"Mud Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan

[manchester terrier]

[withcall]

I think Corrigan sets out to shock by positioning himself as far to one side of the argument as he can. It shares the faults and qualities of any book where the author starts out with a view firmly fixed, and then adapts the 'facts' to fit the view. In doing so the author risks being labelled a polemicist rather than a historian. I think he argues some parts of his case very well, but he can't resist defending the indefensible; I read his comments on General Haking's military exploits with growing disbelief. The book is basically a more long-winded and rambling version of John Terraine's 'The Smoke and The Fire' Corrigan also adopts a rather evangelical tone, and seems intent on converting the unbelievers. He completely misses the point that despite 'Blackadder', which at no time sets out to claim historical truth, the revisionist ideas of the Great War are the new orthodoxy, certainly amongst people who claim to be WW1 'enthusiasts' If Mr Corrigan gets royalties from library lendings, then he's welcome to them, but I'm glad I didn't part with hard-earned currency for the book.

[Robert Dunlop]

I have just about finished reading the book. It will probably stay unfinished, mainly because there are too many other more interesting books to read at the moment. Sheffield described Corrigan's style as 'combative'. It is a good description. For anyone who is a strong adherent to the donkey's view of British commanders, I don't think the book will shake his or her view too much, which is what Corrigan set out to do. There are some interesting points. Some are well thought out and reasonably well supported. However, there are several sweeping statements, and some mis-facts, that undermine the general theme of the book. On a personal note, I really hated the racist comments that Corrigan made - there is no excuse for these.

What I did find interesting, and deeply disturbing, was Corrigan's perspective as a professional soldier. It comes through in specifc comments that he makes and in the general tenor of the book. I say 'disturbing' because his comments reinforce that war is about killing, about subverting everything to the effort of killing the man on the other side before he kills you. There is no room for compassion, for contemplative thought, artistic interpretation, autonomy, pleuralism/diversity, or democracy. It is a powerful reminder of the culture that pervaded the armies fighting in WW1. Intellectually, I understand what he says but the thought of buying into such a mentality just causes me to shudder. Yet I also know that if a war is started, the military machine must operate in this way. In the context of WW1, there would have been no room for any other approach to the German army (or any other enemy).

We must stop wars from happening in the first place!!

Robert

[bmac]

May I refer Honourable Members to the answers we have given before:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...92&hl=poppycock

[Alan Lines]

This book just reinforced everything we already know about the modern batch of chummy authors and their depserate mission to exonerate the upper reaches of the British Army of WW1.

The title was too long it should just have been called "poppycock"

[CROONAERT]

I haven't read this book, but after reading one of his others (in which factually, he was OK), I come to the conclusion that Corrigan can, when he put's his own thoughts forward, be a little "departed from reality" ! In fact I actually burst out laughing at some of his comments (which I don't often do even in a comedy book) and wondered if he was for real!!!!

Because the book I read was OK factually, I'd probably give his other works a go, but ,unfortunately, I'll always have the impression that he's a little detached from reality.

Dave.

[bmac]

Was amused to read the Sunday Times recent savaging of Corrigan's newest tome 'Blood, Sweat and Arrogance' which purports to 'set the record straight' on Churchill & WW2. The reviewer, Andrew Roberts, generally gives the book a fair old panning, accusing him of making basic errors of fact and interpretation as well as wild unsupported swipes at a variety of people (e.g. Rommel "only a moderately competent commander above divisional level"). Kesselring gets a good press and, gulp, Chamberlain is described as "a far better figure of a man than his successor".

Roberts then rather gleefully goes on to suggest that the man Corrigan admires the most is Hitler who was, apparently, a man "by no means lacking in military judgement" and who was elected to power in "as democratic election as Germany had ever experienced", etc. Roberts notes that he hopes Corrigan is not planning a speaking tour of Austria any time soon.

Roberts does effectively de-bunk Corrigan's pro-Hitler stance pointing out that the 'great strategist' managed to declare war on both emerging global super powers within six months. A clear sign of genius.

