The Austro-Hungarian Army and the First World War by Graydon A Tunstal

[tomisitt]

There are a few contenders, but without doubt The Austro-Hungarian Army and the First World War by Graydon A Tunstall, recently published by Cambridge University Press, is the worst. The author, a former professor of history at an American university, has made numerous (I counted over 70) errors, including an entirely imaginary military campaign in Istria and a complete failure to understand the Brusilov offensive. Or to tell the difference between two battle that were two months and 100 miles apart.

I’ve written a full review on my website, if you’re interested.

http://www.isitt.org.uk/5.html

 

 

[seaJane]

Er, don't pull your punches, will you?  Thanks for the warning.

On the fictional side, if we are starting a list, I'll contribute "All For a Scrap of Paper" and "Tommy" by Joseph Hocking. He wrote a series of Great War novels but I haven't the strength for more than these two so far. They're both available online from Project Gutenberg so no need to shell out anything but time on them. 

[MikeyH]

One of the few books I have been unable to finish was, 'The War Memoirs of David Lloyd George'.  A very thick tome indeed.  This was loaned to me by a friends father, when I was around fifteen.  Maybe some sixty odd years on I might possibly have a different set of expectations and preferences.

Mike.

[Dust Jacket Collector]

As I recall, John Laffin’s ‘Butchers and Bunglers’ has not been too popular on this Forum. Have certainly steered well clear of it myself.

[rolt968]

6 minutes ago, Dust Jacket Collector said:

As I recall, John Laffin’s ‘Butchers and Bunglers’ has not been too popular on this Forum. Have certainly steered well clear of it myself.

I have read it. I hold no views either way on the line taken, but I was not impressed by the depth of the content.

RM

[rolt968]

Having ploughed through one or two over the years, some of the books written in the '20s are hard work to read.

[David Filsell]

Laffins books are certainly worth avoiding

regards

David

[Jervis]

A special mention for this one: The first Nazi: Erich Ludendorff

The US Author’s bio implies he is a credible historian - which makes it all the more incredulous that he wrote such an error strewn, incompetent, ignorant book with a deep misunderstanding of historical events. It was so bad I couldn’t put it down! 

It still amazes me that such a shoddy piece of work was actually published. 

Jervis

 

Edited 21 May , 2022 by Jervis

[Jervis]

40 minutes ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

 

     I suspect that the author may be your good self-  but there is a ferociously bad-but accurate- review of this book on Amazon.  

Hi Alan - I am guessing you mean the first reviewer in Amazon? It’s not me. I would not have the patience to write such a review - but does look like a compatriot alright. I would have restricted myself to point out Ludendorff had no absolutely no role in the planning or execution of the 1916 rebellion- he was busy on the Eastern front at the time. Which is typical of the basic errors in this book. 

Edited 21 May , 2022 by Jervis

[Keith_history_buff]

Geoffrey Wawro's book on how America single-handedly won the war.

Carlsberg don't write history books about the First World War, but if they did......

Conversely Robert Remini did not write books about WW1, just dreadful books about the War of 1812, but if he had done, such a thing would be likely to acquire the epithet of the title of this thread. 

[MikeMeech]

Hi

It is interesting to note from the posts on this thread that there are still unreliable books being written despite the much easier access to the archives these days.  Another problem is that recent authors are still referencing unreliable books from the past.  A case in point is that Dennis Winter 'The First of the Few' is being referenced (as true) his figure for 14,166 dead pilots with 8,000 killed in training by 'academic historians'.  A short piece that I wrote for the 'Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research' Winter 2017 edition below, contains some information on this:

Although this piece is not the last word on the subject of course.  But the question arises from this thread is that are 'academic historians' (Professors of History etc.) actually anymore reliable in their writings on WW1 than non-academic authors?  

Mike

Edited 22 May , 2022 by MikeMeech

[David Filsell]

For what it's worth, as a former Book Reviews Editor, I learned that it is well worthwhile checking the notes and references in a book to see the length and breadth of an authour's selected notes and references - and longer the n and r's in the authour's list the better before buying a book or or quoting from it. As a rule of thumb I have concluded the longer the list the better and reveals the dilligence of the authour's research

Regards

David

[tomisitt]

2 hours ago, David Filsell said:

For what it's worth, as a former Book Reviews Editor, I learned that it is well worthwhile checking the notes and references in a book to see the length and breadth of an authour's selected notes and references - and longer the n and r's in the authour's list the better before buying a book or or quoting from it. As a rule of thumb I have concluded the longer the list the better and reveals the dilligence of the authour's research

Regards

David

You must love Rauchensteiner’s book on Austria-Hungary in the FWW…2531 notes and references, 100 page’s worth! And a 40-page bibliography.

[keithmroberts]

7 hours ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

  I think the book has references but was not one of the main examples of a short-lived officer  complete fiction?

