How to Study History ? WWII in particular.

[kiwitt]

I have decided to focus my learning of History on WWII. However, in virtually every book I get to read and sometimes buy, I find I have to go over the same old stuff again and again, hoping to find something new.

I tried Wikipedia, which is fine for an overview, but doesn't drill into the detail as much as I want. As to authors saying they have another way of looking at ... meh! ... they are still looking at the same events and re-phrasing them from their point of view.

Is it because, I am now so familiar with WWII that I am now so critical.

Let see what I have;

General Overviews of the entire WWII, including the build up
Winston Churchill's History of WWII.
Chronology of Events, WWII War Maps, Orders of Battle
Multiple biographies of important people
Equipment details
Operation Specific, like Barbarossa, Cassino (and have considered Stalingrad, D-Day and others)

All to give me a better picture of WWII

The problem is I have never studied History at school nor college and have not learned what could be a better method, instead of what seems to me to be "hunt and peck".

How do historian's study ? I'm open to suggestions as I now have the time.

 

[Yui108]

Take about 15 minutes to look around.

 

[kiwitt]

Take about 15 minutes to look around.

63,616 items

 

[Masada]

It's World War Two, what do you expect.

 

[Yui108]

63,616 items

The first book on that page is actually quite detail specific and a great read on an understudied part of the war.

 

[sophie]

63,616 items

Better get crackin then....

 

[kiwitt]

Look, I know there are great books at there about individual tales. But is there a proper method to study History ...

 

[kiwitt]

I think I will try this
http://www.historyguide.org/guide/guide.html

 

[Zardnaar]

Read alot of books basically

 

[Antilogic]

As a fellow "amateur" historian, but one who reads from a variety of time periods and not just WW2, I have found that reading one or two overviews to start is the most effective (to get the big picture), and then I start to drill down into the details of specific encounters. I tend to move chronologically to keep the information organized, but skipping around to the major points won't hurt you if you can keep it organized.

I admittedly consume more pop history books than articles off of JSTOR, and use the reviews on sites like Amazon to determine whether the books are worth reading (as well as reading a few pages of the book first, if you can, to get a feel for the author's writing style).

If you are looking for book recommendations, then I have two books on the Pacific War that I have found to be spectacular (I rate them 5/5 stars):

Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway by Parshall and Tully is amazing. Most Western accounts of the battle of Midway use one source, Fuchida, for the Japanese actions during the battle, and according to modern Japanese scholarship and these authors' investigation, the picture is fairly inaccurate. Using surviving records, translated modern Japanese works, and working knowledge of carrier operations, the authors re-tell the battle of Midway with the intent of correcting the record.

The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors by Hornfischer was also a great read. It details the naval engagements at the Philippines and specifically the battle off Samar Island, where a small American escort carrier detachment is ambushed by a major Japanese surface fleet. Great description of the action, the ships, etc.

 

[kiwitt]

RE: Pacific WWII Books. Thanks for that. These will be especially useful if/when I start working on my WWII Pacific Scenario.

 

[Antilogic]

I took a second look at my bookshelf and came across Robert Citino's books (I have Quest for Decisive Victory and The German Way of War). If I remember correctly, he traces the evolution of blitzkrieg tactics and how the army staffs decided to fight World War I and World War II from earlier conflicts. I don't know how controversial or how well-regarded the author is, but his arguments have some merit in my eyes, as does his criticism of other thinkers.

The former book focuses mostly on the development of World War I and II tactics from analysis of wars in the 19th century to the early 20th century, while the latter covers the development of German warfare from the Renaissance onwards.

 

[Dachs]

Citino is interesting so long as you don't take his evolutionary stuff too seriously, because he doesn't do a very good job of demonstrating how exactly it was evolutionary, IIRC.