The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
An Army at Dawn
THE SECOND WORLD WAR
>
WE ARE OPEN - 3. AN ARMY AT DAWN ~ September 23rd ~ September 29th ~ PART ONE - 2. LANDING - "In the Night All Cats are Grey" and In Barbary and VILLAIN - (69 - 90) No-Spoilers
message 2:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 19, 2013 08:27AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Part One
2. Landing
"In the Night All Cats are Grey"
The Allied invasion of Oran in Morocco was broken into three types of assaults. The
first was a sudden "secret" attack on the city itself. This was carried out by a small
group of infantry in former Coast Guard cutters with the goal of keeping the French
from destroying the harbor facilities. A paratrooper assault was also set up to seize the two airfields south of the city, and main landings to the east and west of the city were planned to secure airfields and then send reinforcements to surround the town.
The first attack was to be the direct one on the port itself and was very controversial. A senior Navy planner considered it suicidal. British optimists assumed that the French would not resist in any meaningful way, and the plan was adopted. The two ships crept toward the harbor on November 8. Oran was a formidable sea target; the harbor was enclosed by barricades and overlooked by forts and shore batteries. The crew was fairly certain the French would not attack. This proved not to be the case, though.
The first ship was almost immediately strafed upon recognition and lost
power. Only one man on the bridge survived. The second ship momentarily grounded at the harbor entrance and was on fire and taking in water before finally freeing itself. A French destroyer then broadsided the ship and its ammunition began to explode as it sank. Almost half of the original 393 invaders were killed, and the rest were captured. The French garrison then proceeded to scuttle the harbor docks and ships.
Barbary
While this disaster at the Oran harbor was occurring, the other troop contingents were preparing to land on either side of town. Three beachheads (X, Y, and Z) were to be taken and tanks released to help capture airfields. Then infantry would surround the city, preventing French reinforcements from arriving. Landing point Z was near the fishing port of Arzew. Rangers were sent in first to capture the two reinforced forts there. They found the French garrison asleep and took the fort in minutes. The higher fort withstood a short Ranger mortar attack before surrendering.
The First Infantry Battalion (the Big Red One) was also set to land at Arzew but went off course and was attacked upon landing. Chaos reigned for a few minutes, before the beach was taken and troops moved inland. West of the city, at beach Y, Brigadier General Ted Roosevelt (son of U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt) led his 5,000 men ashore and met limited French resistance before capturing a French headquarters.
VILLAIN
The airborne operation was the first American airborne operation of the war, and it
went badly from the start. Inaccurate information caused some of the difficulties; the feedback from the land invasion was that the French resistance was passive. On top of this, navigation aids were ineffective and cloud-cover prevented landmark-based flying. Planes became scattered and landed in different locations, with some dropping paratroopers on Allied troops, some landing and being captured immediately, and others riddled by hostile fighters. Only one man reached the intended target by air. Several more came by truck later
message 3:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 19, 2013 08:29AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Here are the rules and guidelines of the HBC:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...
Please on the non spoiler threads: a) Stick to material in the present week's reading.
Also, in terms of all of the threads for discussion here and on the HBC - please be civil.
We want our discussion to be interesting and fun.
Make sure to cite a book using the proper format.
You don't need to cite the Atkinson book, but if you bring another book into the conversation; please cite it accordingly as required but you do not have to cite the author Atkinson either.
Also, to make it easier - here are the special citation rules for this book discussion - if the person is mentioned in the assigned pages for the weekly reading - you do not have to cite that person even if he or she is an author of books or other documents. However, if you cite someone who is not part of the chapter readings - then you must cite him or her and you must always do a proper citation if you are mentioning any other book aside from An Army At Dawn.
Now we can begin week three.....
message 4:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 22, 2013 06:13PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Ike had considered Oran so vital that he had personally approved a proposal to take the docks in a bold coup de main before dawn on November 8, 1942 - but having said that - the plan was British and codenamed RESERVIST.
The person in command of RESERVIST was Frederick Thornton Peters.