Yes. The man described in the introduction as an prime example does not appear to have existed at all. I think it was Chris Baker who first spotted this, and others including myself  have also tried and failed to find any evidence that the man existed.  I didn't bother with the main text of the book after that.

Keith

[kenf48]

10 hours ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

Six Weeks: The Short and Gallant Life of the British Officer in the First World War

jean Louis Stempel.

The book was extensively reviewed, and read on its original publication in 2011.  Some members posted critical reviews, others were positive. As to the fictional element there is no doubt many of the memoirs of the twenties, now regarded as classics, contained elements of fiction.

If a book is to be cited as 'the worst' (and incidentally how do you define "worst" - on this occasion the main concern seems to an absence of peer reviews and editorial errors) the proposer should at least have read it, or at the very least given up after making   an attempt to do so.  

This sub forum is 'Books and Book Reviews'  and we encourage reviews of books and inevitably there will be good and bad.  Any review is subjective and it's noted that in the link in the original post the CUP has been given an opportunity to respond which is absent here.  

We do not seek to 'over moderate' but Admin are concerned a perjorative list compiled without evidence could reflect poorly on the reputation of GWF and we would be grateful if members considered this before posting.

We would also ask members to be more selective as to the title given to their topic.  This  topic was presumably originated to draw attention to a review of:- 

On 20/05/2022 at 20:21, tomisitt said:

The Austro-Hungarian Army and the First World War by Graydon A Tunstall

It would therefore have been more appropriate to reflect that in the title, as for example in the review posted above.  The OP made no mention of a comparative list, though of course we all have one.  The hare has been set running so it's probably too late to change the title and to avoid the usual calumny will we keep it open, for now.

The GWF also has, what used to be known as a "Classic Thread", where members may express an opinion on books they have read as well as beginning a topic on specific titles:-

 

[Felix C]

19 hours ago, David Filsell said:

For what it's worth, as a former Book Reviews Editor, I learned that it is well worthwhile checking the notes and references in a book to see the length and breadth of an authour's selected notes and references - and longer the n and r's in the authour's list the better before buying a book or or quoting from it. As a rule of thumb I have concluded the longer the list the better and reveals the dilligence of the authour's research

Regards

David

n and r's?  Notes and References?  I recall one professor 25 years ago mentioning bibliography padding as well. He was an expert in his field and noted a book by another historian in the same field must not have consulted the sources he listed as the conclusions would have been different. 

 

Edited 23 May , 2022 by Felix C

[tomisitt]

My apologies for opening a can of worms, I didn’t intend to cause a pile-on. My original post was intended to alert people to a book that is so bad (factually, and linguistically) that they should on no account buy it. And apologies for not conforming to forum conventions re the thread name. It has raised some interesting points about references and bibliographies, which is worthwhile.

[Crunchy]

Yes let’s lock this thread. Whether a book is the worst ever is purely a subjective opinion on the part of the reader. Writing a book takes an enormous effort that those who have never undertaken such a project will never understand. When reviewing a book I try to be as balanced as I can, but in the end whether it is good or bad is in the eye of each individual reader.  Easy to give something a bad name when others may find it worthwhile.

[tomisitt]

Yes, but a history book (especially one written by a professor and published by a university press) should be factually correct. If it isn’t, that’s cause for serious concern.

[Jervis]

35 minutes ago, Crunchy said:

Yes let’s lock this thread. Whether a book is the worst ever is purely a subjective opinion on the part of the reader. Writing a book takes an enormous effort that those who have never undertaken such a project will never understand. When reviewing a book I try to be as balanced as I can, but in the end whether it is good or bad is in the eye of each individual reader.  Easy to give something a bad name when others may find it worthwhile.

There is absolutely no need to lock this thread. If it is not to your liking, there are plenty more that may interest you. 

Historical books advocating strong opinions without any solid evidence to back them up are utterly toxic (regardless of how much work went into their production).One of the most valuable service this forum does is hold up works to scrutiny and very often debunking myths. Long May it continue. 

[Felix C]

I have to ask if Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War is considered good history?  Same question regarding The Pity of War: Explaining World War I by Niall Ferguson.

[tomisitt]

The scary thing about the Tunstall book is that it was peer-reviewed by two prominent experts in that field, who both failed to spot significant errors. Which means that peer-reviews are (in this case) worthless. If you can’t trust people like Holger Herwig and Richard DiNardo, who can you trust? Has peer-reviewing become nothing more than historians bigging-up their mates? There’s dishonesty in all this, and it doesn’t reflect well on the military history community.

[spof]

As @kenf48 has pointed out, this started a a thread about a certain book. Despite his polite request, the thread has drifted further off topic so the thread is being renamed and locked while we manage it to stay on topic.

Discussion about "worst" books can continue (within reason) on another thread.

Glen

GWF Admin Team