to treating the evolution of infantry tactics (growing emphasis on skirmishing and individual marksmanship), the author gives equal time the cavalry (the role of the saber and mounted vs. dismounted fighting) and the artillery (the dawning of indirect artillery fire). All this is set against the backdrop of the continuing reality of fighting the native tribes in the West. I feel that this book could have been better, but it is still very much worth the effort to find.

P.S. It just struck me that neither of the books that I discussed here are in any way related to ASL or WWII. If this is too far off topic, please let me know and I can delete this post.

Since you've posted within the 'chatter' sub-forum, I don't consider your post off topic at all. Especially when considering CH's foray in to the American civil war and the rumors of their interest in the French and Indian war (!).

That being said, I've started reading 'Autumn of the Black Snake' by William Hogeland, which is a chronicling of the events in the late 18th century which led to the creation of the U.S. Army during Washington's presidency.

 

[witchbottles]

Began Glantz' " Barbarossa Derailed". Interesting overview of the Smolensk to Minsk area from Aug-December '41. Makes a solid case that Timoshenko may have had a more profound impact on the course of the war that fall than previously recognized.

 

[Thunderchief]

I just finished The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler by Heston and Heston (Dr and Nurse). It was published in 1979 and includes comment about amphetamine use in the German (and other) military during WW2. It also mentions that the source of the 'Hitler only had one ball' theory seems to come from a bodgy Soviet autopsy report that attempted to demean Hitler in any way possible. I'd say it's a fairly rare book which shows the recent 'WW2 was fought on drugs' discussions are concepts that are not new, but have just been recently popularised.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Zaloga and Madej make the point that the Polish deployment was not strictly (or even primarily) a military decision.

As it was explained to me in a university course, this is correct - and as I recall, the Polish military wanted to pull back to defend natural obstacles (rivers, etc.) but were forced instead to defend on poor ground right on the border.

 

[djohannsen]

Inspired by the Marine Corps Birthday and the knowledge that 75 years ago Marines found themselves fighting on Guadalcanal, I pulled out “Guadalcanal Diary” by Richard Tregaskis and gave it a read over the weekend. By objective standards, it's hard to recommend the book. As the author was an “embedded correspondent” (before anyone knew that term), the book is not a military history of the fighting. Also, I don't find the prose to be especially compelling (Tregaskis is no Morehead). Finally, as the book was being written to give Americans a sense of what was going on while touting the accomplishments of “our boys,” one realizes that the book is giving a whitewashed description of events and conditions (though the censors seemed to have given Tregaskis fair latitude, as he did accurately report the sinkings resulting from the Battle of Savo Island). Anyway, in spite of all the above, it still provides an enjoyable weekend read, evoking the feeling of the era where things hung in the balance and America was eager to hear of successes. If you go into it knowing that you are not going to get a military history of events or even an accurate description of events, it can still be an enjoyable read as a glimpse into a particular time and place in American history.

 

[Yuri0352]

Inspired by the Marine Corps Birthday and the knowledge that 75 years ago Marines found themselves fighting on Guadalcanal, I pulled out “Guadalcanal Diary” by Richard Tregaskis and gave it a read over the weekend. By objective standards, it's hard to recommend the book. As the author was an “embedded correspondent” (before anyone knew that term), the book is not a military history of the fighting. Also, I don't find the prose to be especially compelling (Tregaskis is no Morehead). Finally, as the book was being written to give American's a sense of what was going on while touting the accomplishments of “our boys,” one realizes that the book is giving a whitewashed description of events and conditions (though the censors seemed to have given Tregaskis fair latitude, as he did accurately report the sinkings resulting from the Battle of Savo Island). Anyway, in spite of all the above, it still provides an enjoyable weekend read, evoking the feeling of the era where things hung in the balance and America was eager to hear of successes. If you go into it knowing that you are not going to get a military history of events or even an accurate description of events, it can still be an enjoyable read as a glimpse into a particular time and place in American history.

This was the first book which I had ever read about the Marine Corps. I checked it out of the school library in the 3rd grade. The book that started it all for me.
Thanks for the memories!