John Mosier's "Myth of the Great War"

[hazelclark]

Haven't seen this book mentioned recently on the Forum but I suggest that members put it on their "don't bother list". I have not read anything else by this author but have read a number of general histories of the war. I was looking forward to a book which I thought would give a different perspective in that it promised to document how the Germans won all the battles and the Americans won the war for the Allies. I started to smell a rat when I began to realise that the casualty numbers quoted seemed way way out of sync. with anything I had ever seen before and that the slant of the book was definately anti the allies or at least anti British. While one has to agree that by most accounts the Germans seemed initially,to have better artillery and were technically superior to the Allies, to claim that most of the Allied victories were just propaganda is going a bit far. All sides tried to put the best spin possible on their activities but Mosier overstates just about everything -whether pro -german or anti the allies. I got fed up about half way through and skimmed the rest. If I, with my limited knowledge of the war, found this book unconvincing, goodness knows what a specialist would think The only positive thing I can think to say is that I had not read much about the French part of the western front and initially found that interesting - until I began to suspect the information.

[truthergw]

Haven't seen this book mentioned recently on the Forum but I suggest that members put it on their "don't bother list". I have not read anything else by this author but have read a number of general histories of the war. I was looking forward to a book which I thought would give a different perspective in that it promised to document how the Germans won all the battles and the Americans won the war for the Allies. I started to smell a rat when I began to realise that the casualty numbers quoted seemed way way out of sync. with anything I had ever seen before and that the slant of the book was definately anti the allies or at least anti British. While one has to agree that by most accounts the Germans seemed initially,to have better artillery and were technically superior to the Allies, to claim that most of the Allied victories were just propaganda is going a bit far. All sides tried to put the best spin possible on their activities but Mosier overstates just about everything -whether pro -german or anti the allies. I got fed up about half way through and skimmed the rest. If I, with my limited knowledge of the war, found this book unconvincing, goodness knows what a specialist would think The only positive thing I can think to say is that I had not read much about the French part of the western front and initially found that interesting - until I began to suspect the information.

Hi Hazel. I am a great believer that every book has something to give the reader. However, some books promise to be so dire that they are likely to result in violent rejection. For the sake of the fireside ornaments, and the double glazing, I gave Mosier a miss and stopped reading Winter half way through. I suspect that the only thing one could hope to learn from Mosier's work was patience. As you have pointed out, a minor tragedy is that any information in these books loses all usefulness because we cannot trust it. The great puzzle is that these books continue to be published and their publishers continue to find blurbs which try to sell the book and still remain within hailing distance of the truth. In the end, there are just too many good or middling books to be read to allow one the dubious luxury of reading the real turkeys.

[Marilyne]

Hazel, thank you for this ... I had Mosier on my "to read" list, as I found it as a reference in both Todman and Sheffield, but now I know i can get it off !!

M.

[Staffsyeoman]

I am with Dorothy Parker on this volume:

"This is not a book which should be put down lightly. It should be picked up and thrown with great force."

[centurion]

I am with Dorothy Parker on this volume:

"This is not a book which should be put down lightly. It should be picked up and thrown with great force."

Abe Lincoln reviewing a book about which he was asked not to be censorus

"The kind of people who like this kind of book will like this book" - there are a lot of people who would like an anti British book I'm sorry to say.

[John_Hartley]

I am a great believer that every book has something to give the reader.

I used my copy as door stop - but it wasn't very good at that either.

[hazelclark]

I am so glad it wasn't just me!

H.

[Terry Duncan]

I would have to say that this book does hold one outstanding place for me, that of the worst book on WWI I have read in forty years - thankfully it was from a library after the librarian informed me the author's WWII offering had been voted the worst offering on that war! Not only is the book highly inaccurate and biased, but it fails to even get close to proving the claim in the title - namely that America Won The War. Sadly there is a market for this sort of book, largely amongst certain elements whose prime concern is not accuracy, but an agenda most would find regrettable. The book has its fans online, mostly in alternate history forums where it serves as a basis for what is known as 'Kaiser-W***'! Mosier is a language professor and would have been better advised to stick to that topic.

I could only urge anyone thinking of buying this with the hope of learning anything about WWI to buy a shrub instead, as whilst the latter also includes nothing useful about WWI that can be discerned, it will at least not leave you feeling robbed of your money.

[bruce]

I am delighted that I am not the only one to HATE this book.

I bought it, thinking that reading it would give me a different aspect to the war. As I read it , I got more and more annoyed. I read it through to the end, although it was punctuated by my not once but twice actually throwing it at the wall. I then realised that I risked ruining the wallpaper. Few books I have ever read annoyed me more. I can well remember Ayesha asking me to hurry up and finish reading it, lest my aim got worse and I hurled it at the patio doors.

It remains in by book collection as a reminder that not everything published on the Great War is accurate, interesting, or not a waste of trees.

Bruce

[Rob Connolly]

I encountered Mr Mosier's work of fantasy fiction on a shared display stand* in 2001 and read the dust jacket. "Hang on," I thought. "If the Germans won every battle, how come they weren't parading through Paris in September 1914? If they won 2nd Ypres, how come they weren't parading through Paris in May 1915? If -" etc etc etc. His other work on WW2 was reviewed very negatively by readers on the Armchair General Forum; I think the consensus was that it made good kindling or litter-tray liner.

