For a book on the Seventeenth Century, I thought it ended rather early... What happened to the last twelve years? What happened to the Glorious Revolution? Surely it would make more sense to have it in a book on the seventeenth century, so that you can get a sense of where it came from, rather than a book on the eigtheenth (I presume it does make it into the one in the series on the eighteenth century, but I haven't read it so I can't say). That apart, I did think this was really good.
Unlike the one on the sixteenth century in the same Oxford Short History of Britain series, it gave a pretty good sense of chronology. There were several chapters on the political 'story' as it were, explaining the early Stuarts, Civil War, Interregnum, and finishing up with the latter Stuarts. James II was barely covered, possibly he gets more space in the next one in the series.
It's a series of essays, rather than a single text, which I think works really well in this book. The one on culture was particularly interesting, as it made only passing reference to Shakespeare and instead focussed on other elements and writers, and paid particular attention to the development of theatre from the Court Masque.
I was surprised at how good a sense of chronology there was, and it managed to be clear about the various rulers. The Interregnum wasn't perhaps covered as well as it might have been, but it's hard to criticise when those twenty years were so confusing it must be incredibly difficult to structure them in a coherent manner. What else? Well, aside from a rather disappointing end (seriously, I really want to know about the Glorious Revolution, when can I do it?!) it was really good. Certainly, it proved readable and engrossing, as well as being clear. I really am turning into an early modernist though... Never mind. I'm sure it's curable. If not, well, I'll have to add portraits of Cromwell and Charles I to my noticeboards along with all the aeroplane posters...
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Tudor England
This is the one by John Guy, just so you know :) (I imagine there are a fair few out there with the same/similar title).
It started off a lot better than it finished. The Tudor Kings were discussed really well, there was a clear layout to the structure (mostly political, followed by mostly religious). Where it fell down was when it reached Mary and Elizabeth. Mary because she was skimmed over in what I thought was far too brief an analysis (okay, so she didn't reign for long, but she should still get something of a mention!). And then probably half the book focussed upon Elizabeth. Unfortunately, this disproportionate (or at least, what felt as I was reading rather disproportionate) focus didn't lead to greater clarity. The latter part of Elizabeth's reign was divorced from the beginning with some rather muddled chapters on culture and religion and social stuff. Maybe it was to avoid the charge that he'd just lumped all the 'unimportant extra bits' on at the end. I hasten to add that I am not implying that social, economic, or any other bits of history are unimportant. Just that the book said in the intro it was going to focus on politics, I was hoping for a book that focussed on politics, and that is what I mostly got. After the narrative had been hopelessly interrupted, became more than a little confused, and the Spanish Armada had been briefly dealt with.
If you want to know about the Tudors up til Edward VI, then it's great. Really well written, really interesting. Unless you already know a reasonable amount of the chronology and fancy untangling a rather awkward mess, avoid the stuff on Elizabeth. It's not worth the confusion.
It started off a lot better than it finished. The Tudor Kings were discussed really well, there was a clear layout to the structure (mostly political, followed by mostly religious). Where it fell down was when it reached Mary and Elizabeth. Mary because she was skimmed over in what I thought was far too brief an analysis (okay, so she didn't reign for long, but she should still get something of a mention!). And then probably half the book focussed upon Elizabeth. Unfortunately, this disproportionate (or at least, what felt as I was reading rather disproportionate) focus didn't lead to greater clarity. The latter part of Elizabeth's reign was divorced from the beginning with some rather muddled chapters on culture and religion and social stuff. Maybe it was to avoid the charge that he'd just lumped all the 'unimportant extra bits' on at the end. I hasten to add that I am not implying that social, economic, or any other bits of history are unimportant. Just that the book said in the intro it was going to focus on politics, I was hoping for a book that focussed on politics, and that is what I mostly got. After the narrative had been hopelessly interrupted, became more than a little confused, and the Spanish Armada had been briefly dealt with.
If you want to know about the Tudors up til Edward VI, then it's great. Really well written, really interesting. Unless you already know a reasonable amount of the chronology and fancy untangling a rather awkward mess, avoid the stuff on Elizabeth. It's not worth the confusion.
