I've always been casually interested in the history of major wars.  Background of the dispute, disagreement, actions, etc that started things brewing.  Who else jumped in and escalated things, what caused one side to weaken, etc.  The "trouble" is often that the history is convoluted, complex and dependent on who is documenting the historical events.  That said, I enjoy reading the different "versions" as I usually only remember the main points, like the main belligerents.  I love how "belligerents" is used to describe the parties involved.   

Anyways, what are some websites, programs (TV or Youtube) that you've found are excellent at conveying the history of major wars.

One that I was reading about recently is the Boer Wars.  I was watching a show about the search for the Boer's gold.  While they were tracking the trail of the gold, they were finding guns and other evidence of the Boer Wars, which in this case it is my understanding that that is the Second Boer Wars. 

This thread isn't intended to be a debate on wars in itself, but I think that is often interesting discussion.  However, I don't want this to turn into a full on detailed filled debate/discussion/argument, much like the discussion on politics and religion.  As in I wanted to keep it lighter and also see if there are others that are interested in histories of major wars. 

For sure, guns used in those wars are for sure an interest of mine! 

Tagged for interest.  I'm assuming this is strictly non-fiction.

My little contribution:

1) Ken Burns Civil War TV series
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/


2. Ken Burns The War (WW2)
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/
(I've not watched this series)

I have always loved war history but honestly have never taken as much time to study as I would like.

I hated all my history classes, and still do. We repeat all our mistakes and history anyway, despite those who study it.

So my favorite war is uh, I guess the War for Middle-Earth! I hope in my lifetime I will get to see a parody of such movies. I've always thought it would be funny to redo those films in a serious, yet mocking sense. Where they are interpreted as real events but told through skewn and exaggerated legend. So the wizards are like crazy old men who are going senile, and when they battle the other crazy old men...well they are all senile fools pretending to fight in role-playing delusions, imagining their powers and ghostly enemies.

I record most of the TV shows I watch. I think the History Channel, Discovery and AHC as well as some of the related channels do a decent job of portraying history. You just have to watch out for the politically motivated shows. Some are and some are not in my opinion. I can't recall any recent shows but there was a series on AHC about the old west lawmen (outlaws?) that I found fun to watch. I also recently recorded a series regarding new info and analysis on Hitler. Most things I already new but they took a different look at how he grew into his role and how propaganda played a bigger part than was first thought. And how the propaganda machine worked. A very scary view of modern day. Only 70 years ago. And of course they went into how WWII got started from the viewpoint of Hitler.

Tagged for interest.  I'm assuming this is strictly non-fiction.

My little contribution:

1) Ken Burns Civil War TV series
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/


2. Ken Burns The War (WW2)
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/
(I've not watched this series)

Thanks!  I will watch those! 

I've also been interested in the Civil War as well.  When I visited my aunt in VA when I was little, we visited many Civil War battlefield sites like Gettysburg and other sites.  I recall seeing stuff like bullets that were recovered from the battlefields on sale at the souvenir shop and I remember thinking that each of those bullets had a story.  Some of death and some of a simple flight through the air and falling harmlessly into dirt.  Sort of an "if the walls could talk" sort of thinking. 

I have always loved war history but honestly have never taken as much time to study as I would like.

Well, never too late to start.  Understand that time is always a factor in this day and age.  Even for me, it's more of a casual interest where I read, watch, etc as time permits or even as shows come up as I'm channel surfing.  Still, who said you have to be an expert to have an interest in something. 

SNIP

Sooooo. . . I would assume then that you learn from history so that you aren't doomed to repeat it.  What about war history? 

And respectfully, I'm interested in thoughts on history of war.  Not really continuation of "wars" from other threads.   

I hated all my history classes, and still do. We repeat all our mistakes and history anyway, despite those who study it.

So my favorite war is uh, I guess the War for Middle-Earth! I hope in my lifetime I will get to see a parody of such movies. I've always thought it would be funny to redo those films in a serious, yet mocking sense. Where they are interpreted as real events but told through skewn and exaggerated legend. So the wizards are like crazy old men who are going senile, and when they battle the other crazy old men...well they are all senile fools pretending to fight in role-playing delusions, imagining their powers and ghostly enemies.

I guess that works. . . 

 

Many times, people draw parallels with those fantasy wars to actual events, or combinations of actual events.

Anyways, I'll let you resume your fantasizing about crazy old male wizards. . .   

