|
|
Post by urbino on Jan 5, 2022 23:23:40 GMT -5
David Grann, Killers of the Flower Moon.
It's an account of, apparently, the serial murder of Osage Indians after oil was discovered on their Oklahoma reservation, and its "investigation" by the newborn FBI.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrapinflyer on Jan 6, 2022 5:02:33 GMT -5
That sounds interesting.
I'm just starting The Effort by Claire Holroyde. 2021. Fiction. Earth is threatened by a large comet. I hope it's less bleak than the movie Don’t Look Up.
On the non-fiction side, something lighter: Fashion Victims by Alison Matthews Dodd. 2015. The sometimes dangerous lengths to which women will go in pursuit of fashion. Probably not of interest to you icky boys.
I've got a bunch of promising books on waitlist at the liberry, so my dance card is full for a while. .
|
|
rastewart
Junior Member
Posts: 360
First Name: Rich
Favorite Pipe: Freehands, bent bulldogs, and the incomparable Peterson 303
Favorite Tobacco: Mac Baren's Scottish Blend (Mixture), C&D Mountain Camp, C&D Bayou Morning
Location:
|
Post by rastewart on Jan 6, 2022 14:33:33 GMT -5
I have been on a ghost story binge lately, set off by a couple of articles early in Advent about the tradition of ghost stories during the Christmas season. So I've recently finished Madness on the Orient Express, an anthology of what you might call neo-Lovecraftian stories set on that legendary train, and I'm reading Not Exactly Ghosts, a collection by Sir Andrew Caldecott (not the Caldecott for whom the medal for children's book illustrations was named), to be followed by Fires Burn Blue by the same author, who was a near contemporary of M.R. James and writes in a similar vein. I'm also listening to Trigger Warnings by Neil Gaiman, read by the author. I'm about halfway through Ghostly Demarcations by Joe Taylor, an intriguing author from Kentucky. When my tour through the land of hauntings and spirits is done (for now), I have a Christmas gift to dive into, the recently published FSG Book of Twentieth-Century Latin American Poetry.
|
|
|
|
Post by toshtego on Jan 6, 2022 21:20:09 GMT -5
David Grann, Killers of the Flower Moon. It's an account of, apparently, the serial murder of Osage Indians after oil was discovered on their Oklahoma reservation, and its "investigation" by the newborn FBI. As I understand it. This what the old Bureau cut their teeth on way back then. |
|
|
|
Post by exbenedict on Jan 7, 2022 10:53:42 GMT -5
David Grann, Killers of the Flower Moon. It's an account of, apparently, the serial murder of Osage Indians after oil was discovered on their Oklahoma reservation, and its "investigation" by the newborn FBI. My wife (Oklahoma Seminole) is reading that right now. |
|
msokeefe
Junior Member
Posts: 464
First Name: Mark
Favorite Pipe: Petersen Red 03 bent apple spigot, Savinelli 310 KS
Favorite Tobacco: Father Dempsey, Presbyterian, Wilke’s Crystal Palace, Westminster, Black House
Location:
|
Post by msokeefe on Jan 10, 2022 17:19:31 GMT -5
David Grann, Killers of the Flower Moon. It's an account of, apparently, the serial murder of Osage Indians after oil was discovered on their Oklahoma reservation, and its "investigation" by the newborn FBI. ugh the FBI. Blackmail incorporated Gestapo |
|
msokeefe
Junior Member
Posts: 464
First Name: Mark
Favorite Pipe: Petersen Red 03 bent apple spigot, Savinelli 310 KS
Favorite Tobacco: Father Dempsey, Presbyterian, Wilke’s Crystal Palace, Westminster, Black House
Location:
|
Post by msokeefe on Jan 10, 2022 17:51:35 GMT -5
 I am reading Stalin’s War by Sean McMeekin. A prize-winning historian reveals how Stalin—not Hitler—was the animating force of World War II in this major new history. World War II endures in the popular imagination as a heroic struggle between good and evil, with villainous Hitler driving its events. But Hitler was not in power when the conflict erupted in Asia—and he was certainly dead before it ended. His armies did not fight in multiple theaters, his empire did not span the Eurasian continent, and he did not inherit any of the spoils of war. That central role belonged to Joseph Stalin. The Second World War was not Hitler’s war; it was Stalin’s war. Drawing on ambitious new research in Soviet, European, and US archives, Stalin’s War revolutionizes our understanding of this global conflict by moving its epicenter to the east. Hitler’s genocidal ambition may have helped unleash Armageddon, but as McMeekin shows, the war which emerged in Europe in September 1939 was the one Stalin wanted, not Hitler. So, too, did the Pacific war of 1941–1945 fulfill Stalin’s goal of unleashing a devastating war of attrition between Japan and the “Anglo-Saxon” capitalist powers he viewed as his ultimate