What have you read, but WOULDN'T recommend

[andigger]

In an effort to stir up good WWI related controversy, what books have you read (WWI related) that you think should be thrown on the proverbial bon fire, and why?

My vote is Winston Groom's A Storm in Flanders because he spends more time talking about WWII and other areas of the Western Front than he does about Belgian portion of the sector.

[BottsGreys]

Andy,

I recently read that book, and I didn't see that at all. (Just goes to show you that great minds (ha-ha) don't always think alike.) Particularly the part about WWII--I just went through my copy and aside from the portions relating to Hitler's service in Flanders, I can't find any mention or inference to WWII. World War II is not even mentioned in the index, although WWI is. I think it is what Groom wanted it to be--an broad overview, written by an American for Americans who want/need a basic background of what went on in Flanders in the long period before the U.S. entered the War. I think he did a pretty good job of introducing why the words Flanders, Ypres, and The Salient mean so much in the UK, Canada, Germany,etc. and why Americans should care.

And don't say I'm prejudiced because I like Forrest Gump.

Chris

[Annette Burgoyne]

Out of all the books I have there have only been two books which I wished I had not brought but I will not give the books name - just because I did not think much of them does not mean the next person will think the same. Like Chris says great minds don't always think alike.

[MartinWills]

Can I suggest that one of the great values of a book you would not recommend is that you have read it and considered the contents, given thought to the arguments and (probably) chosen to differ. The intellectual review and application of your knowledge is, in itself a worthwhile exercise. I must admit that I do not take the content of any volume as gospel truth and this has always stood me in good stead.

There are one or two "The Great War in a book" pot-boilers that I would avoid if only for gross inaccuracy and ineptness. I would also certainly avoid some great war poetry - there is too much of it about and some is gross doggerell which adds far less to the literature of the war than Pte Baldrick's "The German Guns". There is much good poetry as well, however.

Personally I would probably recommend some books in preference to others .......

[armourersergeant]

Can I suggest that one of the great values of a book you would not recommend is that you have read it and considered the contents, given thought to the arguments and (probably) chosen to differ. The intellectual review and application of your knowledge is, in itself a worthwhile exercise. I must admit that I do not take the content of any volume as gospel truth and this has always stood me in good stead.

I would also certainly avoid some great war poetry - there is too much of it about and some is gross doggerell which adds far less to the literature of the war than Pte Baldrick's "The German Guns".

I would have to agree wholeheartedly with Martin here. I am sure I have read much less than many here on the forum but can certainly say to date good or bad I have learnt something from all those i have read. What you do have to do is sort the truth from the lie which is not always easy, as it is often perpetuated from one book to another. Bad books can often make you question what you believe though and that in itself is an advantage.

As regards the peotry...I am a great fan of 'The German Guns' as I beleive that it sums up the pure hoplessness of the situation of those that served in the trenches.

Boom Boom Boom,

Arm.

[paul guthrie]

The most inaccurate and uninformed and utter nonsense I have read is The Myth of The Great War by Mosier, sub title is something like how the Germans won all the battles and Americans won the war for the allies. An example is 1st Marne was a German victory.

[Ken Lees]

I thought Mosier's book would be mentioned in this thread before long . I am currently reading it and whilst I am aware that Mosier has been largely discredited for his views and conclusions, I am finding it a very thought-provoking read.

He might be grossly wide of the mark and highly selective in his quotes, but I find myself wondering whether everything he writes is so bad, or whether, as with many other writers, it is simply a case of sorting the good from the bad.

I agree with those who believe that no book is bad enough to be tossed into the fire - even if they only serve to highlight how good other books are.

Ken

[egbert]

The most inaccurate and uninformed and utter nonsense I have read is The Myth of The Great War by Mosier

I knew that comes up

I recommend reading it. Diversity is wanted for own judgements! To make you curious,

quote

• ....French attack-at-any-cost behaviour....
• ...the BEF had thoughtfully left the swamps to the French...
• There was no Dept. in the GHQ to collect the technical expertise of other nations and nobody watched the tactical development of artillery. The artillery was still operating on the assumption that shrapnell shells could cut bold wire..
• ....the BEF would attacking using kamikaze methods as the French had used in the Champagne a year earlier....

end of quotes.

