"Favorite" Conflict

[PhilK]

Many of us study military history, and usually we find one or two major conflicts that we end up studying in depth.

I was wondering which ones you guys study.

Possible options are:

French-Indian War
American Revolution
War of 1812
US-Mexico War
American Civil War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Cold War
Persian Gulf War

Of course there are many other conflicts as well, but a short list to stimulate.

For me, I study the US-Mexico War (along with the Texas Revolution) and I dable in the Civil War and World War II.

If this thread catches on, I'll come back and give my reasons for picking a rather obscure war.

[PhoenixCadet]

I'm interested in learning about anything and everything - however, I'm heavily interested in conflicts of "my era" (e.g. Desert Storm, the Battle of Mogadishu & our current wars). Out of those, I probably study and read up on Mogadishu the most. The idea and usage of special operations forces of any type facinates me.

-PC

[FeelinFroggy]

I'm interested in learning about anything and everything - however, I'm heavily interested in conflicts of "my era" (e.g. Desert Storm, the Battle of Mogadishu & our current wars). Out of those, I probably study and read up on Mogadishu the most. The idea and usage of special operations forces of any type facinates me.

-PC Special Operations are nothing new. You could date the use of guerilla tactics to periods prior to the Ninja of ancient Japan.

As far as the study of the listed wars, I've learned about each one starting from elementary school until now, some more in depth than others. But, I've never studied these wars on my own free time as a hobby. I'm curious as to why you chose the U.S.-Mexico War, PhilK.

[HairyEyeball]

Used to be somewhat of a WW Deuce enthusiast, and read everything I could get my hands on - then I got to play in the Great Southeast Asia War Games (with much of the same equipment, so some of that came in handy). Eventually pursued that with the same vigor, until I branched off into the political aspects. Still appreciate a good historically accurate read on 1939-1970, particularly (obviously) Marine actions.

[PhilK]

I'm curious as to why you chose the U.S.-Mexico War, PhilK.

First, drop the "K". I'm just Phil. ;)

As for why I decided to study the US-Mexico War, there are numerous reasons.

It all started many years ago with a book called "Gone for Soldiers" by Jeff Shaara. Jeff is the son of Mike Shaara who wrote "Killer Angels". The book really sparked my interest in this short lived conflict (1846-1848) and it also introduced many future "big names" to combat for the first time. Lee, Jackson, Grant, Pickett, and Longstreet all saw combat in Mexico and fought next to each other before they fought against each other 13 years later.

Since I am a Texan, studying a conflct so close to where I lived was of great interest also and since the war started over a Texas border dispute that helped the interest as well.

Once I started digging deeper into the war, it was interesting to see that we were the young, inexperienced military taking on the big, bad Army of Mexico. We took the fight into the heart of Mexico, creating new strategy and tactics as we went along. It was the first time that the US Army took a foerign country's capital (obviously we gave it back). This is also the war that we gained New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California, part of Colorado and the rest of Texas.

It was also a very political war with President Polk and General Scott butting heads at every turn.

I could go on and on, but I won't bore you. :)

Phil

[Lee Ragan]

Like Phil above, I'm a Texan which influences some of my choices. They are:
Texas Revolution
Mexican War
War Between the States
Indian Wars
WW II
I had relatives who fought in the first three listed, plus WWII so that lends a personal touch to it. I also read some on all the other conflicts in American history.
In years past I read heavily on military aviation in all wars. In recent years I've branched out to include more military subjects.

[Murray B]

I was wondering which ones you guys study.


The one that I have read the most on is World War II but I think that it is Vietnam that most needs impartial study.

Communists and Nazis expand by overthrowing governments. The Nazis went underground after WWII but the Communists expanded. U.N. forces stopped the expansion in Korea but Vietnam became another story.