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Imagined Communities
I thought I should probably read this, seeing as the people leading my History of Collecting seminar group always seem to be going on about it. And it was interesting, and mostly well-written. It was just quite pompous in parts, and there were occasions when it felt like the author had been ordered to liven up his text a little, and had complied by throwing in the odd exclamation mark where it wasn't really needed.
That said, I thought the link between 'print capitalism' (yeh, does that give you the idea of how the thing was staged) and nationalism was well documented and explored. And the point that it's something we blame for things but don't often look at in any great depth is also a good one.
One other stylistic point that really, really annoyed me. I've gone to great length to learn how to do footnotes properly (footnotes and I had a long battle during my first term, a battle which was decisively solved in my favour when I discovered that most supervisors don't insist upon them), and got told off for putting in discursive footnotes. I complained that I was just copying what I'd seen done by other authors, which didn't really hold weight, and was told that footnotes are not the place to bung in additional information that kinda supports your argument. Be that as it may, Benedict Anderson was using them as though he got a bonus point for every footnote. I wonder why the blogger spelling checker doesn't like the word footnote, or at least, doesn't like it in some circumstances but is quite happy with it in others... Sorry, random aside :)
Right, well, aside from being somewhat pompous in parts and having these terrible discursive footnotes that we history students must not in any circumstances allow ourselves to use, (oh for goodness sake, what's wrong with ourselves?!) it's actually pretty interesting. And I guess it's one of those books that you bandy about to make the point that you are learned and all those wonderful things (now it's going after things, seriously, I think the blogger spellchecker machine has issues... just going to turn it off, there, obtrusive yellow highlighting which has enabled me to double the length of this otherwise rather humdrum review has been vanquished). I'm not sounding very positive, am I? I actually enjoyed the book, though was irritated by the number of words I didn't know. I do have a pretty reasonable vocabulary, and there wasn't a convenient dictionary while I was reading. Meh. Also, some of the illustrations used assumed knowledge I didn't have, and there was an assumed knowledge of language (one rather long paragraph in French had the attached footnote that the translation suchabody had done was unsatisfactory, without giving any sense of what the French bit actually said... My French was just about good enough to figure what it was probably saying, but it was irritating).
The way he studied the growth of nationalism was interesting, the reasons given for its arrival in the New World before the old convincing. It's quite an interesting book, and it's probably worth reading. I read it in two days, so it was certainly an interesting one. I still have Fritz Fischer's War of Illusions staring at me menacingly from under my desk with a bookmark maybe a quarter of the way through, and it's been there maybe two, three weeks. It's not a perfect book (is there such a thing?), but it's interesting.
That said, I thought the link between 'print capitalism' (yeh, does that give you the idea of how the thing was staged) and nationalism was well documented and explored. And the point that it's something we blame for things but don't often look at in any great depth is also a good one.
One other stylistic point that really, really annoyed me. I've gone to great length to learn how to do footnotes properly (footnotes and I had a long battle during my first term, a battle which was decisively solved in my favour when I discovered that most supervisors don't insist upon them), and got told off for putting in discursive footnotes. I complained that I was just copying what I'd seen done by other authors, which didn't really hold weight, and was told that footnotes are not the place to bung in additional information that kinda supports your argument. Be that as it may, Benedict Anderson was using them as though he got a bonus point for every footnote. I wonder why the blogger spelling checker doesn't like the word footnote, or at least, doesn't like it in some circumstances but is quite happy with it in others... Sorry, random aside :)
Right, well, aside from being somewhat pompous in parts and having these terrible discursive footnotes that we history students must not in any circumstances allow ourselves to use, (oh for goodness sake, what's wrong with ourselves?!) it's actually pretty interesting. And I guess it's one of those books that you bandy about to make the point that you are learned and all those wonderful things (now it's going after things, seriously, I think the blogger spellchecker machine has issues... just going to turn it off, there, obtrusive yellow highlighting which has enabled me to double the length of this otherwise rather humdrum review has been vanquished). I'm not sounding very positive, am I? I actually enjoyed the book, though was irritated by the number of words I didn't know. I do have a pretty reasonable vocabulary, and there wasn't a convenient dictionary while I was reading. Meh. Also, some of the illustrations used assumed knowledge I didn't have, and there was an assumed knowledge of language (one rather long paragraph in French had the attached footnote that the translation suchabody had done was unsatisfactory, without giving any sense of what the French bit actually said... My French was just about good enough to figure what it was probably saying, but it was irritating).
