"Revionist WW1 History" Topic

Am looking for some book recommendations. Grew up reading Charlies War so new the truth about WW1. I am aware that there is a revisionist view that argues the British generals were a lot less rubbish than believed. I have no idea what these arguments are based on.

Can anyone recommend some reading? Is there standard revisionist texts? Also, are there any well argued rebuttals that are worth reading? Any books of collected essays that argue both sides?

Would be grateful for any reading recommendations.

Have you read "Myths of the Great War"?

Have read nothing on this subject – am looking to widen my knowledge of the arguments.

Suggest you look at the series by Robin Neillands. He covers each year of the war in each book. His arguments are well researched and plausible. I found them pretty convincing, based on the documents he uses.

One of his primary arguments is that many of the offensives that appear ill-judged were strongly resisted by the generals at the time, but were political decisions made to shore up French initiatives. His second point, is that the officers and staffs at the time had been confronted by something entirely new, and were constantly trying to develop new tactics. Essentially, the challenges of communication and battlefield intelligence were virtually insurmountable.

Your view of course may differ.

Mud, Blood, and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan.

The "lions led by asses" business was the product of the 'tween the wars (and after) leftist pacifists that dominated academic and popular history from the turn of the 20th Century until the 1980's, when facts rather than ideology started to come back into vogue.

It's entirely possible to consider WW1 a tragic mistake AND believe that the men fighting it did their very best.

"Good-morning, good-morning!" the General said
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
"He's a cheery old card," grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.

But he did for them both by his plan of attack."

"Mad Jack Sassoon". The sentiment certainly existed during the war.

Before getting into revisionist history or arguements about the leadership capabilities of British generals I would suggest that you first read a good general history of the war This will give you an overview of the war itself including battles causes and effects Ding this will give you the necessary background information to be able to then approach and more readily understand the types of arguments featured in the other posts on this thread.

I would recommend The First world War by John Keegan

link

Go read Gary Sheffield.

As above, start with a good general history. Keegan is fine.

Then, pick one of the more modern historians, Gary Sheffield is a good start with "Forgotten Victory". Daddy Griffiths "Battle Tactics of the Western Front" is good if you are interested in the nuts and bolts.

Proper "revisionists" are the likes of John Mosier and Terence Zuber,who have some very odd ideas indeed.

John Terraines biography of Douglas Haig is very enlightening.

I of course meant Paddy Griffiths.

Curse you, auto-correct.

Martin Rapier,

'Daddy' Griffiths, the 'father' of Wargame Developments? I thought that it was a rather appropriate bit of predictive text!

I wouldn't call it revisionist as I would suggest nowadays historians tend to be able to use foreign sources rather than just rely on British accounts.I remember years ago studying the Great War at A level and surprised how compared to WW2 how limited the source material was, our reading list was purely British historians nothing from German, French or Russia!
Terence Zuber is a classic example, a German writing about the battle of the frontiers,a topic which is generally down played in British accounts.His other books are slightly out there, but it is interesting to read contrasting views.

I find Mosier impossible. If a film were based on his book, Tom Cruise would play the US General.

Any of the books by Lyn MacDonald, she has written 7 or 8.

Good overall history is "The First World War" by Gilbert

Also, take a look at the YouTube shows called "The Great War", each episode covers a week of the war in the 10 minute episodes. Very well done.

Mosier I usually find interesting, but he tends to become fixated on the conclusion he set out to make.

Worth a read, since it'll make you think but I wouldn't give it to someone new to the period.

To look at the unknown and new challenges and the generals often visionary attempts to break free from stalemate try…White Heat: The New Warfare 1914-18 by John Terraine.

Mosier is ridiculous and impossible to take seriously.

After a good basic history, Niall Ferguson: The Pity of War is a good read.

Better yet if you are at all into podcasts, listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. Listen to his BLueprint for armageddon series (in order)which is WW1, you won't regret it.

link

Jack Sheldon's work is also essential as he makes excellent use of non English sources.
R

Yes, Sheldons book on the Somme is outstanding.

I have a discounted copy of Mosier's Verdun and have gotten through the introduction, his argument seems to be things were actually far worse than the "lions led by asses" argument. More like "lions led by really dumb asses who were only good at faking most of the war in their reports", which seems to be the opposite end of the spectrum from some of the other historians taking a fresher look at the war.

While I still have trouble believing there weren't a good share of asses in the British and French high commands, I do readily accept that at the tactical level, the war had more going on than people think.

