Liddell Hart's History of the First World War

[Skipman]

From Scribd

" Remarkable for it's clarity and objectivity, and for analysis undistorted by professional prejudice or by bitterness over the unreliable past. " Western Mail

Liddell Hart's History of the First World War

Mike

[Jack Sheldon]

From Scribd

" Remarkable for it's clarity and objectivity, and for analysis undistorted by professional prejudice or by bitterness over the unreliable past. " Western Mail

Liddell Hart's History of the First World War

Mike

Discuss, using one side of the paper only ... Jack

[Steven Broomfield]

Times like this we miss GAC's input.

[CarylW]

Thanks Mike. This is one of my books that I 'recycled' to a local hospice charity recently. I wasn't reading it (can't hold large books any more). I've since wondered if I did the right thing but having it online means I can just browse if needs be. I understand this isn't popular with some modern historians? (revisionists?) Can't remember and I might be wrong

[David Filsell]

Not sure many would now agree!

[CarylW]

Not sure many would now agree!

With what?

[Jack Sheldon]

Caryl, two of L-H's strongest supporters when the book was republished (unchanged fom the 1934 edition) in 1970 were AJP Taylor and Michael Foot. That fact in itself should cause a few warning lights to shine. Any remaining benefit of the doubt should evaporate when you consider that MF summarised it as, 'One of the most damning indictments of military obscurantism ever written'. Bear in mind also - a trivial point, I know - that it was he on p 434 who first published the discredited story about a, 'highly placed officer from General Headquarters' bursting into tears when allegedy confronting the reality of the Third Ypres battlefield for the first time.

That said, it is an important book which has been on my bookshelf since 1971 and I still look at it from time to time. However, in so doing I never lose sight of the manipulative, devious and scheming nature of the scholar who wrote it with a massive axe to grind.

Jack

[CarylW]

Thanks for clarifying Jack. (Edit: deleted waffle)

[David Filsell]

Would not agree with this

" Remarkable for it's clarity and objectivity, and for analysis undistorted by professional prejudice or by bitterness over the unreliable past."

[Crunchy]

That said, it is an important book which has been on my bookshelf since 1971 and I still look at it from time to time. However, in so doing I never lose sight of the manipulative, devious and scheming nature of the scholar who wrote it with a massive axe to grind.

Jack,

I couldn't have said it better. I still have my copy and dip into it now and again - but it must be read with great caution. It is biased beyond belief to support a myopic and set agenda, part of which was to discredit the commanders and army of his time. He was quite bitter about being discharged from the army. The more I read the less respect I have for the man, both as a scholar and as a human being.

Cheers

Chris

Chris

[tn.drummond]

two of L-H's strongest supporters when the book was republished (unchanged fom the 1934 edition) in 1970 were AJP Taylor and Michael Foot.

Jack

Taylor and Foot would normally be more than enough to recommend it to me - both were entitled to their political perspectives and Taylor's single volume still provides the benchmark for similar works.

Paul Fussell also described BL-H as the "prince of modern military critics" in his 'The Great War and Modern Memory' - surely the study of war literature and myth. However, the world moves on and in many quarters BL-H is now often seen as discredited in the general manner of Crusty's contribution. It's a long time since I read it (30 years) and my copy is in a box in the attic (I think).

I Would categorise it as worthy in the context of its time, and influential on a number of great minds, but Herodotus he ain't. Read with, and around, an open mind. Partially discredited or not it was important,

Tim

[nigelcave]

Not so sure about Paul Fussell either, to be honest. If you want a good single volume history of the Great War, Crutwell is still very hard to beat. John Bourne's is good as well!

[David Filsell]

Crutwell remains excellent, Having just reviewed it say that Peter Hart's new one vol. history of the war is also well worth a look

[David_Blanchard]

David Stevenson's "1914 1918: The History of the First World War" has much to recommend it.

David

[Stoppage Drill]

. Bear in mind also - a trivial point, I know - that it was he on p 434 who first published the discredited story about a, 'highly placed officer from General Headquarters' bursting into tears when allegedy confronting the reality of the Third Ypres battlefield for the first time.

Jack

I referred here-at post #34 - to what I think may be the origin of this story . .

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=193517&st=25&hl=baker-carr#entry1905067

[Steven Broomfield]

Here's an interesting insight as to how well-respected L-H was: I am reading Flying Start, the memoir of Gp Capt Hugh (Cocky) Dundas, DSO*, DFC, a Battle of Britain fighter pilot and later Wing Leader. It was first published in 1988 (my copy is a 1990 paper back, picked up for ten bob in a bookshop in Winchester).

On page 35, Dundas discusses the end of the Battle of France and the forthcoming Battle of Britain, and states:

"You did not need to be a Clausewitz or Liddell Hart to guess what was coming next."

That's exalted company!

[Stoppage Drill]

Here's an interesting insight as to how well-respected L-H was:

"You did not need to be a Clausewitz or Liddell Hart to guess what was coming next."

That's exalted company!

Are contributors generally aware of the way in which BLH sought (fairly successfully) to enhance his own credibility by persuading Heinz Guderian to insert falsehoods in the English translation of Panzer Leader ?