Nimble Books LLC » World War II

Production Queue

Fred Zimmerman — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:40:39 +0000

What’s going on with Nimble Books that are in production.

U.S. PATROL TORPEDO BOATS IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR, 1939-1945, by T. Garth Connelly(pub. 4/6/2010)
SKEETER USES MANNERS, by C. Michelle Smith, illustrated by Amy Foreman (pub. 5/4/2010)
A YOUNG CONSERVATIVE’S FIELD GUIDE (with author) (pub 4/1/2010)
THE ULTIMATE UNAUTHORIZED GUIDE TO THE HARRY POTTER FANDOM (1st ed. out of print)
FALLEN WALLS AND FALLEN TOWERS (previously HATCHING THE NATION-STATE) (final edit)
BLOOD ON OUR HANDS (final proofing)
HANDBOOK OF FIFTH GENERATION WARFARE (5GW) (needs substantive edit)
COLD WAR SAGA (needs substantive edit)
PERSUADER-IN-CHIEF v2.0 (needs substantive edit)
PROFESSOR BARRISTER’S DINO MYSTERIES #2 — THE ARMORED ALLOSAUR (pub 6/22/2010)
THE CLAUSEWITZ ROUNDTABLE
[Interviews with James M. Cain]
PT BOATS BEHIND THE SCENES
PRINCIPLES OF WAR: ARCHDUKE CHARLES
ECLIPSES OF THE SUN
POCKET BATTLESHIP ADMIRAL SCHEER (c/e)
HISTORY OF THE TORPEDO BOAT #8
Yuri the Lion: School Stories
HISTORY OF THE TORPEDO BOAT #9
Two-Power and Double Standards: The Liberal Government and the building of the dreadnought fleet, 1906-1909
HISTORY OF THE TORPEDO BOAT #10
SECRETS OF THE MODERN WORLD — Fukuzawa
The Regia Maria’s MAS Boats in World War II
Illustrated Guide to Harry Potter Fandom, Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

#naval Another positive review for Richard Worth’s In the Shadow of the Battleship: Considering the Cruisers of World War II

Fred Zimmerman — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:07:07 +0000

Worth’s book does three things well:
1) Defines the cruiser designation in a historical context with special attention to “Treaty Cruisers.”
2) Explains how armor layout was as much art as science and how that renders many standardized references on the topic moot or misleading.
3) Compares Treaty Cruisers across navies in Med and Pacific contexts.

I found most of it fascinating and read it through in one sitting. I also share most of Mr. Worth’s biases. But it bears mentioning that:

1) There is little discussion of torpedo or AAA doctrine and virtually none on underwater or AAA protection.
2) His choices for “best” are not classes of cruisers but ‘one-offs’
3) This pamphlet cries out for comparison tables with a variety of weightings.

Yes, Worth is correct that raw numbers are misleading and on the continuum of data -> information -> knowledge, his discussion quite refreshingly belongs in the realm of knowledge. So, no doubt about it: he’s done his homework and expresses his opinions forcefully. But this publication would have been better if it ALSO organized his decision criteria in tables (not merely in the text,) so that readers could more conveniently assign (or add) their own weightings and arrive at their own conclusions.

Still, this book will be a real eye opener for beginners and a great niche publication for those who have already spent considerable time dwelling on the trade-offs inherent in warship design…as long as they don’t find the price too dear for 40 pages. Btw, interspersed throughout the text are some wonderful black and white “ship portraits” (i.e. pictures) that I’ve never seen published before.

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: In the Shadow of the Battleship: Considering the Cruisers of World War II.

This is not the apocalypse

wfz-admin — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:55:28 +0000

This is the second time in 24 hours that I have seen a reference to the current era as “apocalyptic.”*

No. This is not the apocalpyse. “Apocalypse” means “apocalypse,” just as “literally” means “literally” and “complete” means “complete.”

In the current crisis:

A lot of people have lost their jobs.
A few big companies have disappeared.
A lot of people and organizations have less money to spend.
A lot of people are suffering extremely painful disruptions.

but …

There have been few direct fatalities (excepting perhaps the poor guy who was friends with Bernie Madoff); compare this to World War II with 150M dead.
Not one jot or mote of physical infrastructure has been destroyed — in fact, we are about to build a whole bunch of new infrastructure.
No species have been made extinct, no forests have been laid waste, no crops have been sown with salt.
Not one byte or scintilla of human knowledge has been lost.

To be sure, as the recession deepens, there will be further direct fatalities and continued real suffering. But the point is that most of the damage is not occurring in the physical layer of the world. Rather, this is a disruption in the social abstraction that v2.0 chimps use to manage resources.