adversary. McMeekin also reveals the extent to which Soviet Communism was rescued by the US and Britain’s self-defeating strategic moves, beginning with Lend-Lease aid, as American and British supply boards agreed almost blindly to every Soviet demand. Stalin’s war machine, McMeekin shows, was substantially reliant on American materiél from warplanes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, motorcycles, fuel, ammunition, and explosives, to industrial inputs and technology transfer, to the foodstuffs which fed the Red Army. This unreciprocated American generosity gave Stalin’s armies the mobile striking power to conquer most of Eurasia, from Berlin to Beijing, for Communism. A groundbreaking reassessment of the Second World War, Stalin’s War is essential reading for anyone looking to understand the current world order. |
|
|
|
Post by Ronv69 on Jan 10, 2022 19:19:56 GMT -5
I hear you, but I'm so tired of war. I only read fantasy these days for the most part. Reality sucks and I've lost too much respect for my fellow men (and women) as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbino on Jan 10, 2022 20:56:31 GMT -5
I am reading Stalin’s War by Sean McMeekin. A prize-winning historian reveals how Stalin—not Hitler—was the animating force of World War II in this major new history. World War II endures in the popular imagination as a heroic struggle between good and evil, with villainous Hitler driving its events. But Hitler was not in power when the conflict erupted in Asia—and he was certainly dead before it ended. His armies did not fight in multiple theaters, his empire did not span the Eurasian continent, and he did not inherit any of the spoils of war. That central role belonged to Joseph Stalin. The Second World War was not Hitler’s war; it was Stalin’s war. Drawing on ambitious new research in Soviet, European, and US archives, Stalin’s War revolutionizes our understanding of this global conflict by moving its epicenter to the east. Hitler’s genocidal ambition may have helped unleash Armageddon, but as McMeekin shows, the war which emerged in Europe in September 1939 was the one Stalin wanted, not Hitler. So, too, did the Pacific war of 1941–1945 fulfill Stalin’s goal of unleashing a devastating war of attrition between Japan and the “Anglo-Saxon” capitalist powers he viewed as his ultimate adversary. McMeekin also reveals the extent to which Soviet Communism was rescued by the US and Britain’s self-defeating strategic moves, beginning with Lend-Lease aid, as American and British supply boards agreed almost blindly to every Soviet demand. Stalin’s war machine, McMeekin shows, was substantially reliant on American materiél from warplanes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, motorcycles, fuel, ammunition, and explosives, to industrial inputs and technology transfer, to the foodstuffs which fed the Red Army. This unreciprocated American generosity gave Stalin’s armies the mobile striking power to conquer most of Eurasia, from Berlin to Beijing, for Communism. A groundbreaking reassessment of the Second World War, Stalin’s War is essential reading for anyone looking to understand the current world order. I've seen that book. I'm curious how he's defining "the conflict" as something that "erupted in Asia." I'm very far from an expert on the subject, but I've never read or heard a definition of WWII that demarcates its beginning as some event in Asia. That seems like it would have to be the most signficant revision of WWII history McMeekin is arguing for. I know enough to know it's certainly true that the USSR, not America or Britain or the Allies in general, won the war. Measured by who did the fighting and dying, the great bulk of that happened on the Eastern Front. We Westerners were comparatively minor players in the conflict. (No offense meant to anyone's relatives who fought. But the numbers are what they are.) Measured by who gained the most territory, political control over other states, etc., as a result of the war, well that's very obviously the USSR. So, Stalin certainly won the war. But I'm not sure how he could be said to have started it. Wars rarely have clear, unambigous, and wholly non-arbitrary starting points, but still. I assume McMeekin must locate this war's in the Soviet-Japanese-Chinese conflicts, somehow. I'm just not sure how. Why should those conflicts mark the beginning of WWII rather than, say, the Spanish or Italian ones or, as is customary, Germany's aggression in Eastern Europe? Have they found documentary evidence that somehow it was Stalin's plan all along to parlay conflicts in the Far East into total war in Europe, or something? |
|
msokeefe
Junior Member
Posts: 464
First Name: Mark
Favorite Pipe: Petersen Red 03 bent apple spigot, Savinelli 310 KS
