Worst WW1 books?

[Lindsey]

Oh well, I had to be devils advocate!!

Lindsey

[robbie]

OK..me too..I didn't like Kate Adie's book at all..I'm a gal but Corsets to Camouflage didn't do it for me.

Now that'll put the cat among the pidgins or is it pigeons?

Robbie

Update. Sold it on Amazon today (14h). Yippee

[Paul Hodges]

Possibly because his others are generally so good, but AJP Taylor's The First World War was very disappointing for me. Doesn' t mean I've thrown it out though, to Mrs H's despair....

[paul guthrie]

Worst ever w/o a close 2d is Mosiers The Myth of the Great War where he says 1st Marne & Verdun were German victories and USA won the war despite the Allies, terrible, full of mistakes, the guy is not an historian.

[Michael Lowrey]

For a book published in 1998, Roy Humphreys' The Dover Patrol 1914-18 is horribly researched and amounts to extended worship session to Roger Keyes. Humphreys does not use any German source material or even widely available English-language material that relies on German research. As a result, Humphreys credits Dover Command with destroying U-boats that did not even operate anywhere near Dover, claims that had proven false three decades or more before The Dover Patrol 1914-18 was released...

[Derek Robertson]

1918 - The Year of Victories by Martin Marix Evans

I just couldn't get into this book at all as it seemed like a resume on the work of other authors and not a fresh perspective on that momentous year.

It should be at the bottom of Santa's stocking this year (underneath the satsuma)

[Halder]

Pretty much anything by Charles Whiting and John Laffin. Pulp historians. Mercifully, WW I does not suffer from as many trash war books as WW II, which has them in their legion.

[Mark Hone]

Brian Gardner 'The Big Push'.

[paul guthrie]

Add Alan Clarke to the Laffin list, every bit as bad.

[Ken Lees]

'Mud, Blood & Poppycock', Gordon Corrigan.

For me, he spoiled the good parts of the book by what came across as a sneering, condescending style and obvious errors.

Ken

[Robert Dunlop]

1918 - The Year of Victories by Martin Marix Evans

I just couldn't get into this book at all

FWIIW, I agree.

Passingham's 'All the Kaiser's Men' was not the worst book but it was the most disappointing book that I have purchased.

Robert

[John_Hartley]

I'm with Paul G - Myth of the Great War. Absolute tosh and irritating in the extreme.

John

[SOMMESOLDIER]

Hi Ken,

I'm very interested in people's views on Mud, Blood, and Poppycock. What do you believe to be the ' Obvious Errors ' I'm not saying you're wrong but I would like to flesh out that statement ! This is not a defence of the book by the way, I am interested as to where his 'Obvious Errors' were ?

Cheers

Tim.

[Andrew P]

Pretty much anything by Charles Whiting and John Laffin. Pulp historians. Mercifully, WW I does not suffer from as many trash war books as WW II, which has them in their legion.

And you've read every book by Laffin have you?

[Auimfo]

I'm with you Andrew! Although Laffin was perhaps not the greatest writer of all time - he had more passion and dedication than I will ever be able to muster and in some respects helped keep the spirit of remembrance alive during the years when it seemed to be fading.

Admittedly, being Australian he perhaps on occasion did not recognize the efforts of others - but remember his books were aimed at Australian readers who wanted to learn more about 'their' country's involvement.

Tim L.

[Michelle Young]

I'd nominate Birdsong

Michelle

[Halder]

Pretty much anything by Charles Whiting and John Laffin. Pulp historians. Mercifully, WW I does not suffer from as many trash war books as WW II, which has them in their legion.

And you've read every book by Laffin have you?

Er, no. Only Butchers and Bunglers and Jackboot. The former trots out all the same old tired criticism of generals, the latter is just about the worst book you could possibly write about the German Army.