It's also worth distinguishing between several factors occurring at once:

1: What happened at a tactical level.

2: Strategic level decisions.

3: Political decisions.

4: Home-front propaganda.

All of which have plenty of chance to have asses and heroes.

I haven't seen much to suggest that f.x. the Nivelle offensives weren't carried out to the absolute best of the tactical skill the men had on the ground but certainly a candidate for strategic ass.

On hte flipside, the Germans at Langemarck were probably doing the strategically sound thing but were tactically simplistic.

I am not a fan of the economic revisionist history that was so common when I was in college. Those revisionist professors did not impress me either.
A lot tends to depend on why you are reading the material. Are you doing numbers research or reading to determine background. Many of the books in my collection of the era were written between 1910 and 1925.
These are filled with the style and purpose. Of the time.
You can get a lot of olde r books through the inter-library loan program or visit a local college with a public access policy.

KSmyth wrote –
"Mosier is ridiculous and impossible to take seriously."

….. What exactly is the case against Mosier?

B

I read one of his books about WWI which basically maintained that the French had no idea what they were doing from 1914 through 1918, The Brits about as bad and then the US Army showed up and showed them how to do it.

I'm a Yank and believe that the US entry into the war forced the Germans into overdrive in an attempt to win before we intervened in force, and that this was what broke their war machine. I believe that the US intervention was important and helped break the German will to fight. But I find Mosier's extreme argument to be be outlandish.

I don't disagree that Mosier rather lavishly overstates his theme, but I nevertheless consider that he has made some valuable contributions to study of the period. Although not an historian per se, he is a tenured college academic. He is one of the very precious few researchers who: (a) is highly fluent in German, French and English; (b) has done research in the actual archival records of all the warring nations; (c) has physically walked the battlefields; (d) has bothered to visit the various Western Front cemeteries and count the graves. He has shown, fairly convincingly IMO, that the British and French official histories of the war on the Western Front are not in accord with their own internal archival records in a number of important respects.

I'd have to go back and re-read Mosier with respect to his overall assessment of the French army, but it is no secret that it suffered from severe drawbacks through much of the war. Its senior leadership at the beginning of the war was unequal to the task and remained politically divided for much of the war; its tactical doctrine was misguided and defective a the outset of the war and remained a step behind the Germans until after Nivelle's Chemin des Dames debacle; the lack of modern howitzers in its artillery park was a severe disadvantage until mid-1917.

At the end of the day, I agree that Germany had no answer for 2,6 million fresh American soldiers appearing on the Western Front.

B

And yet the French were the first to use helmets. And develop the creeping barrage? Not exactly the indicators of incompetence.

KT – I do not by any means argue that the French Army of WW1 displayed incompetence across the board. All I am pointing out is that the French Army at the beginning of the war suffered from a variety of serious defects that greatly hindered its efficiency. IMO, the French Army had by 1918 evolved into a highly efficient and sophisticated organization, but it took about three years for it to reach that point.

Getting back to Mosier, I consider that his most important contribution has been to point out that the wartime communiques and official histories were first and foremost politically oriented documents and cannot be trusted as accurate historical accounts without proper cross-corroboration by actual archival sources.

FWIW.

B

B

On that you have a point. And yes even a problematic historian can provide some useful information.

Am looking for some book recommendations. Grew up reading Charlies War so new the truth about WW1. I am aware that there is a revisionist view that argues the British generals were a lot less rubbish than believed. I have no idea what these arguments are based on.

Unlike French, German, Russian and generals from other nationalities. There are a lot of good books that tackle the subject well, such as those above, and few that are risible.

John Terraines biography of Douglas Haig is very enlightening.

Which it is but it is a bit of a hagiography; I prefer (from memory) De Groot's Douglas Haig 1861–1928.

I haven't seen much to suggest that f.x. the Nivelle offensives weren't carried out to the absolute best of the tactical skill the men had on the ground but certainly a candidate for strategic ass.

Yet at points in the war a four-mile advance and 20,000 prisoners would have seemed a success.

When ready you can go to the ultimate: Hew Strachan – The First World War: Volume 1: To Arms

Yet at points in the war a four-mile advance and 20,000 prisoners would have seemed a success.

Sadly, too few people seem to understand that advances were often limited by the distance to the next piece of high ground, and that moving forward beyond the immediate objective was not only meaningless, but could actually have incurred far more casualties.

One very important limit to any offensive was the reach of the attacker's artillery support.

Another was the ability to maintain sufficient logistical support to the attacking front.

B