Undeclared wars create a problem for the U.S. because their constitutional definition of treason is only clear after the Congress declares war. During the Vietnam conflict this loophole allowed fifth columnists to operate inside the country with impunity and use propaganda to redefine the enemy. By the time most servicemen returned from the war they were treated as if they were the enemies of democracy and the totalitarian Communists were the good guys. Maybe the war could not be won, but it was certainly lost stateside and not in South East Asia.

For more than forty years the fifth columnist "traitors" have managed to camouflage the facts. This makes the Vietnam conflict the 'war' that merits the most serious study and yet, because of the internal conflicts, one of the most difficult to investigate.

[Collo]

Like my learned brethren here WWII is a big feature in my areas of avid interest. For an Australian it was the first time our home soil came under attack from a foreign power. There is so much depth in this subject it is hard to come up for air. And to think it all began when I was 12 watching Hogans Heroes :D.

The other areas that I am interested in are:

The Troubles. For us of the realm and more so those in the homeland; this played a big role in how the British Armed Forces operated for at least a half a century. Like all conflicts the history behind the political, Intelligence, and Military sides to the struggle is one that consistently draws me in.

War on Terror. Naturally this is the war we are fighting now; but her story as you all know goes way beyond the tragic events of September 11. I get reading about one group which leads me to another and another. To study these radicals is quite intriguing. Then to learn about ones opponent is always a desired endeavor.

These are just a few topics I am interested in. I tend to read more auto/biographies on persons in the above mentioned areas.

[ecthelion83]

Hey all, I'm a new join - I actually got onto this forum because of my interest in military uniforms and how they have changed over time.

Brief intro, I suppose, is in order - Marine reservist, received OTH (so I'll be accepting your jokes now :P) after requesting administrative discharge while an undergraduate at Northwestern University (Evanston, IL; I have since graduated with a B.S. in biomedical engineering, and I am now a member of Mensa and earning my masters degree in public health). Up until the OTH in 2005, I had 3 and a half years of a spotless service record (not hard to do in the reserves though).

Anyway, on to the military confrontations of interest. Personally, I would have to say the Civil War (I understand that those from the South will refer to it as the "War Between the States") and probably the Korean War (I am a Korean-American, born in Pusan, naturalized in Chicago) are the ones that garner my greatest interest. I leave out the 800-pound gorilla in the room, WWII, because that is an obvious choice in my opinion (there's so much material, so much documentation, and, also in my opinion, it was the last gigantic "classic-form" war, by which I mean a conflict in which the application of classic tactics and strategies, despite being augmented by developing technologies that would later change the nature of war itself, were still more relevant than the small-unit and prevention/peacekeeping focus of militaries today; not that Korea and Vietnam weren't gigantic, but by then the technologies I mention were already beginning to overshadow the classical tactics and strategies, e.g. the ones you read about in Sun Tzu's Art of War).

[PhilK]

Anyway, on to the military confrontations of interest. Personally, I would have to say the Civil War (I understand that those from the South will refer to it as the "War Between the States").

First, welcome.

Funny story, being from Texas the Civil War is usually just refered to as the "Civil War". I went to Ft. Knox, KY and for the first time heard someone refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression", then I went to Indiana and saw a monument dedicated to the regiments that fought in the "War of Rebellion". Needless to say it was an educational experience that I don't get here.

[ecthelion83]

Funny story, being from Texas the Civil War is usually just refered to as the "Civil War". I went to Ft. Knox, KY and for the first time heard someone refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression", then I went to Indiana and saw a monument dedicated to the regiments that fought in the "War of Rebellion". Needless to say it was an educational experience that I don't get here.

Thanks much for the welcome, sir.

Yes, I have also heard those terms (but not in the classroom at least until I got to high school), but somehow I recall those phrases having some sort of connotation/bias attached to them, with "War Between the States" being the most neutral of the non-"Civil War" names. I could be wrong, though - the last time I heard someone use anything other than "Civil War" was years ago.

