Worst WW1 books?

[Northern Soul]

The Pity of War - Niall Ferguson.

One review described it as "immensely readable" and "thought provoking." It took me an immense effort to read it and, for 'thought provoking', read 'tendentious nonsense' instead. Apparently the war was all Britain's fault.

However, in a departure from the usual "king's new clothes-style" adulation normally reserved for them, I consider any of the books in Pat Barker's "Regeneration Trilogy" to be suitable candidates for "the biggest load of dross committed to paper" award; the fact that one of them (Ghost Road), won a Booker Prize says it all; the Prize is not noted for showcasing 'accessible' literature. They are 24-carat, smug, intellectual drivel.

Andy.

[egbert]

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.

Mosier's "The Myth of the Great War" is an interesting book and worthwhile to read in order to be able to judge by oneself; nothing for somebody who wants to lordkeep all those holy myths: I have it right next to my PC for all the doomed myths and also just to torture Paul

[paul guthrie]

I have it right next to my PC just to torture Paul

Egbert you are as bad as theevilandymax!

[spike10764]

The Pity of War - Niall Ferguson.

One review described it as "immensely readable" and "thought provoking." It took me an immense effort to read it and, for 'thought provoking', read 'tendentious nonsense' instead. Apparently the war was all Britain's fault.

.

Andy.

Spot on Andy

The book was not as billed on the cover- it was hard work to read and yes it was all Britains fault...apparently.

I don't know what tendentious means- but it was bloody tedious

Tendentious: Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan.

[Will O'Brien]

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.

Soren............You should feel yourself lucky, I did buy the book .............IMHO it's pants.......................Yes '1918 The Year of Victories' is probably the worst in my small collection..........................I have another book on the shelve which I have the most illogical hatred for.........pity really as it's thought provoking & well written........The book in question is 'The Missing of the Somme' by Geoff Dyer...............Sorry but the book simply winds me up.

[DrB]

The Devils Advocate indeed! Wow, Lindsey!! You got 'em at 'em at one another's throats!

I wouldn't prod this one with a 12 foot pole.

DrB

[Andrew P]

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.

Thanks for qualifying your initial statement Halder. Though it still irks me that you consigned John Laffin to 'pulp history' just because of two books you have read when he has written so many. But I guess we will have to differ on this point.

Maybe it's hard for you to understand, but he did so much in helping to promote Australians in WW1 to Australia, which helped redress the total lack of mention of the AIF from most British authors of so called popular history.

Unfortunately this promotion of the AIF also made him unpopular in some circles.

But a lot of people owe a debt of gratitude to the late Dr Laffin for getting them interested in WW1 history.

http://www.firstaif.info/fffaif/history.htm

[Auimfo]

Halder,

Dr Laffin compiled/wrote and had published well in excess of 50 books.

Obviously someone liked what he wrote!!

You have read and disliked two of his books - no problems there, we all have different likes and dislikes. However, I think it safe to say that Laffin was condemned by sections of the 'establishment' because of his persistent efforts to set the record straight. And no, Laffin didn't subscribe to the theory that Australians saved the world in WW1 but he did believe that they were due the credit they deserved instead of the 'colonial' treatment meted out for so many years.

Australians owe Dr Laffin a great debt of gratitude for his lifelong devotion to his country and his part in preserving the truth of our history.

As I said before, he may not have been the most gifted writer but I challenge anyone to show me an author who possessed more passion or dedication to his work.

Tim L.

[Paul Hederer]

I'll add my 2 cents here:

Timothy Findley, "The Wars." I read this much touted book and hated it.

I think this is a novel that you either love or hate, well er, I , see above.

Paul

[Michelle Young]

..........................I have another book on the shelve which I have the most illogical hatred for.........pity really as it's thought provoking & well written........The book in question is 'The Missing of the Somme' by Geoff Dyer...............Sorry but the book simply winds me up.

Yes, Will, I agree, so can I nominate this as my second choice please? I can't explian why I have this intense dislike for this book, but I have.

[Paul Reed]

John Laffin once told me that he had written nearly 200 books on military history, covering all periods. Most of them only published in the UK or USA. He also wrote extensively on the Arab-Israeli conflicts and politics.

I don't agree with much of what he wrote, and I wouldn't chose to write along the lines of most of his books, but he did write some fine books amongst all the 'pot boilers' (all writers produce these - we have to earn a living!).

His guide to the AIF battlefields remains a classic in my opinion, both in terms of its subject matter and design. He also wrote a very good, and readable, three volume study of the AIF in WW1 which was published in a large format illustrated edition by Time Life Books.

You can indeed be put off of an author by reading just one book, but I would hope a serious historian would be able to look beyond this for the one gem of knowledge a book by such an author might contain.

[Halder]

Australians owe Dr Laffin a great debt of gratitude for his lifelong devotion to his country and his part in preserving the truth of our history.