The way he studied the growth of nationalism was interesting, the reasons given for its arrival in the New World before the old convincing. It's quite an interesting book, and it's probably worth reading. I read it in two days, so it was certainly an interesting one. I still have Fritz Fischer's War of Illusions staring at me menacingly from under my desk with a bookmark maybe a quarter of the way through, and it's been there maybe two, three weeks. It's not a perfect book (is there such a thing?), but it's interesting.
Friday, 8 April 2011
The Sixteenth Century
On the basis that there might be a couple called this, it's a collection of essays by various people but the name on the front/spine is Patrick Collinson. Actually, if I'm being really exact, it's just Collinson. Because we historians clearly don't do such vulgar things as putting our names, let alone nicknames, on the title page of a book. (Can I count myself as a historian yet? I'm studying... reading... it, and I do try to pick up the attributes of a historian while I write, but apparently my essays are littered with colloquialisms and end up far too vivid in parts.) Anyway. Long introduction cut short, The Sixteenth Century, compiled/edited by Patrick Collinson.
As I said at the start, it's a collection of essays, which cover social, political, constitutional etc history. Not desparately integrated, but at least it's better than those surveys of social history 1500-1750 or whatever intermediate dates they pick that don't given any idea that there was a Civil War right slap bang in the middle of that, combined with plenty of religious and other upheaval. Ah yes, there's a bit on religious history too.
Really enjoyed it, have to say. It was odd to read about the social history with the arbitrary, in terms of social history, cut of point of 1600. For social history, it seems to make more sense to use the Civil War as a cut off point, or simply to blather on about how nothing really changes and so it doesn't really need a cut off point. Okay, not quite, but you get the picture :) But in terms of political history, it makes sense to go with the 'long' sixteenth century--in other words, to cover the reign of the Tudors.
There wasn't really any overview of who was ruling when and what the differences were, which was a shame, because I only just feel like I've got them straight in my head. Henry VIII, Edward VI (think it was VI at any rate), then Mary, and finally Elizabeth. Please correct me if I'm wrong, preferably before I go back to uni and make a fool of myself getting them in the wrong order or with the wrong numbers. After Edward (he might have been V, come to think of it), there was James VI / I (sixth of Scotland, first of England), Charles I, the interregnum/commonwealth/whatever you want to call it, Charles II, James II, and then the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and William and Mary (dual monarchy, so you have to say both). I hope I have not just given you utterly incorrect information there!
I think the religious chapter in particular suffered because it pretty much skipped over Mary (as in Mary Tudor). Admittedly, she didn't rule that long, but I thought the changes in her reign were pretty dramatic and therefore probably worth giving more than a glancing reference too.
The book did, however, do a pretty good job of taking into account Scotland and Ireland, which was nice, as well as an interesting section on foreign policy. But I think the strongest chapter was probably the one on 'The Limits of Power', which was particularly good at looking at the way the Tudor monarchs actually exercised power and how far they were able to do so, and took into account the differences between different regions as well as looking a bit at Scotland and Ireland. Also, the chapter on the Renaissance was fascinating, thoroughly enjoyed reading about that. Especially about the mixing of culture and how Shakespeare was criticised for mingling tragedy and comedy, like many English playwrites.
It's a great introductory book, none too long, and generally fascinating. Sums things up nicely, and I particularly enjoyed the treatment of the social/economic side in the first chapter, which I thought was brilliant at summing up everything I learnt in my first term. Or at least, a good portion of it.
As I said at the start, it's a collection of essays, which cover social, political, constitutional etc history. Not desparately integrated, but at least it's better than those surveys of social history 1500-1750 or whatever intermediate dates they pick that don't given any idea that there was a Civil War right slap bang in the middle of that, combined with plenty of religious and other upheaval. Ah yes, there's a bit on religious history too.
Really enjoyed it, have to say. It was odd to read about the social history with the arbitrary, in terms of social history, cut of point of 1600. For social history, it seems to make more sense to use the Civil War as a cut off point, or simply to blather on about how nothing really changes and so it doesn't really need a cut off point. Okay, not quite, but you get the picture :) But in terms of political history, it makes sense to go with the 'long' sixteenth century--in other words, to cover the reign of the Tudors.
There wasn't really any overview of who was ruling when and what the differences were, which was a shame, because I only just feel like I've got them straight in my head. Henry VIII, Edward VI (think it was VI at any rate), then Mary, and finally Elizabeth. Please correct me if I'm wrong, preferably before I go back to uni and make a fool of myself getting them in the wrong order or with the wrong numbers. After Edward (he might have been V, come to think of it), there was James VI / I (sixth of Scotland, first of England), Charles I, the interregnum/commonwealth/whatever you want to call it, Charles II, James II, and then the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and William and Mary (dual monarchy, so you have to say both). I hope I have not just given you utterly incorrect information there!
I think the religious chapter in particular suffered because it pretty much skipped over Mary (as in Mary Tudor). Admittedly, she didn't rule that long, but I thought the changes in her reign were pretty dramatic and therefore probably worth giving more than a glancing reference too.
The book did, however, do a pretty good job of taking into account Scotland and Ireland, which was nice, as well as an interesting section on foreign policy. But I think the strongest chapter was probably the one on 'The Limits of Power', which was particularly good at looking at the way the Tudor monarchs actually exercised power and how far they were able to do so, and took into account the differences between different regions as well as looking a bit at Scotland and Ireland. Also, the chapter on the Renaissance was fascinating, thoroughly enjoyed reading about that. Especially about the mixing of culture and how Shakespeare was criticised for mingling tragedy and comedy, like many English playwrites.
It's a great introductory book, none too long, and generally fascinating. Sums things up nicely, and I particularly enjoyed the treatment of the social/economic side in the first chapter, which I thought was brilliant at summing up everything I learnt in my first term. Or at least, a good portion of it.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
The English Civil Wars, 1640-1660
Okay, so I'm behind (again...), and I make no promises about my ability to catch up with all the books I've read and not reviewed over the past few weeks, but I shall try. It seems that every term, life starts to get on top of me, I don't post for a while, and then it feels like such an effort to catch up that I decide I don't have time. Anyway. For now, here goes :)
On the basis that there are probably a fair few books out there entitled The English Civil Wars, this is the one by Blair Wordon. It's a good introduction to the topic. That, it makes plain in the introduction to the book, is its sole aim in life, so I suppose it succeeds. I thought a little bit more on the military side of things--the experience of those who fought in particular--would have been good. I mean, it says in the introduction that approximately 1 in 10 people probably fought, and that casualties were probably higher than those caused to Britain by the First World War, but it says very little about battlefield conditions. I accept that not much is known, but a little bit would've been nice.
It covers the whole period, from the causes (starting with the reign Charles I), right through to the Restoration and why there was a Restoration. So in that respect, it's not so much on the English Civil War as I expected. It's also distinctly English in its treatment of the topic--whilst acknowledging the influence of events in the rest of the country at various points, they are not the main focus or even much of a peripheral focus in this book.
However, those criticisms out the way (and here I add one other, more stylistic point: I thought the chapters were too long), it is a good introduction. So if you haven't got a clue what happened 1640-1660 and you want to know what Cromwell got up to, why England briefly had a republic, and why we decided that republics were a bad idea and we were better off with a monarch, this is a good book to start with. It's pretty well written, and the topic itself is (well, in my opinion at any rate) fascinating. Hopefully, if you enjoy this, you'd go on to read some more detailed studies of various aspects of the period, or even bigger books with a similar title (this one is 165 pages, pretty short for a history book you have to agree). And when you do read those bigger books, you won't find yourself utterly lost, as I, admittedly was with the whole of the early modern period until about half way through my first term when it all started to make a bit more sense and I realised that Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots were different people... Hey, I'd never studied the period before ever, I figure it's fair enough that I didn't realise things like that :)
So, in short, it's good as an introduction, and as that is all it makes a claim to be, I figure it fulfils its purpose in life pretty well.
On the basis that there are probably a fair few books out there entitled The English Civil Wars, this is the one by Blair Wordon. It's a good introduction to the topic. That, it makes plain in the introduction to the book, is its sole aim in life, so I suppose it succeeds. I thought a little bit more on the military side of things--the experience of those who fought in particular--would have been good. I mean, it says in the introduction that approximately 1 in 10 people probably fought, and that casualties were probably higher than those caused to Britain by the First World War, but it says very little about battlefield conditions. I accept that not much is known, but a little bit would've been nice.
It covers the whole period, from the causes (starting with the reign Charles I), right through to the Restoration and why there was a Restoration. So in that respect, it's not so much on the English Civil War as I expected. It's also distinctly English in its treatment of the topic--whilst acknowledging the influence of events in the rest of the country at various points, they are not the main focus or even much of a peripheral focus in this book.
However, those criticisms out the way (and here I add one other, more stylistic point: I thought the chapters were too long), it is a good introduction. So if you haven't got a clue what happened 1640-1660 and you want to know what Cromwell got up to, why England briefly had a republic, and why we decided that republics were a bad idea and we were better off with a monarch, this is a good book to start with. It's pretty well written, and the topic itself is (well, in my opinion at any rate) fascinating. Hopefully, if you enjoy this, you'd go on to read some more detailed studies of various aspects of the period, or even bigger books with a similar title (this one is 165 pages, pretty short for a history book you have to agree). And when you do read those bigger books, you won't find yourself utterly lost, as I, admittedly was with the whole of the early modern period until about half way through my first term when it all started to make a bit more sense and I realised that Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots were different people... Hey, I'd never studied the period before ever, I figure it's fair enough that I didn't realise things like that :)
So, in short, it's good as an introduction, and as that is all it makes a claim to be, I figure it fulfils its purpose in life pretty well.
Monday, 17 January 2011
The First Great Air War
I probably shouldn't be fussy, since books about First World War aviation aren't always that easy to find (unless you happen to be near Cambridge University Library, in which case a little digging unearths a reasonable number). However, this book wasn't all that great to be honest. There was a lot about the pilots, and it was, in effect, a conglomeration of stories about individual pilots. There was a lot said about how the observers and the gunners and the pilots of reconnaisance aircraft deserved more recognition, but not a lot about those individuals. Most of the people followed were fighter pilots, generally aces (and often the more famous, high-scoring aces).
The first few chapters were very good, with some interesting stories about the early days of the Royal Flying Corps. Tortoise races, anyone? (Fly in a wind speed higher than your aircraft's top speed. The person who gets blown backwards the furthest is the winner!). However, the balance of the book wasn't great. 1916 and 1917 got the lions share of the book, with only two short chapters on 1918, despite the fact that there was a lot of fighting in 1918 and it was most of the year before the armistice was signed. There was a definite bias towards the Western Front and the RFC, with a handful of German pilots, a few French and American, an even smaller handful of Italian pilots (and the pilots of the RFC who went to Italy), and pretty much nothing about the Eastern Front, or the Austrian side of the fighting in Italy. In fact, it could probably have been improved by explicitly focussing on just the Western Front, rather than giving the lives of two or three Italian pilots, with a focus primarily on one of them. There were a lot of comparisons to the Second World War, and I'm not convinced they really helped explain anything.
That said, some of the personal stories were interesting. The Red Baron was described as a rabid dog who should've been shot, and there was a big emphasis on the fact that the war in the air wasn't chivalrous, but was really rather nasty and that even if they were knights of the air, knights weren't very nice when they were in battle. Wasn't entirely convinced by the description of the Red Baron to be perfectly honest, but there you go. There were some very amusing tales of various things that went on in the air, and some more poignant ones.
On the whole, it was pretty mediocre. If it weren't for the fact that it's quite difficult to find books on this topic, I'd probably say don't bother. It doesn't say anything particularly special, and you can probably find the amusing stories in just about any account of WWI aviation--there were some rather bizarre occurrences. I also felt that it was overly critical of Trenchard and his tactics. If you have an interest in the topic, it's reasonable. If you're not desperately interested, don't bother.
