Best Great War Biographies

[yelob]

Looking for recommendations on anyone or anything of biographical interest (WW1)that you have read. I have read the Churchill one and Haig is on its way what else is good or interesting particularly non English ie Joffre,Wilhelm,Pershing etc.

Thanks,Liam

[roughdiamond]

For something more "In the Trenches".

Diary of an Old Contemptible http://www.amazon.co...26307819&sr=1-1

General Jack's Diary http://www.amazon.co...26308084&sr=1-1

Norman Collins: Veteran of the Great War http://www.amazon.co...6308144&sr=1-30 I read it under it's earlier title of "Last Man Standing: The Memoire's of a Seaforth Highlander During the Great War".

3 books I thoroughly enjoyed, the link to Amazon is only for the synopsis.

The first one I have to say I enjoyed most, starting with the initial campaign's of the War, moving to Gallipoli where he tells the story of a man executed for desertion then onto Mesopotamia till the Wars end.

He bookend's it (pardon the pun) with the enthusiastic farewell from his home in Ireland in 1914 and his less than welcoming if not hostile reception on his return at the Wars end which led to him leaving for England.

Sam

[SWorrall]

Which version of Haig?

The list of others is almost endless. But here's a few for starters. UK persons first;

David Lloyd George: War diaries. Famous for its bilious attacks on the British generals.

George Cassar: Kitchener, architect of victory. Other volumes by Cassar on Sir John French and Asquith

Keith Jeffery: Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson

Lord Wavell: Allenby, a study in greatness

John Grigg's life of Lloyd George in 4 volumes

Andrew Boyle: Trenchard

Hoffman: War diaries

Ludendorff: My war memories

Ernst Junger: Storm of Steel

Elizabeth Greenhalgh released a new biography of Foch last year, but it's pricey. Neiberg's smaller book contains the vital stuff and is much cheaper.

Can't think of a recent comprehensive life of Joffre in English

Jim Lacey or Donald Smythe for recent volumes on Pershing

For the Kaiser you need to look at either Christopher Clark, or Mombauer & Diest

Any more?

The more recent ones may be available as e-books if you have a reader? That would save money.

Simon.

[yelob]

Thanks for the great suggestions, the Haig is the one by John Terraine. I'm trying to get a feel for the personalities involved

and how they responded to the awesome pressure etc. Simon thanks for the comprehensive list, a lot there to go on.

Any more on the central powers would be interesting like Moltke, Hollweg, Hotzendorf etc or the other two emperors

as well as stuff down the food chain like ordinary joe blogg's surviving the war or the German occupation.

I'm sure there's great accounts from aviators and navy personnel but I wouldn't know where to look.

Best Wishes,Liam

[SWorrall]

There are four relatively recent biogs of Haig, all sit on my shelf and are worth reading;

J. P. Harris

Walter Reid

Gary Mead

Gary Sheffield

There is a brand new one on Moltke by Arden Bucholz. Out any day now, but expensive. Wondering about that one myself.

Other than that Annika Mombauer's 2005 edition will be as good as you can get now, and it's half the price of Bucholz.

Conrad von Hotzendorf: Jan Beaver in 2009 or Lawrence Sondhaus in 2000. There isn't much recent about Conrad in English apart from those two.

Good books on Bethmann Hollweg in English are like hen's teeth.

Franz Joseph, again rare to find works in English, but consider John van der Kiste 2005

His successor, Karl seems to have no recent biography in English.

Tsar Nicholas II: not strictly a biography of him, but what about the recent 'The Russian origins of the First World War' by Sean McMeekin ? His idea is that Russia deliberately maneouvred her allies into a war.

Failing that there is plenty about the Tsar out there. So it depends whether you want a biography, his letters to the Tsarina, political history, etc.?

Simon.

[yelob]

Thanks very much Simon, great stuff there, the McMeekin book looks fascinating I think I'll make a beeline for that one,

surprised to find not much on it on the forum considering how explosive a proposition1

Best/Liam

[SWorrall]

I agree Liam, the so-called 'counter-factual' type of book might well leaving you snorting with derision, but they should also make you think.

Just because you heard the same version of a story 100 times doesn't mean it is necessarily true, just that it has been repeated so often that it has become legend.

Niall Ferguson published a book called 'The Pity of War' where he contended that the UK would have been better to have stayed out of the Great War entirely and let Germany do as she pleased.

I don't buy his thesis, on many levels. But it makes for interesting reading.

Why isn't a book like McMeekin more widely discussed here?

Because for all of the non-UK contributors to the GWF it is essentially a UK-centric site.