As I said before, he may not have been the most gifted writer but I challenge anyone to show me an author who possessed more passion or dedication to his work.

Tim L.

Now that I can fully concur with. The Anzac involvement in the war is sadly underplayed (so too the Canadians). A bit like we moan that the Yanks always claim to have bailed us out in the wars, Australian veterans say Brit historians treat them in similar fashion.

As for Dr Laffin, well from the entries here (I certainly stirred up a hornet's nest) he seems to polarise opinion. And if that gets people talking and thinking about the Great War, or history in general, then it cannot be a bad thing.

On the Australian commitment, for those interested, C Bean's official histories can be downloaded from the Australian War Memorial Website. They are the best official histories of any nation in WW I.

[Annette Burgoyne]

which helped redress the total lack of mention of the AIF from most British authors of so called popular history.

Andrew I find that most authors of popular history miss out the smaller British Regiments like the K.S.L.I. when I was a kids my parents and other brought my several of the so called popular history on the war and they never mention the little old Shropshires. I know there was a Regiment called the Shropshire because family told me about relitives serving in it but I had no idea that it was involved in so big battles. So it was not just Aussie units that got lack of mention.

Annette

[David_Blanchard]

I agree with Robert D. I found both 'All the Kaisers Men' and 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' the two most disappointing books I have recently bought.

I also feel seriously let down by any book published in english on Verdun since Alistair Horne' 'Price of Glory' ( Apart from Christina Holstein 'Fort Douaumont' )

[Will O'Brien]

..........................I have another book on the shelve which I have the most illogical hatred for.........pity really as it's thought provoking & well written........The book in question is 'The Missing of the Somme' by Geoff Dyer...............Sorry but the book simply winds me up.

Yes, Will, I agree, so can I nominate this as my second choice please? I can't explian why I have this intense dislike for this book, but I have.

Thank God I'm not the only one

[Ste]

'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

I agree with this Ken. It reads to me as if Corrigan is almost trying to be offensive - such as in his reference to Noel Chavasse. A great shame, because there are good parts to the book, and his knowledge of how an army operates is obvious.

Cheers,

Ste

[Andrew P]

His guide to the AIF battlefields remains a classic in my opinion, both in terms of its subject matter and design.

Agree Paul. It was indispensable when it got me around the battlefields in 1997.

[Guest phin]

Michelle - Birdsong! you cannot be serious, it's in my Best list!

[BlackSeptember1918]

Try reading " Canvas Falcons " by Longstreet . This is without doubt the biggest load of crap ever written . I love books , but I tossed this one in the garbage .

[Guest CGI]

Ok, Laffin is pretty bad, but speaking about Gallipoli, there's worse to be found :

Pierre Miquel : "Les poilus d'orient', ed. Fayard 1998

beats all the others by great lengths. Perhaps his work is not accessible to those who do not read French, but that can hardly be called unfortunate. In France though, he is regarded as a great expert on WWI.

If you want to read a somewhat more detailed 'appreciation' of this masterpiece, with some enlightening examples from the text, there is a review at :

http://user.online.be/%7Esnelders/newpub/newpubmiq.htm

Have fun,

CGI

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi CGI

If Pierre Miquel : "Les poilus d'orient' is ever published in English I will avoid it like the plaque. I dislike books that use material from others peoples books instead of using original documents. The only time I quoted from some elses book is when it is wrote by some who was there at the time and that it matches events in the War Diaries. The trouble is how many French reads are going to believe its contents.

Annette

[Alan Lines]

Blindfold and Alone, Hughes-Wilson

[Kate Wills]

Long time no see, Alan. Welcome back.

[Terry]

I have just been reading a back issue of the journal Canadian Military History, featuring a good article by Tim Cook reviewing two books:"The Myth of the Great War" by John Mosier and "Forgotten Victory" by Gary Sheffield.

While Cook has wonderful things to say about Sheffield's work, stating that it should be required reading by any serious student of the Great War, he is very critical of Mosier's book, which seems to be what several forum contributors feel as well. Cook says "There are problems... at every turn: it is poorly structured, promises but fails to offer convincing conclusions, and contains countless errors of fact and interpretation."

I must say that I have not read "The Myth of the Great War"; but if what Cook says about Mosier's theses - how the USA stepped forth to save the fumbling, bumbling French and British; how the German soldier was always superior to the incompetent Anglo-French troops; how Pershing was a brilliant leader who had command of "most of the Allied fighting strength" by July,1918;etc. - are true, it doesn't sound like I have missed much.

[paul guthrie]

It's true and then some , by far the worst....First Marne and Verdun were German victories!, I kid you not, First Marne! Hell they lost the war there, there was NO backup plan, my source for that? Unimpeccable, Huw Strachan.