Peters worried the Americans and so did his plan. Atkinson stated that even "Churchill acknowledged that the catastrophe at Dieppe in August had "showed how a frontal assault on a defended port was doomed to failure." Naval wisdom since Admiral Horatio Nelson's day held that "a ship's a fool to fight a fort". Still the Royal Navy insisted this was more a "Trojan horse operation than an assault".
Rear Admiral Andrew C. Bennett saw through this - and vehemently protested to Ike as did Bernard H. Bieri - - but Ike deferred to the British Ramsay and Clark appeared to back him up; even when Major General Orlando Ward objected and even when Ward also thought it was suicidal.
But Ike felt obliged to "Allied harmony" - Atkinson wrote or so the story goes. Is that a good enough excuse for knowingly risking your men's lives? Allied harmony? What does this say about Eisenhower and his judgement or does it say anything? And Bennett who was the most strident in his criticism found himself in Iceland!
Things to Consider and Discuss:
This incident is very telling about all of the men involved. What are your thoughts about the situation?
What went wrong and who are the people most at fault?
What should have happened?
What didn't?
Who should have stepped up to make things right?
Who didn't?
Why were things "for all intensive purposes" swept under the rug?
And why did poor Bennett find himself in Iceland? (smile)
I always like reading things from another perspective: Re: Capt.Frederick Thornton Peters. VC - http://www.submerged.co.uk/capt-frede...
Mod
message 6:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2013 02:18AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
It was then quite odd that this British led and conceived operation (which had Americans on board) would ever be recognized by the French as having an American contigency and NOT a British one in utter darkness - that point was never clarified at all.
In fact if it was done at night - why have an American contingency at all? Or why was this very important and vital operation led by the British if allegedly the French viewed them as such an anathema.
The whole point we were told by the author was to defuse the French and not have them retaliate simply because the assault was coming from the British. Odd rationale at night.
Peters who was placed in charge - had headed up an intelligence training school which had trained the likes of Kim Philby and Guy Burgess (both spies and not for the British!).
The taking Of Oran was allegedly major and yet this was the plan that Eisenhower signed off on? I have to say at this point I began to question Ike's judgement - I did not question his patience for putting up with some difficult personalities (that I think he should have been given an award for) but mostly for his strategic and tactical judgement and ability - and I have to say that so far his performance was raising some questions.
What do the rest of you think?
Thanks, Bentley. Yeah, this was one crazy operation. I think Ike is learning to be a leader here. I think if this happened, say in 1944, Ike would turn this plan down. But right now, he is probably giving the British the benefit of the doubt by because they are battle tested and have been in the war for 3 years. It was a mistake.
Didn't the British have a agent speaking French in a American accent? Crazy.
I wonder about British strategy, especially in this case. My mind went to the Dardanelles of WWI. I think the whole thing was swept under the rug because the Allies would be facing lower morale in their armies and heavy criticism at home.
message 8:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2013 07:10AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Yes to the third paragraph - absolutely bizarre.
All of what you say is true but to risk men's lives, any men's lives for allied harmony when you certainly suspect that something is amiss and you are the leader and say nothing is not right.
And yes, I thought of the WWI situation (Dardanelles) where everything was swept under the rug. I am sure this was not the first nor the last situation where politics, fear of criticism (and in this case rightly so) allowed very bad situations where folks have lost their lives to be silenced.
But you raise some excellent points.
So true, Bentley, about the men's lives. You are risking men's lives on this decision to let the British run with this. It is such a huge gamble and I think he should have went "with his gut."
Mod
Exactly, and ships taking on these forts, they tried that in Vicksburg and scores of other times in history.I wonder if they could have used a larger ship with more fire-power to pound the forts into rubble? I suspect the water was too shallow. Maybe use long-range guns, but I guess they wanted to warn the French....which might be one of the main problems, right?
You have to "get up close" to say to the French, "can we come on your shore?" It adds a complexity that helped doom this operation.
Mod
I think they were hoping that the French would not give much of a fight or would somehow switch sides - wasn't that the strategic vision (smile).