I record most of the TV shows I watch. I think the History Channel, Discovery and AHC as well as some of the related channels do a decent job of portraying history. You just have to watch out for the politically motivated shows. Some are and some are not in my opinion. I can't recall any recent shows but there was a series on AHC about the old west lawmen (outlaws?) that I found fun to watch. I also recently recorded a series regarding new info and analysis on Hitler. Most things I already new but they took a different look at how he grew into his role and how propaganda played a bigger part than was first thought. And how the propaganda machine worked. A very scary view of modern day. Only 70 years ago. And of course they went into how WWII got started from the viewpoint of Hitler.

I watch some History Channel here and there.  I used to watch more before I got digital cable.   

But seriously, yeah, I enjoy the History Channel and Discovery as well.  I am usually wary of shows with political spin, but I am usually aware of those kinds of "side" messages and spin, conspiracy, etc.  Never heard of AHC. 

I recall watching Saving Private Ryan and getting interested in D-Day and WWII.  Damn that war was complex.  Who was pissed off at who and where.  Like all the different battle fronts, especially stuff like the North African campaigns, which don't seem to received much coverage.  Most of the movies on the war seem to be in Germany/Nazi. 

Anyways, I also enjoy noticing how the "little brothers" seem to be on different "belligerent teams" over the course of time. 

I watch some History Channel here and there.  I used to watch more before I got digital cable.   

But seriously, yeah, I enjoy the History Channel and Discovery as well.  I am usually wary of shows with political spin, but I am usually aware of those kinds of "side" messages and spin, conspiracy, etc.  Never heard of AHC. 

I recall watching Saving Private Ryan and getting interested in D-Day and WWII.  Damn that war was complex.  Who was pissed off at who and where.  Like all the different battle fronts, especially stuff like the North African campaigns, which don't seem to received much coverage.  Most of the movies on the war seem to be in Germany/Nazi. 

Anyways, I also enjoy noticing how the "little brothers" seem to be on different "belligerent teams" over the course of time.

For me, the most interesting aspect of WWII is the influence the Nazi's have (Not had) on the Sharia Muslim countries during and after the war up until present. Hatred (modern) and desire to kill all Jews and destroy the Jewish state by all the current Sharia Muslim countries can be directly connected to the Nazi's. That is an interesting side note to WWII up to the present history. It is fascinating how the Nazi's were able to influence that part of the world and it continues to this day. And is as strong as ever. If you are looking for something different to research, that to me is a very interesting side story to WWII history.

In college many of my friends were interested in war history and guns. For some reason I consistently made friends of that type even though I was not into any of those. Went to see Braveheart and thought it was okay. They wanted me to see Saving Private Ryan and said I would like it, but I didn't think so and refused to go.

When I saw it for free on TV decades later I liked it, but I wouldn't have liked it had I seen it back then. I had recently played some WWII videogame with tanks, rifles, flamethrowers, sandbags and stuff so I had more appreciation for the visuals and tactics than I would previously have had.

For me, the most interesting aspect of WWII is the influence the Nazi's have (Not had) on the Sharia Muslim countries during and after the war up until present. Hatred (modern) and desire to kill all Jews and destroy the Jewish state by all the current Sharia Muslim countries can be directly connected to the Nazi's. That is an interesting side note to WWII up to the present history. It is fascinating how the Nazi's were able to influence that part of the world and it continues to this day. And is as strong as ever. If you are looking for something different to research, that to me is a very interesting side story to WWII history.

I see.  I thought all that went back thousands of years.  Kind of like the case of centuries long "feuds" where many on opposing sides may not even know the origins of why they hate each other.  It's always been so and it will always be so kind of deal.  Stuff that goes back thousands of years.  Many wars, conflicts, etc start with generally people/side/group sticking their noses in a different region.  Why they stuck their noses in the region vary, but it is those reasons that I seem to be interested in.  Like in the case of the Boer War, which pitted the "original" settlers in South Africa (that term original settler is usually a key phrase) vs the Brits.  The war resulted from decades of conflict between the sides and mostly because of gold.  The origins and that wars seemed to brew gradually in those cases, with things building, building, building and then one side having enough and pushing back.  Not that different than what we see today, just that things seem to happen much quicker now. 

Sooooo. . . I would assume then that you learn from history so that you aren't doomed to repeat it.  What about war history? 

And respectfully, I'm interested in thoughts on history of war.  Not really continuation of "wars" from other threads.   

War history includes what got us into the wars, how we used tactical and strategic plans, civilian control of military (such as ROE), and how doctrine has changed over the years to adapt to smaller, insurgent style conflicts versus nation-against-nation full-blown battlefield wars.