Churchill is blamed for the military unreadiness of 1939 because of his cutbacks in the 20s. Roberts gently points out that these took place before Hitler came to power and that 10 years elapsed between Churchill's tenure at the Treasury at the opening of the war. Churchill is blamed for the state of the armed forces in 39 whereas Chamberlain, in power throughout the 30s (unlike Churchill), escapes blame.

Excellent, another Gordon Corrigan book I needn't bother with.

[FAAAEd]

Was amused to read the Sunday Times recent savaging of Corrigan's newest tome 'Blood, Sweat and Arrogance' which purports to 'set the record straight' on Churchill & WW2. ............

Excellent, another Gordon Corrigan book I needn't bother with.

Thank you for that. I had only yesterday spotted that as Editor's choice of a certain book club and was considering ordering it.

Churchill did make many mistakes by attempting to micro-manage, or even initiate, campaigns (in both 20th C World Wars) and readers can gain insight into the machinations of Churchill (and others) by reading titles by the team of Picknett, Prince, Prior and Brydon; 'Double Standards the Rudolf Hess Cover-up', 'War of the Windsors A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy' [1] and 'Friendly Fire the Secret War Between the Allies'.

[1] War of the Windsors could be amplified by reading 'Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Winsor Betrayed the Allies' by Martin Allen.

These are a few titles to challenge ones perspective of history.

[AndyHollinger]

Thank you for that. I had only yesterday spotted that as Editor's choice of a certain book club and was considering ordering it.

Churchill did make many mistakes by attempting to micro-manage, or even initiate, campaigns (in both 20th C World Wars) and readers can gain insight into the machinations of Churchill (and others) by reading titles by the team of Picknett, Prince, Prior and Brydon; 'Double Standards the Rudolf Hess Cover-up', 'War of the Windsors A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy' [1] and 'Friendly Fire the Secret War Between the Allies'.

[1] War of the Windsors could be amplified by reading 'Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Winsor Betrayed the Allies' by Martin Allen.

These are a few titles to challenge ones perspective of history.

Are you kidding?

[AndyHollinger]

I took a week's course on WSC this past year at W&L ... it was very interesting in that we had his granddaughter as one of the lecturers and a WSC admirer (Prof of Politics from Ok SU) as a lecturer and then several real historians ...

There are those that love him and forgive all his faults ... there are those that hate him for those faults and more they invent ... there are those who will quote his wonderful words and take them out of his meaning and put them into our own which makes him immortal.

But, the true WSC is a matter for historical debate and understanding. He towers above and beyond as a person because he was involved in so much and did so much - and much of it was positive for the world (at least if you consider the English Speaking world or the world of western liberal democracies as the world)

He will also supply you with an inexhaustible supply of witty and humorous remarks Up with which I will not put! etc. etc. etc.

He was also a fashion plate and knew how to live off the generosity of others

But, in the end, the Man is an incredible human being. He is a paragon of English/British/English Speaking Nation's history that, can not simply be taken at face value.

When I first read MB&P I thought it very important ... as we discussed it here ... it became merely interesting ... by the time we were finished with here, it was off the shelf of keepers ...

But, it went on the shelf of Polemics ... as it is there, MB&P is important ... it is not history as much as a historical argument. You have to glean out of his arguments stuff you'll accept as fact and ammunition for your opinion ... much like reading Trotsky.

WSC was a god to my father. My father literally thought he was one of the greatest of god's creations. But, then he was 20 in 1941 and, along with Roosevelt, these were the giants of his age ... to him WSC saved England by verbiage alone ...

and perhaps he did ...

WSC was never finished talking, writing or influencing ... and death did not stop him. Perhaps the only real argument left about WSC is whether he was out for something other than a destiny that would be strong enough to both glorify him and his father. Was he the champion of the BE? Liberty (for white people) or Mother England ... or was he simply the champion of WSC and Lord RC's memory and all his great deeds and accomplishments (along with a likewise list of errors) simply the paving on the road to immortal status.

I think it was done for Father ... I think the true answer was in his request for burial in Bladon says it all.

[FAAAEd]

Are you kidding?

Is that an agreement with my opinion or an expression of doubt about the titles cited?