There is little interest in the Russian end of the war. It's a cipher to most people here.

Simon.

[mmckay395]

If you can read German and are able to track down a copy Afflerbach's biography on Falkenhayn is supposed to be fantastic.

[tn.drummond]

Thanks very much Simon, great stuff there, the McMeekin book looks fascinating I think I'll make a beeline for that one,

surprised to find not much on it on the forum considering how explosive a proposition1

Best/Liam

McMeekin teaches at Yale and Bilkent (Ankara) and casts a very distinctive individual perspective on his subject matter. You might wish to cast an eye over his 'Berlin-Baghdad Express' (isbn 9780141047652 Penguin PB £10.99 where full priced).

Have a look at these reviews

http://1914-1918.inv...8

The book, to me, is the victim of one of the great misnomers of contemporary WW1 literature in that the title suggests a narrative of the development of the aforementioned railway and its influence on Turco-Germano relationships. What it actually is, is an absorbing account of the attempts of Kaiser Wilhelm II, through Max von Oppenheim, and the German body-politic to ignite and inflame a Muslim jihad against the Entente powers. The railway content seemed to me a conceit that, though of interest, was both annoying and contrived - relevant but not fundamental.

So,what am I recommending ?

Well... I must admit to feeling uncomfortable with the emphasis of some of the content ( I'm certainly not accusing McMeekin of apologising the Armenian 'deportations' but his perspective on the matter does seem slightly at odds with the western orthodoxy) and he does rather bang on about his dislike of the Lawrence legend; most bizarrely he references John Buchan's 'Greenmantle' throughout as if this fictional work supports a point. But, and it is a massive Germanic bold type but; if ever a book fired the imagination to read around a subject this is it. His referencing or portrayals of the 'Great Players' in the region - Enver Pasha, Djemal Pasha, Wilhelm, Oppenheim, Bethmann Hollweg - is exhilarating as is the titillation he throws us of the associated pawns and rooks - Niedermayer, Prufer, Wassmuss and all of the Arabs exotic. The moment I put the book down I started scouring biographies from the Bibliography .

Buy it, read it, suck it and see - should inspire you to dig out many a 'leftfield' biography.

Finally, one further recommendation. The J.P Harris 'Douglas Haig and the First World War' (mentioned in earlier postings) is an outstanding work if you are interested in an analysis of his strategic approach and how his decisions were informed . It gave me a much more tolerant opinion of him as both man and General.

Suddery

[truthergw]

There is a massive resource to help your quest, here on the forum. Try a search in the book review section.

As far as the Mc Meekin book is concerned, I can only give my own reasons for not reading the book. There is a vast amount of material which forms the common source for discussion and debate. If I wish to kibbitz on the debates or even dare to join in, I need to have read the books and the works which are referenced in them. That is a lot of reading and a fair bit of money. I just don't have time, cash or inclination to read the really eccentric theories. I am less impressed by the fact that the author is a professor in an American university than I might once have been. I have read some real rubbish from similar sources. In the same way, there are a number of books which are notorious for one reason or another and I wouldn't bother with them either. I refrain from listing them. They are mentioned frequently in the book review section.

There are about a dozen readily available biographies on Haig. There is a classic and often referenced one on Foch by Liddel Hart, Henry Wilson has two that I know of, 'Wullie' Robertson has a couple of autobiographies which are a delight to read, Lloyd George's war memoirs are very hard to read and hardly worth the effort, The Crown Prince (Little Willie) has had his memoirs translated as have several of the German High command. I do not think the Kaiser left memoirs. Kitchener, Churchill, Jellicoe and Sir John French all left memoirs. Post war, saw Smith Dorrien and Sir John's son locked in mortal combat and there is a very interesting work about General Maurice by his daughter. Needless to say, all of the politicians who were prominent at the time left memoirs or were immortalised in print.

[hazelclark]

Hi Liam!

I am reading a book called "The Great War Generals" by Robin Neillands. Don't think it is really what you are looking for but have you read it? i am only on the first chapter but his thesis seems to be that the WW1 generals were given a bad wrap. It is only about British and Empire generals but so far I am enjoying it. He gave a short history of the army prior to WW1. I thought that it might give me some insight into what some of the people responsible for decision making were all about. He repeats information quite a bit which might bother some people but doesn't worry me.

By the way, the Strachan Volume 1 has arrived and i see what you mean - it is not light reading!

Hazel

Looking for recommendations on anyone or anything of biographical interest (WW1)that you have read. I have read the Churchill one and Haig is on its way what else is good or interesting particularly non English ie Joffre,Wilhelm,Pershing etc.