We learned from Korea and Vietnam that WWII lessons no longer applied in jungles against enemies who often didn't wear uniforms. 

Afghanistan has a long history of major powers trying to defeat the Taliban.  Russia failed.  What makes us think using the same tactics would not end up being a long, contracted conflict for the US, too?

Lots of examples of how countries have failed to learn from history.  The mistakes we made should be part of the history lessons.

War history includes what got us into the wars, how we used tactical and strategic plans, civilian control of military (such as ROE), and how doctrine has changed over the years to adapt to smaller, insurgent style conflicts versus nation-against-nation full-blown battlefield wars.

We learned from Korea and Vietnam that WWII lessons no longer applied in jungles against enemies who often didn't wear uniforms. 

Afghanistan has a long history of major powers trying to defeat the Taliban.  Russia failed.  What makes us think using the same tactics would not end up being a long, contracted conflict for the US, too?

Lots of examples of how countries have failed to learn from history.  The mistakes we made should be part of the history lessons.

Yup.  What got us, or any belligerent for that matter, into a given war is part of the history that I am very interested in.  Stuff like the tactics and strategic plans, ROE, etc is all interesting to me and like you said, something that needs to be examined and lessons learned. 

For some reason, I haven't been that interested in Korea or Vietnam.  My dad was in the Army after Korea and two of my uncles were in Korea.  I've watched and enjoyed a number of History Channel programs on the "progress" of how the Vietnam War progressed, but not really the Korean War. 

Afghanistan and Russia and how that developed and morphed into many of the problems faced today.  The Afghans know their land and how to fight/defend and that "experience" with Russia certainly formed/shaped what they are today. 

Yup.  What got us, or any belligerent for that matter, into a given war is part of the history that I am very interested in.  Stuff like the tactics and strategic plans, ROE, etc is all interesting to me and like you said, something that needs to be examined and lessons learned. 

For some reason, I haven't been that interested in Korea or Vietnam.  My dad was in the Army after Korea and two of my uncles were in Korea.  I've watched and enjoyed a number of History Channel programs on the "progress" of how the Vietnam War progressed, but not really the Korean War. 

Afghanistan and Russia and how that developed and morphed into many of the problems faced today.  The Afghans know their land and how to fight/defend and that "experience" with Russia certainly formed/shaped what they are today.

Part of the benefit of being a military officer is attending PME (Professional Military Education) schools and learning just enough about all things military to wet our appetites. 

The information covering armed conflict, military, politics, and our own national security command structure would take many lifetimes for one person to absorb.

Part of the benefit of being a military officer is attending PME (Professional Military Education) schools and learning just enough about all things military to wet our appetites. 

The information covering armed conflict, military, politics, and our own national security command structure would take many lifetimes for one person to absorb.

I work with a lot of "youse types".  Most are engineers, but many in command positions have been deployed to some pretty darn harsh places. 

More recently, I've been exposed to more to the background of what services we support and we have gotten more into armed conflict, politics and national security command structure, etc.  It is important exposure to give more meaning to what we support.  That exposure typically doesn't get into the weeds of war and stuff, but I get to see a lot of what goes behind the scenes to support war, the warfighter, etc.  And it's a LOT.  I always knew that logistics played a big role in how wars are fought, even from hundreds of years ago.  In that regard, things haven't really changed that much.  Sure, we are more efficient and things can happen at a lightning pace compared to even say 10-20 years ago.  One of my college buddies is a Naval officer who is most recently in logistics and he was giving me an even greater insight on what goes on to support things.  I think of it much like for every fighter or helo pilot, there's a whole crew that supports that person (or persons). 

I wouldn't say that this is something that I would get into in the detailed level, but I do generally enjoy the topic and every so often get exposure into the details. 

I see.  I thought all that went back thousands of years.  Kind of like the case of centuries long "feuds" where many on opposing sides may not even know the origins of why they hate each other.  It's always been so and it will always be so kind of deal.  Stuff that goes back thousands of years.  Many wars, conflicts, etc start with generally people/side/group sticking their noses in a different region.  Why they stuck their noses in the region vary, but it is those reasons that I seem to be interested in.  Like in the case of the Boer War, which pitted the "original" settlers in South Africa (that term original settler is usually a key phrase) vs the Brits.  The war resulted from decades of conflict between the sides and mostly because of gold.  The origins and that wars seemed to brew gradually in those cases, with things building, building, building and then one side having enough and pushing back.  Not that different than what we see today, just that things seem to happen much quicker now.