Favorite Tobacco: Father Dempsey, Presbyterian, Wilke’s Crystal Palace, Westminster, Black House
Location:
|
Post by msokeefe on Jan 10, 2022 23:17:32 GMT -5
I am reading Stalin’s War by Sean McMeekin. A prize-winning historian reveals how Stalin—not Hitler—was the animating force of World War II in this major new history. World War II endures in the popular imagination as a heroic struggle between good and evil, with villainous Hitler driving its events. But Hitler was not in power when the conflict erupted in Asia—and he was certainly dead before it ended. His armies did not fight in multiple theaters, his empire did not span the Eurasian continent, and he did not inherit any of the spoils of war. That central role belonged to Joseph Stalin. The Second World War was not Hitler’s war; it was Stalin’s war. Drawing on ambitious new research in Soviet, European, and US archives, Stalin’s War revolutionizes our understanding of this global conflict by moving its epicenter to the east. Hitler’s genocidal ambition may have helped unleash Armageddon, but as McMeekin shows, the war which emerged in Europe in September 1939 was the one Stalin wanted, not Hitler. So, too, did the Pacific war of 1941–1945 fulfill Stalin’s goal of unleashing a devastating war of attrition between Japan and the “Anglo-Saxon” capitalist powers he viewed as his ultimate adversary. McMeekin also reveals the extent to which Soviet Communism was rescued by the US and Britain’s self-defeating strategic moves, beginning with Lend-Lease aid, as American and British supply boards agreed almost blindly to every Soviet demand. Stalin’s war machine, McMeekin shows, was substantially reliant on American materiél from warplanes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, motorcycles, fuel, ammunition, and explosives, to industrial inputs and technology transfer, to the foodstuffs which fed the Red Army. This unreciprocated American generosity gave Stalin’s armies the mobile striking power to conquer most of Eurasia, from Berlin to Beijing, for Communism. A groundbreaking reassessment of the Second World War, Stalin’s War is essential reading for anyone looking to understand the current world order. I've seen that book. I'm curious how he's defining "the conflict" as something that "erupted in Asia." I'm very far from an expert on the subject, but I've never read or heard a definition of WWII that demarcates its beginning as some event in Asia. That seems like it would have to be the most signficant revision of WWII history McMeekin is arguing for. I know enough to know it's certainly true that the USSR, not America or Britain or the Allies in general, won the war. Measured by who did the fighting and dying, the great bulk of that happened on the Eastern Front. We Westerners were comparatively minor players in the conflict. (No offense meant to anyone's relatives who fought. But the numbers are what they are.) Measured by who gained the most territory, political control over other states, etc., as a result of the war, well that's very obviously the USSR. So, Stalin certainly won the war. But I'm not sure how he could be said to have started it. Wars rarely have clear, unambigous, and wholly non-arbitrary starting points, but still. I assume McMeekin must locate this war's in the Soviet-Japanese-Chinese conflicts, somehow. I'm just not sure how. Why should those conflicts mark the beginning of WWII rather than, say, the Spanish or Italian ones or, as is customary, Germany's aggression in Eastern Europe? Have they found documentary evidence that somehow it was Stalin's plan all along to parlay conflicts in the Far East into total war in Europe, or something? I am only into the second chapter. That being said, I have read a few books in this genre. One was by Thomas Fleming “The New Dealer’s War: FDR and the War Within World War II” and Herbert Hoover “Freedom Betrayed Herbert Hoovers Secret History of the Second World War and It’s Aftermath”. President Hoover finished this book in 1964, but did not publish it so as not to hurt the soldiers and their family members who sacrificed so much. In his will he dictated that the book not be published for 50 years. Well, it was published in 2011. Herbert Hoover was loved by Europe, using donations, he fed Europe in the aftermath of WWI. During the 30s and 40s, he was given information from players throughout the world. We have been taught propaganda in our schools. Did you know that before Hitler, the communists took power in Germany for several days? Don’t forget the Soviets fighting alongside the communist Republicans in Spain. Also recall that many Americans went to Spain to fight with the communists. The Germans fought the communists in Spain. WWII started when Germany invaded Poland, according to our history books. They neglect to mention the Soviets also invaded Poland from the East..The Soviets also invaded Finland and the Baltic States. The Soviets killed many million more people than Hitler ever did. So why did we ally ourselves with the Soviets? The Soviets lost so many souls because Stalin purged by killing most of his capable Generals in the mid thirties. They also callously sent soldiers into battle without even rifles, with commissars manning the machine guns to cut down anyone who retreated. |