Thanks,Liam

[tn.drummond]

There is a massive resource to help your quest, here on the forum. Try a search in the book review section.

As far as the Mc Meekin book is concerned, I can only give my own reasons for not reading the book. There is a vast amount of material which forms the common source for discussion and debate. If I wish to kibbitz on the debates or even dare to join in, I need to have read the books and the works which are referenced in them. That is a lot of reading and a fair bit of money. I just don't have time, cash or inclination to read the really eccentric theories. I am less impressed by the fact that the author is a professor in an American university than I might once have been. I have read some real rubbish from similar sources. In the same way, there are a number of books which are notorious for one reason or another and I wouldn't bother with them either. I refrain from listing them. They are mentioned frequently in the book review section.

There are about a dozen readily available biographies on Haig. There is a classic and often referenced one on Foch by Liddel Hart, Henry Wilson has two that I know of, 'Wullie' Robertson has a couple of autobiographies which are a delight to read, Lloyd George's war memoirs are very hard to read and hardly worth the effort, The Crown Prince (Little Willie) has had his memoirs translated as have several of the German High command. I do not think the Kaiser left memoirs. Kitchener, Churchill, Jellicoe and Sir John French all left memoirs. Post war, saw Smith Dorrien and Sir John's son locked in mortal combat and there is a very interesting work about General Maurice by his daughter. Needless to say, all of the politicians who were prominent at the time left memoirs or were immortalised in print.

I'll try and be very quick with this but I do think I should reply. This book (McMeechin's Berlin to Baghdad) is exceptionally well referenced and deals with a very relevant topic, not an eccentric theory. Millions of muslims lived under British jurisdiction in strategically vital areas in the near and far east and the idea that they could be enticed to revolt is far from off beat. It was a very clear danger to both Russia and the the British as well as touching on French and Italian North African interests. The muslim influence was dominant in Egypt, Anatolia, the Dardanelles and throughout Mesopotamia, Persia and Northern India as well as the Arab peninsula. Then as now wars needed oil and the Royal Navy was well extended across the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf as a result. I admit to having a personal interest in the Eastern theatres but it certainly doesn't make me an Easterner. What all of this does do is explain a lot of Entente fears that resulted in actual military enterprise.

In recommending this book I think it's a great introduction to the both the Eastern / Ottoman issues and some of the colourful characters who lived operated within its realm. I'm currently scouring the second-hand bookshops for a decent biography of Enver Pasha and if I ever find one on Bethmann Hollweg the old German Grammar will be dusted off - surely this is the magic or reading around a subject. As for the expense , well isn't that what we all do with our interests and what about the vestiges of the great British Library system ? As for mentioning McMeechin's Professorships I was merely providing LiamS with a little background as, at times, the book gets a little too academic with financial matters. His Bilkent seat is an important matter as the book does contain (in my opinion !) some passages of bias.

Do I still recommend it ? Certainly do. As for 'kibbitzing', well this is all well intentioned. I feel WW1 reading should not be confined to the Western Front.

One final note, this is one of those books that does stimulate a lot of thought about today's global politics (Iraq, Iran, the Arab Spring, 9/11 et al) and demonstrates very well how we are still living with some of the consequences of the 1st world war in the east. As for the railway - it should have been a chapter or a footnote at best and is the book's major flaw.

Regards

Suddery

[yelob]

Thanks for all the great suggestions and it looks like the McMeekin book will be next for me,I will be interested to see

how eccentric or not his theory is plus it seems a great chance to break away from the westerncentric view of the war and

get to know some of the eastern personalities.

Best/Liam

[truthergw]

All of us should follow our interests and indeed, it is hard to imagine anyone, other than a student following a formal course, studying a part of the war which they did not find attractive in some way. It might be as well to bear in mind that the professor's book is eccentric in one sense at least. The war was fought and won by the main forces of the belligerents on the Western Front. That is why the history of the War is West centric. The rest were side shows and therefore eccentric by definition.

[yelob]

Unless you regard the origins of the war as unimportant I fail to see how you can claim the McMeekin book is eccentric or a sideshow especially as you haven't read it.He's not talking about the fought and won.

On that point the war was fought in a lot of other places than on the western front as we are all aware so I also fail to see how you can claim it was only or mainly fought there.As regards the 'won on the western front',I would be interested to know what % of the western win you would attribute to the non western theatres/factors. If that's 0% or negligible then I would be interested in your explanation of the 1.8million Russian and 750,000 Ottoman 'sideshow' casualties.

[truthergw]

Getting wounded or killed does not help to win wars. Why anyone would seek to dispute that the war was won on the Western front is completely beyond me.