I apologize for not being clear in stating what I did. This is why I qualified my statement as "Modern" history and countries specific to Sharia Muslim countries. The hatred and killing of Jews goes back far into ancient history. However, I was referring to recent history and certain countries surrounding the Jewish state of Israel. Israel was born in 1948 (Modern History). If you look through the history of persecution of the Jews from around 1850 or so the Jews were not expelled or murdered from Muslim countries until again around the mid 1950's. Most of the expulsions and murders took place in countries that are not predominantly Muslim. Countries such as Russia, France, Poland, Italy, etc. were doing this and are not predominantly Muslim. Even Persia (Iran) didn't start persecution of Persian Jews until the mid 20th century. People think the hatred of Jews goes back thousands of years. Which is true but it wasn't always the Muslims who were doing the persecution. It seems the real hatred in countries like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Iran really started after the Nazi's infiltrated these countries. It seems that until the Nazis came into their own that the Jews got along just fine in numerous Muslim countries going back at least 100 years or so. It was this persecution and the German Holocaust that help cause the creation of the Jewish state. Before the Nazis it seems the Jews in the Arab world were a non issue for many years.

Please don't take everything I said here without understanding I am speaking in generalities. There are probably holes in some of my history here. And there may be one or two small specific incidents that might contradict what I am trying to say. But overall everything I stated here is pretty accurate. If I am wrong about something specific I will apologize in advance because I am typing this from memory. But as long as the jist of what I am saying is correct it is an area of study that is an interesting aside to WWII.

I apologize for not being clear in stating what I did. This is why I qualified my statement as "Modern" history and countries specific to Sharia Muslim countries. The hatred and killing of Jews goes back far into ancient history. However, I was referring to recent history and certain countries surrounding the Jewish state of Israel. Israel was born in 1948 (Modern History). 1) If you look through the history of persecution of the Jews from around 1850 or so the Jews were not expelled or murdered from Muslim countries until again around the mid 1950's. Most of the expulsions and murders took place in countries that are not predominantly Muslim. Countries such as Russia, France, Poland, Italy, etc. were doing this and are not predominantly Muslim. Even Persia (Iran) didn't start persecution of Persian Jews until the mid 20th century. 2) People think the hatred of Jews goes back thousands of years. Which is true but it wasn't always the Muslims who were doing the persecution. It seems the real hatred in countries like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Iran really started after the Nazi's infiltrated these countries. It seems that until the Nazis came into their own that the Jews got along just fine in numerous Muslim countries going back at least 100 years or so. It was this persecution and the German Holocaust that help cause the creation of the Jewish state. Before the Nazis it seems the Jews in the Arab world were a non issue for many years.

3) Please don't take everything I said here without understanding I am speaking in generalities. There are probably holes in some of my history here. And there may be one or two small specific incidents that might contradict what I am trying to say. But overall everything I stated here is pretty accurate. If I am wrong about something specific I will apologize in advance because I am typing this from memory. But as long as the jist of what I am saying is correct it is an area of study that is an interesting aside to WWII.

1) I'll take your word for it.  I wasn't around then to know first hand. . .  [kidding]
2) That was my general understanding of the "big picture" and I can see your point about the recent (last 100 years) stuff.  That's kind of my point of this thread is that mostly know the gist of things, but not really the finer details. 
3) Understood. And I wasn't trying to poke holes or put what you said up to the light for finer inspection.  Was actually taking what you said as pretty much from a "well informed person" perspective.  I was just saying that I understood, which admittedly is usually bits and pieces of things and many times I've found that they aren't well connected.  That's why I mentioned that I often get the gist of what started conflicts, but also lost (or forgot) much of the details of why, what made it worse, etc. 

Gen George S. Patton claimed he had seen combat many times before in previous lives, including as a Roman legionnaire and as part of
the 14th-century army of John the Blind of Bohemia. Before the 1943 invasion of Sicily, British General Harold Alexander told Patton,
“You know, George, you would have made a great marshal for Napoleon if you had lived in the 19th century.” Patton replied, “But I did.”

The general believed that after he died he would return to once again lead armies into battle.

He was an avid student of every great strategist in military history, from Sun Tzu, to Machiavelli, and Alexander the Great to Napoleon.  He read everything written by the German commanders he faced to understand their basic philosophies and tactics.

it's a shame he was too politically reckless for his own good!