Yes, please - we have our guns and ships aimed your way but we have come to have a chat (smile).
message 13:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2013 08:50AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
"Each cutter flew an American flag the size of a tablecloth. Both boats also hoisted the White Ensign, emblem of the Royal Navy. The British crews had insisted on sailing under their own flag, deception be damned." - page 72
You have to ask yourself what were the British thinking and more so why would Ike even contemplate getting involved with such a fiasco. Who the dickens was deceiving whom? I think the Americans were deceived even being on the British ships in the first place if the whole point of the mission was that the French had such animosity for the British that they would never give up if it were the British who were coming.
And to top it all off - a coded alert sent to Gibraltar from a secret radio transmitters in Oran - "Expect resistance everywhere" was not even relayed to the Allied task force and a key conspirator in the army high command had lost his nerve.
This mission seemed doomed from the onset - what did you think of the above when reading these comments from Peters.
Mod
This paragraph seemed unbelievable to me when reading it - what did the rest of you think:
"Ostensibly to avoid antagonizing the French, Eisenhower's senior British naval commander, Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham, would insist that "silence is the best policy" regarding the RESERVIST.
The top British planners overseeing the Oran assault each won commendations. Peters, described by one witness as a dejected, hatless buccaneer wearing a black eye patch, won the Victoria Cross - Britain's highest valor award - and the Distinguished Service Cross, the Americans' second- highest award. Five days after RESERVIST, the fickle winds at Gibraltar brought down his plane and Peters, who was en route to see Churchill, was killed. The French with breathtaking cheek billed the Allies for pilotage fees for Walney and Hartland, citing a local law requiring payment for every vessel entering Oran Harbor."
Absolutely outrageous for anybody to take credit for such an horrendous mission.
Ike eventually accepted blame - a little too late in my estimation and there was of course no consequence for any of the above. Aside from poor Bennett who ended up in Iceland for sticking to the truth.
What did others think of this debacle?
message 15:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2013 09:15AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
I get a sense of British imperial tendencies showing, or pride, or hubris. I agree: why on earth would you fly the Union Jack in a operation that would antagonize the enemy?
Mod
I think you are right about hubris.
Mod
What did you think of the story of the Rangers?
message 19:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2013 02:58PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
And I had to smile at the "tart memorandum issued by Ike - "that of all American soldiers arrested the previous month in Britain for being drunk and disorderly, two-thirds came from the Fighting First. I had to think that part of Ike's job was being a quasi "den mother' and the human resources director.
When he made Brigadier General he was the first man in his former West Point class to wear a general's stars.
Feel free to discuss Allen in terms of these anecdotes or others.
It is an unfortunate fact of warfare that upper officers send men off to die. If they couldn't send them in harms way they would never have invaded at all.This particular mission seems pretty bizarre but if it had worked, the savings in time to get the port working again would have been tremendous. The men who were killed and wounded got the raw end of this deal, but it is one that we will probably see over and over again during this series. But, punishing the innocent (sending Bennett to Iceland) is so typical for large organizations dealing with a mess.
I can't believe the Morocco forces got so messed up just before the landings. It is pretty odd to be arguing where you are when there is a light house flashing out its beacon.
message 21:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2013 03:02PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
The men who were killed can never be brought back to life because someone said it was a bad idea after the fact.
But I have to agree with you - punishing Bennett who was on the side of truth was a bit much. Of course the philosophy of the moment sounded like "we made a mess and why doesn't this guy just shut up about it while we get our medals". Very sad.
They should have give the Moroccans a compass (smile).
Mod
Not if you know it is doomed to fail, but hindsight is golden, and I can argue that while they may have thought the chance of success was low they didn't see it as a suicide mission.
message 24:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2013 09:18PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
The only folks who wanted this to happen no matter what were the British. How Ike could say his conscience was clear was beyond me. Americans should not have been on those boats. The whole point was that this was supposed to be viewed as Americans on the boats yet the British insisted on flying the Union Jack - what a travesty.
I do appreciate your feeling that Allied Harmony is a sufficient reason although there are many folks out there who I suspect might feel differently. But that is OK - good discussion topic.
