Just finished reading the most fascinating and illuminating book on WWI that I have ever read. "The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I" by John Mosier.
It completely altered my view of the War and how it has been presented.
Check it out.
World War I Book
Moderator: SeanD
RE: World War I Book
So whats so special about it? I've read some stuff, but I'm always in for another good read.
RE: World War I Book
I went over to Amazon to check it out. Some interesting customer reviews as it looks like an attempt at revisionist history concerning the Allied strategic decisions during the war. Anyway, one can purchase it used for 5 bucks so I might pick it up.
-
Alan Sharif
- Posts: 1129
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: UK.
- Contact:
RE: World War I Book
I believe a lot of what this author states has been proven to be false but I am no expert. I have read the book, and found it interesting, but do not buy into his argument that the US won WW1.
A Sharif
RE: World War I Book
Mosier goes beyond the allied propaganda and uses sources from all sides that are unbiased. The continual and bloated casualty reports that the allies made regarding German casualties are completely debunked using German, French and English sources not just HQ claims... The sourcing for this book is one of the most copious I have ever seen. Mosier cites contemporary sources that were critical of Allied casualty claims including Churchill and several members of the French government. Mosier also brings to light the "huge" advantage in firepower the Germans enjoyed especially early in the war due to far superior artillery and to a lesser extent mortars, flamethrowers, grenades etc and also to tactical doctrine.
You can dismiss this book as revisionist nonsense if you like but I read this book with an open mind and was totally blown away by it. It is certainly written with a much more scholarly and fact backed approach than any other WWI book I have read.
You can dismiss this book as revisionist nonsense if you like but I read this book with an open mind and was totally blown away by it. It is certainly written with a much more scholarly and fact backed approach than any other WWI book I have read.
-
Alan Sharif
- Posts: 1129
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: UK.
- Contact:
RE: World War I Book
Like I said, I am no expert, it was an enjoyable book and I am sure some of what he says is correct. However, if you do a little digging around you will find many who can discredit much of what he says in ways which seemed pretty solid to me. This is by people equally scholarly to Mr Mosier. Keeping an open mind is indeed, most important, and any book that promts discussion on WW1 has to be good for something.
I believe he has also a book on WW2.
I believe he has also a book on WW2.
A Sharif
RE: World War I Book
Everyone I have seen that discredit Mosier's findings resort to backing their argument by siding with the Allied numbers quoting much larger German casualties than the German official records report. Where do those higher figures come from???? Allied field reports supplied by Allied High Command based on allied loses and supposition, not to mention political reasons. There is no factual backing for the exorbitant casualty claims that the allies made for German losses other than Haig and Nivelle and Joffre believed them to be so... I believe there is a saying about the victors writing the history, I believe it applies here. Mosier did an in depth study of the official records of Germany, France and England, he also did an exhaustive study of cemetaries and burial grounds all over france. I find it much more believable to side with official German records than the guesses of leaders like Haig, Joffre etc who had a lot of justifying to do to cover their butts. If there is any nation that is renowned for obsessive record keeping its the Germans. To me its a no brainer where the truth lies.
-
Alan Sharif
- Posts: 1129
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: UK.
- Contact:
RE: World War I Book
Hi Jestre. Here are some examples off the net of why you should treat this book with an open mind. These are a few of many many. All interesting points IMO.
Please remember these are not my words just examples of a wealth of counter arguements that are out there. I think he raises some valid points and his book has generated a lot of discussion. As you will see below some of it rather heated! In fact thanks to these posts I intend to dig it out and read it again as I remember it being a very good read[:)].
Mosier states that the Germans captured Ypres in 1914; Ypres was NEVER captured throughout the entire war.
Mosier considers that the battle of Amiens in August 1918 wasn't a 'real' victory for the BEF because the Germans were already withdrawing. Well actually no they weren't, that is why the Germans lost 450 guns and 27,000 men in a day and Ludendorff called it "a black day for the German Army". But these facts don't fit Mosier's theory that the BEF was totally inept so they are ignored
The major tenet of the book is that the American Army was much more effective than the French and British and destroyed the German one. The problem with this is that Mosier actually glosses over the events of 1918 and offers little to support his case. In fact in the last 4 months of the war the American army only took about 50,000 prisoners whilst the British and French took about 330,000. Does Mosier mention this? Of course not.
