Grand unified books thread

[The Brain]

But pretending British goals at the Somme were to engage in a war of attrition just seems like it can be easily disproven.

Indeed. If attrition had been the goal the slaughter of 1 July makes even less sense.

[crazy canuck]

Just got Dan Jones new book, Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages.

Starting reading it today too.  Meant to just read a few pages, but got hooked.  Had to force myself back to the things I needed to get done today.

What sets it apart from the regular run of the mill history of the Middle Ages?

He doesn't get bogged down in minutia.  He has a compelling narrative style.

I have mixed feelings about Dan Jones. I really enjoyed his Plantagenet and Hollow Crown books where he could build a narrative. His Crusaders was a bit of a slog.

I agree with your assessment of Crusaders - it still remains partly read.  One day I will finish it off but it is on the bottom of the pile.  I quite liked is book on the Templars and breezed through that in a few days.  This one looks even better.

Jacob, it is funny you asked for that, in his introduction Jones says that is a book which should be written, but he is not the one to do it as his area of knowledge is more limited.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah it's easy to spot that a lot of the "led by donkeys" thing is/was too emotionally charged.

Yes - though as I say it's the standard popular view. The focus is still entirely on the first day of the Somme

But pretending British goals at the Somme were to engage in a war of attrition just seems like it can be easily disproven.

Wasn't Haig's view basically right that, British goals basically part of the allied strategy though at that point? There were supposed to be combined offensives on both fronts, the Germans pre-empted this with the launch of the Verdun offensive. Somme went ahead even though it was no longer part of the combined offensives because the French had had to re-focus entirely on Verdun, but its aim was to support France and to maybe not engage in a war of attrition but keep the Germans there too. My understanding was the generals warned the government not to expect quick victories or anything like that precisely because they didn't have the quantity of forces necessary (not least because of Verdun) but it was essential politically to support the French with an offensive. Or is that wrong?

And, of course, despite its particular traumatic impact on the British it was nothing compared to the types of casualties the French suffered in fighting the war - that goes for WW1 in general.

[garbon]

Just got Dan Jones new book, Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages.

Starting reading it today too.  Meant to just read a few pages, but got hooked.  Had to force myself back to the things I needed to get done today.

What sets it apart from the regular run of the mill history of the Middle Ages?

He doesn't get bogged down in minutia.  He has a compelling narrative style.

I have mixed feelings about Dan Jones. I really enjoyed his Plantagenet and Hollow Crown books where he could build a narrative. His Crusaders was a bit of a slog.

I agree with your assessment of Crusaders - it still remains partly read.  One day I will finish it off but it is on the bottom of the pile.  I quite liked is book on the Templars and breezed through that in a few days.  This one looks even better.

Jacob, it is funny you asked for that, in his introduction Jones says that is a book which should be written, but he is not the one to do it as his area of knowledge is more limited.

I should admit that I was given his latest book as a gift and will be seeing him give a talk later this month.

[Jacob]

FWIW my impression is that the old led by donkeys school has been rightly discredited.

Were any Austro-Hungarian soldiers alive today they might beg to disagree.

Some of the Italian ones too, I believe.

[The Brain]

Yeah it's easy to spot that a lot of the "led by donkeys" thing is/was too emotionally charged.

Yes - though as I say it's the standard popular view. The focus is still entirely on the first day of the Somme

But pretending British goals at the Somme were to engage in a war of attrition just seems like it can be easily disproven.

Wasn't Haig's view basically right that, British goals basically part of the allied strategy though at that point? There were supposed to be combined offensives on both fronts, the Germans pre-empted this with the launch of the Verdun offensive. Somme went ahead even though it was no longer part of the combined offensives because the French had had to re-focus entirely on Verdun, but its aim was to support France and to maybe not engage in a war of attrition but keep the Germans there too. My understanding was the generals warned the government not to expect quick victories or anything like that precisely because they didn't have the quantity of forces necessary (not least because of Verdun) but it was essential politically to support the French with an offensive. Or is that wrong?

And, of course, despite its particular traumatic impact on the British it was nothing compared to the types of casualties the French suffered in fighting the war - that goes for WW1 in general.

I don't think the British generals preparing for the Somme were bluffing their subordinates and gave them objectives that the generals had no intention of actually achieving. I don't think they kept cavalry ready behind the lines (and to some extent actually charged) for the purpose of a battle of attrition. A breakthrough would have relieved pressure on Verdun much quicker than a battle of attrition.

Was a battle that ended up as a battle of attrition the best that was realistically achievable in 1916? My impression is yes. But that's a different question.

[The Brain]

FWIW my impression is that the old led by donkeys school has been rightly discredited.

Were any Austro-Hungarian soldiers alive today they might beg to disagree.

"Lions led by donkeys" in this context refers to British troops in WW1.

[The Brain]

Finished Blood and Iron: The Rise and Fall of the German Empire 1871-1918, by Hoyer. Short and sweet at 239 pages, it's a great little introduction to the subject. Obviously it doesn't go into much detail. Hoyer's interpretation of facts is significantly better than Steinberg's. There are a few cases of weird numbers, but they seem to be simple mistakes that should have been caught before printing (I planned to give an example but the bare-bones index let me down). The only significant real error I saw is that Hoyer says that every male served in the army. Imperial Germany didn't actually call up all eligible males in peacetime, far from it, so the personal army experience wasn't as universal as she claims.

[mongers]

Reading 'The Second World War' by Antony Beevor, I may give up because it's so depressing.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good narrative general history of the conflict, but the stupidity, hate, mistakes and horrifying personal testimonies it a bit much.

[Maladict]

Reading 'The Second World War' by Antony Beevor, I may give up because it's so depressing.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good narrative general history of the conflict, but the stupidity, hate, mistakes and horrifying personal testimonies it a bit much.

Are you not entertained?

[The Brain]

Yeah. Unlike WW1, WW2 is one of the eminently avoidable catastrophes in world history.

[Syt]

Reading 'The Second World War' by Antony Beevor, I may give up because it's so depressing.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good narrative general history of the conflict, but the stupidity, hate, mistakes and horrifying personal testimonies it a bit much.

Many WW2 books that include a ground level view are that way. See also Max Hastings' Hell Let Loose which is a great collection of personal experiences of the war, but also includes many painful episodes (he's also quite critical of how the UK treated their Indian subjects). Similarly The German War by Nicholas Stargaard which focuses on the experience of German soldiers and civilians.

[Sheilbh]

Surely it's impossible to be otherwise?

[Syt]

I suppose you could just focus on the strategic-political level and provide a birds eye view of the conflict.

[FunkMonk]

Focusing a large portion of a grand narrative history on the smaller, personal episodes and experiences, can also help to underscore the utter helplessness most people have when their world is literally on fire around them (Hastings' book is published as Inferno in the US).

I recently read Nikolaus Wachsmann's KL, a history of the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, and there were several times when I just had to put the book down and do something else before I could continue.

The same thing happened when I read Snyder's Bloodlands, come to think of it.