Two Sides of the Same Bad Penny? Gallipoli and the Western Front, A Comparison. (Editor) Michael Locicero,

[Crunchy]

Two Sides of the Same Bad Penny? Gallipoli and the Western Front, A Comparison. (Editor) Michael Locicero, Helion, Warwick, 2018. 266pp

 

The title of this book, especially the sub-title - Gallipoli and the Western Front, A Comparison - suggests it is concerned with a comparative study of various aspects of these two quite different theatres of war.  Comparisons, of course, can take several forms; for example, directly comparing similar issues in different theatres over the same period, or longitudinally considering developments with a longer time frame. Given the Gallipoli campaign was relatively short, and the fighting on the Western Front raged for another three years resulting in a transformation in tactics, weaponry, and the British Army itself, one would have thought a true analogy between the two could best be made by confining the analyses to 1915. To do otherwise is like comparing a Clydesdale with a Thoroughbred.

 

Of the twelve essays in this volume, only four take this approach, considering each theatre during 1915: Gary Sheffield's sound overview of several subjects ranging from commanders, the quality of units and formations, through to tactics and operational techniques; Rob Thompson's fine study of the differing logistical systems; Stephen Chambers's interesting and well presented foray into the approach to photography in each theatre of war; and John Mason Sneddon's overly detailed presentation on the development of grenades and mortars during 1915.  Others take a longitudinal approach, and for three of them this is to be expected granted the subjects under review. Peter Hart delivers an entertaining narrative of the Royal Naval Division from its inception, and its passage through Gallipoli to its first major battle on the Western Front in October 1916. Similarly, Christopher Pugsley provides a sound study of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force from its raising in August 1914, through its trials on Gallipoli and its introduction to the Western Front during 1916, while Patrick Walters's pragmatic analysis of the AIF during the same period is a refreshing piece that offers a counter balance to the Anzackery trotted out by several of Australian pseudo-historians and the media.

 

The remainder present an eclectic range of essays on subjects that cover the broad spectrum of the war, with some merely touching on Gallipoli, and few offering any real comparison - the best of which is Mark Connelly's captivating and informative appraisal of the use and influence of films on differing Great War stories, both during and after the war into the 1930's. Others deliver a narrative of a particular issue traversing their development from 1915 onwards, or following the journey of particular units, yet their topics are not well known and thus add to our knowledge of the matters that are related. These include Damien Finlayson's story of Australian tunnelling operations from Gallipoli and across the Western Front to 1918; with Andrea McKenzie's delivering a similar approach to Canadian nurses. The remaining two essays address the contribution of the Irish, while the other, although purporting to compare infantry divisions in 1915 and 1918, actually provides snapshots of senior officers who served both at Gallipoli and on the Western Front.

 

Despite this volume not being devoted entirely to a comparison between the two theatres of war, the wide range of subjects presented ensures there is something for everyone depending on their particular interests, or those who are keen to learn about widely different facets of the war. A few offer old wine in new labels, where those familiar with the subject will find little new, except, perhaps, for a differing perspective, while others present fresh insights into subjects that are rarely discussed or written about, and hence open a new window of knowledge into the multifarious nature of the Great War.  With the authors ranging from academically trained to amateur historians and battlefield guides the quality of essays is variable from excellent to adequate, or overly detailed. Most suffer a little from a lack of editing, shown through typographical errors and the same words or phrases following one after the other, which ought to have been picked up by an even a casual editor. Nonetheless, this is a volume worth reading, and its contents materially add to our knowledge of various features of the war, and differences between the main effort on the Western Front and the forces at Gallipoli, which had to fight with what they had.

Edited 4 September , 2018 by Crunchy

[Steven Broomfield]

I suspect editing is a lost art and, dare I say it, Helion are as guilty as the rest.

[Gareth Davies]

As is the author of the OP - I am pretty sure that it's a bad penny, not a badge penny.  Anyone know where the duty petard is?

[josquin]

Your review identifies this collaborative volume as a workmanlike effort, albeit  the misleading title and its promise of

of a consistent and comprehensive comparison.  As for editing, it seems more a luxury now than a standard

practice or an expectation. The strength of the book, as you say, is its collection of essays addressing topics

that have been seldom addressed over the past century and have value as points of departure for future research.

Josquin

[Crunchy]

Absolutely correct Gareth. Thank you for pointing it out. Poor editing fixed.

 

Cheers

Chris

Edited 4 September , 2018 by Crunchy

[David Filsell]

Good review of the book by Peter Hart in the recent copy of the WFA Bulletin

[squirrel]

1 hour ago, David Filsell said:

Good review of the book by Peter Hart in the recent copy of the WFA Bulletin

And the only book review in the magazine...

[Steven Broomfield]

Don't reviews usually go into Stand To!?

[squirrel]

Possibly an advertisement? Unusual for the reviewer to state that they had no financial interest in the book in a review...

Edited 4 September , 2018 by squirrel

[David Filsell]

Reviews do go in the Stand To. Not sure how it got into the Bulletin at all. Perhaps my words were ill chosen as WFA Reviews Editor it never came past me. The article is effectively an 'advertorial', commenting on the book and offering a discount on to WFA members. While I think it raises some questions which I will be following up, it must be stated that Pete has always been a straight shooter. He writes in his copy:

"At the first I should declare that I authored one of the pieces, although I received no remuneration for it nor do I have an ongoing financial interest in its success or otherwise."

He the highlights  authors whose pieces he judged "admirable",  "enjoyable" and "a surprise to me".

No harm, no foul here I feel.