I think as the owner of 2,000 books in English, French and German, thousands of documents, journal articles, diaries and letters on WW I and II I'm not a bad judge of pulp history. If I want to pick up a tirade against WW I generalship I'll pick up Denis Winter's Haig's Command which at least offers something new, or Matthew Cooper's The German Army and Omer Bartov's Hitler's Army for an insight into the Wehrmacht.

[Andrew P]

I'm with you Andrew! Although Laffin was perhaps not the greatest writer of all time - he had more passion and dedication than I will ever be able to muster and in some respects helped keep the spirit of remembrance alive during the years when it seemed to be fading.

Admittedly, being Australian he perhaps on occasion did not recognize the efforts of others - but remember his books were aimed at Australian readers who wanted to learn more about 'their' country's involvement.

Tim L.

Agree Tim.

It's strange but he didn't have as many critics before his death as after. They seem to have come out of the woodwork since he passed away

Unfortunately he now can't answer their criticism.

[Andrew P]

Pretty much anything by Charles Whiting and John Laffin. Pulp historians. Mercifully, WW I does not suffer from as many trash war books as WW II, which has them in their legion.

And you've read every book by Laffin have you?

Er, no. Only Butchers and Bunglers and Jackboot. The former trots out all the same old tired criticism of generals, the latter is just about the worst book you could possibly write about the German Army.

I think as the owner of 2,000 books in English, French and German, thousands of documents, journal articles, diaries and letters on WW I and II I'm not a bad judge of pulp history. If I want to pick up a tirade against WW I generalship I'll pick up Denis Winter's Haig's Command which at least offers something new, or Matthew Cooper's The German Army and Omer Bartov's Hitler's Army for an insight into the Wehrmacht.

That's good Halder. You've only read two books by Laffin yet you consign all his other works to 'pulp history'.

Pretty shameful in my book. Come back to me when you've read some of his other works, and if you feel the same then so be it, but at least you will have a greater knowledge from which to make such a sweeping statement.

[GavinH]

I would have thought that two books were more than enough to judge whether a historian is any good. I've read two Tim Pat Coogan books and have no problem in saying he's rubbish.

Regards

Gavin

(I should add that I haven't read any books by Laffin)

[Soren]

1918 - The Year of Victories by Martin Marix Evans

I have nearly bought the above book on a number of occasions over the last year, always felt a bit dubious about it for some reason.

Birdsong

I agree with you Michelle, someone told me to ignore the 1st 90 pages of romance and then it's a good book?!

Soren

[Muerrisch]

Silent Night, by Weintraub: could not live in the same street as Christmas Truce by Brown.

If I can nominate a second: Mud Blood and Poppycock would be it. As to listing the errors, I absolutely refuse to open the book again, having not finished it in the first place. As and when I need something to prop up a table or whatever, MBP will do nicely.

By contrast [although not covering identical ground] I found only ten errors in Tommy by Richard Holmes, wrote to him, and received a very nice letter, granting me nine and successfully arguing his case for the tenth.

[as a footnote: my own humble literary efforts ALL contain more errors than Tommy. The moment you publish, you are indeed damned]

[Jim Gordon]

Don't usually contribute to such postings but I can't resist nominating "From Chauffeur to Brigadier" by Baker-Carr. He apparently won the war with minimal help from the BEF. A compilation of uncheckable accounts of conversations he had with various top-brass. He incidentally claims his demonstration of the capabilities of the Ross rifle led to it's withdrawal from the CEF.

Regards

Jim Gordon

[paul guthrie]

Birdsong was so bad I couldn't finish it. I finished Mosier's and was nearly sick that people who know no better read that crap as history. 1st Marne was a German victory!

[Halder]

That's good Halder. You've only read two books by Laffin yet you consign all his other works to 'pulp history'.

Pretty shameful in my book. Come back to me when you've read some of his other works, and if you feel the same then so be it, but at least you will have a greater knowledge from which to make such a sweeping statement.

Okay, I'm a serious historian. I like footnotes. I like source notes. I like people who delve into the archives, who ferret out untapped sources, who contribute something new to our understanding of history. I should now, I've spent 12 years researching a book on the German Army in Normandy 1944.