When do you think that Allied Harmony is not a sufficient reason to risk men's lives?
Invasion sure started out on a bad note. We seem to have deferred to the Brits on issues large and small.
message 26:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 25, 2013 06:12AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
I do think that there has to be some deference but not as much as what there appeared to be here.
And I also want to welcome you Phillip to the discussion - look forward to reading more of your posts and Patricrk's.
message 27:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 25, 2013 06:39AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Do you think the above is true or that this is the kind of pep talk that should be given to soldiers or do you think that this is the kind of pep talk which saves lives of soldiers by making them not paralyze in the face of fear and combat. Was hard for me to fathom which side of the fence this statement fell on during war.
What did you make of the fear that some of these soliders faced and the indiscriminate shooting, etc of the old wine truck driver? It must be extremely difficult for young recruits to deal with their fear of battle or worse having to kill somebody or be killed or using force indiscriminately because of their own fear.
How do the armed forces teach soldiers to overcome fear and guilt?
message 28:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 25, 2013 07:42AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Theodore Roosevelt Jr.
Despite a heart condition and arthritis that forced him to use a cane, General Roosevelt led the assault on Utah Beach later on during the war
What did you make of Roosevelt and Allen who eventually will have clashes with both Patton and Bradley and were accused of loving their division too much which made discipline difficult.
He must have romanticized war because of the poem that he had submitted to Harper's - "Would God I might die with my sword in hand ringed by dead foes all around." - he got the answer to his prayer of sorts.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "What did you think of Terry Allen's philosophy which he told his men - " a soldier doesn't fight to save suffering humanity or any other nonsense. He fights to prove that his unit is the best in t..."I have not served, but I get the impression the message was a pep talk to keep them motivated to be better solders. This does mean not be scared to a point that you can't do your job. You have to reach a goal: to be the best.
Mod
I think the air drop shows how people can get enamored of new technology (air drops) and plain old common sense goes out the window. The Germans had seized Crete by air drop but at a horrible cost to their air troops. All the allies saw was air drop and success. If the Germans can do it we can too!
Bentley wrote: "What did you think of Terry Allen's philosophy which he told his men - " a soldier doesn't fight to save suffering humanity or any other nonsense. He fights to prove that his unit is the best in t..."From my reading, I think a soldier fights to maintain the bond with his buddies in the small unit he is normally with. Death of buddies is hard on a man. My father-in-law would still get emotional about buddies he lost in World War II 60 years after the war was over. In Band of Brothers new recruits are kept at a distance, as newbies they are more likely to die than the others. And to make them a buddy is potentially risking a loss. You see the same sort of thing in the story of Oliver Wendel Holmes in the Civil War in the Metaphysical Book Club.
by
Stephen E. Ambrose
by
Louis Menand
Bentley asked:How do the armed forces teach soldiers to overcome fear and guilt?
I think the answer is they don't. All they can do it physically toughen you up and give you small unit cohesion. Then when the fear comes, the guilt about not doing your part will keep you going. I started a book about the psychological impact of war on a person, didn't finish it so the title is not on my reading list. He related his exit experience coming out of Vietnam as little more than a handshake and good luck. No counseling or even mention that Post Traumatic Stress could occur. He wasn't happy with the army at all on how they dwelt with post war guilt. I'm sure World War II veterans were treated the same, but at least some of them got parades and weren't spit at.
Found the book.
Karl Marlantes
Bentley asked: When do you think that Allied Harmony is not a sufficient reason to risk men's lives? Pershing wouldn't let "his" American forces be split up and used by French and British generals in World War I because of his intense nationalistic feelings and because he had seen how the colonial forces were squandered by the British and French. There is a case where allied harmony is not worth the cost in lives.
In the attack on the ports, the British had successfully pulled off this type of attack six months ago (page 69) so it wasn't as suicidal as some of the critics said. It was crazy and I'm not going to volunteer for it, but it is the type of things soldiers are asked to do in war. Is it really any different than tasking RAF fighters to intercept larger forces of German fighters and bombers during the Blitz or tasking the Hood and Prince of Wales to intercept the Bismark?
