Terence Zuber

[SMG65]

Would I be right in thinking that Mr Zuber is Anti British and Pro German in his books?

He seems to present the German Army as super human and infallible and the BEF as an overrated, bumbling entity.

He seems to be selective in his source material and dismissive of other historians.

I was informed by a friend that his books were 'so bad that once put down they were hard to pick up again'.

I disagree with this, his books are challenging, informative, incorrect and confusing.

They provoke discussion, emotion, anger and dismay - all good for a Great War debate.

Sean

[phil andrade]

Agreed....there's a lot wrong with them, but some of what he writes is well worth reading.

It's uncomfortable for those of us who've been weaned on traditional stories about Mons.

He knows how to tell us what we don't want to hear.

Phil (PJA)

[Yorke Scarlett]

Would I be right in thinking that Mr Zuber is Anti British and Pro German in his books?

Hits the nail right on the head

[Mark Hone]

He's actually very even-handed; that is, the French get it in the neck from Mr Zuber as well.

[SMG65]

Phil

I've never believed in the 'Mons Myth'.

There are plenty of books that debunk the myth but are much more balanced than Zuber.

Peter Hart's 'Fire and Movement' is one of the more recent ones and I think he explains it perfect.

The BEF fought a good action at Mons and shocked the Germans, they were not tactically superior at Mons.

Zuber talks about the 'combined arms effectiveness' of the Germans.

I would say that the German artillery and Infantry co-operation at Mons was a mess.

Sean

[squirrel]

IMHO Zuber's books are worth reading, even if they are heavy going in places, to see things from the other side. However, after reading the Mons Myth and a couple of his other books, I am tempted to ask why the Germans didn't win the war if they were so well trained, equipped, organised, efficient etc.

[Guest]

I have never really understood why Zuber gets such criticism. He (and separately Jack Sheldon) at least debunked the idea that the Germans mistook British rapid fire for machine-gun fire. His book 'The Mons Myth' managed to slightly offset some of the more romantic ideas of earlier British authors, including those of Edmonds and the (British) Official History: France and Belgium 1914.

I understand that his views on German tactics rather differ from other authors, however his book is well worth reading. There are a number of authors who have written about the German experience in 1914 when fighting the British and I believe most are members of GWF (as is/was Mr Zuber).

I not sure I would agree with the view that he is 'anti British and pro German'. I believe he was simply trying to offer a more balanced view, something that is quite lacking in some of the earlier British authors' works. More recent works have begun to redress the balance. MG

[joerookery]

I read all of his stuff and I think he is a gifted researcher. However I understand exactly why he gets so much criticism. He is often just dead wrong and puts up a spirited defense. He does not shy away from any sort of conflict and certainly sets the bar for people to compare. I thought his early works, more strategic, were definitely well researched and I even agree with many of his conclusions. However, what he calls tactical I generally do not agree with. He relies very heavily on regimental histories. These represent their own set of problems frequently exacerbated by the authors, and the timeframe in which they were written. Translations of several words often leads to misconceptions...Abteilung anyone? His use of cold war NATO terms sometimes adds to the confusion. The combined arms and doctrinal statements are best explained in the " doctrine in general " chapter of the "Great War Dawning."

All of those things considered however, most of the criticisms stems from his conclusions. Very one sided and based on regimental histories.

If he could be convinced of some of his simple mistakes and judgments (such as the huge difference between cavalry corps and HKK),and if he did not go ad hominem on every debate he would be absolutely fascinating to talk to. He really adds much to the discussion. His books are well-known and well marketed. He has added a great deal to the body of knowledge. Even though I might think much of it is wrong he needs to be commended on just starting the discussion. He is a well researched (not balanced) guide point from which to shift from.

[Guest]

I note that he questions the value of Bloem's account and argues it is exaggerated and differs from the battalion history. Bloem's account was used by the British OH to support its version of events (and translated by Wynne on the Historical Branch staff) and has been used by a number of authors to substantiate the legacy view of the BEF. Whether one agrees with the view seems immaterial as he at least highlights the risk of using single accounts to support a view. It was this that encouraged me to explore some of the other OH 'evidence' particularly their imaginative use of parts of Ypern 1914 which Wynne also translated with substantial number of notes. What Wynne wrote and the carefully selected parts that were included in the OH were rather interesting by comparison. Wynne was highly critical yet it was used to support the OH version. MG