"A Serious Disappointment"

[Steven Broomfield]

In THIS thread, Mr Rutherford mentions (Post 8), in passing, Adrian Bristow's book on Aubers Ridge, A Serious Disappointment. In post 20, I comment that I found the book just that, but that, not having read it for some years and not owning a copy, I am unable to say why. In post 23, Nigel Cave agrees with me, but with the same caveat.

I have ordered a copy from the library to re-read it, but do any other members have any comment about this book? Have Nigel and I "misremembered"; or are we right? Is it a good book, a bad book, or an in-between book? I really cannot remember anything about it other than that it disappointed me.

Comments welcome. When I've read it again, I'll come back and comment more.

[truthergw]

I own it and mentioned it because I am interested in the early battles and read anything I see that pertains. The book is almost unique in its coverage of the battle and so I make no apology for recommending it. He also covers a bit of background and a bit on the shell scandal which followed the battle. Not the best war book I have ever read but for anyone with a more than passing interest in this battle or the other early battles, worth its place on the shelf.

To add, my copy has some very interesting photographs, one of a barricade as built in ground too wet for trenches and a couple of the German wire including a wiring party. These give a very good idea of the sort of obstacle men came up against if wire for some reason had not been cut. A far better notion than the deceptively simple description of wire carries, for me at least.

[alex falbo]

I would be interested in seeing sangars built in the area as put into practice by the Indian Corps.

[Steven Broomfield]

Well, I've just returned it to the library, and I must say I have mixed views on this one.

It's a brief book - fewer than 200 pages. It's poorly-annotated: the bibliography runs to merely 18 titles, and although a preface lists some sources, nowhere are these cross-referenced, so there is no way of checking the author's assertions or assumptions.

There is some of the uausl general-bashing, and it comes over as being mildly anti-Haig.

Interestingly, he does quote (though obviously no references) German sources, predominantly regimental histories, which must be an early use of this source (it was written in 1995), but the usual lack of any referencing makes this disappointingly vague.

Most irritating of all, however, is the writing style. The author is an educationalist, and writes like it. There are innumberable "As we have seen", "as we shall discuss later" and "we will meet him later" - style usages, which become very tying. Even more irritating is the constant referring to British units as "we" or "our". It comes over as nothing so much as a football report, in rather sad circumstances.

All in all, it's worth reading (as Mr Rutherford says, there are precious few books on 1915), but it doesn't tell an awful lot that can't be found elsewhere with a bit of looking.

Finally, the book is subtitled to indicate it covers the munitions scandal and shell shortage which followed the battle, but (to be honest) I found it a bit light and almost an afterthought.

Yes, a book worth reading, but not one I'd have to dash out and buy for re-reading or taking down for reference.

[n cherry]

Steve,

So room out there for someone to do an in-depth study of the battle then.........