What surprised you about The Nazi Conspiracy? Did you learn anything new about the era?

What surprised you about The Nazi Conspiracy? Did you learn anything new about the era?

How much of a role Iran and the Middle East played in the War--never really thought about that part of the world during WW2, although it was pretty important spy-speaking in WW 1.

I did not realize how important the Soviet land was for transporting supplies the allies needed. I also did not know the astronomical numbers of Soviets who died in the war.The behind the scenes negotiations between the three leaders I thought was fascinating and something I also did not appreciate or know.

How much the British dragged resisted setting a date for D- day - it seems odd given that the war would not end until Hitler was conquered on the continent and USSR could not conquer Germany alone.

I agree with angelaw - how much the British resisted settling a date for D-day. And possibly how important it was to the Soviets.

I was surprised at the importance the Middle East played in the war. I was familiar with the Yalta conference, but not Tehran.

As was christineb, I also was surprised at the astronomical number of Russian casualties on the eastern front.. Knowing that Stalin's Great Purge is estimated at many more millions, it's amazing that there was anyone left in Russia to fight this war.

I was most surprised about the logistics of FDR’s travel arrangements for each meeting with Stalin and Churchill. I can’t imagine how difficult that was with regard to trying to manage a wheelchair getting into and out of places that were not handicapped accessible. With regard to the era: there were three things that I was woefully ignorant about, two of which are referenced above (the role of the Middle East and how much Churchill dragged his feet on committing to D-Day). I also did not have a firm grasp on the extent of the Soviet Union’s destruction and number killed fighting.

This was a part of our history that I knew very little about. The meeting of the three men at Yalta was emphasized a lot more. The role of Franz Meyr as a Nazi spy with his ability to infiltrate and work through this operation was something I knew nothing about and found interesting.

The history of the Nazi party - return to traditional values, racism, xenophobia, despising intellectuals, urban elites and women's liberation - terrified me because it sounded a little too close to what's going on in America! I was aware of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh being anti-Semite, but did not realize their level of influence in the United States at that time.

I knew nothing about Iran and the Middle East. And of course, it makes absolute sense! Oil!! We still walk a tightrope in that area of the world because we want their oil! And fighting a war, countries need oil more than ever. And the famous photo of teh Big Three was in Iran! Never saw that mentioned in the history books! We were taught so little about this in school back in my day- even college courses! It's most important to show all sides of war, not just the "glory" and patiotism.

How much of the war was actually fought on Russian soil by Russian troops. The rescue of Mussolini and the amount of Nazi plans in Iran.

Being born in the middle of World War II, the history books I was exposed to in my education classes showed facts only with every little in detail. This being so, it made this book fascinating for me. The Dolittle Raid, the details of Pearl Harbor's bombing, and the ins and outs of the diplomacy between the three men, all where facts I had not known. I hate to admit it but I was not aware of the rescue of Mussolini or the details that went into transporting Roosevelt across the world.

The importance of the Middle East to the outcome of the war was very surprising to me. My father fought in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy so my sister and I heard a lot about the war and were interested in learning about it not only from our father, but also through books and television documentaries. Nothing I had previously read or seen mentioned the Middle East other than in an accessory role.

I was also a little surprised at Churchill's stalling on the D-Day offensive. He was stubborn and irascible, but his inaction on this went beyond that.

I had heard of the Siege of Leningrad but was not aware of its length or the loss of life involved. The assassination of the Japanese military leader was also something I had never heard of. This book added to my knowledge of many other aspects of WW2 that I had heard of at a superficial level.

These "Conspiracy" books are a bit "dry" BUT do tell readers a lot of facts thay are not generally known...I'll be doing another conspiracy book
soon and just wanted to check out this discussion.

As a history teacher, I had spent many years teaching about World War 2. However, the extensive research that went into the writing of this book went way beyond my knowledge. I learned a great deal about aspects of the war of which I knew nothing.

While I was aware of the Doolittle raid, I knew nothing about horrific impact the raid had on the "undefended civilian coastal provinces where the Americans had been given comfort".

While I knew the horror of the conditions of both the Soviet citizens and the Russian soldiers, I had no idea that because the conditions were at times so miserable that soldiers would shoot their own hands in the hopes that they would be sent home from the front. Of particular interest was learning that a Soviet army field doctor took such pity on the young soldiers that when he encountered a hand wound, he would amputate the soldier's entire arm so the hand wound would not be discovered.

Like others mentioned in this discussion, I was unaware of the importance of Iran in the conduct of the war. Perhaps due to my weak geographic knowledge, I did not realize that Iran was important to the transportation of American supplies to Russia during the German invasion.

Finally, the intricacies of the diplomatic communications between the three leaders made me realize how complex and challenging such situations are. Meltzer stated that "in a war so vast, a single decision can have massive consequences difficult to foresee." This is such an important point to remember not only in war time, but in peacetime as well.

Reading the last two pages detailed an episode that was both moving and unknown to me. At the death of Roosevelt, an American prisoner of war, an American officer, addressed his fellow soldiers, informing them of the President’s death. Following the officer’s signal, the bugler played TAPS.

It was shocking how much Iran, China, and other outliers were involved or exploited to further an agenda. For the first time, I grasped Stalin's absolute need to have the West involved and the horrific cost Russia paid in terms of human lives lost.

ValerieI I must offer a different perspective to Churchill's possible reasons for wanting to delay an invasion of German occupied France by British and American troops. In 1940 Churchill had only just been appointed Prime Minister over a coalition government when he had to resolve the terrible situation of facilitating a retreat for British military forces absolutely stranded in what was now to be German occupied France, because the French Government had capitulated to Germany. You will remember Churchill's astounding decisions to use a flotilla of fishing and private small boats to evacuate British forces off the Dunkirk beaches. His decision provided a narrow escape but there were severe losses of both men and armaments. He could not let this happen again under his leadership.

In 1943, I was a 9 year old school kid who was absolutely aware that German occupation forces were a mere 22 miles of English Channel away. Throughout WWll, the UK was under constant enemy bombardment with very heavy losses. By the mid 1940s SE England was being hit constantly by German rockets ( The All Clear was never sounded.) Hitler's main goal was always to occupy London. Churchill had to be sure that British defenses remained strong at the time of, and during, a European invasion. Yes, his responsibility was to ensure an end to WWll, but also he must safeguard British lands and British citizens.

Valeriei: Thank you so very much for providing this perspective! I was very troubled reading about Churchill’s repeated refusals to agree to move on the invasion of Germany. It seemed inconsistent with some of his previous actions as a leader. The authors made it look like Churchill dug his feet in the mud on the invasion of Germany without the insight you provided above.

valeriei -- I also want to thank you for your much needed perspective. WWII was extremely complex and while books that focus on a specific element make things manageable for armchair historians like myself, it is so important to see the bigger picture.

Like you, my mother was nine years old in 1943 and living in the south of England (about thirty miles from the coast); and my father would have been in the army, waiting to ship out. Just one of the hundreds of thousands whose futures hinged on Churchill's actions.