This is not the end of capitalism or the beginning of socialism.

This is not The Great Disruption or the Inflection Point.

This is a period of rapid change in our social abstractions, and humans are fearful of change.

Patriots in Poland

wfz-admin — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:49:27 +0000

Starting the Cold War over with U.S. Patriots in Poland. The Polish start line didn’t do the Germans much good in WWII.

U.S. and Poland set missile deal – International Herald Tribune
A senior Pentagon official described an unusual part of this quid pro quo: an American Patriot battery would be moved from Germany to Poland, where it would be operated by a crew of about 100 American military personnel. The expenses would be shared by both nations. American troops would join the Polish military, at least temporarily, at the front lines — facing east toward Russia.

Did PRINCE OF WALES change the course of WWII?

wfz-admin — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:02:52 +0000

King George V- Class Battleships: Shipcraft 2 by Rogar Chesneau

The second volume in a new series providing ship modellers with all they need to know about a famous class of warship and associated model kits.
The five battleships of the King George V Class were the most modern to serve the Royal Navy in World War II; all rendered invaluable service in the war effort, and, indeed, the first two could be credited with influencing the very course of the conflict. Instrumental in the sinking of the battleship Bismarck, they bought about a fundamental shift in German naval policy, the emphasis moving away from heavy surface ships and towards the U-boat arm. With its unparalleled level of visual information- colour schemes, models, line drawings and photographs-it is simply the best reference for any model-maker setting out to build one these great battleships.

If you’re going to apply that logic, then you should also credit PRINCE OF WALES with changing the course of the war in the Pacific, sealing the loss of Singapore, and ending the British Empire.

That being said, I’d love to have a copy of this book!

announcing IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIP AND ALASKA CLASS LARGE CRUISERS CONVERSION PROJECTS: An Illustrated Technical Reference by Wayne Scarpaci

wfz-admin — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:37:17 +0000

Annoucing IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIP AND ALASKA CLASS LARGE CRUISERS CONVERSION PROJECTS: An Illustrated Technical Reference by Wayne Scarpaci. This beautifully illustrated book is the definitive and only book on its subject–a unique must-have for any battleship fan.

The book is available from Nimble Books via CreateSpace or via Amazon.com and will soon be available via Ingram (ISBN 1934840386).

Here are a few of the beautiful images included.

[View with PicLens]

Dr. Seuss Goes to War: The World War II Editorial Cartoons of Theodor Seuss Geisel by Richard H. Minear, Art Spigelman

wfz-admin — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:50:15 +0000

wfzimmerman’s review: “A really cool book. Dr. Seuss’s drawings look the same when he is drawing Hitler as when he is drawing Horton or the Cat in the Hat. It’s also gratifying that Seuss was so right so early about the Fascist threat…”
New Press (1999), Hardcover, 272 pages
tags: world War II, political cartoons, Seuss

Versailles and the Global War on Terror

wfz-admin — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:36:57 +0000

Many histories of World War II begin with the Treaty of Versailles, which defined the peace terms for the end of the First World War. If we compare the end of the First World War with the end of the Cold War, the collapse of Germany in 1918 was in many ways quite similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. In both cases ,the collapse was sudden. In 1918, as in the longer period from 1979 to 1989-1991, the military situation swung first in favor, then against the interests of the declining empire. By November 1918, the Germany army and navy, though still not negligible in power, were being run out of the areas they had occupied at the peak of their aggression. Similarly, by the end of 1989, although the Soviet Union still possessed a formidable military, it was clear that it would no longer be able to dominate the Warsaw Pact. The ultimate collapse was a moral one.

As we look at the terminations of these two great global struggles with Versailles in mind, one crucial difference becomes apparent: there was no treaty to end the Cold War. It simply ended, marked perhaps most clearly by three events: the fall of the Berlin Wall, the success of the American-led coalition that reversed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States in December 1991. To be sure, it’s not at all clear that the absence of a treaty is a bad thing. Many historians have blamed World War II on the harsh terms imposed on Germany at Versailles.

I take a more austere view; I believe corporate and individual responsibility are rightly allocated to the agents who made irrevocable choices for direct action, namely, the German people and Hitler. To say “the nasty peace terms made them do it” is to blame the victim … just as to say that “American policy made Osama blow up the World Trade Towers” is to blame the victim.

If we look at what’s happening in today’s Russia, it tends to argue against the historical argument that a more lenient set of terms at Versailles would have prevented the resurgence of German nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s. Even with an avalanche of international good will and a far more favorable financial situation than the Germans enjoyed, the “revanchist” forces in Russia still aren’t happy about losing the Cold War! Leaving his merits aside, Putin does seem to command a solid national consensus that supports his earnest efforts to re-establish Russia’s role as a great power. It is easy to imagine a “Weimar Putin” who might have led Germany in a similar direction.