[Everforward116]

Wow Phil, talk about kindred spirits. I've devoted the better part of six years to studying the US-Mexican War and it was reading Gone for Soldiers that really peaked my interest in the subject.

Its obscurity is why I'm so attracted to it. The fact that it is overshadowed by the Civil War by thirteen years belies the fact that it was the first time we went to war outside our own borders with a 'legitimate' foreign power. (keeping in mind our dealings with Barbary pirates in the early nineteenth century)

It also served as the proving ground for many weapons and tactics that would be put to use during the Civil War, for example the use of completely mounted 'flying' artillery armed with light maneuverable field guns to change the dynamic of what historically had always been a static battlefield once armies locked horns.

The territory we gained, including California, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and the settling of the border dispute over Texas are another major factor in why I chose this period to study. It was the single largest land gain since the Louisiana Purchase, and the first time we jumped onto the world stage in order to expand our borders.

And last but not least, and the most historically recognized factor. The US-Mexican War served as the trial by fire for the majority of the leaders who would later take the field against each other during the Civil War. It was experience from this war that Brevet LTG Winfield Scott was quoted in 1858 as saying "Robert E. Lee is the very best soldier I ever saw in the field".

Its also the reason that Lee was offered command of the Union Army at the onset of hostilities.

But alright, enough rambling on my part. :D

[PhilK]

Wow Phil, talk about kindred spirits.

Very cool indeed.

During my Christmas leave, I got a chance to go walk the Palo Alto Battlefield down near Brownsville, and I will probably go back the next time I am in that area.

[Everforward116]

Ahh what I would give to have regular access to those battlefields. If I get lucky I'll convince JMU to sponsor a trip for my cadets to go down there for a staff ride.

[Lee Ragan]

Thanks much for the welcome, sir.

Yes, I have also heard those terms (but not in the classroom at least until I got to high school), but somehow I recall those phrases having some sort of connotation/bias attached to them, with "War Between the States" being the most neutral of the non-"Civil War" names. I could be wrong, though - the last time I heard someone use anything other than "Civil War" was years ago.
Many of us Southerners don't like the term "Civil War", is because it was NOT a civil war. A civil war is when one faction tries to overthrow the government of a country and "take over". The south didn't try to do that. We only wanted to leave the union and go our own way, but were made to stay at the point of a gun. Up until that time, secession was legal.
Now as far as other names, it's also been called the War for Southern Independance, the Late Unpleasantness and the War of Yankee Aggression to name a few.

[PaulR]

I love history. I will read anything history related. My favorite period is WW2 Europe. I am a huge collector of Luftwaffe uniforms and insignia. I have even submitted a few articles to a WW2 history magazine recently. The first is set to come out soon!

[AirPower3P0X1]

I've always found military history to be fascinating. I started off studying World War II, but later began to broaden my horizons, particularily after taking an outstanding American Military History that covered from the exploration of North America to be beginning of the Civil War. That was quite easily my favorite class I took in college, and gave me a budding interest in the Revolution and the US-Mexico War that I soon intend to pursue.

[Rabbit]

I've always been partial to WWI. Suppose my fondness for this particular war started in high school when I wrote a paper on it for my European History class. The paper was about the technological advancements made during this period as well as the changes in how war was fought.

[13B_Warrior]

Like many here, I am a "fan" of World War Two. Between my dad's dad serving in the Army in WWII, and Holywood's coverage with Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, and the old school John Wayne movies (kick ass!), I have always been interested in learning about the second world war.

I also enjoy learning about the American War Between the States. Growing up a mile from the Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History had a major impact on my curiosity on it. As a Guardsman of a Southern state, I often debate with myself on which side I would have served on had I lived in the 1860's.

After reading General Tommy Franks autobiography, and a novel entitled Special Ops by WEB Griffin, I am curious to learn more about the Vietnam War.

And, just like Phoenix, I am always ready to learn more about the conflicts that have occurred during my life time.