|
msokeefe
Junior Member
Posts: 464
First Name: Mark
Favorite Pipe: Petersen Red 03 bent apple spigot, Savinelli 310 KS
Favorite Tobacco: Father Dempsey, Presbyterian, Wilke’s Crystal Palace, Westminster, Black House
Location:
|
Post by msokeefe on Jan 10, 2022 23:19:56 GMT -5
The author is alluding to the fact that WWII started in Asia, when the Japanese were invading China, Korea, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbino on Jan 11, 2022 1:54:54 GMT -5
I've seen that book. I'm curious how he's defining "the conflict" as something that "erupted in Asia." I'm very far from an expert on the subject, but I've never read or heard a definition of WWII that demarcates its beginning as some event in Asia. That seems like it would have to be the most signficant revision of WWII history McMeekin is arguing for. I know enough to know it's certainly true that the USSR, not America or Britain or the Allies in general, won the war. Measured by who did the fighting and dying, the great bulk of that happened on the Eastern Front. We Westerners were comparatively minor players in the conflict. (No offense meant to anyone's relatives who fought. But the numbers are what they are.) Measured by who gained the most territory, political control over other states, etc., as a result of the war, well that's very obviously the USSR. So, Stalin certainly won the war. But I'm not sure how he could be said to have started it. Wars rarely have clear, unambigous, and wholly non-arbitrary starting points, but still. I assume McMeekin must locate this war's in the Soviet-Japanese-Chinese conflicts, somehow. I'm just not sure how. Why should those conflicts mark the beginning of WWII rather than, say, the Spanish or Italian ones or, as is customary, Germany's aggression in Eastern Europe? Have they found documentary evidence that somehow it was Stalin's plan all along to parlay conflicts in the Far East into total war in Europe, or something? I am only into the second chapter. That being said, I have read a few books in this genre. One was by Thomas Fleming “The New Dealer’s War: FDR and the War Within World War II” and Herbert Hoover “Freedom Betrayed Herbert Hoovers Secret History of the Second World War and It’s Aftermath”. President Hoover finished this book in 1964, but did not publish it so as not to hurt the soldiers and their family members who sacrificed so much. In his will he dictated that the book not be published for 50 years. Well, it was published in 2011. Herbert Hoover was loved by Europe, using donations, he fed Europe in the aftermath of WWI. During the 30s and 40s, he was given information from players throughout the world. We have been taught propaganda in our schools. Did you know that before Hitler, the communists took power in Germany for several days? Don’t forget the Soviets fighting alongside the communist Republicans in Spain. Also recall that many Americans went to Spain to fight with the communists. The Germans fought the communists in Spain. WWII started when Germany invaded Poland, according to our history books. They neglect to mention the Soviets also invaded Poland from the East..The Soviets also invaded Finland and the Baltic States. The Soviets killed many million more people than Hitler ever did. So why did we ally ourselves with the Soviets? The Soviets lost so many souls because Stalin purged by killing most of his capable Generals in the mid thirties. They also callously sent soldiers into battle without even rifles, with commissars manning the machine guns to cut down anyone who retreated. This seems like it's drifting in the general direction of the kinds of declarations that aren't appropriate at the Patch. Thanks for posting about McMeekin's book. |
|
msokeefe
Junior Member
Posts: 464
First Name: Mark
Favorite Pipe: Petersen Red 03 bent apple spigot, Savinelli 310 KS
Favorite Tobacco: Father Dempsey, Presbyterian, Wilke’s Crystal Palace, Westminster, Black House
Location:
|
Post by msokeefe on Jan 11, 2022 6:55:15 GMT -5
“This seems like it's drifting in the general direction of the kinds of declarations that aren't appropriate at the Patch. Thanks for posting about McMeekin's book.”
