Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Worst WW1 books?


Lindsey

Recommended Posts

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.

Equivalents to nowadays are just by accident and shall not be taken too serious Paul: ..."Iraq was a US victory! I kid you not Iraq....!"

Well I believe Mosier gives a fantastic point of view from an "advocatus diaboli” perspective; he did not say Marne was a German victory. It is worthwhile to read -than judge by yourself; if you exclude the US chapter in his book it gives for the allied reader new food for thoughts; Terry I recommend you read it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst book ever written about the Great War has to be 'The Poppy Factory' by Wiliam Fairchild. Published in 1987 it is a story of a group of soldiers from all sides brought together after the war to flush out and kill deserters who had been living in No Mans Land during and after the war. They do this by using gas and a German amongst the group is fascinated by what the gas does. The German happens to Adolf Hitler. The book ends up at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.

The book is meant to be serious. It is actually drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi There, :)

The Missing of the Somme, by Geoff Dyer. One of the strangest books I've ever read.

My real loathing is for Dr Laffin. Although there is much merit in a couple of books of fact, I feel physical sickness in his personal views on the war, such as the Australians won it and his CHILDISH, AND PATHETIC views, that ALL Generals bar The Australians were butchers.

Cheers

Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim

I also like some of Laffin's work, but disagree with some of his personal views.

However I think that there is something ingrained in our thinking about the Australian soldier. both in the Great War and the Second World War.

I get angry whenever I read an account or article which goes something like 'the Australian soldier whose tough life and hard upbringing makes him a great soldier, etc etc'. This is normally written to get the reader to make a comparison between the Australians and the British, and to give him the impression that the Australian was a tougher and better soldier.

It is true to say that most Australians had a tough upbringing, but what about the British soldier who had previously worked in the mines, ironworks, shipyards and mills? Did he not have a hard and tough upbringing? Did the farmers in the Highlands and Pennines have it easier than the Australian in the Outback? They certainly had it colder.

The Australians were superb soldiers, but I wish this point was not made to the detriment of the British soldiers. Laffin is one of those who does give this impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi There, :)

Yes I totally agree with you. I know this is going off topic a little but think it adds to the thread, as to what we read and how we view it.

So often in books there seems to be a need to knock people/a person to improve the image of another. This then is adopted by a whole host of people as the truth.

This also happens in film. Although in my view a good action film BRAVE HEART, it was a total DISGRACE to history. Being English I found it worrying particularly when the Scottish Rugby Team held the video aloft and said it was because of this they were going to destroy the ENGLISH !! Historically unless Wallace was questionable about who he slept with, as Edward II future wife was about 9 at the time or if we agree that she wasn't, and as she mocked Edward I on his death bed that she was expecting Wallace's son, that it was a miracle as Wallace died a couple of years before Edward I. Where does that leave us in Historical terms ?

In my view just anti-English !

So going back to WW1 in many or maybe most peoples opinion, NOT THE VIEWS ON HERE, I BELIEVE but in the general view of people The Australians, The Scots, The Welsh, The Kiwis,The Ulstermen, The Irish, The South Africans and many others were the ones that won the war and The English just made up the numbers.

And me for one, I am heartily sick of it.

I think the contribution of all the above helped us win the war and without them we couldn't have done it, but without The ENGLISH REGIMENTS, we couldn't have even fought the war, let alone win it !!!

So going back to the thread unless we have a balanced view no one is worth reading, and certainly not LAFFIN !!!

Cheers

Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst: "Silent Night" by Weintraub. I can see what he was trying to do (The Christmas Truce in popular culture as well as in fact) but it wound up as a clumsy and -for the novice to WWI- confusing blend of fact, fiction, myth and half-truth.

The most disappointing: "All the Kaiser's Men" by Passingham. I was looking forward to this for ages, having greatly enjoyed the superb "Pillars of Fire" and, of course, being very excited about a new English language work on the Imperial German Army. Kudos to Passingham for making good use of German regimental histories, but it was a disappointing book for me -by no means a bad one, but made all the more frustrating by the tantalising excellent bits among the pedestrian ones. To some extent I think the finished format constrained and handicapped what could have been an indispensible work.