KING OF BATTLE!
13B

[Ivan_The_Mute]

Personally, I enjoy studying the European Theater during WWII, but not much of the actual actions on the Western front (With the marked exception of Operation Market/Garden.) Instead, I've dug into the Eastern front, especially the Operation Blau, the siege of Stalingrad, and the Russian counterstroke of Operation Uranus. I eventually hope to be able to go to Volgograd and walk the trails to Mamayev hill, sail across the Volga, tour the Dzerzhinsky Tractor factory, Barrikady munitions plant, and Kraznyast Oktyabr foundary.

Beyond that the actions of the IDF, especially during the Israeli War of Independence, the Six Days War, is an amazing story. A good, all inclusive read on the subject is "The Sword and the Olive" by Prof. Martin van Crevald (and I believe the book was on the required read list for the US Army War College.)

[AFCadetSteel]

For me, I really enjoy learning about WW1 - WW2 with the increase in the use of military aviation.
I have been interested in WW2 since I was a little kid, but recently started reading up on WW1 as it isn't really taught in schools.

Not really a war, but the Attack on the USS Liberty really interests me. The fact that we did not retaliate after our intel ship was attacked by the Israeli Air Force and Navy. Another big thing about this attack was that it was the first time a rescue mission for a US Navy ship that is under attack was called off and delayed.

[Psybadek]

The Civil War and War World 2 have always held my interest and I love learning more about them

[Stryfe]

Most of my interest has been towards World War 2 and the Cold War. I'm especially interested in USSR history, and read up alot about that.

Studying Aircraft from World War 2, and the Cold War is another thing I like to do.

[mtnsldr]

WW2. The last war with big money on both sides, which meant some amazing attempts to thwart the other. Fake division movements, recruiting children to indoctrinate early on... just amazing.

[DSEddie]

I've always been interested in WWII and the Vietnam War. I took two classes on Vietnam and learned a lot. I also found a really good book written by a couple of LRRPs in Vietnam and wish for the life of me I could remember the title so I could buy it. I found it in a stack of MWR books and put it back without writing the title down.

[Dirtynappy]

There are some great reads out there. Personally I like WW2, Napoleon, Falklands, and WW1 with emphasis on Gallipoli, Ypres, and, Japan.

[BOHICA]

Does World War Z count? :) If not, then WWII. My dad had a bookshelf full of books on WWII (since he was involved) that I read before I ever got to high school. "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and "Inside the Third Reich" were two of my favorites.

[AFCadetSteel]

Does World War Z count? :) If not, then WWII. My dad had a bookshelf full of books on WWII (since he was involved) that I read before I ever got to high school. "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and "Inside the Third Reich" were two of my favorites.

Haha I actually have "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" sitting next to me right now. Shrier did a great job in keeping it all about the history, with as little personal opinion in it as possible. Long read though. Haha

[WarEnsemble]

World War I is interesting from the perspective that naive faith in technology ultimately contributed to a stalemate and human loss. The World War I generation was the same generation that termed the Titanic "Unsinkable". These men believed that one new invention could trump the next. Gas, planes, tanks, machine guns, and improved artillery combined on both sides to create a bloody stalemate. Conventional wisdom encouraged linear formations who could only hide in the Earth and mud to survive the carnage.

Interestingly, the current generation views the newest technology the same way. CNN famously portrayed the 1991 Gulf War as a sanitized video game, complete with cliches such as 'smart bomb' and 'stealth bomber'.

Yet, combat will never be understood by those who never see it.

[Redleg]

Wiskey Wiskey II has to be the most interesting, especially on the Eastern Front.
I have studied all the formations, tactics, equipment and order of battle of each participant. The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk have to be the most interesting follies of the German leadership.

[Redleg]

Yet, combat will never be understood by those who never see it.


What you don't get on TV is the smell, heat, fear and the bugs. ;)

[MOM]

WWII is the most interesting to study because it was all over the globe involving every country; and also because it is still recent enough that we still can hear actual stories from those who were there like Les Groshong and our own relatives.