Wow! I guess this place is not for me. You can proffer an opinion, but I cannot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronv69 on Jan 11, 2022 11:51:29 GMT -5
“This seems like it's drifting in the general direction of the kinds of declarations that aren't appropriate at the Patch. Thanks for posting about McMeekin's book.” Wow! I guess this place is not for me. You can proffer an opinion, but I cannot? It seems like a reasonable history discussion and I don't see either of you drifting into dangerous territory at this time. I am interested in what both of you are saying. |
|
|
|
Post by urbino on Jan 11, 2022 17:55:58 GMT -5
“This seems like it's drifting in the general direction of the kinds of declarations that aren't appropriate at the Patch. Thanks for posting about McMeekin's book.” Wow! I guess this place is not for me. You can proffer an opinion, but I cannot? I didn't proffer an opinion, other than that saying Stalin started WWII seemed like a difficult historical argument to make, and I wasn't sure how McMeekin would make it. Hoover's book makes a particular political argument, rather than attempting an historical one. Fleming's book also makes a particular political argument, more than an historical one. Not coincidentally, they both make broadly the same political argument, from the same political viewpoint. They are part of the literature of one side of America's interminable "culture war." The other points you raised also are pressed by one particular side. All that suggested to me we were headed for a discussion that was more political than historiographical, and I come to the Patch to get away from all that culture war stuff. There are plenty of places to discuss all that. This just isn't one of them, and I like that. So when I sense -- rightly or wrongly -- that things are drifting that direction, I disengage. No harm meant. |
|
msokeefe
Junior Member
Posts: 464
First Name: Mark
Favorite Pipe: Petersen Red 03 bent apple spigot, Savinelli 310 KS
Favorite Tobacco: Father Dempsey, Presbyterian, Wilke’s Crystal Palace, Westminster, Black House
Location:
|
Post by msokeefe on Jan 23, 2022 23:46:58 GMT -5
“This seems like it's drifting in the general direction of the kinds of declarations that aren't appropriate at the Patch. Thanks for posting about McMeekin's book.” Wow! I guess this place is not for me. You can proffer an opinion, but I cannot? I didn't proffer an opinion, other than that saying Stalin started WWII seemed like a difficult historical argument to make, and I wasn't sure how McMeekin would make it. Hoover's book makes a particular political argument, rather than attempting an historical one. Fleming's book also makes a particular political argument, more than an historical one. Not coincidentally, they both make broadly the same political argument, from the same political viewpoint. They are part of the literature of one side of America's interminable "culture war." The other points you raised also are pressed by one particular side. All that suggested to me we were headed for a discussion that was more political than historiographical, and I come to the Patch to get away from all that culture war stuff. There are plenty of places to discuss all that. This just isn't one of them, and I like that. So when I sense -- rightly or wrongly -- that things are drifting that direction, I disengage. No harm meant. |
|
msokeefe
Junior Member
Posts: 464
First Name: Mark
Favorite Pipe: Petersen Red 03 bent apple spigot, Savinelli 310 KS
Favorite Tobacco: Father Dempsey, Presbyterian, Wilke’s Crystal Palace, Westminster, Black House
Location:
|
Post by msokeefe on Jan 23, 2022 23:53:03 GMT -5
Yes you did offer an opinion. Have you read Herbert Hoovers book, or Thomas Fleming book? Apparently they don’t align with your views. Hoover was sent communications from throughout the world, not revealed by the FDR communist regime. Fleming comes from a long line of democrats and helped Truman’s daughter to write a Truman biography. He was allowed access to democrats journals, diaries stored at alma maters. It was Stalins war because he increased his empire beyond his wildest dreams. He was more evil than Hitler.