I enjoyed "Mud, Blood and Poppycock", and think that "Blindfold and Alone" is a superb -and essential- read, but it would be boring if we all liked the same thing...

All the best

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vote for the worst Great War book during the past 10 years has to be Mosier's "The Myth of the Great War" - it is a book that does not even achieve the root definition of "mediocre" = [Latin from metrocris - "of middle height or degree"]

The book starts with some interesting observations and statements that appear to challenge the reader. However, the whole effort appears to fall apart as it progresses. Methinks the literature professor should have stayed in the classroom professing something he truely understands.

Nice cover; but the last time I judge a book by its cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the front by Stephen O'Shea.

I don't normally throw books away, but this one I did.

I just don't like the guy's tone,and to call the two lions at ploegsteert pathetic, well I guess the bloke has only read one book, and that was probably Haigs command.

Avoid.

ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I venture a guess that most who vote for anything other than Mosier's Myth of the Great War have not read it.

I venture a guess that most who vote for anything other than Mosier's Myth of the Great War have not read it.

Hi There, :)

Is it that bad ?

If it is, I'll have to get it and then vote for it !!!!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I venture a guess that most who vote for anything other than Mosier's Myth of the Great War have not read it.

I venture a guess that most who vote for anything other than Mosier's Myth of the Great War have not read it.

Hi There, :)

Is it that bad ?

If it is, I'll have to get it and then vote for it !!!!! :D

PLEASE get it from a library or cheap used copy, do not put money in this guy's pocket, he would be a disgrace to profession of historian but for fact he's not one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared with Gary Sheffield's excellent Forgotten Victory, Mosier's book falls way, way short of the mark. Interestingly, his Blitzkrieg Myth has received quite a pasteing on the WW2 boards...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I bought this (For about $6.95 at the local bargain shop).

No, it is not high academic literature, but I don't think it's intended to be. Mind you, my copy looks like it had been printed on rather cheap paper and was half the price I later saw it for in a military bookshop. HOWEVER, I felt it was an easily digestible overview of the last year of the war, and certainly don't begrudge the money I paid for it.

I stand by it as a good afternoon's light reading, perhaps suitable to disavow a high-school student of the myth that the British and French did nothing but feed the Mauser/Parabellum mincing machine without result until the diplomats concluded the war. I was terribly shocked when I read Terraine's To Win A War a few years back, and found that I'd previously been told a bunch of lies.

Marix Evans has another book on great battles of WW1, which is similarly light and fluffy, but again good for a quick overview in an afternoon.

I concede that there are large numbers of MUCH better works; however, MME was what I read when I started to realise that WW1 military history was NOT boring, that the battles were NOT all one-sided affairs designed to make the Germans wear out machine gun barrels :P and that there was depth at least equivalent to anything in WW2 (which I now ignore in favour of the 1st war!). For someone getting started on WW1, they're a good introduction before plunging into better stuff.

I agree with the negative views of THAT Laffin book, and I would quite happily slot it on the shelf next to Winter. I seem to recall him contradicting himself on a few occasions within it, and find it surprising that he is actually quite a published historian. The book came across to me as rubbish written by an amateur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is a fascinating thread. I am ashamed to say I have hardly read any of these terrible books and have only about 40 WWI books on my shelves so I am learning what not to buy.

However, three people have said the nominate Geoff Dyers book on the Missing of the Somme for worst book. Why? If would nominate it as one of my best - thought provoking, pertinent. It deals with an issue which I suspect inspired interest in the Great War for many people - the romantic lost generation mythology of the disappeared coupled with rows and rows of white graves and etc etc. Id be interested in hearing the objections (I didnt fancy hearing about his pals and the beer drinking as they travelled - but then I suppose hes English).

Im also interested in the disdain for Corrigan and Mud Blood and Poppycock which I am just reading and from which I have learnt a bit and yet find most irritating - I keep wanting to say "what about the real world whcih was out there" but then he obviously knows more than me.

Kathie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This thread is brilliant and I am personally chuffed to bits! I own in the region of 300 books on the Great War - and (if finances and my better halfs eagle eyes were not quite so sharp) would own quite a lot more.

However, I am also starting to beleive that I may well be psychic. I have spent hours in various Watersones and Foyles and time and again have toyed with buying all of the following:

1918 The Year of Victory

Mud, Blood and Poppycock

All the Kaisers Men

The Pity of War and

The Myth of the Great War

On each occaision I am glad to say I have decided against it and kept my cash in my pocket. Spooky! Having spent an hour reading your reviews and, bowing to your cumulative expert knowledge - I am now absolutely delighted that I did so, as they seem almost universally loathed and/or complete drivel. They will all be removed from my wants list forthwith! Thanks very much to one and all - I think you have probably saved me the best part of £120!

I have bought and read "The Missing of the Somme" - and agree its abit odd, and although I quite enjoyed "Birdsong" - its not for the serious student.

Finally, whilst mildly interesting from a quasi-historical (the bits about W H R Rivers...) and entertainment point of view, the "Regeneration Trilogy" is largely intellectual waffle. I mean lets face it - how far do you have to willingly suspend disbelief to comprehend that a Miner's son from Newcastle, who worked as a tally clerk, gets a commision, suffers a working class only form of shell shock, has homosexual relations with some bloke he meets on a bus whilst employed at the Ministry of Munitions and just happens to be on first name (Aunty Maggie type) terms with a women who is inside for threatening to kill the Prime Minister ? - oh and all of this whilst standing in the same dinner queue as Siegfried Sassoon. Not to mention copping off with the first munitins girl he sets eyes on whilst on day release from the Looney Bin!! I ask you - but a right rivetting read just the same!

Regards

David ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David I thoroughly agree with you re the Regeneration trilogy. In fact, these books put me off reading anything remotely connected with WW1 for the best part of 5 years.

Robbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Laffin and Clarke, I dont think people read them properly.

Clarke's Donkeys is based the period up to 1915 and is based on proven incidents. I think he has made his point and does not attempt in any way to down grade the efforts made after this period.

Laffin's Bunglers on follows the war careers of a hand full of General Officers and again he does not try in any way to denigrate the fighting officers. After all he was one himself.

Please put me down for Corrigans popycock for all the reasons previously mentioned.

Arnie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spent hours in various Watersones and Foyles and time and again have toyed with buying all of the following:

1918 The Year of Victory

Mud, Blood and Poppycock

All the Kaisers Men

The Pity of War and

The Myth of the Great War

On each occaision I am glad to say I have decided against it and kept my cash in my pocket.

Have you checked your local public library? Many of them are quite happy to accept "suggestions for acquisition" if you can make a good case for them acquiring the book - that is, if they don't have it already.

Of course, it does involve having enough moral and intellectual bankruptcy to praise to high heaven a book you've been told is a load of crap :o , but it quite often works. And it keeps YOUR money in YOUR pocket, where it belongs (for more worthwhile literary efforts), whilst still letting you come to your own conclusions about the aforementioned books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, three people have said the nominate Geoff Dyers book on the Missing of the Somme for worst book.  Why?  If would nominate it as one of my best - thought provoking, pertinent.  It deals with an issue which I suspect inspired interest in the Great War for many people - the romantic lost generation mythology of the disappeared coupled with rows and rows of white graves and etc etc.  Id be interested in hearing the objections 

Kathie...............As one who early on in this thread expressed his dissatisfaction at this book, I will try to articulate why.......................It's not what is written per se but what I can only describe as 'a feeling' I get..................It’s an undertone within the writing which demeans those who remember. I feel that my own acts of remembrance are somehow belittled.............as if the sincerity of my remembrance is being questioned.........I can only describe it as very personal dislike of what Geoff Dyer has written.................I appreciate that if you don't get the same 'vibe or feeling' from the book, my dislike of it seems illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim

I also like some of Laffin's work, but disagree with some of his personal views.

However I think that there is something ingrained in our thinking about the Australian soldier. both in the Great War and the Second World War.

