Guest Hussar Posted 20 September , 2003 Share Posted 20 September , 2003 Billed as 'An Accidental Historian Walks The Trenches Of World War I' This is an awful book and I'm sorry to have wasted my time and money on it! The Author is a Canadian Journalist of Irish origin who lives and works in Paris and appears to have a strong antipathy to Great Britain. The whole book is full of digs and jibes at Britain, the British Army, Haig etc. He describes the British Monuments and Cemeteries as "..an extravagent peacetime riposte to the stupendous profligacy with which those in command had wasted lives..." in another glib swipe he states " wherever there are large stone felines, I've noticed, there is usually a British embarrassment." and later, of the Menin Gate "..all the suffering had to be made legitimate so that those in power would not be blamed. Thus was born the modern war memorial.....at Ypres, the British invented the 20th Century response to war. By commissioning a stone ledger of the lost, the state, through it's very punctiliousness, can be absolved." Various parts are written to give the impression that the rotten British made all their poor Commonwealth slaves do all the fighting for them along with the French Colonials. Apart from at Langemarcke where the brutal British slaughtered all the poor German innocents. Of course, everything the Canadians were forced to do they did stupendously and all the Canadian Memorials are " a showpiece of Canadian Nationalism". Oh, and people like us don't escape either, being described variously as people with a ".. geek passion for guts and guns... fetishism about medals and stripes...furtive erection at the sight of fighter aircraft..hand-over-heart hypocrisy at monuments to massacres...voyeurism disguised as compassion...wooden-headed fellowship of war buffs!" Switches RANT to OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bill Posted 20 September , 2003 Share Posted 20 September , 2003 I read this pile of merde too and was as miffed as yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 21 September , 2003 Share Posted 21 September , 2003 In my time I've met a Historian or two and I think I know what a Revisionist Historian is I even know some people who think of themselves as Amateur Historians But what the h**l's an Accidental Historian? Most accidents are best avoided, does that go for this one too? Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hussar Posted 21 September , 2003 Share Posted 21 September , 2003 Most Definitely!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 21 September , 2003 Share Posted 21 September , 2003 Hussar I was fortunate to be lent a copy, if that is the right word. Normally, I give most books a chance but this one I gave up on after a short while. After a decent amount of time I handed it back with a smile and a thank you. If I remember rightly, the author said "history is too important to be left to the professionals." In this case we should be grateful it is. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hussar Posted 21 September , 2003 Share Posted 21 September , 2003 Terry, You are spot on with your quote. I was also ready to ditch it after a couple of chapters, but felt, in the interests of fairness, I had to drag it out to the bitter end to give him his chance!! One statement from the synopsis is, at least, 100% correct...... "..Back to the Front will resonate, for all who read it, as few other books on war ever have." They got that right! But the resonation is just one big RASPBERRY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 22 September , 2003 Share Posted 22 September , 2003 All of what you have said is true but he has some really funny observations too. He did walk the entire front and has some insightful things to say about the places and people he sees. His comments on military things are a joke but you can get this for next to nothing now and I reccomend you read it and skip the nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 5 February , 2004 Share Posted 5 February , 2004 All... I have to admit I read the book several years ago and had the exact same response. However I then visited the western front and saw the book totally different. Of course some of O'Shea's opinions are interesting to say the least, but in a strange way I understood more of what he had to saw regarding our memory of the war. Plus only after making my trip could I agree with his quote, "The restaurant in my hotel (in Albert) proved that it is possible to eat poorly in France." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 5 February , 2004 Share Posted 5 February , 2004 In my time I've met a Historian or two and I think I know what a Revisionist Historian is I even know some people who think of themselves as Amateur Historians But what the h**l's an Accidental Historian? Most accidents are best avoided, does that go for this one too? Michael D.R. First, I have not read the book, and, after reading everyone's comments, it wouldn't help my bloodpressure or outlook ... However, the concept of an accidental historian is quite interesting. Obviously, it could be a literary device ... the character finds him/herself in a place and must find the underlying history ... One of the real pieces here is the idea of history should not be left to the historians ... being a morph of the quote "War is too important to be left to the Soldiers" But, here, I believe there is SOME truth. My exposure to Professional Historians has several negative aspects. Many get wrapped up in their own footnotes ... the profession is SO competitive and ego stricken, the battle about punctuation can destroy careers, etc. Orthodoxy is one of the main tenets of the profession so the "Grand Men and Women" of the endowed chairs and fat publishing contracts ... the Grand Viser of those get TV consulting ... etc ... often the idea of telling a story or THE story gets lost in the profession ... THEN of course, there are the young turks, the hyenas snapping at the heels of the Grand Men / Women who need to publish contreversy so they can get noticed, etc ... and it goes on and on ... All the above is to say that one might not have to go through the rite of passage known as Comprehensive Hell and Oral Beheading to get the Piled Higher and Deeper to research and tell a good story, portraying the past ... How accurate is accurate? If the picture is fuzzy, must we leave it so, if the image won't be seen? But understand these are the ravings of one with a ABD who will never make the next rung ... and one who personally felt the slap of a Grand Man's hand. Twist my arm and I'll tell you about it ... 30 years ago ... herrumphhhhh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyOfficer Posted 7 February , 2004 Share Posted 7 February , 2004 I own the book and have actually read it many times. I both like and hate it. I like the fact that at least we have a guy who is interested enough in the first world war to actually study; to learn and most significantly to walk the ground. While I hate his "conclusions" I do admire the fact that he actually did the research and walked the ground. I also like reading it as a travelogue; its one of the very few books that describes such a trip...vicarious travel for me. I don't like his conclusions, but they are his to make when he describes what WWI means to HIM. These are personal and right or wrong are valid for him. What I take offense to the fact that he presumes the feelings/opinions of those who fought. Who knows what the individual soldier felt and it is absolutely abhorrent to me to have anyone presume to question a combat soldier's motivation, opinions or contributions. I would tell Mr. O'Shea to speak for himself but NOT for those who cannot speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastermindmichel Posted 7 August , 2007 Share Posted 7 August , 2007 I quite enjoyed reading this book, having just finished it. Yes, Mr. O'Shea has very strong views on war -particularly this war-, on the way a war is fought, and on the people in charge of war (officers and politicians), but I like people with strong views... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joerookery Posted 8 August , 2007 Share Posted 8 August , 2007 I enjoyed it a great deal. It is an interesting tool to use as consideration for critical thinking. Different approach -- different conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBI Posted 8 August , 2007 Share Posted 8 August , 2007 I would say to anyone about to read this Book..DONT... the reasons are listed by previous Posters.I found "The War Walk" By Nigel H. Jones a far more Informative and enjoyable Read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Posted 8 August , 2007 Share Posted 8 August , 2007 My copy went in the bin, the only WW1 book out of the hundreds I've read that has suffered that fate. Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now