The other major difference between Versailles and 1991, of course, is that the Treaty of Versailles did include most of the major powers who had participated in the global struggle. I learned while researching this book that China was the only country which opted out of Versailles – could that have happened in 1991? Could that happen today? In a word, no … which is a backhanded compliment to the life’s work of someone that Americans don’t like to praise, namely, Mao Tse-Tung, the bloody-handed nation-builder of the People’s Republic of China, which hasn’t taken much crap from the international community since November 1950.

The “settlement” terms reached in 1991 essentially called for a much-weakened and territorially shrunken Russia, not unlike post-WWI Russia, with America as the sole hegemon of the New World Order, extending its military reach throughout the globe, including the Middle East and the heart of Islam. It has now become apparent, of course, that a major weakness of the 1991 settlement was that it utterly failed to address the concerns of a politically significant and militarily capable group of players: Islamic terrorists. Indeed, one might say that America is so self-absorbed that we outdid even the “vindictive” French at Versailles: we imposed harsh peace terms on an enemy without even being aware that we were doing it! For it is well documented that the mere presence of American soldiers on Saudi, and now Iraqi, soil is one of the most inflammatory issues to the other side in the global “war” that we are now engaged in.

(more TK)

WWII-GWOT Forum

wfz-admin — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:04:45 +0000

Discussion forum for WORLD WAR II AND THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR.

Introduction

wfz-admin — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:49:46 +0000

The purpose of this book is to mine the military history of World War II for ideas and insights that may be helpful in understanding the “Global War on Terror.” I hasten to add that I do not advance a simple-minded equation between the two global struggles. I merely suggest that there are enough similarities to sustain interesting discussion. At the macro level, World War II was an effort by various major powers to recast the world system to their advantage. Does that sound anything like what’s happening today?

To be sure, the current struggle is different in many ways. To name just one, non-state organizations like al Qaeda and Hezbollah have played a major role in the most dramatic events of the period. But one might argue that the very reason non-state organizations have been so active is that the Western powers enforce a world system in which the power of the formerly “colonial” states is severely limited. In this light, the new power of non-state organizations is, fundamentally, a reaction to the system of international relations. In this view, it is no accident that the formerly colonial nations of the world have produced most of the angry non-state actors.

Furthermore, one must acknowledge that in many ways the current era is quite familiar, as conventional nation-states are working assiduously to recast the world system to their advantage. In that respect, the current period seems a lot like other periods of convulsive global change such as the Napoleonic era, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

At the micro level, some things are familiar, some things are not. Just as in WWII, G.I.s are riding around in trucks and relying on superior firepower while America sends expeditionary forces to the far corners of the earth in pursuit of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. But the “coalition of the willing” is a lot less robust than the Allied Coalition in World War II when either the United States or the Soviet Union, standing alone, had enough industrial power to overwhelm any combination of the Axis powers. Similarly, despite the flip David Shrum coinage of the phrase “Axis of Evil,” the “Axis” in the current struggle is in many respects different from the actual Axis of World War II. Palestinian homeboys being crushed by Israeli bulldozers are a lot more sympathetic than Nazis wearing the double lightning bolts of the Waffen SS.

I will argue in this book that there is a great deal that can be learned about the current struggle from looking at World War II at the “micro” level of individual battles and campaigns. The simple reason why this is true is that, as Ecclesiastes observed, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Of course, things do change, but many fundamental principles of war, politics, technology, and human nature remain the same. When we look closely at the campaigns and battles of World War II, it will not be difficult to find patterns and phenomena that give pause for thought about today’s situation.

One might argue that other historical periods are, in fact, more similar to the current period than World War II. For example, the Napoleonic period can be seen as a ruthless effort by a single “hyperpower,” governed by an ambitious, aggressive militarist, to export its radical social model throughout the “civilized” world, on its own terms, in a completely un-collegial manner. Sound familiar?

Let me conede at the outset that other historical periods may well shed equal or more light on the current struggle. There are sound practical reasons why I have chosen World War II as the jumping off point for my discussion.

WW II has been the subject of exhaustive study. Hundreds of thousands of books and monographs have been published. Official records and archives have been opened for scrutiny. We think we know most of what actually happened (unless we have read too many Jack Higgins novels). Most people who are interested in military history know at least something about the military history of World War II. Yet for almost everyone, there’s still plenty to learn! Finally, there is a ready-made community that should find the premise of this book provocative and interesting. At the end of the day, publishing is a practical art.