I get angry whenever I read an account or article which goes something like 'the Australian soldier whose tough life and hard upbringing makes him a great soldier, etc etc'. This is normally written to get the reader to make a comparison between the Australians and the British, and to give him the impression that the Australian was a tougher and better soldier.

From The Spirit of the Digger by Patrick Lindsey

'After Gallipoli it was clear the Australian Army had a character and style of its own. Although many diggers were of British origin( almost 30 per cent were actually born in Britian), it was evident after Gallipoli that our Army was quite different from the British Army.

Maybe if you studied Australian History you would understand the gradual birth of pride in Australia. From the dumping ground of the United Kingdom to a country that found itself emerging as a nation, a nation that showed courage and mateship in going to the aid of the mother counrty. The AIF was entirely a volunteer force.

When you understand the battles within Australia, enviromental, social and political that deveolped the Australian persona, you may understand the pride that we have for our Diggers and our very short history. A history which until recently listed all the Australian engagements in WW1 as British, forgive us if we wish to redress this, given that in 1901, we were actually officially Australia, not an outpost of Britian.

Spirit of the Digger is a good place to look in understanding our Army History.

Kim

PS I am not an academic, historian or such. I am just an ordinary person wishing to learn more about the history of WW1 for my own reasons. This site is fantastic for this reason, in that all views from all sides are aired. It is a great learning place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kim,

I understand and largely agree with the points your making but, in my opinion, the views expressed by Laffin and many other Australian historians express current attitudes rather than those of 1914-18.

30% of the Diggers were British born, and a large proportion of the rest were from families that had emigrated in the second half of the 19th Century. When these men volunteered, officially Australian or not, they were fighting for the British Empire. Describing their actions as British was not a slight, but reflected the attitudes of the time.

The actions of these soldiers should be a source of pride, but I do feel that the perception of many Australians is revisionist.

I spent a year in Australia, and once got involved in a conversation about Gallipoli. The general opinion was that the Diggers were sacrificed while the British sat back and watched. When I mentioned that far more British soldiers had been killed there than ANZACs, I was told I was talking rubbish. I then mentioned the French casualties, and was laughed down because the 'French weren't at Gallopli'.

I'm not suggesting that all Australians think this way, but there was definitely a ingrained perception that the ANZACs were deliberately sacrificed, no one else suffered as many casualties, and everything was due to British incompetence. The same perception was true of the Second World War, with the ANZACs being betrayed by the British at Singapore. Even Britain joining the EEC was an act of betrayal. I think this has a lot to say about Australia's history, persona and self perception, but can lead to misrepresentations of history. A good historian can reflect the attitudes of the time he writes about. In my opinion, Laffin (and others)reflect the attitudes of their own time.

Regards

Gavin

(I hope I haven't upset anyone!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The War Walk - Nigel Jones.

I know this will annoy somebody ;)

But I was the one who bought it only to be sorely disappointed.

Des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankyou Gavin for your thoughts. I think the thing about Gallipoli is that as a new nation it was the first time that we went to war as Australians. In the Boer War and Boxer Rebellion we were named as British and under British command. This was an independent stand and as we know, us Quirky Australians celebrate a loss as a great moment in our history; Gallipoli. People have hung unto the myths and legends because of this and maybe it is the fault of the educational system for not providing a more balanced view. But even the diggers themselves felt that they were used as cannonfodder and had a great respect for the Tommies and Frenchies who were conscripted into the war. There are many accounts of them pitying the other armies.

This still does not detract that, yes, we were closely attached to the mother country and many of our men died for her, after all Australia was not under threat, but given that we were the colonials and not taken seriously until the midway through the war, modern Australians, on looking back, see things diiferently to the British.

I think what helps fuel this is when Australians were put in charge of Australians, ie, Chauval in Palestine, things went reasonably well, which gave a bad comaprision to Gallipoli.

Our willingness to hold onto the myths and legends also comes from, as i said before, only having a short history to look back on, unlike Britian with all its wars through the last 2000 years.

It is through forums such as this that history can be discussed and opened up so that youger generations hopefully get a more balanced picture of World War One.

Kim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...