Book Referral

[Robert Dunlop]

I'm just curious how this book could be considered "THE authority" on anything.

Isobel Hull makes some very cogent arguments, backed up by extensive research including numerous German sources. Rather than suggest that some people are desperate 'to find validation for their belief that Germans were somehow particularly unique when it came to dealing with unruly conquered peoples', it might be more helpful to post referenced material that provides an alternative perspective. Before doing so, it is important to note that Hull's thesis is much more complex. What she was seeking to do is to understand how the German army came to treat 'unruly conquered peoples' in the way that it did. The issue of whether Germans were 'somehow particularly unique' is a separate question. Hull feels quite strongly about this, which is her perogative. We should not scrap all of her work because we disagree with this aspect. If the Germans were not unique, then it still behoves us to read her work to understand if and how military cultures can reproduce the same behaviour elsewhere.

Robert

[truthergw]

In answer to the question, I will give some selective quotes from the back cover blurb.

".........is a stimulating, scholarly, fluent and important book..." T.L.S.

" Hull writes with passion and exactitude" History: Review of New Books.

" ......... is a compelling narrative of conquest that opens in southern Africa and China and concludes on the battlefields of Turkey and northern France and Belgium,..." C. Koonz, Duke University.

There are more but I think you will get the drift. The author is a professor of history at Cornell University with books on Imperial Germany to her name.

Really Ken, you ought not to let your reactionary right wing proclivities intrude so crudely on the forum. If you can demonstrate errors in the book, I'd be grateful for the correction. If the author's political views offend you, too bad. That is not a subject of discussion which is encouraged on the forum.

[Ken S.]

Isobel Hull makes some very cogent arguments, backed up by extensive research including numerous German sources.

So what? The same has been said about David Irving and other revisionist historians. "Extensive research" and the use of "numerous German sources" (I'll have to take a look again just how extensive this really is, but from what I recall her use of German-language primary sources leaves much to be desired) is not a sign of anything special--especially nowadays--since anyone who is determined to make a certain argument can and will invest much time and effort into trying to make it as airtight as possible. How "cogent" her arguments are is irrelevant because her theories are ideologically flawed to the point where they shouldn't have any credibility in mainstream academics, yet for some inexplicable reason do. Now, it still needs to be explained how she can be considered "THE authority" on (the) German military (culture) when her publishing history suggests otherwise. Are some people really that desperate to find validation for their archaic beliefs about Imperial Germany's militarism?

[Ken S.]

Really Ken, you ought not to let your reactionary right wing proclivities intrude so crudely on the forum. If you can demonstrate errors in the book, I'd be grateful for the correction. If the author's political views offend you, too bad. That is not a subject of discussion which is encouraged on the forum.

The fact that the publisher has managed to scrape up a few words of praise means nothing. There are usually other considerations involved to induce people to do such things. Moreover, where she teaches, and the fact that she even teaches, simply doesn't impress me. I've seen the academic system at work first hand, and frankly I could write my own (extensively researched) book on why academic history has become so hopelessly useless because it has been hijacked by people of certain ideological bents and the whole system governed by ego and careerism. (A good book that has been published on this subject from a Canadian perspective is "Who Killed Canadian History?") Whatever the case, my "proclivities" are not reactionary. In order for me be reactionary I want a return to a previous status quo; seeing that Hull is simply compounding (not to mention exploiting) a number of common fallacies about Imperial Germany and German militarism. I'm simply interested in seeing that these issues are subject to a more fair and objective interpretation. That to me would seem "progressive" rather than "reactionary".

[cdr]

I'm waiting with anticipation on Ken's "exposé" on the common fallacies about Imperial Germany and German militarism.

So, Ken, when will your "magnum opus" appear ?

Carl

[Robert Dunlop]

...."numerous German sources" (I'll have to take a look again just how extensive this really is, but from what I recall her use of German-language primary sources leaves much to be desired)

The bibliography lists around 300 primary sources in German. I didn't check the numbers of secondary references.

Robert

[Ken S.]

The bibliography lists around 300 primary sources in German. I didn't check the numbers of secondary references.

Robert

So she does rely heavily on secondary sources, then? But like I said, anyone can "extensively research" a subject, but if their agenda/ideological basis is completely false, what difference does it make? I'm to suppose I guess that there is no basis for her being "THE authority" on Imperial Germany's military culture...

[Robert Dunlop]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The 300-odd books, journals and other materials in the bibliography relates to primary sources only.

You are perfectly at liberty to regard Hull's ideological basis as false. With respect, however, in the absence of a well-researched rebuttal (it doesn't even need to come close to Hull's level of effort) your opinion remains just your opinion.

Robert

[peterhogg]

I wonder if she's got somethin' in there about 'em eatin' cats?

[Ken S.]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The 300-odd books, journals and other materials in the bibliography relates to primary sources only.

You are perfectly at liberty to regard Hull's ideological basis as false. With respect, however, in the absence of a well-researched rebuttal (it doesn't even need to come close to Hull's level of effort) your opinion remains just your opinion.

Robert

It was clear. You stated that you didn't check the secondary sources because from what I recall they numbered considerably more and these are what she was largely relying upon.

So now in order to criticize something on a message board, one has to formulate a "well-researched" response; but to consider something "THE authority" requires absolutely no such effort?

Formulating a "well-researched rebuttal" would be as pointless as doing so for "Chariots of the Gods" or "The Biggest Secret".

[cdr]

So Ken

Once again, dogmatic statements are a lot easier than just a wee bit of research.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Worth reading for anyone interested in occupied Belgium and France's experiences of the first coming of the invader is the scholarly German Atrocities 1914: A History of Denial, by John Horne and Alan Kramer, published by Yale University Press in 2001.

George

[Ken S.]

So Ken

Once again, dogmatic statements are a lot easier than just a wee bit of research.

Who's being dogmatic? I'm not the one referring to the likes of Hull as "THE authority". All I'm interested in is objectivity and the truth.

[cdr]

Hull is simply compounding (not to mention exploiting) a number of common fallacies about Imperial Germany and German militarism

I call this a dogmatic statement.

[Ken S.]

Hull is simply compounding (not to mention exploiting) a number of common fallacies about Imperial Germany and German militarism

I call this a dogmatic statement.

No. What I said would be a factual statement radical leftist academic who is not "THE authority" German military culture, etc. She's the ideologue, not me. I'm interested in the objective truth, she's bent on interpreting history through her bent socialist worldview.