/lit/ - Literature

>>21196027
A. J. P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War.

>>21196027
The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor: The Washington Background of the Pearl Harbor Attack
by Robert Alfred Theobald

>>21196027
Define unorthodox here

burton h. klein - germany's economic preparation for war (1959)

unorthodox content behind orthodox title, spoler: there was no preparation for a large conflict

>>21196279
so the germans were even more retarded than what they're generally made out to be?

>>21196027
The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor: The Washington Background of the Pearl Harbor Attack
by Robert Alfred Theobald

>>21196279
Does this look like "not preparing for any major conflict" for you?

>>21196323
a diagram with hidden parameters
wtf i love orthodox history now

>>21196027
no longer human is a good start imo

>>21196127
Oh shit I remember that name
Does he in this book claim that Martin Luther is the forefather of National Socialism?

>>21196356
Yes, he changed his interpretation of events leading up to WW2 as new documents were being declassified and unearthed and that book is the result

world war 2 should unironically be forgotten and a myth for the 21st century should be invented.
The colossus of the memory of ww2 asphyxiates the current modern world more than any museum, statue or buildings asphyxiated the futurists trying to live as artist in pictoresco Italy.
Everyone forced to live for and give life to people who are all long dead.

If I were a dictator Id remove any and all ww2 memorials and reduce the topic to a paragraph in school books. Maybe the next century can deal with the topic in a non masochistic manner.

>>21196356
thats just ripping off Spengler desu

David hoggan

Came out last year, has a lot of good insights into how Stalin absolutely played Churchill and FDR like fiddles.

>>21196027
Right here, OP. The Myth of German Villainy.

>>21196380
It's the biggest bloodiest war in human history and it hasn't even passed out of living memory yet. What do you expect?

>>21197479
How Stalin shit the bed (e.g. still sending the Germans grain shipments in the days after the invasion), almost lost the war quickly (e.g. got most of their industrial areas captured), and had to rely on the anglosphere for financial support and arms (his biggest contribution being pouring millions into the meat grinder? Wow, thats some 4D chess.

>>21197517
>AHHHHHHHH SOMEONE POSTED A ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS ABOUT A BOOK THAT DOESN'T COMPLETELY CONFORM TO ME PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF A HISTORICAL EVEN AHHHHHHHH

>>21196027
Buchanan, Irving, and Taylor.

>>21196027
>Day of Deceit
>Desperate Deception, Mahl [UK 'fortification' of Wendel Wilkie's Republican primary 'win' in FDR's last election]
>Jap whose name escapes me; effectively there was a strident faction of the imperial cabinet adamant about calling the nuclear bluff after Hiroshima & Nagasaki, as either: 1) just very large thermobaric dirty bombs [probably tested by the SS in poland in late '44]; 2) the only nukes they had or could produce for year(s); 3) would have to play diplomatic ball with the Soviets entering the war anyways; 4) Japs expected U-234's refined uranium & plans/tech which surrendered off the US coast after very close pursuit by Canadian Navy following the Paperclip negotiations in Switzerland between Dulles & Canaris]
>Red (or blood) Harvest, some journalist [fire bombing & "mad bomber' Harris; Operation Keelhaul complicity in sending refugees to their deaths, starvation of hundreds of thousands of POWs as a policy before Marshall nixed Morganthau Plan contingencies, because they were immanent to Venona moles accelerationist aims]
>Patton's Diaries
>anything exploring British War Guilt via the Foreign Office obstructing Kaiser WIlhelm II's repeated peace & demobilization entreaties to the other powers + probable Black Hand involvement
>anything tracing Lord Milner et. al. funding of Lenin & Trotsky

>>21197526
>AHHHHHHHH SOMEONE POINTED OUT IM A RETARD AND I HAVE NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS!
Cope, faggot.

>>21196027
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler by Robert Gellately

>>21196127

Seconding this. Its criticism of the British role in the outbreak of the war still causes ass pain to this day, as does its portrayal of Hitler as an opportunistic gambler rather than a James Bond villain with a master plan.