Mosier portrays the 1914 German retreat after the Battle of the Marne as a well thought out alternative plan. He criticises the French for the name they gave to the battle... The French really had no right to claim victory when they were on the verge of defeat until the Germans withdrew is the view taken by the author.
But withdraw they did. The Germans manoeuvred themselves into a dangerous position and the French took advantage of it. Joffre gave orders for all the Allied armies to turn and advance along that 200 km front. There was heavy fighting and each side suffered about 250,000 causalities.
Calling it the "Battle of the Marne" was geographical convenience, and it is trivial to complain about it. That he makes such points casts some doubt over the author's judgement of what is and what isn't important.
The unusual nature of the battle is no revelation, either. The British historian Basil Liddell Hart in his WWI history published in 1930 calls the relevant chapter "The battle that was not yet turned the tide". He says, "The controversy has at least served to show that the Marne was a psychological rather than a physical victory".
Mosier says there is no evidence that von Moltke suffered a mental collapse. On the contrary, there is ample evidence from numerous military colleagues close to von Moltke and from his wife.
[For a good recent account see "Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War" by Annika Mombauer.]
The idea that the winner is the side that loses the fewest soldiers is essential to Mosier's arguments. He makes the point at every opportunity sometimes with suspect figures. The figure given for British casualties at Passchendaele is the highest I have ever seen. He doesn't recognise that sides can win for other reasons; staying power, for example. How many Russian soldiers were lost to win their battle in WWII
Please remember these are not my words just examples of a wealth of counter arguements that are out there. I think he raises some valid points and his book has generated a lot of discussion. As you will see below some of it rather heated! In fact thanks to these posts I intend to dig it out and read it again as I remember it being a very good read[:)].
Mosier states that the Germans captured Ypres in 1914; Ypres was NEVER captured throughout the entire war.
Mosier considers that the battle of Amiens in August 1918 wasn't a 'real' victory for the BEF because the Germans were already withdrawing. Well actually no they weren't, that is why the Germans lost 450 guns and 27,000 men in a day and Ludendorff called it "a black day for the German Army". But these facts don't fit Mosier's theory that the BEF was totally inept so they are ignored
The major tenet of the book is that the American Army was much more effective than the French and British and destroyed the German one. The problem with this is that Mosier actually glosses over the events of 1918 and offers little to support his case. In fact in the last 4 months of the war the American army only took about 50,000 prisoners whilst the British and French took about 330,000. Does Mosier mention this? Of course not.
Mosier portrays the 1914 German retreat after the Battle of the Marne as a well thought out alternative plan. He criticises the French for the name they gave to the battle... The French really had no right to claim victory when they were on the verge of defeat until the Germans withdrew is the view taken by the author.
But withdraw they did. The Germans manoeuvred themselves into a dangerous position and the French took advantage of it. Joffre gave orders for all the Allied armies to turn and advance along that 200 km front. There was heavy fighting and each side suffered about 250,000 causalities.
Calling it the "Battle of the Marne" was geographical convenience, and it is trivial to complain about it. That he makes such points casts some doubt over the author's judgement of what is and what isn't important.
The unusual nature of the battle is no revelation, either. The British historian Basil Liddell Hart in his WWI history published in 1930 calls the relevant chapter "The battle that was not yet turned the tide". He says, "The controversy has at least served to show that the Marne was a psychological rather than a physical victory".
Mosier says there is no evidence that von Moltke suffered a mental collapse. On the contrary, there is ample evidence from numerous military colleagues close to von Moltke and from his wife.
[For a good recent account see "Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War" by Annika Mombauer.]