*(the other stack of volumes on the 2001 display were by some flash-in-the-pan lightweight nobody's ever heard of (Barry Sheffield, IIRC), but I gave him a chance and bought his work "Unremembered Truimph" or something like that, and didn't regret it).

[centurion]

I think the consensus was that it made good kindling or litter-tray liner.

Steady on there - my cats do have standards.

[phil andrade]

Whenever there is such intense negative reaction, the perverse notion I have is that maybe there's something good about the book.

Mosier's narrative does cover some battles fought against the French in 1915 which too few of us have heard about, and in that sense I think the book has some merit.

He predicates his approach on casualty statistics that are not comparable, and presents us with a very distorted account.

I wonder whether he bothered to check the provenance of those statistics, saw some anomalies and decided to press ahead in the hope that no one would question them.

It's all the more flawed in so far as he takes pride in what he depicts as carefully gleaned and meticulously referenced sources for the casualty figures he presents us with.

It's a shame, really....there are some things in the book that are convincingly presented, but the whole pitch has been ruined by those silly satistics.

Phil (PJA)

[centurion]

Whenever there is such intense negative reaction, the perverse notion I have is that maybe there's something good about the book.

Mosier is a Professor of English at a private Jesuit university. He has a 'nice little earner' going on the side in writing quite revisionist military 'histories'. I suspect that part of his success in selling these is due to being deliberately controversial even if it is at the expense of accuracy.

[truthergw]

Whenever there is such intense negative reaction, the perverse notion I have is that maybe there's something good about the book.

Mosier's narrative does cover some battles fought against the French in 1915 which too few of us have heard about, and in that sense I think the book has some merit.

He predicates his approach on casualty statistics that are not comparable, and presents us with a very distorted account.

I wonder whether he bothered to check the provenance of those statistics, saw some anomalies and decided to press ahead in the hope that no one would question them.

It's all the more flawed in so far as he takes pride in what he depicts as carefully gleaned and meticulously referenced sources for the casualty figures he presents us with.

It's a shame, really....there are some things in the book that are convincingly presented, but the whole pitch has been ruined by those silly satistics.

Phil (PJA)

The point is, Phil. Would you hand the book to a newcomer to the study of the Great War and tell them it's a must read?

[nigelcave]

But it really is poor - for example, he says that the battles of Guise and Mons in 1914 should have both had the same name?? That the British fought an action on Aubersville (sic) Ridge... and so forth and so forth: honestly, IMHO it is not remotely a good book.

[phil andrade]

The point is, Phil. Would you hand the book to a newcomer to the study of the Great War and tell them it's a must read?

No, no, most definitely not !

Now I'm beginning to regret that I attempted to present parts of the book in a remotely favourable light.

I think that my own aversion to it was so profound that I was leaning over backwards in an effort to be fair.

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

Thank goodness for that. It had crossed my mind that you were simply being perverse.

[centurion]

At the risk of being political (please only a yellow card) I would add that he seems to be favoured by some members of the Teapot(ty) Party.

[kenneth505]

Well Hazel, I know this thread has been long dormant but I grabbed this book from the local library a few weeks ago and have given it a game try but have to agree with the consensus presented but the group. Not particularly readable but indisputably self satisfied and ego-centric. I'm going to exercise the liberating power of no and send it back.

I had worked my way through Niall Fegusson's economic examination and part of why I picked this one up was because he is quoted on the blurb. But this book doesn't even rise to the level of his revisionist theories. It's just not a good read.

[hazelclark]

Well Hazel, I know this thread has been long dormant but I grabbed this book from the local library a few weeks ago and have given it a game try but have to agree with the consensus presented but the group. Not particularly readable but indisputably self satisfied and ego-centric. I'm going to exercise the liberating power of no and send it back.

I had worked my way through Niall Fegusson's economic examination and part of why I picked this one up was because he is quoted on the blurb. But this book doesn't even rise to the level of his revisionist theories. It's just not a good read.

As you say, that does appear to be the consensus.

H.

[paulgranger]

I see from Amazon that 'Myths' was published in 2002. Is that true? It seems a long time ago for it to have first appeared on the Forum just over a year since. Anyway, if it's correct, he's had a long time to absorb the adverse comments, and hopefully his book on Verdun, due October 2013 according to Amazon, will be all the better for it. Hopefully.

[Frank_East]

There was a thread running on the Mosier work here when it was first published.

I remember Paul Guthrie,a member of the US WFA branch was very critical of Mosier and his work.

I had just bought the book and not read it when Paul gave it a critical review....is the thread still in the "files"?

[Crunchy]

Frank,

iI is here http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8575&hl=%2Bjohn+%2Bmosier

Cheers

Chris

[Frank_East]

Thanks Chris.

Pleased to see that the drivers of the forum are maintaining such files.

[Marilyne]

As you say, that does appear to be the consensus.

H.

I wonder, after a whole year ... is the consensus still the same on the use of the book as door-stoppper or cat-litter ??? I haven't asked th hamster if she wans a piece in her cage !!

MM