>>21196323
>in 1939
are you retarded?

>>21197946
This map is from before the beginning of WW2 you fucking retard. Austria and Sudetenland has already been incorporated to the Reich but rest of Czechoslovakia is intact as is Poland

>>21198309
He’s a /pol:tard.

>>21196027
David Irving - Hitler's War and the War Path
Thomas Fleming - New Dealers War for the mutt perspective

And this>>21197479 is essential

>>21197479
>>21197546
>>21198538
Second all of these plus John Toland's biography of Hitler is the best non-cucked bio out there. David Irving is also the seminal historian of the Reich and deals almost extensively in primary written account from actual figures of the war. Everything we know about Erhard Milch for instance is because Irving literally went to his house in the 60s and recorded his oral testimony.

If you're into alternative media you should watch revisionist historian Thomas777's series with Pete Quinones on YouTube that is definitely the sort of "unorthodox" that you are looking for, Thomas' legal background is a great supplement in his discussion on how the Nuremberg Trials were essentially fake and gay. His book on it is set to be released in the new year. Here is the full series on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6we2rCO8rrQP809xAqu8vFGAz8UBbqoh

>>21197739
You haven't pointed out anything and this isn't an argument. I posted a book that matches what OP is looking for, you got triggered about it (a book you haven't read) and started reeeing a bunch of points that don't address what's in the book (again because you don't know what's in it). If you want to actually argue, pull out some in text citations and point out where he's wrong otherwise you just sound like an unhinged /pol/tard

>>21196027

>>21196250
Ahistorical literature that happens to agree with my conspiracy theories obviously.

>>21197470
This

>>21196027
What does this book say?

>>21196380
>If I were a dictator Id remove any and all ww2 memorials
damn...just like Eastern Europe liberals and nazis...

>>21197517
>his biggest contribution being pouring millions into the meat grinder
never happened
but don't worry, you're not supposed to know anyway

>>21199847
>pointless cope
Instead of offering details put forward by the book you seethed about the general character of Stalin's leadership during the war. That hints you're someone who likes to have their takes fed to them while under the delusion that, because theyre contrarian, you've put in more work than you have and are above traditiontraditional criticism.
>>21200266
>contrarian edgelord
Don't cut yourself. See above.

>>21200332
???

>>21200332
>Instead of offering details put forward by the book you seethed about the general character of Stalin's leadership during the war. That hints you're someone who likes to have their takes fed to them while under the delusion that, because theyre contrarian, you've put in more work than you have and are above traditiontraditional criticism.
What is this schizo armchair drivel? Nigger nobody is seething here but you. I don't give a shit about what your "take" on Stalin is, you responded to me. The OP is literally asking for unorthodox views on the era. If you have a problem with the book then address the book. Go back to /pol/ if you want to spend an entire thread arguing like a retard over who has the best "take". What kind of drooling retard comes into the thread specifically requesting books with contrarian viewpoints and then gets mad that the thread is full of books with contrarian viewpoints?

>>21200779
>REEEE
Again, instead of offering insight into the book you choose to seethe. I'll say again: this hints you're someone who likes to have their takes fed to them while under the delusion that, because theyre contrarian, you've put in more work than you have and are above traditional criticism.

>>21200798
>if I repeat myself it will be like he never responded in the first place

>>21200802
>still not discussing the book
You didn't respond. We're through here.

>>21200798
dude are you fucking retarded or something?

>>21200807
see >>21200779 you responded to it but perhaps you didn't read it. That would make sense, since you don't seem to be a reader, more just a big mouth on a stick.

>>21196127
Nice

>>21200834
>complains I repeated myself
>[still not talking about the book]
>unironically SEE >> after above
>[still not talking about the book]
...

>>21200910
>I'm not going to take the time make a post relevant to your book but uhhhh you definitely should take the time to respond to me like I am

>>21200928
>no you
>[still not talking about his book]
You haven't actually read it, have you?

