Battle of the Historians

[Guest]

An interesting article here by Simon Heffer who incidentally has a PhD in history.

[Moonraker]

Very interesting, excellent article. Thanks, Martin.

Moonraker

[Blincodave]

Totally disagree with his views on the Sleepwalkers. Lets Germany and AH off the hook. Could explain why it has sold 160,000 copies in Germany!

[Steven Broomfield]

Thanks Martin - very interesting.

Big fan of Sir Max, isn't he?

[Mark Hone]

Yes, 'Heffer and Blinder' (as he was once nicknamed at University) rarely misses the chance to settle the odd personal score.

[David Ridgus]

Interesting article Martin. Heffer is much more measured in his writing for the New Statesman than he is in his other journalism!

I only have a couple of quibbles with his survey of the historiography of the war. One is his description of Lloyd George's memoirs as 'surprisingly objective.' I doubt Haig, for one, would have agreed had he still been alive. The period is not known as 'the Battle of the Memoirs' for nothing.

I was also slightly surprised at his underplaying of MacMillan's work in comparison with Clark's. Sleepwalkers is powerfully argued but I think the Oxford historians - Strachan, Bogdanor and MacMillan - have mounted a pretty solid response reaffirming their belief in the central guilt of Germany.

David

[Guest]

It is interesting but he misses out some important early crap (there is no other word) histories such as John Buchan's version of the truth. Buchan was in the secret War Propaganda Bureau (started in early Sep 1914 and not revealed until the 1930s) and had the task of planting positive stories in the press. He also wrote the Grenfell brothers' biography and I have a theory that Buchan was instrumental in getting the action of the 9th Lancers seen as a heroic success rather than a semi disaster (the charge part at least) through his early work at the Bureau. They were rather adept at making a triumph out of a disaster. Kipling was also one of the early members of this secret group. Buchan also wrote a very poor history of the RSF and Kipling's history of the Irish Guards reads like a long eulogy. They both should have stuck to fiction. I consider everything Buchan wrote with great suspicion. A writer of fiction and the man in charge of the War Propaganda Bureau's monthly is someone whose version of the truth needs to be treated with extreme caution.

There are a few other early 'histories' that leave much to be desired that were influential in the myth making that Heffer does not mention. Heffer does make some interesting observations though and I agree with most of what he wrote. The historiography of the Great War is a subject that needs a good author to write a good history (there's a pun in there somewhere).

MG

[David Ridgus]

The historiography of the Great War is a subject that needs a good author to write a good history (there's a pun in there somewhere).

MG

Martin

I am not sure it will meet your exacting standards but 'The Unquiet Western Front' by Brian Bond is well worth a read.

He also edited 'The First World War and British Military History' which is published by Oxford and probably would meet your exacting standards but at £100 might not meet other criteria!

David

[nigelcave]

I think that Crutwell's History of the Great War has stood up to the march of time remarkably well - it must be about eighty years since it was first published and was still in print quite recently. He had the advantage of being a fairly distinguished academic and of having seen service in the war (in the Berks - he was severely wounded).

[joerookery]

Nice read thank you Martin.

[David Filsell]

Martin.

How I true consider everything Buchan wrote with great suspicion. Absolutely everything - for instance that 39 steps is absolute fiction and as for GreenmantleI didn't believe a word of it.

And as for Kipling, well, he should have stuck to those soppy Just So Stories instead of authoring probably the best written regimental history of the Great war (of a very fine regiment generally well deserving in the odd eulogy or two)

Incidentally I also still rate Crutwell highly, and copies are very cheap to buy.

[Guest]

Martin.

How I true consider everything Buchan wrote with great suspicion. Absolutely everything - for instance that 39 steps is absolute fiction and as for GreenmantleI didn't believe a word of it.

And his biography on the Grenfells.

[Guest]

Thanks Martin - very interesting.

Big fan of Sir Max, isn't he?

Yes I noticed that too. 'writes about the past' . Very good. I have not read Sir Max's latest tome but I thought that his TV monologue was rather thin. The intractable problem of trying to compress the Great War into media-hype-sized chunks.

Interesting that he herald's Sir John Keegan's book. I like his work on broader military issues such as The Face of War but I have seen rather scathing assessments of his work relating to the Great War.

Let's hope Anthony Beevor turns his hand to the Great War.

MG

[David Filsell]

Obviously my humour left you unmoved, however some forgiveness is allowed for a friend of the family I think.

But of course as you have pointed out JB he was a propagandist - now he would be called a public or corporate, communications or relations executives (we're all executives now). I does not by definition make him a bad or dishonest person Trust me "oh best beloved" I have been there

His job was to promote, promote, promote. That's what he was asked to do and that's what he and his colleagues did. They did it so well and so much better than the beastly Huns, particularly in the USA , that the effects of British propaganda influenced Hitler and the subsequent propaganda his party and nation undertook.

Incidentally the term propaganda was widely used before WW2 in the UK and the term had absolutely no pejorative meaning until the coming of the Nazis. Mostly it was regarded as eyewash - biased news sent individuals, organisations, political parties or nations to the media to influence news and opinion locally, nationally and international. It was not necessarily regarded as dishonest either. And boy did it work then, after and now in influencing the meejah, the public and the world.

[Gareth Davies]

Let's hope Anthony Beevor turns his hand to the Great War.

MG

Seconded.

[nigelcave]

To support David Filsell's point, John Buchan wrote very fine histories of the South African Brigade and the 15th (Scottish) Division - ie when he could write as a historian.

[charlesmessenger]

Anthony Beevor has always insisted that he will never touch the Great War.

Charles M

[David Ridgus]

Did he give any reason Charles?

David

[charlesmessenger]

David

I think he feels that it is too emotive.

Charles M

[simonharley]

Not a single mention of naval history in there, bar a reference to the Dardanelles. God knows there's enough rubbish out there and constant reassessment of evidence going on to this day.

[Old Tom]

I have only just come across this thread. Many thank for drawing attention the article. First class.

Old Tom

[Chris_Baker]

This very topic is one that has featured as an essay subject in the University of Birmingham MA in British First World War Studies - first term. It is hardly ground breaking and I am not sure Heffer has added greatly to the debate.

[Guest]

Here is the link of Philpott's review of a few works... and interesting read... here

Edit back in Nov 2013 he seemed to be keen on the Battle of the Historians thematic. Maybe it is meat and drink to War Studies courses.

[hazelclark]

Those are both interesting articles thank you. Since Macmillan's book is still on the "to read" pile, and of the others I have only read Keegan and Buchan I think, I cannot really say much about the assessments. However, having read many many great war books, I have to say that some books can be read and enjoyed by those with a passing or beginning interest in the war, whereas others are suitable for those with a bit more experience and yet others for serious students of the war. There is a place for all I think (provided they are not telling out and out lies) and must say that had Stevenson's History of the War, been my introduction, I might never have read another on the subject. I read Martin Gilbert's book first,and it sparked my interest to the point that I have now read my way through, and have "outgrown" many authors such as Lyn Mcdonald etc. I can now enjoy books such as Keegan Terraine, Stevenson and probably Macmillan when I get round to it.

A book mentioned is the WW1 History by Charles a Court Repington of which I am almost finished the first volume. and totally agree with his assessment. The first few pages almost put me off but having gone on reading, it is almost a "must read" for background information the like of which Idon't think you would find elsewhere.

I guess it is only by reading all these books and assessing the source as best one can that one can end up forming some sort of rational opinion of the happenings in 1914 - 1918.

Hazel C