I have no problem with John Laffin writing about WW I. I admire anyone who tries to honour those who made a sacrifice. I admire his admiration for the ordinary soldier. My grandfather was a stretcher bearer on the Somme. No man should endure what he endured. But something like Butchers and Bunglers does nothing to honour their memory. Libraries buy such books by the truckload and leave the serious studies behind.

Popular history can be done so much better than Laffin. Richard Holmes for a start. Martin Middlebrook. Alistair Horne. Barbara Tuchman. Bruce Lincoln. Robert Asprey. Lyn Macdonald.

I will close with one review of B&B. Opinions are indeed subjective. But two bad books is enough for me not to open any more by John Laffin. I might be prejudiced, and yes it is a sweeping statement to condemn all his works as pulp history, but I wouldn't put my name to those books. I'd be embarrassed by them.

I wanted to like this book, for the simple reason that in reading it, it is abundantly clear that the thesis is one the author feels passionately about. However, that does not necessarily make for good history and in this case it makes for a deeply flawed book. Great War buffs seem to be divided into two camps in recent times - those who seek to defend, or at least understand and contextualise the actions of First World War generals and those who believe that there can be no justification for the casualty numbers of the conflict. It takes no more than a glance at the title of this book for it to be abundantly clear that Dr Laffin belongs to the latter camp.

I could write a very lengthy critique of the book in minute detail but you wouldn't read it all (I know I wouldn't!) and anyway I don't think amazon will allow me enough words so I'll try to sum up the book's more glaring flaws in a concise form...

- The book is incredibly badly sourced. In some chapters it borders on shameful. I have read hastily cobbled together undergraduate essays that have more comprehensive footnotes. A student submitting chapter 3 in essay form would almost certainly have had his wrists slapped.

- The entire text is incredibly subjective and riddled with unsourced assertions. The author seems to have an ill concealed bias towards Australian troops and staff officers. If taken at face value, a newcomer to WW1 history who had only read this book would be forgiven for thinking that the ANZACS won the war while Tommy Atkins put the kettle on. Dr Laffin also wheels out that hoary old chestnut about Sir John Monash being the greatest leader the BEF never had. Outside Australian military history circles it is now widely accepted that while Monash was a brilliant tactician and trainer of men, he was less capable in a strategic role and posessed nowhere near the seniority to assume command of the BEF in France. Even if he did, as a strategist he was an unknown quantity. The idea that he should have got the post is ludicrous.

- The author is deeply selective when choosing which historians to quote. Most of the most highly regarded of Great War historians are significant in their abscence. He instead quotes historians, often Antipodean historians, who have trodden similar ground before him and a number of social historians while conveiently ignoring military historians who have looked at the conflice in the MILITARY context of the time.

- The book is littered with factual inaccuracies. Some of these are obvious only to the First World War junkie (eg. Sir Ian Hamilton sailed for the Dardanelles with a copy of the 1912 handbook on the Turkish Army, not a 1905 edition) but some of them are glaring and really should not have been made in the first place. An example of this is that General Rawlinson is stated to have attained the rank of Field Marshal, which he never did - in a book on British generals it would be assumed that the author had looked more closely into his subjects' biographical details than this. The fact that the book is not especially long, coupled with the very dubious sourcing makes it hard to pass over these mistakes and helps to undermine the author's central argument.

On a final note, the author devotes a chapter of the book to quotes from soldiers condemning British generalship. Again, this is highly selective. I have spoken to vetrans who feel that the generals are a much maligned group as a whole and resent academics such as the author rubbishing men whom they never met, who had to command in conditions they have no experience of. Such quotes, while emotional, do not constitute a satisfactory closing argument.

This book does have it's place, but I'm afraid that, for me at least, it's place is as an example of how studies of the Great War should not be written. If you only ever read one study of Great War generalship, don't make it this one. If you do wish to read it, try to put the work in some sort of context within the historiography of the war and handle it with very great care indeed.