Grand unified books thread

[The Brain]

Finished the Swedish Det stora världskriget (The Great World War). 10 volumes in total on WW1, published as the war raged. Volumes 1-8 cover the war itself, volume 9 the peace, and volume 10 is a military summary of events with some fold-out maps. Richly illustrated, most of the photos I had never seen before, a fair amount of action shots. The first volume, covering the background, the coming of war, and the first battles, was published already in 1914. I find it extremely interesting to see what people wrote as things were happening. You get two histories in one so to speak.

The two authors, one a journalist (I think) and one a Major General, view things from a strongly German POV. My guess is that their general take is fairly representative of conservative Swedes at the time.

Just a few of the interesting things I noticed:
- When talking about the situation in Europe before the war they at some length describe the Ukrainians as a distinct people with their own language and history, that is being oppressed by the Russians.
- The authors don't really come out and say anything explicitly antisemitic (Jews are rarely mentioned at all), but more than once they note that someone is Jewish without it being obviously relevant... They do note that Jews are oppressed in Russia.
- They view other races in a strict hierarchy, with blacks at the bottom. Several times they complain about the Entente using black troops in Europe and make sarcastic comments about these "champions of civilization". They don't bother to explain what the big problem is, to them it seems to be self-evident.
- They take the extremly rapid development in military tech in the decades leading up to the war and the war itself in their stride. Airplanes, wireless, everything is just matter-of-factly described and maybe noted as new but never "omg wow" or anything. A ship built 12 years before the war is noted as "old" (which it certainly was from a tech standpoint). Reinforces the impression that the "traditionalist WW1 general" is essentially a myth. There has never been as rapid a pace in military development as before/during WW1, and sacred cows were being slaughtered en masse.
- They gleefully note the Entente military failure at Gallipoli, but make a major point of the operation actually doing good work for the Entente by keeping down the price of grain on the world (American) market for several months, as imminent access to Russian and Romanian grain was viewed as a possibility.
- They rarely stray into unreasonable territory, but they always interpret everything in a very pro-German way. This consistent bias sometimes becomes almost amusing.
- They are very upset by the lies told by the Entente during the war, and their spin.
- They view the Versailles peace as very destructive. One of the last sections is called "The Eternal War" (in volume 9 published in 1921), and reads in part "The peace treaties of the Entente have not solved any European problem, they have only created new even more dangerous conflicts than the ones that existed before 1914". Hard to say that they were wrong*.

*To elaborate on the Versailles treaty, my own impression is that the treaty was sub-optimal even as it stood, but the major problem with it (sub-optimal can be made to work) is that the victors didn't uphold it. They deliberately created a situation where they could indeed keep Germany down, at the price of constant vigilance. A price they, within just a few short years, turned out to be unwilling to pay. That they didn't pick a lane and stick with it is one of the most epic fails of world history. It was the Caudine Forks on a massive scale.

[Threviel]

Very interesting, where did you get hold of it?

The lions led by donkeys myth I've seen being heavily critisised in the last ten or twenty years. Essentially blaming Blackadder for its popularity to a large extent, even though it's been present far longer.

[Gups]

Was Blackadder reflecting the prevalent view of historians at the time or was it already out of date?

[Sheilbh]

The lions led by donkeys myth I've seen being heavily critisised in the last ten or twenty years. Essentially blaming Blackadder for its popularity to a large extent, even though it's been present far longer.

Yeah. I think it is now a myth, and Ludendorff never said it, Alan Clark just made that up. Interesting how much Blackadder helps make it that myth because I definitely think it's a factor.

But I think at the time The Donkeys came out in the 60s it reflected pretty mainstream historical views, including academics, which have since been revised - and also the wider culture. It reflects its time. It came out in the 60s and in 1961 you have Britten's War Requiem, 1963 you have Oh What a Lovely War!, the 1960s is when the first edition of the Penguin Collection of First World War Poetry comes out. Plus the wider cultural, generational shift.

[Threviel]

Blackadder, being something of a parody, must have been referencing present views for the time for it to be effectual parody.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah although it isn't parodying the "lions led by donkeys" view, it is straightforwardly presenting that which I think must also reference present views. And I think it does still shape the popular image - it is incredibly effective. I remember the first time I saw the last episode and it's very moving. I watched it as a kid and I also remember it just being a shock because that's not the sort of thing that was in comedies.

I think I've said before but I think, at least in the UK, it's the biggest gap between popular perception of an historic event and what the academic consensus/view is. Which is challenging for historians trying to cut through because they're writing against Blackadder and Britten and the War Poets. It'd be like if there was a revisionist take on Vietnam and you'd have to overcome the images of all the Vietnam movies - even if you're right, it's kind of doomed.

[Threviel]

It's quite a deeply unfair view on, at least, the British generals. French IIRC broke down due to the high casualties and Haig spent the rest of his life trying to improve the lives of the veterans. They were very aware of the cost of war and did try their best to limit casualties. The blame ought to laid on the politicians creating and continuing the war.

I don't know anything about the other Entente and Central powers leaders and how they handled it. Cadorna no doubt was a huge cunt and presumably there were psychopaths around but I can't say I remember anything about how they handled the pressure of the casualties.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah that's my understanding as well. And from what I've read, Haig, in particular, was very popular with veterans and in the inter-war period. His memory now is as butcher Haig.

Similarly my understanding is that the British military did innovate with tanks, artillery and air power, but again the image that sticks (the Blackadder image) is that they just constantly sent waves of men over the top to move the front line back and forward by inches. The war that was fought in 1918 was profoundly different than the war in 1914.