I am tired get the book!

[Steve_McGarry]

I can't say I enjoyed "Have you forgotten yet".... Maybe I just need to read it again...

[egbert]

P.S for Paul:

If you had left the forum, I had known how to lure you back ( see above)

[spike10764]

I think, in general, if you really are inspired by a book you tend to give it publicity on here.

Many other books I've read may not be to my taste, or too technical, or blandly written, but each book has it's own merits even if it is just to the person who wrote it.

The only way to find out if a book is good or not is to read it and find out for yourself.

A good pointer may be books that others have recommended(but don't count on that)

Regards Spike

[paul guthrie]

Egbert, didn't even think about it. Love posts by Chester by the way! But the book is a joke and a bad one. Germans won 1st Marne?

[Matt Dixon]

I would have to agree with Paul about Mosier...one of the biggest bits of c**p I have ever read.......still to quote Capt E Blackadder "It'll do till we get some proper toilet paper"

[Ken Lees]

Well, I finished Mosier's book today and I have to say that I'm glad that I read it. I'm nowhere near sufficiently knowledgable to argue against everything he claims, so I'd welcome any statements that directly contradict his views.

Were the German casualty figures really so much lower than the Allies on the Western Front?

His book will certainly make me think when I am reading other, contradictary, works. I won't simply accept any viewpoint at face value.

Having said that, he didn't actually explain to my satisfaction how, having given the Allies such a comprehensive thrashing for four years, the Germans still managed to lose the war.

Ken

[egbert]

Paul,

Did Mosier pour his tomato juice into your pocket when you met him at the WFA reception?

[Guest]

Were the German casualty figures really so much lower than the Allies on the Western Front?

Mosier's figures are highly misleading. He counts only German dead as those listed as "dead" in German unit records; i.e. assuming that all "missing" are "alive in French PoW camp" when most of the missing were "blown into tiny unrecognizable bits all over the battlefield." He then compares this to finalized British/French casualty returns which do take the missing into account.

The breakdown from Churchill's The World Crisis (revised 1937 edition updated for 'finalised' casualty figures) is as follows (all from German Reichsarchiv data):

Killed in action Western front (Reichsarchiv) 829,400

Died of wounds Western front 300,000

Missing-reclassified as dead 364,000

Total Western front 1,493,400

This is more than double Mosier's figure of 669,263 for total German deaths in the West.

While total Entente losses probably were greater than total German loses on the Western front, it isn't as vast a gap as Mosier would suggest.

[Ken Lees]

Thanks Anthony,

I had read somewhere that the German figures weren't calculated in the same way as those of the Allies, but I couldn't remember what it was they didn't include.

Ken

[paul guthrie]

Germans did not count lightly wounded as wounded.

[egbert]

.......because they continued fighting after first aid or so called "self-and comrade help"...

[egbert]

Here is what I found on the fast lane in Mosier's book. Judge yourself:

[egbert]

And here comes the footnote (see no 6), mentioned in the text above:

P.S Again sorry for the large scan; was a "quicky " by my secretary! Shame on you, no not what you think

[Ken Lees]

Egbert,

Are you saying that you agree with much of what Mosier says? Or all of it, perhaps?

I'm not suggesting that you would be wrong to do so, but I would be interested to know your views.

Ken

[egbert]

I am not yet there! But I confess, I like the well preserved myth of the victor point of view (who is always right) being thoroughly scratched. Judge yourself!!

furthermore I will scan page 241/242 tonight for more discussion

[Ken Lees]

I think it is invariably true, that history is written by the victors. And what was written with such authority 'becomes' the truth for many.

I don't suppose I will ever be truly convinced by any argument on this subject, but I shall continue to read and learn.

Ken

[egbert]

Paul,

in two days I will be in New Orleans - Mosier territory- before I start my 7 night "Master&Commander" cruise: do you want me to convey your best wishes?

Ken,

be careful: you still live in GB; your comment can cost your neck