The idea that the winner is the side that loses the fewest soldiers is essential to Mosier's arguments. He makes the point at every opportunity sometimes with suspect figures. The figure given for British casualties at Passchendaele is the highest I have ever seen. He doesn't recognise that sides can win for other reasons; staying power, for example. How many Russian soldiers were lost to win their battle in WWII
A Sharif
-
wargamer123
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:05 am
RE: World War I Book
I do not know if I have read this book, I've officially only read 2 WW1 books. I think the one I read when I was in the 6th grade was sooooo old it was made in 1921 LOL
There are many points of view on many aspects of everything. One author may highlight his point of view and a valid one, but not the only nature-quality-aspect of a situation... While a battle involving hundreds of thousands of men, hundreds of guns stretching out over vast territories.....it can be ambigious to name casaulties, winners, anything really... Other than the morale based on those fighting, the countries involved and who actually has the ball after the game of catch is over....Even still, you never know whether or not that gives you distinct advantage. The Japanese won a Horrendous victory in WW2 over Pearl Harbour, and even more over the course of 12 months......so much no one could ever imagine that 3 little disaster at Midway would set them back the whole way.... That is that they could not replace those disasters
I think the same can be said for the Central Powers, they could fix xome of their mistakes, that economically they were doomed.. blockaded and shorter on manpower in the longrun. They had to win a bunch of early victories and their whole doctrine was was based on it. When it didn't happen they attempted to alter their plans, but it just never worked
WW2 is a mirror... After '41 into '42 game over
in WW1 a lot of opportunities but never cashed in, I had heard that the Germans were offered a treaty, they never Dealt though... Would've left them pretty much ahead of the game, was that in 1917
It is so hard to describe and make something useful of those dirty trenchwarfare battles, those bloody WW1 style massacres... Sort of like the Army of the North Virginia vs the Union...Constant back and forth, back and forth... until the Backend of the CSA was eaten while the head remained in tact almost until the end
There are many points of view on many aspects of everything. One author may highlight his point of view and a valid one, but not the only nature-quality-aspect of a situation... While a battle involving hundreds of thousands of men, hundreds of guns stretching out over vast territories.....it can be ambigious to name casaulties, winners, anything really... Other than the morale based on those fighting, the countries involved and who actually has the ball after the game of catch is over....Even still, you never know whether or not that gives you distinct advantage. The Japanese won a Horrendous victory in WW2 over Pearl Harbour, and even more over the course of 12 months......so much no one could ever imagine that 3 little disaster at Midway would set them back the whole way.... That is that they could not replace those disasters
I think the same can be said for the Central Powers, they could fix xome of their mistakes, that economically they were doomed.. blockaded and shorter on manpower in the longrun. They had to win a bunch of early victories and their whole doctrine was was based on it. When it didn't happen they attempted to alter their plans, but it just never worked
WW2 is a mirror... After '41 into '42 game over
in WW1 a lot of opportunities but never cashed in, I had heard that the Germans were offered a treaty, they never Dealt though... Would've left them pretty much ahead of the game, was that in 1917
It is so hard to describe and make something useful of those dirty trenchwarfare battles, those bloody WW1 style massacres... Sort of like the Army of the North Virginia vs the Union...Constant back and forth, back and forth... until the Backend of the CSA was eaten while the head remained in tact almost until the end
RE: World War I Book
Well I have not read the book Mosier so I will not comment on that.
But I have to general points I would like to make.
The myth about the battle of the Marne bears resemblance with the battle for Moscow in WW2 which was very decisive for the outcome of that war. The Soviet counteroffensive was not specifically planned from the beginning but was more an opportunity which was grasped by STAVKA in a very diffusing situation. Even today most German historians stick to the belief that it was the Russian winter which caused the devastating German defeat. Very conveniently the similarly harsh conditions for the Soviets are being disregarded and certainly the weather had serious influence on the German performance but the Soviet supply situation was no fun either and no matter how you put it - it was the red army which stopped the Wehrmacht and drove back the invaders.
My second point is about who the victor of WW1 was. That is indeed highly arguable and there are no clear cut answer except that there was many losers in that war. If I should toss in my 10 cent I would rather point on a peripheral nation like Japan which with a minimal commitment rose to a great power.
But I have to general points I would like to make.
The myth about the battle of the Marne bears resemblance with the battle for Moscow in WW2 which was very decisive for the outcome of that war. The Soviet counteroffensive was not specifically planned from the beginning but was more an opportunity which was grasped by STAVKA in a very diffusing situation. Even today most German historians stick to the belief that it was the Russian winter which caused the devastating German defeat. Very conveniently the similarly harsh conditions for the Soviets are being disregarded and certainly the weather had serious influence on the German performance but the Soviet supply situation was no fun either and no matter how you put it - it was the red army which stopped the Wehrmacht and drove back the invaders.
My second point is about who the victor of WW1 was. That is indeed highly arguable and there are no clear cut answer except that there was many losers in that war. If I should toss in my 10 cent I would rather point on a peripheral nation like Japan which with a minimal commitment rose to a great power.
Hit them where they aren't
RE: World War I Book
"Mosier states that the Germans captured Ypres in 1914"
No he didn't, he said that the British were forced back into a strip of Ypres and the city was reduced to rubble, he never said the Germans occupied the city.
"Mosier considers that the battle of Amiens in August 1918 wasn't a 'real' victory for the BEF because the Germans were already withdrawing. Well actually no they weren't, that is why the Germans lost 450 guns and 27,000 men in a day and Ludendorff called it "a black day for the German Army". But these facts don't fit Mosier's theory that the BEF was totally inept so they are ignored"
Mosier supports this statement by quoting Haig "The old Boche is learning the art and science of retiring, and with practice he will become perfect. I wish to goodness we had four or five thousand more tanks." August 1918
Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916. The Germans did not break down their losses per battle or front but their losses for all of 1918 were approx 300,000 dead or missing, British 345,000 France 340,000 American, Italian and Belgian losses brought the Allied total to approx 750,000 men killed or missing. These figures are from official sources from each nation, not from BEF or French High Command.
"In fact in the last 4 months of the war the American army only took about 50,000 prisoners whilst the British and French took about 330,000."
Where do these numbers come from????
"Mosier portrays the 1914 German retreat after the Battle of the Marne as a well thought out alternative plan. He criticises the French for the name they gave to the battle... The French really had no right to claim victory when they were on the verge of defeat until the Germans withdrew is the view taken by the author.
But withdraw they did. The Germans manoeuvred themselves into a dangerous position and the French took advantage of it. Joffre gave orders for all the Allied armies to turn and advance along that 200 km front. There was heavy fighting and each side suffered about 250,000 causalities.
Calling it the "Battle of the Marne" was geographical convenience, and it is trivial to complain about it. That he makes such points casts some doubt over the author's judgement of what is and what isn't important."
Read the book, Mosier makes a strong case that is too involved to cover here.
"The British historian Basil Liddell Hart in his WWI history published in 1930 calls the relevant chapter "The battle that was not yet turned the tide". He says, "The controversy has at least served to show that the Marne was a psychological rather than a physical victory".
Precisely Mosier's point, the Allies took every opportunity to paint a rosy propaganda picture and jumped on any appearance of victory. Hart and Churchill are not supporters of the Myth Mosier debunks and have come under much criticism for their views.
Please read the book and see for yourself, letting the internet make your mind up should have a warning label attached.
No he didn't, he said that the British were forced back into a strip of Ypres and the city was reduced to rubble, he never said the Germans occupied the city.
"Mosier considers that the battle of Amiens in August 1918 wasn't a 'real' victory for the BEF because the Germans were already withdrawing. Well actually no they weren't, that is why the Germans lost 450 guns and 27,000 men in a day and Ludendorff called it "a black day for the German Army". But these facts don't fit Mosier's theory that the BEF was totally inept so they are ignored"
Mosier supports this statement by quoting Haig "The old Boche is learning the art and science of retiring, and with practice he will become perfect. I wish to goodness we had four or five thousand more tanks." August 1918
Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916. The Germans did not break down their losses per battle or front but their losses for all of 1918 were approx 300,000 dead or missing, British 345,000 France 340,000 American, Italian and Belgian losses brought the Allied total to approx 750,000 men killed or missing. These figures are from official sources from each nation, not from BEF or French High Command.
"In fact in the last 4 months of the war the American army only took about 50,000 prisoners whilst the British and French took about 330,000."
Where do these numbers come from????
"Mosier portrays the 1914 German retreat after the Battle of the Marne as a well thought out alternative plan. He criticises the French for the name they gave to the battle... The French really had no right to claim victory when they were on the verge of defeat until the Germans withdrew is the view taken by the author.
But withdraw they did. The Germans manoeuvred themselves into a dangerous position and the French took advantage of it. Joffre gave orders for all the Allied armies to turn and advance along that 200 km front. There was heavy fighting and each side suffered about 250,000 causalities.
Calling it the "Battle of the Marne" was geographical convenience, and it is trivial to complain about it. That he makes such points casts some doubt over the author's judgement of what is and what isn't important."
Read the book, Mosier makes a strong case that is too involved to cover here.
"The British historian Basil Liddell Hart in his WWI history published in 1930 calls the relevant chapter "The battle that was not yet turned the tide". He says, "The controversy has at least served to show that the Marne was a psychological rather than a physical victory".
Precisely Mosier's point, the Allies took every opportunity to paint a rosy propaganda picture and jumped on any appearance of victory. Hart and Churchill are not supporters of the Myth Mosier debunks and have come under much criticism for their views.
Please read the book and see for yourself, letting the internet make your mind up should have a warning label attached.
-
SMK-at-work
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: New Zealand
RE: World War I Book
And yet here you are trying to make up everyones mind on the internet....[:D][:D]
Nebver mind that yuo say "make your own mind up" - your words clearly say what conclusions we should come to.
Reviewing criticism of a book by reference to the book itself as a source is bad technique. A good work should give sources and clearly explain how its concludsions were reached. If something is "too complicated to go into there" then it should immediately ring alarm bells IMO.
theres an interesting review of Mosier at http://www.loyno.edu/newsandcalendars/l ... osier.html - I have no problems with his conclusion that here was a vast propaganda effort, that minor gains were amplified and subsequernt losses hidden from the public...welcome to the world of propaganda - it is not news!
However it appears as if his abilities as a military historian are overstretched if he truly thinks that it is a mystery why the British and French stayed fighting in trenches while suffering "vastly more" casualties than the Germans. They did not.....they invented tanks, they surpassed German artillery technology by the end of 1916 and eventually their artillery was vastly more effective, and they ruled the air - ignoring such developements designed to berak teh trench stalemate shows the man is inadequate as a military historian IMO.
And finally....never believe everything you read - it applied to the written word long beore the 'net existed, and applies equally today.
Nebver mind that yuo say "make your own mind up" - your words clearly say what conclusions we should come to.
Reviewing criticism of a book by reference to the book itself as a source is bad technique. A good work should give sources and clearly explain how its concludsions were reached. If something is "too complicated to go into there" then it should immediately ring alarm bells IMO.
theres an interesting review of Mosier at http://www.loyno.edu/newsandcalendars/l ... osier.html - I have no problems with his conclusion that here was a vast propaganda effort, that minor gains were amplified and subsequernt losses hidden from the public...welcome to the world of propaganda - it is not news!
However it appears as if his abilities as a military historian are overstretched if he truly thinks that it is a mystery why the British and French stayed fighting in trenches while suffering "vastly more" casualties than the Germans. They did not.....they invented tanks, they surpassed German artillery technology by the end of 1916 and eventually their artillery was vastly more effective, and they ruled the air - ignoring such developements designed to berak teh trench stalemate shows the man is inadequate as a military historian IMO.
And finally....never believe everything you read - it applied to the written word long beore the 'net existed, and applies equally today.
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
RE: World War I Book
ORIGINAL: Jestre
The Germans did not break down their losses per battle or front but their losses for all of 1918 were approx 300,000 dead or missing, British 345,000 France 340,000 American, Italian and Belgian losses brought the Allied total to approx 750,000 men killed or missing. These figures are from official sources from each nation, not from BEF or French High Command.
Do you know what sources the German figures are based upon because I seriously have to challenge the German numbers ?
German army sources states considerably higher numbers which I think is reasonable when you take into account the 1918 Kaiser offensives "Michael", "Georgette", "Gneisenau" and "Blücher-Yorck" which was launched with the addition of 500.000 battle hardened troops from the eastern front. With the desperate German situation in mind I don't think it credible that during their 3 to 4 month offensives they lost "only" 300.000 casualties if you also have to take into account loses during the later allied offensives and actions on other fronts like Italy. I mean if that number is correct I find it hard to believe that Germany declined further offensive operations at a time when they in that case still had considerably higher manpower available in the west than the Entente ?
Hit them where they aren't
-
SMK-at-work
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: New Zealand
RE: World War I Book
[font=arial]FYI the book "[/font][font=arial]Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1920[/font]" is available as a single HUGE pdf (85 mb!!) at http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/britishwwi.html .
It is not credible to say there was some kind of cover-up in this work - as has been pointed out Churchill was a historian of WW1, and had no interest in perpetuating any myth. the figures may have been changed since it was published due to new information, but it remains probably the most complete work on casualties in WW1 AFAIK
It is not credible to say there was some kind of cover-up in this work - as has been pointed out Churchill was a historian of WW1, and had no interest in perpetuating any myth. the figures may have been changed since it was published due to new information, but it remains probably the most complete work on casualties in WW1 AFAIK
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
RE: World War I Book
These losses are killed and missing not wounded. All figures I used were kia and mia not wounded. Sources for German losses Mosier used were the Sanitatsbericht uber das deutsche Heer im Weltkrieg 1914/18.
RE: World War I Book
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
And yet here you are trying to make up everyones mind on the internet....[:D][:D]
Nebver mind that yuo say "make your own mind up" - your words clearly say what conclusions we should come to.
Reviewing criticism of a book by reference to the book itself as a source is bad technique. A good work should give sources and clearly explain how its concludsions were reached. If something is "too complicated to go into there" then it should immediately ring alarm bells IMO.
theres an interesting review of Mosier at http://www.loyno.edu/newsandcalendars/l ... osier.html - I have no problems with his conclusion that here was a vast propaganda effort, that minor gains were amplified and subsequernt losses hidden from the public...welcome to the world of propaganda - it is not news!
However it appears as if his abilities as a military historian are overstretched if he truly thinks that it is a mystery why the British and French stayed fighting in trenches while suffering "vastly more" casualties than the Germans. They did not.....they invented tanks, they surpassed German artillery technology by the end of 1916 and eventually their artillery was vastly more effective, and they ruled the air - ignoring such developements designed to berak teh trench stalemate shows the man is inadequate as a military historian IMO.
And finally....never believe everything you read - it applied to the written word long beore the 'net existed, and applies equally today.
Every one of my posts were based on urging one to read the book and make up ones own mind. I also stressed the mounds of official documentation used by Mosier. Your post merely perpetuates the "accepted view" viewpoint. In effect you are dismissing any dissenting view without reading and making up your own mind... and advising others to do the same.
As a matter of fact my original post did nothing more than advise interested people to read the book, my "opinions" analysis came on the request, criticisms of others. I am not trying to change anyones opinion...merely recommending a book that I found fascinating and illuminating.
-
SMK-at-work
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: New Zealand
RE: World War I Book
I criticised him for obvious gaps in his historography, and you ahve attacked me for doing so.
Are you saying that he is above criticism?
Moreover some of the stuffy you said is pure bunk - there is nothing in modern works that vastly overinflates German casualties AFAIK - they may have done so at het time, but modern works pretty much all agree that, for example, the allies lost more troops on the Western Front than Germany did. This is often said to be becaue teh allies were,overall, doing most of the attacking.
I know of no work that claims otherwise.
What's tehactual problem there? That casualties weer overstated DURING WW1? Well whoppe do...that's no surprise either. It's called proapaanda. Germany did it too - for example claiming that the u-boats weer starving the UK just as the blockade was starving Germany.
We know better now. we have known better for a long time. these "mythbusting claims" are not new.
Are you saying that he is above criticism?
Moreover some of the stuffy you said is pure bunk - there is nothing in modern works that vastly overinflates German casualties AFAIK - they may have done so at het time, but modern works pretty much all agree that, for example, the allies lost more troops on the Western Front than Germany did. This is often said to be becaue teh allies were,overall, doing most of the attacking.
I know of no work that claims otherwise.
What's tehactual problem there? That casualties weer overstated DURING WW1? Well whoppe do...that's no surprise either. It's called proapaanda. Germany did it too - for example claiming that the u-boats weer starving the UK just as the blockade was starving Germany.
We know better now. we have known better for a long time. these "mythbusting claims" are not new.
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
RE: World War I Book
I havent attacked you or anyone for anything. I merely stated my opinion of the book and the conclusions I came too... I would also bet that you havent read the book and would never read any book that disagrees with your current views of the war.
-
SMK-at-work
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: New Zealand
RE: World War I Book
Your post merely perpetuates the "accepted view" viewpoint
you are quite forgetful.
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
RE: World War I Book
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Your post merely perpetuates the "accepted view" viewpoint
you are quite forgetful.
That is an attack on you????? Jeez give me a break. That is an observation of your post and your position. Grow up. Your original post is full of these kinds of "attacks" on me... but I guess it only works one way in your world.