Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

Since I read several positive reviews about Tuchman's "Guns of August" I feel compelled to add my own opinion: the book is well-written but should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Tuchman is no historian and it shows. Time and again she makes factual mistakes and misrepresentations. For example a recurring theme is that the French cause is just because they were fighting to "free" the French province of Alsace-Lorraine that had been occupied by Germany after the war 1870/71. Tuchman somehow fails to mention that the region had been German for many centuries and had only been annexed by France after the Thirty-Years-War, and in 1871 still more than half of the inhabitants were native German speakers, so the issue is by no means as clear-cut as one is led to believe by this book. Also, the fact that after the end of the war France not only took back Alsace-Lorraine but also original German territories (and would have liked to annex still more) does not exactly prove the French cause a noble one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

But the worst for me was that Germans are always described as blood-thirsty, uncivilised ogres. I understand that Tuchman, being Jewish and writing a relatively short time after WWII, had no love for Germany but her obvious bias completely spoiled the book for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

But the worst for me was that Germans are always described as blood-thirsty, uncivilised ogres. I understand that Tuchman, being Jewish and writing a relatively short time after WWII, had no love for Germany but her obvious bias completely spoiled the book for me.

Germany was the aggressor, and in Belgium in particular there were atrocities.

You clearly read a different book than I.

BTW, what was the "bias" driving Fritz Fischer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: soldier1

Havn't actually read any books on WW1 but i did buy the DVD series "The First World War " which is apparently based on Hew Strachan book. I really enjoyed it and it was a real eye opener for me. I've read extensively about WW2 but never really thought of WW1 as being truly global and didn't understand the huge link between the 2 conflicts until i watched this series. There are 10 disks so its fairly extensive but a bit light on figures and technical details and they could have crammed a lot more stuff into the series. I think the first episode is actually the worst but they get better and "Global War" and "Revolution" are excellent. It's also very sad toward the end even for a hard bloke.

I know a DVD is no book, but if you prefer to sit back and watch a series and don't know everything about WW1 this might be worth it

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Supposed to be abit one sided the Martin Gilbert book.Think you should have gone for A World Undone. The Pity of War is a good book though.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

For example a recurring theme is that the French cause is just because they were fighting to "free" the French province of Alsace-Lorraine that had been occupied by Germany after the war 1870/71. Tuchman somehow fails to mention that the region had been German for many centuries and had only been annexed by France after the Thirty-Years-War, and in 1871 still more than half of the inhabitants were native German speakers, so the issue is by no means as clear-cut as one is led to believe by this book.

quote:

Jestre
Totally agree about GOA, it is pretty much just the official British propaganda line taken during the war and wrapped up in the pretty package of Tuchmans writing ability. Extremely biased as is many British authors views of WWI.

quote:

I wasn't aware that a person's nationality had anything to do with bias......

quote:

Extremely biased as is many British authors views of WWI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

Btw I am German myself so I guess I'm somewhat more sensitive in that respect but I do believe that while "Guns of August" makes for an interesting read it should not be used to form one's opinion about the conflict. Actually, to really understand what happened in 1914 one has to know the European history of the decades or even centuries before, but I think not many historians disagree with the short version that the Great war was simply a struggle between two power blocs for control, with no side unilaterally to blame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

quote:

ORIGINAL: micha1100

Btw I am German myself so I guess I'm somewhat more sensitive in that respect but I do believe that while "Guns of August" makes for an interesting read it should not be used to form one's opinion about the conflict. Actually, to really understand what happened in 1914 one has to know the European history of the decades or even centuries before, but I think not many historians disagree with the short version that the Great war was simply a struggle between two power blocs for control, with no side unilaterally to blame.

Guns of August is a great piece of narrative history and an exciting read but as has been pointed out quite dated. Read it for the same reasons you would read “decline and fall of the Roman Empire” or Churchill’s “The Second World War.” A good, even a great, read but don’t let it form the basis of your understanding of what actually happened.

That being said I strongly disagree with your assertion that modern scholarship holds both sides more or less equally at fault for causing the war. David Fromkin’s “Europe’s Last Summer” is a terrific synthesis of the conclusions made in the last decades and totally rejects the “accidental train wreak” or “Historical Inevitability” thesis we grew up with.

The Great War was deliberately and carefully precipitated by a handful of officials in Austria and Germany lead by Franz Conrad von Hötzendor who wanted a war against Serbia and Moltke who wanted one against Russia. I find the evidence that they set about getting their war deliberately very convincing. None of this means that “Germany” as a nation or people was at fault – it was basically a conspiracy of less the 10 people who managed to bring it about behind the back of their nominal superiors

To keep the post on tropic “Europe’s last summer” as a great read for someone interested in the July crises of 1914. Well written and gives you a real feel for the scale of the tragic about to unfold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

One could just as easily point the finger at Paleologue and Sasanov and the British fear of German Naval growth for the kindling that led to war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

One could just as easily point the finger at Paleologue and Sasanov and the British fear of German Naval growth for the kindling that led to war.

What you mention were factors in creating the general climate that made the war possible, certainly but in none of these cases is there any evidence to suggest a deliberate intention go to war..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

One could just as easily point the finger at Paleologue and Sasanov and the British fear of German Naval growth for the kindling that led to war.

What you mention were factors in creating the general climate that made the war possible, certainly but in none of these cases is there any evidence to suggest a deliberate intention go to war..

Paleologue and Sazanov deliberately kept German/AH peace overtures from reaching the Tsar and the Poincare, England was virtually silent during the whole Serbian crisis with Lord Gray giving Litnovsky mixed messages on Britains intentions. Germany tried several times to keep Russia from mobilizing and forcing the issue but Sazanov sat on the messages til it was too late. It may have been German stupidity in their "mobilization means war" planning but Germany did not go into the Serbian crisis with the intent to start a World War. It took the machinations of all parties to accomplish that.

I guess some of us get our information from different sources....

quote:

Paleologue and Sazanov

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573
there is not a single shred of doubt that France was resolved, almost to a man to recover the "lost" provinces. ...

Germany was the aggressor, and in Belgium in particular there were atrocities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets
Are you seriously suggesting that all of the lands of the Holy Roman Empire are 'German'? - 'had been German for many centuries'?!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver
...That being said I strongly disagree with your assertion that modern scholarship holds both sides more or less equally at fault for causing the war. David Fromkin’s “Europe’s Last Summer” is a terrific synthesis of the conclusions made in the last decades and totally rejects the “accidental train wreak” or “Historical Inevitability” thesis we grew up with.

The Great War was deliberately and carefully precipitated by a handful of officials in Austria and Germany lead by Franz Conrad von Hötzendor who wanted a war against Serbia and Moltke who wanted one against Russia.

The “we-all-slithered-into-war ” thesis was comprehensively demolishe in 1961 when Fritz Fischer published his seminal study ‘Deutschland’s Griff Nach der Weltmacht’ (literally ‘Germany’s Grab for World Power’ though the abridged British translation bore the far blander title ‘Germany’s Aims in the First World War’). For the first time, Fischer opened archives in both West and East Germany to prove that Germany had used the crisis triggered by the pistol shots in Sarajevo quite deliberately to spark a war. ... the evidence for his thesis was so overwhelming that it gradually found acceptance among virtually all serious historians of the period, both outside Germany and within it.

quote:

Of course not. But I do believe that when the population of a certain province speaks predominantly German it's hard to prove an indisputable French claim to that province.