[tn.drummond]

All of us should follow our interests and indeed, it is hard to imagine anyone, other than a student following a formal course, studying a part of the war which they did not find attractive in some way. It might be as well to bear in mind that the professor's book is eccentric in one sense at least. The war was fought and won by the main forces of the belligerents on the Western Front. That is why the history of the War is West centric. The rest were side shows and therefore eccentric by definition.

I really must disagree with this. The strategic rationale behind the German commission of hostilities was the Von Schlieffen plan XV11 which was predicated on war on two fronts, the Western with France and the Eastern with Russia. Had the Russians capitulated or failed to mobilize within the first six weeks of war ( a fundamental tenet of the plan although perhaps the purists would have France defeated first) von Moltke may well have been the first German dancing in Paris. As it is they both mobilized quicker than anticipated and did not suffer terminal defeat within the given timescale. There exists a serious school of thought that it was the failure of the Germans to crack or control the Eastern front at this time that made the outcome of the war a foregone conclusion as early September 1914. The Western belligerence was the longest drawn out but it was certainly not the sole and decisive front.

As for the Ottomans, well they were there to provoke the Russians Black Sea / Caucasus under belly and torment the British empire territories and protectorates - and in Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles they proved what formidable opponents they could be. You may argue Gallipoli a side show but the political vibrations of British defeat (which is surely how it was perceived) thundered around the globe. The vast economic drag the Turks made made on the Germans was also significant. The Railway alone cost German banks the modern day equivalent of $125 Billion, and this on top of the (then) $800 million they shunted to the Pasha's in war materiel, actually caused the Mark to tumble in the currency markets to the Turkish Lira. The cost of 'buying' an ally in Turkey was a significant drain to the German economy and that money did not buy victory in the Ottoman theatres.

It is the totality of all of these matters that drained the Germans so, and with the Royal Naval blockade wrecking havoc on the civilian population they were pretty much done long before the Great Western front battles of 1918. Quite simply, they overextended themselves and the Turkish adventures and Eastern fronts were no bit part players in the downfall.

You're absolutely right to state that the main Franco-British forces were given to the Western Front, this is why it resonates so on the British psyche, but the same cannot be said from the German perspective. If they had fought on but one front then I may well be sitting here snacking on bratwurst and slamming down the schnapps. As it is the war was never going to be won solely on the Western front, the real fact is that the British and French could have lost it there.

Regards

Suddery.

Liam - glad you're taking the plunge. You'll soon be shaking sand out of your boots!

[truthergw]

I really must disagree with this. The strategic rationale behind the German commission of hostilities was the Von Schlieffen plan XV11 which was predicated on war on two fronts, the Western with France and the Eastern with Russia. Had the Russians capitulated or failed to mobilize within the first six weeks of war ( a fundamental tenet of the plan although perhaps the purists would have France defeated first) von Moltke may well have been the first German dancing in Paris. As it is they both mobilized quicker than anticipated and did not suffer terminal defeat within the given timescale. There exists a serious school of thought that it was the failure of the Germans to crack or control the Eastern front at this time that made the outcome of the war a foregone conclusion as early September 1914. The Western belligerence was the longest drawn out but it was certainly not the sole and decisive front.

As for the Ottomans, well they were there to provoke the Russians Black Sea / Caucasus under belly and torment the British empire territories and protectorates - and in Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles they proved what formidable opponents they could be. You may argue Gallipoli a side show but the political vibrations of British defeat (which is surely how it was perceived) thundered around the globe. The vast economic drag the Turks made made on the Germans was also significant. The Railway alone cost German banks the modern day equivalent of $125 Billion, and this on top of the (then) $800 million they shunted to the Pasha's in war materiel, actually caused the Mark to tumble in the currency markets to the Turkish Lira. The cost of 'buying' an ally in Turkey was a significant drain to the German economy and that money did not buy victory in the Ottoman theatres.

It is the totality of all of these matters that drained the Germans so, and with the Royal Naval blockade wrecking havoc on the civilian population they were pretty much done long before the Great Western front battles of 1918. Quite simply, they overextended themselves and the Turkish adventures and Eastern fronts were no bit part players in the downfall.

You're absolutely right to state that the main Franco-British forces were given to the Western Front, this is why it resonates so on the British psyche, but the same cannot be said from the German perspective. If they had fought on but one front then I may well be sitting here snacking on bratwurst and slamming down the schnapps. As it is the war was never going to be won solely on the Western front, the real fact is that the British and French could have lost it there.

Regards

Suddery.

Liam - glad you're taking the plunge. You'll soon be shaking sand out of your boots!

