Aurel Sercu Posted 14 May , 2005 Share Posted 14 May , 2005 Today on a Dutch Discussion Forum a tread was started about Hew Strachan's book The First World War (I'm not sure if this is the correct title in English. The Great War ? World War I ?) Anyway, the Dutch tread was not really a discussion or review of the book, but a discussion about its very last sentence. Somehow for some members it (understandably I guess) went down the wrong way. The expressed opinions of course are based on the Dutch translation. I'm not saying that this is a wrong or not very careful translation, I just don't know. But I think when emotions are discussed about the exact meaning of what an author says, it is worthwhile to have his exact wording at hand. The very last paragraph of the book starts with something like : (I'm tranlating the Dutch tranlation into English again, so probably there will be a discrepancy !) "World War I was the end of the German Empire, the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire etc. ... (The rest of the paragraph mentions : the Russian Revolution ... the foundations of the Soviet-Union ... US ... Balkan countries ... Middle East." And then the very last sentence is (in Dutch) : "Het was nadrukkelijk geen zinloze of doelloze oorlog." Which could be re-translated again into : "Most emphatically it was not a pointless / useless / meaningless / aimless / or senseless war." But of course the way it was worded originally was different (milder, more nuances ?) What was the original English phrasing ? I can understand that the Dutch version raised some emotions. (Somehow as if the consequences justified the war, or made it acceptable, or that somehow the end justifies the means, or that all this suffering and killing was 'worthwhile'...) It's not my intention to start a discussion here ! Besides, what I wrote between brackets is not exactly my opinion or someone else's. I'm only stating that Strachan's words - correctly translated or not - could be misunterpreted, or could be given a meaning he never intended. So all I would like : Does any Forom member have this publication, and if so, would you mind quoting the very last sentence please ? Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 14 May , 2005 Share Posted 14 May , 2005 Aurel, 'It was emphatically not a war without meaning or purpose,' Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 14 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 14 May , 2005 Thanks, AGWR. And now the Dutch friends have a base to move on. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 15 May , 2005 Share Posted 15 May , 2005 I have Volume 1 and it doesn't end like that. It ends with the Ideas of 1914. Is the quote from volume 2 or 3 ? I didn't know they were available yet. Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenwoodman Posted 15 May , 2005 Share Posted 15 May , 2005 Its from the single volume "The First World War: A new Illustrated History" published by Simon & Schuster in 2003. It was published to accompany a 10-part Channel 4 TV series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 15 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 15 May , 2005 Thanks, Rod and Greenwoodman (R. ?) And as you see, Rod, Gr. has solved the problem. A few people on the Dutch Great War Forum would like to get in touch with author Hew Strachan about this final sentence quote. Should anyone have a direct e-mail address... (I'll give it a Google myself.) Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 15 May , 2005 Share Posted 15 May , 2005 Aurel, I may be missing something here.... but how is this sentence in any way controversial? Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 15 May , 2005 Share Posted 15 May , 2005 Aurel, 'It was emphatically not a war without meaning or purpose,' Regards, AGWR <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If he`d said "Not without significance or aim" I don`t suppose anyone would quibble. Assuming he meant that, of course! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 15 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 15 May , 2005 I could give a link to the thread on the Dutch forum, but if you don't read Dutch, no need to click of course... http://www.forumeerstewereldoorlog.nl/view...p?p=17985#17985 The questions appear to be things like : - Is this controversial indeed ? - How do we have to interpret this last sentence ? - Is the author confusing "consequences" and "purpose" ? - And in the light of the paragraph preceding the sentence : not everything mentioned as being consequences (the author in a way sees them as a "purpose") was that positive after all ! (Middle East, Balkan, post-war Sovietunion,...) - It seems to say that the killing of thousands of men was "zinvol" (had a meaning or purpose). Sounds a bit painful. - Seems to suggest that "it" was all worth it. I'm not saying that this is the way I see it, or that this is what the author had in mind. We just don't know. And I will certainly not say he had, for I have not read the book (nor do I intend to), and whether he implied something that could be controversial, can only be said after reading the whole context, and the whole book. So someone said : Let's ask the author himself what he meant. Or ask him to join the discussion. And I replied : No problem. Find an e-mail address. I won't. Besides, I don't think he is looking forward to join such discussion. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 16 May , 2005 Share Posted 16 May , 2005 Aurel, Thanks for your post. It's interesting how words can signify different things to different people! Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 17 May , 2005 Share Posted 17 May , 2005 Thanks, Rod and Greenwoodman (R. ?) And as you see, Rod, Gr. has solved the problem. A few people on the Dutch Great War Forum would like to get in touch with author Hew Strachan about this final sentence quote. Should anyone have a direct e-mail address... (I'll give it a Google myself.) Aurel <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Aurel, Hew Strachan is Chichele Professor of the History of Warfare at All Souls College, University of Oxford. You can email him at: enquiries@all-souls.ox.ac.uk Ciao, GAC PS - I too cannot see what is problematic with Strachan's final sentence - and I think only those who believe that there is no greater evil than war would. Like Strachan, I happen to subscribe to the view that sometimes war is the lesser of two evils - particulary when the alternative is the acceptance of tyranny and international bullying by military threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 17 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2005 GAC, Thanks for the address. Let there be no doubt about it. I myself am not saying that I consider this final sentence controversial. Maybe only enigmatic. Mysterious... But in a way (in a way !) I understand people who wonder if this sentence could be interpreted as : The Great was had a (justified (?)) purpose : the end of the German empire, of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the rise of Bolshevism, and (long term) the situation in the Balkan and the Middle East. So the massacre was all worth it." (Apart from the question : were these really the 'purposes' (aims) of the Great War ?) And maybe indeed some people think that there is "no greater evil than war". Am I one of them ? Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't... And the older I grew the more I am in doubt... Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 17 May , 2005 Share Posted 17 May , 2005 GAC, Thanks for the address. Let there be no doubt about it. I myself am not saying that I consider this final sentence controversial. Maybe only enigmatic. Mysterious... But in a way (in a way !) I understand people who wonder if this sentence could be interpreted as : The Great was had a (justified (?)) purpose : the end of the German empire, of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the rise of Bolshevism, and (long term) the situation in the Balkan and the Middle East. So the massacre was all worth it." (Apart from the question : were these really the 'purposes' (aims) of the Great War ?) And maybe indeed some people think that there is "no greater evil than war". Am I one of them ? Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't... And the older I grew the more I am in doubt... Aurel <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hew Strachan also wrote The Oxford Illustrated History of THe First World War. The last sentence is " We cannot forget, neither can we truly comprehend". This may help to interpret the other sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 17 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2005 Thanks, Tom. It does indeed. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 17 May , 2005 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2005 A member of the Dutch Great War forum contacted Prof. H. Strachan, who replied today. Prof. Strachan's reply can be read here : http://www.forumeerstewereldoorlog.nl/view...p?p=19051#19051 (In Henri's posting, the second on p 2) Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGWR Posted 17 May , 2005 Share Posted 17 May , 2005 Aurel, Very interesting. I am very impressed by the fact that the author took the time to respond to your friend's e-mail. Regards, AGWR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 18 May , 2005 Share Posted 18 May , 2005 I am impressed also but not surprised, I heard him speak in St Louis a few years ago, he was quite happy to talk to us after, he was the 1st I had heard say that Falkenhayn likely made his explanation for the attack at Verdun after the war. I have mentioned before Lyn McDonald was once nice enough to answer a letter and she, I suspect, has a hell of a lot more money than he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 19 May , 2005 Share Posted 19 May , 2005 A member of the Dutch Great War forum contacted Prof. H. Strachan, who replied today. Prof. Strachan's reply can be read here : http://www.forumeerstewereldoorlog.nl/view...p?p=19051#19051 (In Henri's posting, the second on p 2) Aurel <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for the link ... and his thoughts were excellent ... I am amazed at the "grace" he has in how he states his case. Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hederer Posted 19 May , 2005 Share Posted 19 May , 2005 "He was the 1st I had heard say that Falkenhayn likely made his explanation for the attack at Verdun after the war" Paul, That's interesting. German historians have been asserting that since the late 1920's. There is even a comment concerning that in the official history. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 19 May , 2005 Share Posted 19 May , 2005 Paul I know that now but 8 years or so ago I did not and it was a big deal to hear that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now