But to me, if I had a time machine I'd go back to the Revolutionary War. I've always been facinated with Gen. George Washington and the early 1700's leading up to 1776 and that war. Schools today just teach it as a footnote in history.

[WarEnsemble]

The World War II generation was indeed the greatest generation. Anyone who lived in that era, civilian or soldier, always has my undivided attention. That was probably the last time that the country was united for a common cause and truly sacrificed. I feel we've reaped the benefits of freedom and have become a nation of spoiled brats, but that's another argument.

I am fascinated by any Stephen Ambrose book having to do with the fighting in Europe from D-Day onward (Band of Brothers, Citizen Soldiers, D-Day among others). A bloody, costly battle unheard of until "When Trumpets Fade" made it to HBO was the Huertgen Forest. What a suck fest the Ardennes had to be.

[Desert Sapper]

What you don't get on TV is the smell, heat, fear and the bugs. ;)

And the bullets.

And the explosions.

And stuff like that.;)

[Bamaabiff]

As a History major in college, with a focus on Colonial American history, I have always been a fan of the earlier wars, i,e, French and Indian War, The War for American Independence, The War of 1812 (huge battle between the Americans and the Creeks, with Andrew Jackson leading the way, was fought in my state of Alabama at Horseshoe Bend), and the War of Northern Aggression.

However, as I grew older, and learned of my grandfathers' and great uncles' service during war times, I have become very interested in a few of the latter ones. My great-great-uncle was on board the USS Reuben James, which was the first US Navy ship to be sunk by hostile action in World War II. He went down with the ship when it was torpedoed on October 31, 1941, over a full month prior to Pearl Harbor (I often feel these servicemen's contributions get overlooked). I just recently found out that my gg uncles hometown here in Alabama has a public memorial dedicated to him. I want to take my grandfather to see it soon, while he is still in good health and can appreciate it. Also, my great-uncle served in the US Army Air Forces during WWII and served in China. And, finally, both of my grandfather's served in the military during Korea. My paternal grandfather was a PFC in the Army (I believe. He died when my dad was only ten, so I have never gotten to talk to him about his service. However, at my Eagle ceremony, the flag placed on his coffin was presented to me by grandmother, as I am the only grandson and the only person in my immediate family who carries on our name), and his term of enlistment ended 6 months into the war, so he was never sent overseas. And my maternal grandfather was a Buck Sgt in the US Air Force during the entire conflict, and had orders to ship out to korea 3 different times, and every time his deployment got cancelled at the last minute.

So, to recap, I like the:

French-Indian War
The War for American Independence
The War of 1812
The War of Northern Aggression
WWII
and, The Korean War

P.S. Sorry about the long post, but as you all can probably tell, I am very proud of my families military service.

[Desert Sapper]

My great-great-uncle was on board the USS Reuben James, which was the first US Navy ship to be sunk by hostile action in the Civil War. He went down with the ship when it was torpedoed on October 31, 1941, over a full month prior to Pearl Harbor (I often feel these servicemen's contributions get overlooked).

I'm gonna say you meant WWII, right? :)

Being a Texan, I've always been fascinated by the War for Texas Independence, the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War (yeah, I called it that). Although Yankee Soldiers may have captured a few towns in Texas, they probably wouldn't have had Texas remained neutral, and we committed the unthinkable offense by removing Governor Sam Houston from office at the onset of the war because he refused to 'pledge allegiance' to the CSA. The man was an original Texican, for crying out loud! But I digress...

Recently, I've found considerable interest in WWII. The recent cinematic efforts regarding WWII have been the most factually accurate of any of the war films made about the last century. The uniforms are right. The feeling of impending doom and death and godawful horror is right. Even the mentalities are right. It started with 'Saving Private Ryan', it carried on with the 'Band of Brothers' series, and the 'Flags of My Fathers' was good, too. I have a ton of respect for any of the veterans of that war.

