Submitted by AutoModerator t3_11f1zd3 in history
dropbear123 t1_jair4q6 wrote
Going to be quite a long comment as I managed to get through a few books (but mostly copied and pasted). All First World War.
Finished On a Knife Edge: How Germany Lost the First World War by Holger Afflerbach
>4.75/5 very good about Germany's failure in World War One. Would recommend if you are interested in WWI and have an ok knowledge of it.
>Despite the book being translated into English I felt it was quite readable, not dry. The arguments suggested by the author, although I'm not sure I entirely agree with them, are well presented in a clear way. I've read quite a few books on the First World War by now and the author's takes feel fresh and new to me, I haven't really seen them in other things I've read. The bulk of the book is focussed on the decision making of the German political and military leadership - what decisions they made, why they made them, the factors that influenced the decisions made (public opinion, ideology, fear etc) and the consequences. Additionally there is also a lot on the disputes between the different factions and indivdiuals within the German political and military elite. There is a lot of information on the German peace efforts at the end of 1916 and also the role of the Reichstag compared to pretty much every other WWI book I've read.
>In terms of arguments presented the main ones are that 1 - The result of World War One was a lot closer than traditionally argued and that if Germany had made better decisions it could've been a draw (hence the focus of the book on decision making). 2 - Germany didn't set out at the beginning of WWI to have massive territorial conquests and that this goal came later as a consequence of the war rather than as a cause. so if Germany eventually had to return these territories as part of a compromise peace then it wouldn't represent a major defeat (although this would've been very hard to get the German public to agree to). 3 - Compared to other historians he takes the German requests for peace at the end of 1916 as legitimate attempts, rather than cynical propaganda for domestic audiences. 4 - The biggest mistakes Germany made was the invasion of Belgium (making it very easy for the British government to justify entry into the war) and the continuation of unrestricted submarine warfare, based on misjudging the attitudes of the Americans. 5 - The Central Powers made various 'moral mistakes' (my words) that gave the Entente motivation not to agree to a compromise peace, The Rape of Belgium, the Armenian Genocide, the harshness of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that justified to the continued fighting. 6 - That the Entente's refusal to agree to consider a compromise peace was the main reason for the continuation of the war and in the long-term was a major mistake, as the radicalisation and outcome of the war caused the future catastrophes of European history like the Nazis and the Second World War (this is one of the ones I'm iffy about, I'm not sure I agree with the view that the Entente's decision to fight to a full military victory was a mistake) . There are the main arguments but there are some shorter ones focused on military outcomes such as alternative outcomes of the Schlieffen Plan or what Germany could've done instead of the 1918 Spring Offensive.
Finished The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War by Adrian Gregory
>4.5/5 rounding down for Goodreads. If you want an academic book about the WWI British home front I'd say it is worth a go (if you want a lighter read with more personal accounts then All Quiet on the Home Front by Richard Van Emden and Steve Humphries is a good alternative)
>The writing is on the academic side but still readable, very little jargon or using dense language. The book is mainly about what motivated British people through the war as well as living standards and economics. The highlights of the book for me were the earlier chapters on beginning of the war and on atrocity propaganda. The chapter on the beginning of the war argues very persuasively IMO that the image of huge enthusiasm for the war is mostly untrue, that nobody believed that it would be a easy war "that'll be over by Christmas", that people recognised how bloody it would be and that the surge of recruitment was less from jingoism and more from unemployment, the sense of danger after the retreat from Mons and the confirmation of separation allowances so men knew their families would have some financial security. The main feeling the author suggests was a mix of sorrow and anger over the war which turned to hatred of Germany for causing it. The atrocity chapter argues that the government and the media (the Daily Mail mainly) didn't set out to deliberately make up atrocity stories and instead genuinely believed what they were reporting, and that the more bizarre stories (German corpse being used in factories for example) were started by the public as urban myths from a lack of info rather than being made up by the press.
>The other chapters focus on religion (the only chapter I didn't really like), recruitment and conscription, economics, living standards and working conditions and disputes. These chapters tend to be bit more numbers heavy with lots of percentages and some tables with info on them. The idea of sacrifice is mentioned quite a lot as well, with people on the home front being well aware of what was going on militarily and being willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the soldiers. There is some historiographical discussion and critiques of historians.
>The notes section is better than most as instead of just being a list of sources there is also a lot of extra information, debates, caveats etc.
Also managed to finish The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army by Gary D. Sheffield
>4/5 Not much to say about it. Solid, fair biography of Douglas Haig. Defends him against unfair criticism but also criticises hims when he deserved it. Overall quite positive about Haig. Worth a read if interested in the WWI British Army.
Now reading Shots from the Front: The British Soldier 1914-1918 by Richard Holmes. Short book with lots of photos. Decent so far.
No-Strength-6805 t1_jao0lzq wrote
Had quick question notice of 3 books finished the biography not much detail yet gave it decent rating was there reason or just not enough room?
dropbear123 t1_jaog2si wrote
I think at the the time of writing the review I just felt like I didn't have much to say about it, plus it feels like there is more to say about big picture books than books that focus on a general and his strategy.
Now that it's been a couple of days I can offer more thoughts -
When it comes to technology the author argues against the view that Haig was old-fashioned and didn't understand new technology. Instead he says the opposite, that if anything Haig was way too optimistic about how effective new weapons like gas and tanks would be.
For Haig's continued planning on a breakthrough Sheffield also defends this quite a bit. For a start it was politically difficult to do otherwise, the French wouldn't have accepted the British doing only small scale attacks and that the British public wouldn't have accepted neverending yet still costly bite and hold battles - hope of a eventual breakthrough the German lines was needed for morale. Additionally it would have been irresponsible of Haig to not have a plan if an offensive did have major success.
There is a lot of focus on the background and adminstrative stuff which led the British forces to be highly effective by the end of the war.
There is a also a lot on Haig's relationship with his subordinates. In these bits the author is quite critical of some of his Haig's commmanders like Gough and Rawlinson but also criticises Haig for not getting a strong grip on these men and making it clear what his intentions were.
No-Strength-6805 t1_jaowvhn wrote
Thank you for this it's excellent Haig is one I've always heard of but never studied him and his effect I do appreciate it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments