Forrest Gump on Ypres

[George Armstrong Custer]

I came across this whilst searching for something else. It's the transcript of an interview by Brian Lamb of Winston Groom. Groom was the author of the novel Forrest Gump, upon which the eponymous Tom Hanks movie was based. The reason for the interview, however, was the release of another book by Groom: A Storm in Flanders: The Ypres Salient, 1914-1918: Tragedy and Triumph on the Western Front. Reading the interview I was astonished at Groom's lack of grasp of the subject on which he'd just written a book. Take a look:

Forrest Gump's Great War

ciao,

GAC

[59165]

He had visited but had decided against a revisit.

& Merca won the war.

bless

[Pete1052]

The review that follows appeared more than six years ago in the San Francisco Chronicle. In fairness to the author of the book, I've italicized the part of the review that I believe deserves emphasis. An online bookseller's brief description of the book said it is too short and general to satisfy specialists in the field.

San Francisco Chronicle

Sunday, June 30, 2002

by Mark Luce

A Storm in Flanders: The Ypres Salient, 1914-1918: Tragedy and Triumph on the Western Front

By Winston Groom

Atlantic Monthly Press; 288 pages; $27.50

The four-year battle on the Belgian plains near Ypres in World War I makes Gettysburg look like a bar fight. Fighting for nominal gains measured in feet and yards, the Germans battled the Allies nonstop in conditions that can only be described as horrific. When it was finally over, nearly a million men were dead, and the once-gorgeous landscape, dotted with poppies, was a morass of mud, craters and corpses.

Winston Groom, of "Forrest Gump" fame and lately proving himself an able historian, has now written "A Storm in Flanders," a fascinating, evenhanded, page-turning account of the events, strategies, leaders and soldiers who fought and died in the fields immortalized by such World War I poets as Wilfred Owen and John McCrae.

Groom explicitly states that he is writing for Americans unfamiliar with the war and the strategic importance of the four large battles at Ypres. He succeeds at making the details of the fighting and the technological advances that rendered killing more efficient -- poison gas, tanks, mines, artillery guns and airplanes -- accessible to war novitiates.

Great War buffs (and perhaps the British) may chide Groom for refusing to pass judgment on British Expeditionary Force leader Sir Douglas Haig, who repeatedly consigned tens of thousands of troops to certain death. Groom's purpose is not to judge, though, but to introduce. He gives readers a nice mixture of sources, from personal diaries to official histories, and puts them in fairly chronological order to create a dramatic, thoughtful and extremely humanistic treatment of this heartbreaking chapter in early 20th century history.

[alex falbo]

I agree with the above statement. I read the book two years ago and while I enjoyed the narrative, the book is intended to be an introduction to the subject. Its impossible to accurately relay every detail about a particular battle let alone a 280 page narrative of the four year salient.

There is an interesting point he does make in the beggining about how the book attempts to show why british culture is "obsessed" with the Great War (for good reason). Over here America WWI is practically forgotten so the book does have merit in its audience.

[keithmroberts]

I have a copy of this somewhere at the bottom of a pile of more interesting rejected books destined for either a charity shop or Amazon when I have some time to sort through them. I take the point about the book being for the U.S. market. I can only recall my disappointment with it, and the feeling that it had added nothing to my limited understanding. Not one to buy.

Keith

[George Armstrong Custer]

Groom explicitly states that he is writing for Americans unfamiliar with the war and the strategic importance of the four large battles at Ypres.

The problem is, Pete, that in that interview Groom himself comes across as one of those Americans he claims the book was written for - and that's after he'd written it!

Great War buffs (and perhaps the British) may chide Groom for refusing to pass judgment on British Expeditionary Force leader Sir Douglas Haig, who repeatedly consigned tens of thousands of troops to certain death.

If that ridiculously reductive statement is an attempt to set the thread off on another Haig debate tangent which deflects it's main purpose of critiquing Groom's book and American understanding of the Great War, you'll have to wait for someone else to rise to your bait.

ciao,

GAC

[David Filsell]

What's a Forest Gump - did you mean Forest Dump? I thought the Americans liked to leave no footprint, or any other trace of their presence (looks like Mr Doom has done it - Dumped that is) !

[stevem49]

Great War buffs (and perhaps the British) may chide Groom for refusing to pass judgment on British Expeditionary Force leader Sir Douglas Haig, who repeatedly consigned tens of thousands of troops to certain death. Groom's purpose is not to judge, though, but to introduce. He gives readers a nice mixture of sources, from personal diaries to official histories, and puts them in fairly chronological order to create a dramatic, thoughtful and extremely humanistic treatment of this heartbreaking chapter in early 20th century history.

I think we should be pleased that an American actually knew who Haig was

[SiegeGunner]

The points made about Groom's book being designed for an American market that is less steeped in the history of the Great War puts me in mind of Professor Andrew Wiest's slim volume "Haig - Evolution of a Commander", which is likewise directed mainly towards American readers, aiming to build on elementary knowledge acquired at school and from general reading, to give a more advanced insight into the subject for those who are interested to know more, but will probably take it no further, and to act as a bridge to even more detailed study for those pursuing Great War history to a higher level. I think it succeeds in both aims, but then Andy Wiest is a professional historian with good credentials in Great War research.

Nevertheless, I'd be interested to see to what extent Groom has succeeded or failed, and if Keith Roberts would like to pass on his copy, I'll gladly refund his postage and make an agreed contribution to forum funds.

Mick

[Tom Morgan]

During the initial planning stages for this book, there was a plan for Winston Groom to visit Ypres - I know this because his secretary contacted me to ask whether I would be able to guide him. There were some technical reasons which meant that there would be no time for him to do this, so he had to carry out his research from written sources.

Tom

[shinglma]

If that ridiculously reductive statement is an attempt to set the thread off on another Haig debate tangent which deflects it's main purpose of critiquing Groom's book and American understanding of the Great War, you'll have to wait for someone else to rise to your bait.

ciao,

GAC

GAC

Not Pete1052's opinion but that of reviewer Mark Luce in the SF Chronicle. See this link.

Regards

Mike S

[George Armstrong Custer]

OK Mike, I see that - my mistake. Pete's seemed to put a quote in italics with the rest in normal typeface being his own thoughts - my misreading of his post. My comments on the paragraph in question apply to Mark Luce, then.

Still, the idea that the Groom book was written as a simplified introduction to the subject for less knowledgable Americans seems to be the reviewers opinion rather than anything Groom says in the interview I linked to. A less charitable opinion might conclude that it was dumbed down history - Groom certainly comes across as being on shaky ground factually in the interview after he'd researched and written the book. I'll be interested to hear what Mick concludes if he gets hold of a copy.

ciao,

GAC

[alex falbo]

I think we should be pleased that an American actually knew who Haig was

I was on a train coming from Boston and I had the pleasure to meet a South African gentleman who was surprised I knew who Lord Kitchner was.

Most American's have totally forgotten the war and there are some with a basic understanding a even fewer who are passionate about it. The perspective over here is that we saved the Allies from imminent destruction.

[simonharley]

I was on a train coming from Boston and I had the pleasure to meet a South African gentleman who was surprised I knew who Lord Kitchner was.

Most American's have totally forgotten the war and there are some with a basic understanding a even fewer who are passionate about it. The perspective over here is that we saved the Allies from imminent destruction.

It's a great shame as in the wake of the Great War alot of "doughboys" wrote up their experiences, and there is no shortage of large-format books from just after the war which are full of pictures, articles and facts and figures, not just about the United States but also their co-belligerents. A few years back Presidio books published a number of reminiscences as well. Pop along to any second-hand bookstore in the States (as I have done ALOT in the past two months) and you will find something of interest, which is also good. I honestly can't say the same for most WWI titles I see on British bookshelves.

The materiel is there, even if it's decades old. The interest is lacking.

I will delve into the hypothetical here and say that I'm struck by certain attitudes to certain generations. America quite rightly hails the one which fought World War II as "the greatest generation". There WWI lot they seem to have forgotten. Over here we seem to have a Churchill fixation on WWII (or focus on appeasement and why we went to war in the first place), and the Great War is written off as the lost generation. Admittedly, that's my perspective. It is all a matter of perspective unfortunately...

Simon

[keithmroberts]

I have just noticed that I have recently risen to the rank of captain. I suspect that I may shortly be court martialled and reduced to the ranks.

I have just spent the last 20 minutes searching all the likely places for the Groom book and must confess to abject failure. It could still be in a corner, or the loft, which does hold several boxes of books, mostly ones that I had no room to unpack when I moved in, but I am now beginning to wonder if this is more a mental aberration.

I certainly read the book, and have a clear recollection that I didn't rate it, but perhaps it might have been a library copy. Alternatively it might have been in one of the boxes that went to Oxfam some considerable time ago. I still find it difficult to navigate around the house between the various precarious heaps generated by almost five decades of book buying so it may re-emerge. The one place that it isn't in, is the corner piled up with books for eventual disposal.

Sorry Mick. If it turns up I will get back to you.

Keith

[SiegeGunner]

Sorry to have put you to such trouble, Keith. I guess I'll just have to live without Mr Groom's opus. It may seem perverse, but I enjoy evaluating less than successful books, and books written from an unfamiliar standpoint.

No risk of a court martial, incidentally, but when you qualify for membership of Skindles in about 40 posts time, don't be surprised if the librarian gives you the job of tracking down and re-shelving books misplaced by tired and confused members ...

[alex falbo]

I agree Simon. There are a few people over here with a vague idea about the War but to most, WWII is what receives the most media attention and national focus. Armistice/Remembrance Day turned into Veterans Day. Even the Canadians keep Remembrance Day with a WWI view.

Most of my history teachers hardly grasped the Great War's ramifications. We usually studied the social aspects of mixed cultures in the army and the Lusitania. One military history teacher drew two parallel lines across the board and a bunch of squiggly marks in the center. "WWI simply explained was both sides advancing across no mans land who would get cut down by machines guns and artillery."

Its presented as being boring and completely written off.

[dutchbarge]

I think we should be pleased that an American actually knew who Haig was

If Americans haven't heard of Haig it's probably because he was long ago written off over here as an incompetent hack. However you spin it, despite being given every resource he asked for, including billions in American material and financial support, Haig couldn't even beat a blockaded, upstart country fighting a two front war. In the end we had to ship our men over to bail you out. Same in WW2. It's condescending remarks like yours above that continue to express just how grateful you are for that help. Cheerio, Bill

[keithmroberts]

That was unworthy Bill. I was rather under the impression that every shell that was shipped over was paid for. US forces did of course play a part in the last year of the war, and we appreciate and respect their contribution.

Keith

[George Armstrong Custer]

In the end we had to ship our men over to bail you out.

You're a clown, Bill.

ciao,

GAC

[Paul Hederer]

In the end we had to ship our men over to bail you out

twice...

It's a joke...

...deep breaths, in-out, in-out.

Paul

[simonharley]

twice...

It's a joke...

...deep breaths, in-out, in-out.

Paul

I have the figures somewhere but if memory serves the majority of U.S. troops shipped to Europe travelled in British (encompassing Empire) ships and were escorted by British warships. Finestkind travel.

If it's any consolation Alex, by the way, I was never even "taught" about the Great War, and I went to a fairly decent private school whose pupils won three V.C.s in the war! Instead we had to study post-war Germany, Versailles and the rise of Hitler, prepatory to studying World War II in Europe. I would have thought the whole point of having a national curriculum as we have in Britain would be to educate children on certain important parts of British history, but apparently not.

One thing I always hear from friends or acquaintances in regards to history is "I wish I knew about that, we never learnt about it in school." for something as basic as The Armada, the Glorious Revolution or even Waterloo. Unbelievable! Once again it's someone's sick idea of perspective poking through I think...

Simon

[stevem49]

If Americans haven't heard of Haig it's probably because he was long ago written off over here as an incompetent hack. However you spin it, despite being given every resource he asked for, including billions in American material and financial support, Haig couldn't even beat a blockaded, upstart country fighting a two front war. In the end we had to ship our men over to bail you out. Same in WW2. It's condescending remarks like yours above that continue to express just how grateful you are for that help. Cheerio, Bill

Apparently they cannot take a joke either.

I would not mind if anything you wrote actually had some basis of truth.

have a nice day

[SiegeGunner]

One thing I always hear from friends or acquaintances in regards to history is "I wish I knew about that, we never learnt about it in school."

I hear this a lot too - but at the same time, someone has just published a book in the UK that is designed to remind older adults what they did in fact learn at school, which suggests they may have forgotten much of it anyway. I sometimes wonder how I ever managed to learn anything about food, wine, motor racing, computers, gardening, music, military history, and a hundred and one other things that I never 'did at school'.

[Guest geoff501]

I was rather under the impression that every shell that was shipped over was paid for.

And not all of them worked. Are we due a refund?