[Bamaabiff]

I'm gonna say you meant WWII, right? :)


Dang. Yeah, that would be correct. My sudden lack of spelling skills saddens me.

[Saint Marc]

Yeah the Nazi's vs the Commies really catches my eye. The German loss led to a global communist victory and a duped US looking around picking their ass trying to shore up the British Empire and deal with the Communists in China, Europe and South America. I like the battles and the study of the aftermath. I've met the old German troops who fought in Berlin over beers. Good stories and different perspectives. Had the holocaust not happened I think we'd be openly sorry for fighting Germany in hindsight.

[Saint Marc]

The thing about the Nazis was they were not against private industry. They left that alone for the most part. Sure they "Oversaw" the operations, but they didn't mess with the industry itself. Good example is Fanta. They shut Coke down, but allowed the manager to make a replacement drink and hustle it.

I think Patton was the first to notice we'd backed the wrong side, that being the Chicom and the Russians. I'm no Nazi lover, they were socialists, but really having been all over Europe and really seeing the need for a good house cleaning I think the German campaign would have cleaned Europe up. Would we have had to face the Nazi's later? I'm not sure. I studied the 3rd Riech in college and I think Hitler was on the way out, Himmler would have been assassinated after Hitler was gone and Goering or Doenitz would have assumed the thrown and the Nazi party would have dissolved or became Nazi light. I don't think Germany wanted some of us. Matter of fact in Hitlers own letters he wanted to run Europe and let England run the sea and together they would hold their sphere of the planet.
But Who knows? I do know Hitler was dying in the last year of the war and his officers were pretty much against him. But looking at the EU today and the trash in it, I can see some of the points.
See the BNP victories lately in the UK? Seems the English are seeing it too.
But the traditional views make for great movies don't they?

[Redleg]

Dang. Yeah, that would be correct. My sudden lack of spelling skills saddens me.

Nada problemo when you decide to enlist with 11B. Don't need to spell, just visit exotic places, strange people, and kill them. ;)

[Desert Sapper]

I thought Coast Guardsmen had to be good at all that?

[PaulR]

I thought Coast Guardsmen had to be good at all that?

What do you mean?

[Desert Sapper]

What do you mean?

Guess I should have quoted who I was responding to, because apparently two or three (or more) posts happened in between the post I was responding to and my own. That was a couple months ago and I really don't remember, but I think I was responding to Bama and his misspelling. My best guess is that I was saying a Coast Guardsmen needs to be able to spell better but I can't tell you why I said it. Must have been something I was thinking of at the time. In hindsight, it makes no sense at all. Thanks for pointing it out. ;)

[Bamaabiff]

Guess I should have quoted who I was responding to, because apparently two or three (or more) posts happened in between the post I was responding to and my own. That was a couple months ago and I really don't remember, but I think I was responding to Bama and his misspelling. My best guess is that I was saying a Coast Guardsmen needs to be able to spell better but I can't tell you why I said it. Must have been something I was thinking of at the time. In hindsight, it makes no sense at all. Thanks for pointing it out. ;)

Hey Des, you mentioned the Coast Guard becaise I had stated in my very first post on this board that I was interested in joining the Coast Guard, and you were one of the few people who acknowledged me initially and acknowledged my intentions.

[Desert Sapper]

Hey Des, you mentioned the Coast Guard becaise I had stated in my very first post on this board that I was interested in joining the Coast Guard, and you were one of the few people who acknowledged me initially and acknowledged my intentions.

Well, I'm glad I haven't completely lost my mind. :D

[Bamaabiff]

Well, I'm glad I haven't completely lost my mind. :D

Hahaha, exactly, try to hang on to what little bit of it you can.

[echolink]

Ive always thought WWII was the most facinating to me, when it comes to reading. I mainly focus on reading about Marine Corps History when it comes to reading history on that topic. Semper Fi. :D