New Book by Zuber ?

[cdr]

Apparently that nice mr. Zuber (Schlieffen on this forum) is preparing a book on the battles of Liège, Namur and Charleroi !

http://www.amazon.ca/First-Blood-German-Attacks-Charleroi/dp/075249144X

Carl

[Staffsyeoman]

Prepare for a wave of angry Belgians, then...

[Chris_Baker]

1 August 2014 according to the publisher's blurb.

[squirrel]

Prepare for a wave of angry Belgians, then...

There must be a collective noun for "a wave of angry Belgians"...

Any book by Zuber is bound to raise hackles in more than one country.

[David Filsell]

I await it with anticipated amazement nit pick to hand !

[cdr]

... a waffle of Belgians .....

Carl

[hazelclark]

Could someone please enlighten the uneducated? What is wrong with the "Nice Mr Zuber"? Never heard of him!

Hazel

[David Filsell]

I was going to reply, but then thought where, oh where does one start. Then I thought

The Brits were rubbish, the Germans brilliant.

That's how I read him [ largely]

[squirrel]

The way Zuber writes certainly makes you think, but you also wonder how the Germans managed to lose the war...

[phil andrade]

The way Zuber writes certainly makes you think, but you also wonder how the Germans managed to lose the war...

Here's looking forward to reading his explanation.

Phil (PJA)

[SteveMarsdin]

Could someone please enlighten the uneducated? What is wrong with the "Nice Mr Zuber"? Never heard of him!

Hazel

As others have hinted at, he tends to over-rely on German sources and many disagree with the conclusions that he draws as a result. To his credit he participated in discussions on this forum under the name "Schlieffen"; it is worth checking his profile and reading his posts and the responses. His books on Mons and the Battle of the Frontiers challenged the accepted British and French views of these battles and I think are worth reading for this alone; in my opinion he was right in parts but the German Army wasn't quite as perfect as the impression he tends to create.

His main point throughout though relates to the Schlieffen Plan (or rather, not the Schlieffen Plan !!!)

[hazelclark]

As others have hinted at, he tends to over-rely on German sources and many disagree with the conclusions that he draws as a result. To his credit he participated in discussions on this forum under the name "Schlieffen"; it is worth checking his profile and reading his posts and the responses. His books on Mons and the Battle of the Frontiers challenged the accepted British and French views of these battles and I think are worth reading for this alone; in my opinion he was right in parts but the German Army wasn't quite as perfect as the impression he tends to create.

His main point throughout though relates to the Schlieffen Plan (or rather, not the Schlieffen Plan !!!

Will try to get the books from the library. Since the Schlieffen Plan as far as I understand it, was more or less a non event (as originally drawn up) it should be interesting to read a different perspective. Haven't read anything from WW1 from the German point of view and was thinking that some of Jack Sheldon's books should go on my birthday list. Haven't read much about the battles of the frontiers other than in general histories.

thanks,

Hazel

[nigelcave]

Whatever the contents, I must warn you that they are a very difficult read - full of abbreviations and acronyms that make continuous reading something of a chore. This is a shame, as it detracts from well researched work (which certainly relies on German sources to the exclusion of much else - but there again, British and French accounts often do the same thing) and a challenging viewpoint. I cannot believe that all that much paper or money is saved by using a seemingly interminable number of these very specialist short cuts.

[SiegeGunner]

Fortunately I've been inoculated. I bought one of Zuber's books a couple of years ago, and I've promised myself that I won't buy another until I've managed to finish the first one ...

[SteveMarsdin]

Haven't read much about the battles of the frontiers other than in general histories.

Hazel

If you can read French i'd recommend Jean-Claude Delhez' two volume work: "Le jour de deuil de l'armée française". Please see this thread http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=171405&hl=

[joerookery]

some of Jack Sheldon's books should go on my birthday list.

I would buy many. In my opinion there is none better.

[mconrad]

Will try to get the books from the library. Since the Schlieffen Plan as far as I understand it, was more or less a non event (as originally drawn up) it should be interesting to read a different perspective. Haven't read anything from WW1 from the German point of view and was thinking that some of Jack Sheldon's books should go on my birthday list. Haven't read much about the battles of the frontiers other than in general histories.

thanks,

Hazel

FWIW, I think there is a counter-movement to Zuber's Schlieffen Plan viewpoint, but it's still all in German and at the academic level.