But I also wonder how much the attitude reflects the social change in Britain - that so much of this popular historical memory of WW1 comes out in the 60s. It's maybe a generation and class shift tearing down the shibboleths of their predecessors. And also possibly an expansion of British views/interpretation of its history in a post-colonial world - because, I don't know about Canada, but the common view of the British generals in the UK after the 60s seems very similar to the long-standing view in Australia and New Zealand with the ANZACs and Gallipoli. It's just the victims of that stubborn, pointless, futile fighting and dying weren't distant colonials made to fight England's war, but the flower of a generation, the working class etc.

I don't know about other countries and I don't really know about the war, but I have read a lot about the memory of the war in the UK (Paul Fussell's book on this is fantastic - but very "lions led by donkeys" and, I think, also shaped by Fussell's own WW2 experience). It's been noted, not least by Fussell, that the impact of WW1 on the popular imagination and public memory is disproportionate in the UK compared with other countries - but everywhere else I think it was ultimately eclipsed: France was occupied, Germany had the Nazis, Russia had the Bolsheviks, the Americans became a world super power etc. In the UK I think it still has a lingering place as the great, melancholic trauma - again Blackadder springs to mind.

Edit: So this makes it interesting seeing a non-combatant but not exactly neutral perspective from the time.

[The Brain]

Very interesting, where did you get hold of it?

The lions led by donkeys myth I've seen being heavily critisised in the last ten or twenty years. Essentially blaming Blackadder for its popularity to a large extent, even though it's been present far longer.

Got it on Bokbörsen (which I love). There's some copies there I think, like https://www.bokborsen.se/view/Valdemar-Langlet/Det-Stora-V%C3%A4rldskriget/10832233 . You don't really need volume 10 I think, it is semi-independent of the others and AFAIK is just a summary/overview (I haven't read it myself, couldn't be bothered after 9 volumes).

[Gups]

It's quite a deeply unfair view on, at least, the British generals. French IIRC broke down due to the high casualties and Haig spent the rest of his life trying to improve the lives of the veterans. They were very aware of the cost of war and did try their best to limit casualties. The blame ought to laid on the politicians creating and continuing the war.

I don't know anything about the other Entente and Central powers leaders and how they handled it. Cadorna no doubt was a huge cunt and presumably there were psychopaths around but I can't say I remember anything about how they handled the pressure of the casualties.

I'm no expert at all on WW1 but the last book I read (Max Hastings - Catastrophe) was very critical of French.

[Threviel]

Yeah, French was a colonial policeman in up over his head and he broke down for it. But, as I understood it, it was the pressure of the responsibility for all the casualties that broke him. I'm not a specialist though and might very well be in the deep end here myself.

[Sheilbh]

Just finished Jay Taylor's biography of Chiang Kai-Shek, which was published in 2009. I think it was at the time, broadly revisionist (especialy of American narratives, I think because of Stilwell and the impact of the "loss" of China) drawing in particular on Chiang's diaries, but also newly released materials in Taipei and also, crucially, Moscow. I've mentioned it from Kotkin's books on Stalin but I don't think I'd ever realised how Asia and China-oriented the Soviets were.

I think the last 15 years have probably been a little unkind to Taylor's argument in his epilogue that, to some extent, Chiang won and that (in 2007) it seemd that 21st century China would owe more to Chiang's vision than Mao's. But there is something to it - although I'd possibly argue it from the other side that this is because the CCP has always been a nationalist party that owes a lot to Sun Yat-Sen as well as Marx. And perhaps that's inevitable in the politics of a victim of imperialism, the foundation stone will always be nationalist. The argument's not totally wrong - but I think it has weakened with Xi taking over.

One striking feature which was a surprise to me is Chiang's 60 year relationship with Zhou Enlai (who I need to read something about because every time I read about him, everyone is just immensely won over by him - it's fascinating). Even on opposite sides they really seem to understand and trust each other. This relationship goes from when Zhou was a political commissar in Whampoa. But it carries up to Nixon's recognition of China. It looks like Chiang and Zhou coordinated on the Quemoy crisis to not get out of hand (which they both feared could lead to the US pushing a "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" policy). Even with Nixon in China it seems that Chiang got better read-outs of the meetings with Kissinger from Zhou than he did from the White House - and again both sides coordinated to make sure the American's didn't move from "one China". Fair to say Kissinger in particular doesn't come out of this version well.

On the other hand the meat of the book itself is, I think, strong - and I think correctly quite sympathetic particularly during WW2 (I'm less convinced on the argument on the blowing up of the Yellow River dikes). Similarly I thin there is something to the case that once in a position to build a state and not needing to rely on warlord allies, that Chiang does help lay the foundations (with his son and others) of modern Taiwan - acknowledging the brutal and unnecessary violence and abuse of human rights in 2/28 incident and some of the purges.

But I'd definitely recommend if of interest.

[grumbler]

Thanks.  I'll take a look at that.  It's a real gap in my knowledge of China.

[Jacob]

Did the biography mention Two-Gun Cohen?

(I guess probably only peripherally at best and maybe not at all, since it's biography of Chiang Kai-Shek, not Dr. Sun Yat-Sen)

[Sheilbh]

Did the biography mention Two-Gun Cohen?

(I guess probably only peripherally at best and maybe not at all, since it's biography of Chiang Kai-Shek, not Dr. Sun Yat-Sen)

Yeah - he's come up in something else I've read about the period (possibly Rana Mitter), but not in this book. I think less engaged with Chiang and also I think very Cantonese/South China so in with cliques that Chiang depended on (and were often among China's best soldiers) but were rivals. It's an extraordinary life though.

I am really interested in the post-revolutionary China - in part because of figures like him or, say, Big Eared Du popping up.

Thanks.  I'll take a look at that.  It's a real gap in my knowledge of China.

Hope you enjoy