Mod
For sure Patricrk - for all of their faults at the time - you almost have to agree with Darlan - the Germans were quite efficient and proficient at what they were doing overall. And yes to the Germans the ends sometimes justified the means.
Mod
Patricrk - you make some good points - I too was thinking of Oliver Wendell Holmes and what he went through and how he would get choked up many years later trying to even talk about it which he avoided at all costs. Very sad thing war and so unnecessary.
Mod
Pershing wouldn't let "his" American forces be split up and used by French and British genera..."
I think Pershing and I would have seen eye to eye (smile).
Well I never said that some of the these follies which turned out well were any less ludicrous or suicidal than some of the others. But for the most part the cards were really stacked against them this time especially since they went against the rules of engagement for this operation (trying to engage the French with Americans versus Brits who the French despised) - flying the Union Jack pretty much blew this operation out of the water for starters.
Bentley wrote: "How delusional was Peters when he stated, "We've got a good chance of carrying out our mission without firing a shot.""Each cutter flew an American flag the size of a tablecloth. Both boats also..."
As I sit here, finishing my afternoon snack of Earl Grey tea (English) and an apple with a bit of Brie cheese (French) I cannot help but think that Ike was most guilty of false hope, specifically that the French would not fight at least not seriously for Oran. The whole affair was indeed bizarre. The thing that perplexes me most is why there was not better communication and why the French were willing to fight and die to honor the deal they made with the devil. Who else but Americans and Brits would be coming to take Oran? Why were the French willing to fight those who would eventually liberate their country? We all tend to forget the hundreds of years of conflict between England and France that predated Germany's rise as a nation. It was still a festering wound in 1942. Some have mentioned bombarding the defenses prior to the attack force entering the harbor but that was an obvious hostile act and would have damaged the much needed port. I think maybe Ike just hoped he would be lucky, the French wouldn't fight and the port would be taken intact. Then Murphy's law kicked in for historical reasons fueled by a void of intelligent communication and old fashioned diplomacy.
The sad result though, is that lives were lost, and looking back, the loss was not justified. We can find millions of similar situations throughout the history of the world. Audacity, daring, calculated risk, and determination many times carry the day, but always at a cost. This book makes me ask WHY? on every page...
Bentley wrote: "What did you think of Terry Allen's philosophy which he told his men - " a soldier doesn't fight to save suffering humanity or any other nonsense. He fights to prove that his unit is the best in t..."I agree with Allen somewhat, I think a soldier may join up to save suffering humanity (or for the Empire) or other nonsense but diaries, memoirs, and interviews confirm a soldier fights for the person next to them. Esprit de corps does play a factor, but it is primarily the person who has your back and has shared “the incommunicable experience of war.” Oliver Wendell Holmes as quoted in:
Geoffrey C. Ward
Bentley wrote: "Patricrk wrote: " Bentley asked: When do you think that Allied Harmony is not a sufficient reason to risk men's lives? Pershing wouldn't let "his" American forces be split up and used by French a..."
I see eye to eye to eye with Patricrk and Pershing (grin)
Mod
Very true, Tom. War always erodes the idealism of those that have to experience it. They may claim to fight for ideals, but war has a way of sweeping them away. Plus combat is probably the most rigorous way any human bond can be tested.
Patricrk wrote: "Bentley wrote: "What did you think of Terry Allen's philosophy which he told his men - " a soldier doesn't fight to save suffering humanity or any other nonsense. He fights to prove that his unit ..."I agree completely and just said the same thing in a little different way. Seems many of us are fans of Oliver Wendell Holmes!
Tom wrote: "I cannot help but think that Ike was most guilty of false hope, specifically that the French would not fight at least not seriously for Oran. The whole affair was indeed bizarre."This caught my attention too. It seemed Ike and most of the allied commanders were dead set on the belief that the French wouldn't put up a strong resistance, even after some parts of the operation already had others still held out hope that the French in their area would not.
I wonder how much of it was coming from bad French resistance intel. It seems like a lot of the people coordinating the resistance, staging uprisings and the like or coming in to lead the troops, had their own agendas and severely over estimated their own impact on the operation.
Travis wrote: "Tom wrote: "I cannot help but think that Ike was most guilty of false hope, specifically that the French would not fight at least not seriously for Oran. The whole affair was indeed bizarre."This..."
Exactly, and it seems that French resistance played a more productive role in the Normandy invasion, why not in North Africa?
My guess would be this was all new to them, so there were a lot of mistakes made due to inexperience. More importantly, and this goes for the actual landings as well, Normandy was a lot more simplified.In Torch the resistance was expected to do some major things. Take cities and disrupt actual military operations. By Normandy their responsibilities were more reasonable. Disrupt communications, recon, search and rescue, and path-finding for the Paratroopers.
As a whole torch planning seems to have suffered from the same demons that first engagements in previous wars suffered from. Strategies that are text book seem great in class settings on in planning, but don't take into account the rough nature of a new front line leadership and troops without the benefit of experience.
Tom asked: Exactly, and it seems that French resistance played a more productive role in the Normandy invasion, why not in North Africa? ..."I think because in North Africa the Vichy government still existed. Because a government existed the French could think once the war was over the Germans would leave and the occupied part would come under French control again. After the North African invasion, Germany occupied the rest of France and the French realized that the only way to get the Germans out was an allied invasion. Another point is that North Africa was not occupied by the Germans. The French were still the top dogs in that area. It took being occupied by the Germans to inspire the hate to get a lot of active resistance fighters. Also in France there was a sort of evolutionary selection. Only the best resistance fighters remained. The Germans would eliminate the unlucky and those with poor operational control. This is my take on the matter.
This was 1942, when the Germans looked impossible to beat - even the French Resistance in mainland France was small, and ineffective. It did not get going properly until the next year or so, when Allied victory - and German brutality - began to solidify a proper resistance movement. Also, as you say, this was unoccupied N Africa - no enemy in sight, and a slighted French 'honour' to satisfy. Especially against the British, after the shelling of the French Fleet to prevent the Germans getting it.
You make great points Patricrk and Jimmy. The Germans were fighting elsewhere in North Africa, not where the Americans/British were landing.I imagine you also have French honor at play here. They have a colonial history and want to keep it.
Bentley wrote: "I have to say that Ike deserves a D- - maybe an F for going along with Reservist.This paragraph seemed unbelievable to me when reading it - what did the rest of you think:
"Ostensibly to avoid a..."
After all the comments about Ike's responsibility in this matter I agree that it was an optimistic view that Reservist could succeed but I would note that the Brits had been fighting the Germans in North Africa for a while and that one of Ike's jobs was to have ally harmony.
If the message to "expect resistance" had gotten thru then changes would likely have been made to have avoided both the catastrophe & these discussion points.
It is true however that many thought the Germans would be hard to defeat but this hard defense by the French is not easy to understand - I note that some of the French soldiers were from Senegal and I would be curious how many soldiers (sailors might be different) were not France French.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
What It is Like to Go to War (other topics)The Civil War: An Illustrated History (other topics)
Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler's Eagle's Nest (other topics)
The Metaphysical Club : A Story of Ideas in America (other topics)
An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943 (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Karl Marlantes (other topics)Geoffrey C. Ward (other topics)
Stephen E. Ambrose (other topics)
Louis Menand (other topics)
Rick Atkinson (other topics)
For the weeks of September 23rd - September 29th, we are reading Part One - 2. Landing - "In the Night, All Cats Are Grey" and In Barbary and VILLAIN of the book - An Army At Dawn..
The third week's reading assignment is:
Week Three - September 23rd - September 29th
Part One - 2. Landing - "In the Night, All Cats Are Grey" and In Barbary and VILLAIN - pages 69 - 90:
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book was kicked off on September 9th.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up on September 23rd
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bentley will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Assisting Moderators Christopher and Jerome.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Introduction Thread:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
Glossary - Part One - http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
Glossary - Part Two - http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Glossary - Part Three - http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...