[hazelclark]

Thanks guys.

Steve, although I can sort of still speak French, anything with a technical bias would be too laborious unfortunately. Haven't used French much since coming here.

Hazel

[phil andrade]

FWIW, I think there is a counter-movement to Zuber's Schlieffen Plan viewpoint, but it's still all in German and at the academic level.

Here's an American PHD article, written by Mark R Stoneman

Wilhelm Groener, Officering and the Schlieffen Plan (2006)

Apologies if this has already been dicussed on the Forum . It's a good read, both in narrative and historiographical content, and Zuber is mentioned in dispatches.

Try and google it : my IT skills aren't up to posting the link.

Phil (PJA)

[Paul Hederer]

...counter movement...

There are some other reflections in English. "War in History" published a long running debate on the Schlieffen "plan" featuring Terry Zuber versus a number of academics. Well worth reading if you get the chance,

There was a pretty good discussion here as well with him participating back in 2010?

An outstanding work is "Der Schlieffenplan: Analysen und Dokumente," (ISBN 978-3506756299) but it's unfortunately only in German.

He is a polarizing character, no doubt. He has fostered a whole series of debates though, which I think is a good thing.

Paul

[cdr]

Like Paul says the work by Ehlert, Epkenhans and Gross is very good.

Zuber does an important work in making German sources accesible for anglosaxon readers. His deliberate (?) polemical style is however sometimes a bit much.

It is for instance rather 'interesting' when he claims that his military background gives him an insight that is superior to that of other writers like Mombauer, Kramer etc.

Carl

[Ken S.]

I haven't read everything that he's written, but I don't get the impression from what I have read that Zuber believes that the German army was "perfect". Perhaps he "over-relied" on German sources because traditionally Germans sources had been relied on little or not at all. The fact that the use of sources has been one-sided doesn't seem to have occurred over the last 90 years when the British have done so - one lone author does so with the Germans, and suddenly it's an issue.

As others have hinted at, he tends to over-rely on German sources and many disagree with the conclusions that he draws as a result. To his credit he participated in discussions on this forum under the name "Schlieffen"; it is worth checking his profile and reading his posts and the responses. His books on Mons and the Battle of the Frontiers challenged the accepted British and French views of these battles and I think are worth reading for this alone; in my opinion he was right in parts but the German Army wasn't quite as perfect as the impression he tends to create.

His main point throughout though relates to the Schlieffen Plan (or rather, not the Schlieffen Plan !!!)

[Ken S.]

I don't get this. He's only really dealt with the so-called Schlieffen Plan and 1914.

The way Zuber writes certainly makes you think, but you also wonder how the Germans managed to lose the war...

[Paul Hederer]

I do not believe there is an issue relying on German sources to write about the German Army performance during the war. There are plenty of German military writers, especially in professional journals during the interwar years, who are honest (and generally critical) of their own performance during the war. I would even say that in general most are critical of their performance--that's the reason why they're writing! There is no shortage of sources that can provide good, informed, critical assessments of performance during the war. That is not a problem.

This frankness in general cannot be extended to the performance of individual officers--unless you're von Moltke, Falkenhayn or poor Lieutenant-Colonel von Hentsch. This is a known weakness in some German sources--especially the official history, and it was criticized and questioned by the Germans themselves during its writing.

Paul

P.S. I should have added some civilian writers as well--mea culpa to the one and only Hans Delbrück!

[joerookery]

I look forward to the book. Zuber is a polarizing figure who I think has done great service in just bringing up the topics stirring the pot. He does seem to say some unkind things about others and regardless of his position I do not think for instance that Herwig is intentionally dishonest. Anyone can make a mistake and in my opinion he really missed the mark in his books on Mons and the Ardennes as he looked at doctrine. I don't question his side of sources but I have been surprised by what he has not used. There are some basic sources that might challenge some of his conclusions. Nonetheless I will certainly be a customer. I am quite interested in how he handles the attack and what he develops as he calls First Army a flank guard.