>>21196323
Sure as shit most of Europe was not prepared for it lel.

>>21196027
It's very good

>>21200983
I have 0 interest in effortposting to someone whose only interest is arguing "takes".

>>21198538
Thomas Fleming was a British spook so keep that in mind when reading him. What they do is they pay all these cool, hip writers to go into the hotspots and spin up propaganda and stories to further the aims of the British security state. No, I'm not really talking about the "British Empire" as you think of it either - go read Alfred Zimmern's 3rd British Empire to get an idea of what they're going for. It's a form of international banking globalist sort of thing, and the Germans were in direct opposition to that.

>>21196027
The Makers of War by Francis Neilson is another good one. And you can look into the British Security Collaboration based in NYC. The bongs were actively working *in* the United States in active opposition to the OG America First movement that was trying to keep America out of the war. This incredibly popular movement had zero impact on the way that FDR ran the country, however - he was working with the bongs.

>>21201007
>I-I JUST DON'T WANNA TALK ABOUT THE BOOK THAT I MYSELF BROUGHT UP
>YEAH THAT'S IT!
>IT'S NOT THAT IM INCAPABLE OF SELLING ITS SPECIFIC ESOTERIC FACTOIDS AND PLACING THEM AGAINST THE STANDARD HISTORIOGRAPHICAL READ OF STALIN'S ACTIONS DURING THE WAR!
>I JUST DON'T WANNA!
Kek.

>>21201150
>AHHHHHHHH WHY ARE THERE BOOKS PUTTING FORWARD UNORTHODOX VIEWS IN A THREAD ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOOKS THAT PUT FORWARD UNORTHODOX VIEWS IM GOING INSANE AHHHHHH

>>21201031
lol, my bad, I mixed up Ian fleming with Thomas fleming. Don't know anything about Thomas.

Also, it was called the british security coordination, not collaboration. But you can definitely get an idea of the sort of work they were up to. The details are a little sparse and were obviously not public, but the general picture and that such a thing existed is what's important for understanding the runup to the war.

>>21200802
>still has this reaction image saved

>>21201167
>YOU DISAGREE WITH X EVEN THOUGH I HAVENT DISCUSSED X
>[still not discussing the book (or the unorthodox views I supposedly disagree with)]
Kek. You haven't read the book.

>>21201177
It's all he has.

>>21199317
very cool, thanks for the links.

>>21201424
>>YOU DISAGREE WITH X EVEN THOUGH I HAVENT DISCUSSED X
Who are you quoting?

Not an unorthodox book at all, actually one of the foundational texts of IR realism, but was at the time because of its criticism of the Versailles Treaty. Published in September 1939 in fact.

>The text is considered a classic in international relations theory, and is often dubbed one of the first modern realist texts, following in the fashion of Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. Carr's analysis begins with the optimism that followed World War I, as embodied in the League of Nations declarations and various international treaties aimed at the permanent prevention of military conflict. He proceeds to demonstrate how rational, well-conceived ideas of peace and cooperation among states were undermined in short order by the realities of chaos and insecurity in the international realm. By assessing the military, economic, ideological, and juridical facets and applications of power, Carr brings harsh criticism to bear on utopian theorists who forget to consider the exigencies of survival and competition.

>Carr does not, however, consider the prospect of human improvement a lost cause. At the end of The Twenty Years' Crisis, he actually advocates for the role of morality in international politics, and suggests that unmitigated Realism amounts to a dismal defeatism which we can ill afford. The sine qua non of his analysis is simply that in the conduct of international affairs, the relative balance of power must be acknowledged as a starting point.

>>21202306
>can't extrapolate from his own nonsense
>[still not discussing the book]
>inb4 no you (again)
You haven't read it.

>>21200231
The Wikipedia page for it is good

>>21196323
Germany had to do a fuck ton of catch up after kickstarting Remilitarization. They never wanted a major war for at least another 5 years at this point, and it was to be directed towards the east.

>>21196127
>A. J. P. Taylor
Are any other of his books worth reading?

>>21200076
no