Allan Mallinson - Too Important For The Generals

[David Filsell]

aA personal opinion. As a rule of thumb, I am convinced it is best to ignore the works of popularist/generalist professional historians - I am sure you know who I mean - and stick to the recognised military historians, amateur or professional - again I am sure you know who I mean. The employment of often under grad historians by the likes of Falklands Max et all may be a professional necessity but it's a poor substitute for the knowledge of those with a real commitment to the subject and an awareness of the latest thinking and writing on the subject and plenteous knowledge.

[paulgranger]

I read the book while on holiday, and contributed it to the hotel library. It's not a bad read, but I wasn't convinced by it's premise, which is that Churchill and Lloyd George had better ideas, but were up against the generals, and didn't feel they could overrule them. The author argues that the Allies should have stood on the defensive in France, while finding better alternatives, and that the Dardanelles, the Italian Front, and Salonika held more promise, and should have been made more of. I don't agree, and the French certainly didn't. The Germans were on the sacred soil of France, and had to be beaten there, as indeed, they were. To be fair to Brigadier Mallinson, he is fair to the generals, and does not denigrate them.

For rather more measured reviews, have a look at the Amazon website, where, inter alia, George A Webster, former heavyweight of the forum, has a short and pithy critique.

[David Filsell]

I understand Mallinson is a former cavalry officer!

[Gareth Davies]

And a former Infantry officer.

[Steven Broomfield]

Last week's Speccie contained a bulk review by Brigadier Mallinson of several Somme knock-offs reappraisals (including Sebag-Montefiore's book); it serves to allow him to pound the usual drum. Example: "It is what revisionist historians are pleased to ascribe to 'the learning curve'". No doubt which mast his particular colours are firmly nailed to.

 

He did like Jolyon Fenwick's Zero Hour and gave it a fair review, though.

[Staffsyeoman]

I sense a distressing trend in the historiography - well, in many of the rush of books on the Somme, perhaps as we expected, to try and trample over more than thirty years of scholarship and drag us back down to "lions led by donkeys"  where emotionalism rides heavily over analysis. Even among authors who should know better.  I reviewed Mallinson's broad sweep history of the British Army; I was unimpressed by it and have not returned to his writing since.  I read two Herveys. That was enough. I asked an officer of his regiment to review his history of the Light Dragoons - it was thrown back at me with a string of observational invective.   Will this tide abate? 

[David Filsell]

"Will this tide abate?  "

No, unlikely I think. And certainly not until we get over this 2014-2018 thing and its accompanying book fest. Now I suppose it's simply fashionable to be a re-revisionist.- trendy and a way to get published in an overcrowded market.

There are one or two good new books out there including Taylor Downing's Breakdown: The Crisis of Shell Shock on the Some 1916. Philpot's book Bloody Victory- although not new -  is well worthwhile, although not  popular with some Haigists. Alan MacDonald's Z Day is very special too  - it covers the attack of VIII Corps at Beaumont Hamel and Serre in amazing detail - it is the third of six books on the Somme. Each concentrates on local planning of the Corps attacks. Jack Sheldon's work cannot be ignored, nor that of Ralph Whitehead

I must admit to having been tempted Fleabag Montefioirie book, having just read his fascinating and impressive  biography of Moseley, but on balance reviews indicate is has nothing new to say.

[PhilB]

22 hours ago, Staffsyeoman said:

I sense a distressing trend in the historiography - well, in many of the rush of books on the Somme, perhaps as we expected, to try and trample over more than thirty years of scholarship and drag us back down to "lions led by donkeys"  where emotionalism rides heavily over analysis.

Surely it would not be historiographically commendable to assume that one view is correct and that others can be ignored?

[David Filsell]

Strictly, according to Wiki:

 

Historiography is the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches.

 

Thus the real question is: are the "revisionists" those who have re-evaluated much which was long accepted and taken for granted by historians  - rifle fire for machine guns  they all attacked slowly in lines at the Somme etc. - often based primarily on the Official Histories - more valid in the light of new factual analysis?

 

Too many of the new 'accounts' simply seem to rehash without understanding the most recent academic and amateur research

[neutrino]

Haven't been on this site for a few years and just a reader about WW1 not an expert like many on here.

 

I've nearly finished Mallinson's 'Too important for the generals'

I find it very easy to read and follow.  Is that a good thing or not?

I've read many of his Hervey books.

 

Does this site do Polls?

 

If so a poll of revisionists v Non-revisionists would be informative.

I think I know who would come out on top.

Edited 19 September , 2016 by neutrino

[David Filsell]

I appear to have missed the question as to why I disliked the Mallinson book.

Put simply its not much more than a rehash of many earlier works and a synthesis of their conclusions and ignores much more recent work and research.

Overall I regard it - like a lot of popular works by 'popular writers' -  a pretty lightweight effort overall I judge - rightly or wrongly - which moves out knowledge or understanding very little if at all. 

Edited 31 October , 2016 by David Filsell

[neutrino]

Can I just say that I always wonder about ' the most recent academic and amateur research ' and whether the conclusions have been made in order to put forward an opposing point of view and create a book.

That may be controversial and wrong but it's my view.

 

After WW 1 were the books written all about 'Lions led by donkeys' or was there a more even conclusion and then more recently have the books written been giving an opposing revisionist view of WW 1 Generalship?

[Chris_Baker]

Too simplistic by half. Have a read of http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/historiography_1918-today

[neutrino]

17 minutes ago, Chris_Baker said:

Too simplistic by half. Have a read of http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/historiography_1918-today

Interesting.

[Martin Bennitt]

Here is Mallinson on the Somme in the latest issue of History Today

 

http://www.historytoday.com/allan-mallinson/permanent-stain-somme

 

He seems a bit confused: the Somme was not necessary, but it was not futile either...

 

Cheers Martin B

[Staffsyeoman]

I was disappointed by his History of the British Army - and said so, in a review - and as a result have not felt a pressing need to investigate any subsequent works.  From what I see and read here, there is no compelling reason to alter that view. 

[Steven Broomfield]

As mentioned elsewhere a while ago, last year Toby Brayley and I attended a symposium organised by the Victorian Military Society on the role of cavalry and Mallinson was one of the speakers, on the subject of British cavlary in 1914.

 

He was, frankly, poor. He spoke well, but he was muddled in his thinking and made several factual errors. He came across as keen to be a middle-aged enfant terrible, making Max Hastings-style confrontational statements without having access to the huge band of researchers Sir Max has.