Finally took Clint's suggestion and I've been paging through the Time Magazine archives. I came across this article from 1989 (the 50th anniversary of the start of WW2). It has a pretty good article (10 pages or so) on the developments in Germany that ultimately led to the outbreak of WW2. Part 2 Road to War - TIME There is also an article on the Blitzkrieg ans several other remembrances. I found it informative.
Aren't those archives just fun? I don't mean "fun" as in Ha, Ha, but "fun" as in fascinating. It is illuminating to even glimpse the "mindset" of the men of the time in the Time articles.
You're right. I was reading two articles about Barbarossa, one on Bock, the other on Kliest, and it was fascinating to read contemporary accounts of events to which we already know the outcome. Just what I need, another reason to hang around on my computer.
The linked article is an excellent, concise synopsis of events. As wrong as Hitler was, can't say he didn't believe in his cause!
I agree, Doc. It's a good piece for someone to get a grounding on the development of Nazi power. Here's a link to the Blitzkrieg from the same issue. Blitzkrieg September 1, 1939: a new kind of warfare engulfs Poland - TIME
Well, they could have done a little better job of dispelling that myth but at least they didn't leave Guderian's BS unchallenged!
Thanks for turning me onto that little time vampire..........Lou, Clint et al. Here is what I have been reading for the past while: World Battlefronts: Yamamoto v. the Dragon - TIME it's basically an interpetation of the first week of the war in the Pacific. Good Stuff!!!!
And to close off the loop, Here is a link to the then "just released" Pearl Harbor Report, 1945 and abridged down for easy of reading. It is still six pages worth, and puts the blame around very demoratically (little "d", everybody). From Hull, down to the local commanders, Short and Kimmel. See: Pearl Harbor Report: Who Was to Blame? - TIME Some very interesting stuff in there as well, like the shore artillery not having shells on station because the armory didn't like bringing them back to base and having to "clean" them up before rotating the stock!
Brad, that's a great idea. Maybe we can get the mods to sticky it and put it in a forum meant for research. It would (maybe) cut down on some of the more "out there" questions (that is, if people would look at it).
Just ran across another of those 'statistics" in the old Time archive that left me shaking my head. From the edition of June 4th, 1945; The U.S. Navy, biggest in world history, had almost as many ships in commission last week as it had sailors in 1938. In that year its establishment numbered 109,065 officers & men. Last week the Navy announced that it had added 100,000 vessels (above the size of boats) to the 7,695 it had in commission on Dec. 7, 1941.
similar to churchills telegrams to first sea lord in 44.. Where he sarcasticly critisises the RN Building plans.. More ships than crews.
