Bloody Victory

[John(txic)]

Chris

According to the listing on Amazon the paperback is not due for release until July 2010.

Regards

Mike S

The copy that Wolverhampton library have very kindly bought for me is a paperback. Quite a thick one, too...

[Staffsyeoman]

Your eyesight's fine, old-timer. And the signature ... ring any bells?

Oh dear, mine must be shot... I thought it was the glorious Sally James of Tiswas fame.

I must get round to buying this book, beings I know the author (he's sold me some WW2 surplus books he didn't want in the past). And yes, there's a second entry on Amazon that says paperback in Jul 10.

Speaking of paperbacks - anyone know when Peter Hart's 1918 is coming? Ruddy long time...

[bruce]

White rabbit was the song Grace too along with her to an audition. It got her into the band.

Bruce

[Rob Connolly]

Oh dear, mine must be shot... I thought it was the glorious Sally James of Tiswas fame.

I must get round to buying this book, beings I know the author (he's sold me some WW2 surplus books he didn't want in the past). And yes, there's a second entry on Amazon that says paperback in Jul 10.

Speaking of paperbacks - anyone know when Peter Hart's 1918 is coming? Ruddy long time...

I got my paperback volume of "Bloody Victory" via Amazon a month ago!

I got Peter's magnum opus in hardback last payday, that alone may convince the publishers there's a market for the paperback ...

[Staffsyeoman]

Pete himself was kind enough to respond that (rejoice) 1918 will be in p/b in late Oct/early Nov - according to the publishers.

[bmac]

Mr Broomfield,

Ah, didn't notice the lyric. Saw JA live three times. What fun (and so totally off topic!).

[bmac]

For information. Should anyone notice a book on Amazon entitled 'Three Armies on the Somme' by Bill Philpott available September 2010 and be tempted be warned it is but the American (and slightly shorter) version of 'Bloody Victory' somewhat edited and abbreviated for the American market (Dr Philpott assures me that the Americans don't win the battle in the end in this version ).

And if anyone has not yet read this book can I mention that, yesterday, none other than Richard Holmes described 'Bloody Victory' as 'the best book yet on the Battle of Somme' which opinion was endorsed by a number of notable WWI historians including, amongst others, Gordon Corrigan. If you have not yet read it I warmly recommend it.

[Steven Broomfield]

I presume the US version is shorter because they've taken all the "U's" out.

[Robert Dunlop]

Philpott's style of writing is not to my taste, but that is a minor issue.

Style aside, the value of the content is excellent. Philpott has expanded on Doughty's contribution, providing significantly more detail with respect to the French operations on the Somme. This is the most important aspect of the book, IMHO. It is helpful to see the political and social contexts as well, again with a broader brush approach that adds value to what has gone before. Finally, the analysis of the literary and sociological meaning of the First Battle of the Somme rounds off the whole book very nicely.

I have several concerns, none of which negate the importance of the book. They do, however, constitute a reminder that 'Bloody Victory' is but a step towards a definitive work on the Somme:

1. Philpott has failed to understand what I will call the broader tactical consequences of the preparatory phase for the 1916 Somme battle. Although he recognises the importance of the French contribution in parallel with the British effort (which is extremely important given how few authors have addressed this), he has not grasped how the combined preparations influenced the German operational response as whole.

2. Over-reliance on some historians' secondary works for the British perspective, particularly Prior and Wilson. Their analysis of the planning process for the Somme 1916 battle is deeply flawed, IMHO. Later in his book, Philpott actually recognises this, when discussing the planning for September 15th. He notes that P & W have misinterpreted the debates between Haig and Rawlinson, but failed to recognise that the same misinterpretations applied to the May/June planning phase as well. Most readers, and historians, will not recognise this problem. P & W's assessments of the planning for the Somme have become widely accepted.

3. Limited understanding of the relationship between the seeming failures of the small-scale attritional actions, eg throughout August, and the successes of the major offensives.

4. The notion that the Somme was the turning point. This is a very Anglo-centric view. There is no question that the Somme was important for the British, and in that respect it was a major wake-up to the German High Command that the British had become a force to be reckoned with. But the Somme, from a German perspective, was just one of many significant battles. The French offensives of 1915 had a profound effect too, as did Verdun, the Brusilov offensives, etc, etc.

Robert

[bmac]

I have several concerns, none of which negate the importance of the book. They do, however, constitute a reminder that 'Bloody Victory' is but a step towards a definitive work on the Somme:

1. Philpott has failed to understand what I will call the broader tactical consequences of the preparatory phase for the 1916 Somme battle. Although he recognises the importance of the French contribution in parallel with the British effort (which is extremely important given how few authors have addressed this), he has not grasped how the combined preparations influenced the German operational response as whole.

2. Over-reliance on some historians' secondary works for the British perspective, particularly Prior and Wilson. Their analysis of the planning process for the Somme 1916 battle is deeply flawed, IMHO. Later in his book, Philpott actually recognises this, when discussing the planning for September 15th. He notes that P & W have misinterpreted the debates between Haig and Rawlinson, but failed to recognise that the same misinterpretations applied to the May/June planning phase as well. Most readers, and historians, will not recognise this problem. P & W's assessments of the planning for the Somme have become widely accepted.

Robert.

Might you, if you have the time, expand upon these two points, if not here then perhaps in another more suitable place on the forum. I am currently researching the planning of the opening of the British and French offensives (and their relationship) and it would be interesting to have another viewpoint to consider over and above what already seems to be the new 'orthodoxy' of P&W.

Regards

Bill

[JimSmithson]

Robert

I'm having an email conversation with Bill at the moment (over another topic) so I will put your thoughts to him and see what he says in response.

Jim