In 1917, the Russians surrendered. The Americans started to arrive in France as did German troops released from the Eastern front. The last, decisive year of the war was fought on the Western front and won by the Entente plus Americans after the last big German effort was held and then failed. Still, if you believe that the Tsar's armies won the war for us, that is up to you.

[SWorrall]

Gentlemen, gentlemen,

The debate is fascinating, please continue by all means.

But try not to stray into unpleasantness. I have a horrible feeling that tempers are beginning to fray.

Your positions are not incompatible.

The volume of Tom's posts on the GWF shows what a valued and knowledgeable Pal he is.

He is entirely right to state that, in the end, the war was finished in the West, principally by the BEF.

But equally, if the Russians had not been engaged, or had not lasted as long as they did, the entire weight of the German Army would have descended upon France, either from the outset, or at an earlier date.

It is easy to suggest that the result might have been much different in that case, although plainly unknowable.

If the Ottomans had not been involved, then equally the British and French would have had more considerable forces to engage in Flanders and France in 1915 and thereafter.

It is unlikely that this would have resulted in an earlier collapse of Germany.

Germany had to be worn out, her manpower resources exhausted, her civil population ground down by blockade, her economy debased and wrecked.

And the technical means to breach the entrenchments, plus the tactics to use them and the logistics to support them, needed time to develop.

I do not see anyone here suggesting that the war was not won, eventually, on the Western Front.

But to suggest that it was only won on the Western Front, or that only the Western Front really mattered throughout the entire war, is risible.

The fighting on other fronts created the conditions whereby it was possible for it to be won in 1918 in the West.

That goes beyond mere fighting.

As a single example: The Germans released from the East, after the Russian peace was sealed, brought with them the seeds of revolution, which infected and undermined the morale of the German troops in the West.

It was, after all, the First WORLD War. Not the First 'Western Front' War.

Simon.

[tn.drummond]

In 1917, the Russians surrendered. The Americans started to arrive in France as did German troops released from the Eastern front. The last, decisive year of the war was fought on the Western front and won by the Entente plus Americans after the last big German effort was held and then failed. Still, if you believe that the Tsar's armies won the war for us, that is up to you.

truthergw - Bar your last sentence (which completely misses my point and is not my contention at all) I think I broadly agree with what you say here. Yes, the final acts of World War 1 were played out on the fields of France and Flanders and yes it was a 'Very British Victory' (to quote Peter Hart's book on the subject - "1918 A V. B. Victory') but the fact is Germany was all but defeated by this stage and more to the point they knew it. Moves for a peace settlement had long been on their back boiler.

It would serve no purpose for me to keep on reiterating the points I have made in previous postings but I would strongly recommended Peter Hart's '1918' book which covers a lot of this ground far more ably than I.

Regards

Suddery

[tn.drummond]

Gentlemen, gentlemen,

The debate is fascinating, please continue by all means.

But try not to stray into unpleasantness. I have a horrible feeling that tempers are beginning to fray.

Your positions are not incompatible.

The volume of Tom's posts on the GWF shows what a valued and knowledgeable Pal he is.

He is entirely right to state that, in the end, the war was finished in the West, principally by the BEF.

But equally, if the Russians had not been engaged, or had not lasted as long as they did, the entire weight of the German Army would have descended upon France, either from the outset, or at an earlier date.

It is easy to suggest that the result might have been much different in that case, although plainly unknowable.

If the Ottomans had not been involved, then equally the British and French would have had more considerable forces to engage in Flanders and France in 1915 and thereafter.

It is unlikely that this would have resulted in an earlier collapse of Germany.

Germany had to be worn out, her manpower resources exhausted, her civil population ground down by blockade, her economy debased and wrecked.

And the technical means to breach the entrenchments, plus the tactics to use them and the logistics to support them, needed time to develop.

I do not see anyone here suggesting that the war was not won, eventually, on the Western Front.

But to suggest that it was only won on the Western Front, or that only the Western Front really mattered throughout the entire war, is risible.

The fighting on other fronts created the conditions whereby it was possible for it to be won in 1918 in the West.

That goes beyond mere fighting.

As a single example: The Germans released from the East, after the Russian peace was sealed, brought with them the seeds of revolution, which infected and undermined the morale of the German troops in the West.

It was, after all, the First WORLD War. Not the First 'Western Front' War.

Simon.

Thanks Simon - see nothing to disagree with here bar the fact my powder is dry and my mood is mellow. Always find debate like this helps to consolidate one's own opinions or on some occasions (though not here !) to modify them.

Regards

Suddery