|
|
msokeefe
Junior Member
Posts: 464
First Name: Mark
Favorite Pipe: Petersen Red 03 bent apple spigot, Savinelli 310 KS
Favorite Tobacco: Father Dempsey, Presbyterian, Wilke’s Crystal Palace, Westminster, Black House
Location:
|
Post by msokeefe on Jan 23, 2022 23:56:28 GMT -5
“Hoover's book makes a particular political argument, rather than attempting an historical one. Fleming's book also makes a particular political argument, more than an historical one. Not coincidentally, they both make broadly the same political argument, from the same political viewpoint. “
|
|
|
|
Post by terrapinflyer on Jan 24, 2022 11:14:27 GMT -5
Termination Shock, Neal Stephenson. Fiction, 2021. I love this guy's writing. It's usually pretty well founded science fiction with wild seeming digressions and a dash of postmodern absurdity. And this one's totally apolitical: climate change and geoengineering. Ha.
|
|
|
|
Post by don on Jan 24, 2022 13:20:13 GMT -5
David Grann, Killers of the Flower Moon. It's an account of, apparently, the serial murder of Osage Indians after oil was discovered on their Oklahoma reservation, and its "investigation" by the newborn FBI. A very good book. |
|
|
|
Post by don on Jan 24, 2022 13:24:04 GMT -5
“12 Rules for Life” by Jordan B. Peterson
|
|
|
|
Post by trailboss on Jan 26, 2022 1:58:34 GMT -5
“12 Rules for Life” by Jordan B. Peterson Intellectually, he leaves so many of his contemporaries in the dust. A brilliant man. |
|
|
|
Post by terrapinflyer on Jan 26, 2022 13:40:25 GMT -5
“12 Rules for Life” by Jordan B. Peterson Intellectually, he leaves so many of his contemporaries in the dust. A brilliant man. So brilliant a psychologist that he didn't know Klonopin causes dependence... |
|
|
|
Post by cigrmaster on Jan 26, 2022 14:22:07 GMT -5
If this is not the official " what Are Your Smoking), I will be very up set and the bombs will reign fire and destruction like the world never seen. Don't make me be a bad guy here.
|
|
|
|
Post by cigrmaster on Jan 26, 2022 14:48:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sperrytops on Jan 26, 2022 15:39:42 GMT -5
Wrong thread for what are you smoking and new pipes. But that is a nice one. Enjoy
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronv69 on Jan 26, 2022 16:30:24 GMT -5
If this is not the official " what Are Your Smoking), I will be very up set and the bombs will reign fire and destruction like the world never seen. Don't make me be a bad guy here. Only you can make you a bad guy. 😜😎 |
|
|
|
Post by oldcajun123 on Jan 26, 2022 16:34:24 GMT -5
 Don’t pay attention, Harris is on his meds, couple days ago he had a I don’t know what post on PM magizine that they either deleted or cataloged in the crazy section.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepesdad1 on Jan 26, 2022 18:35:40 GMT -5
Harris is a good guy...we all are on meds that play with our minds (in my case there isn't much mind to befuddle).
Robert Harris's Lustrum...a continuation of Tiro's recollections of Cicero and the intrigues of Rome.
|
|
|
|
Post by sperrytops on Jan 26, 2022 21:56:14 GMT -5
Reading The Dawn of Everything. A New History of Humanity by Graeber and Wengrow. A fascinating take on history that's entirely different from that generally written. Looks at neolithic peoples and later as being far more intelligent than we give them credit for.
|
|
Don’t pay attention, Harris is on his meds, couple days ago he had a I don’t know what post on PM magizine that they either deleted or cataloged in the crazy section.