(Just realised: I should probably tell you who the author is. It's the one by Richard Townsend Bickers, published 1988)
The first few chapters were very good, with some interesting stories about the early days of the Royal Flying Corps. Tortoise races, anyone? (Fly in a wind speed higher than your aircraft's top speed. The person who gets blown backwards the furthest is the winner!). However, the balance of the book wasn't great. 1916 and 1917 got the lions share of the book, with only two short chapters on 1918, despite the fact that there was a lot of fighting in 1918 and it was most of the year before the armistice was signed. There was a definite bias towards the Western Front and the RFC, with a handful of German pilots, a few French and American, an even smaller handful of Italian pilots (and the pilots of the RFC who went to Italy), and pretty much nothing about the Eastern Front, or the Austrian side of the fighting in Italy. In fact, it could probably have been improved by explicitly focussing on just the Western Front, rather than giving the lives of two or three Italian pilots, with a focus primarily on one of them. There were a lot of comparisons to the Second World War, and I'm not convinced they really helped explain anything.
That said, some of the personal stories were interesting. The Red Baron was described as a rabid dog who should've been shot, and there was a big emphasis on the fact that the war in the air wasn't chivalrous, but was really rather nasty and that even if they were knights of the air, knights weren't very nice when they were in battle. Wasn't entirely convinced by the description of the Red Baron to be perfectly honest, but there you go. There were some very amusing tales of various things that went on in the air, and some more poignant ones.
On the whole, it was pretty mediocre. If it weren't for the fact that it's quite difficult to find books on this topic, I'd probably say don't bother. It doesn't say anything particularly special, and you can probably find the amusing stories in just about any account of WWI aviation--there were some rather bizarre occurrences. I also felt that it was overly critical of Trenchard and his tactics. If you have an interest in the topic, it's reasonable. If you're not desperately interested, don't bother.
(Just realised: I should probably tell you who the author is. It's the one by Richard Townsend Bickers, published 1988)
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Up til, say, twenty years ago, if you'd heard of one historian, one history book, it would probably have been Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Written over 200 years ago, it's remained pertinent to the topic it covers, and while aspects are superseded by modern research, apparently (I can't vouch for this personally--I've read books on the book) it remains influential. And nobody's managed to produce a newer work of comparable length and breadth.
The first thing is: this is not a book I have read from cover to cover. Indeed, I haven't even read the abridged version from cover to cover--I imagine it would take about a year to get through the whole thing. It's enormous! One of those big, square books that you could quite happily use as a doorstop, or to make yourself look impressive. It covers about 1,500 years of history, dancing about across the provinces, taking in primarily political/military history but encompassing high culture, manners, society, social structure, law, and any number of other things that Gibbon felt pertinent to his wide-ranging organising principle of how the Roman Empire came to an end.
Despite being rather outdated in years, and in some places in content, it's surprisingly readable. If only I could have carried it around with me, and it didn't take a great effort to simply pick it up to read, I probably would have read significantly more. There are these brilliant footnotes scattered about through the text which are cynical, witty, or just amusingly acerbic. The text itself offers all the drama you might expect from court intrigues, military takeovers, and a memorable passage upon the girraffe (a gentle and useless animal, which has been described but not delineated), alongside occaisional steps back from the world of day to day happenings and a more detailed analysis of some aspect of society.
Despite its age then, this remains a classic historical work. Actually, it's probably a classic because of its age--when it first came out it was a bestseller. I'm going to horrify scholarly folk with my essay on it by comparing it to, say, Stephan Ambrose, or some other 'populist' historian. Maybe Max Hastings is a better comparison... Hmm. Does anyone else love those books?
Anyway. If you've a lot of time, it's worth reading this book. If you've a little, somebody must surely have published a 'selected exciting bits of Edward Gibbon'. Surely.
The first thing is: this is not a book I have read from cover to cover. Indeed, I haven't even read the abridged version from cover to cover--I imagine it would take about a year to get through the whole thing. It's enormous! One of those big, square books that you could quite happily use as a doorstop, or to make yourself look impressive. It covers about 1,500 years of history, dancing about across the provinces, taking in primarily political/military history but encompassing high culture, manners, society, social structure, law, and any number of other things that Gibbon felt pertinent to his wide-ranging organising principle of how the Roman Empire came to an end.
Despite being rather outdated in years, and in some places in content, it's surprisingly readable. If only I could have carried it around with me, and it didn't take a great effort to simply pick it up to read, I probably would have read significantly more. There are these brilliant footnotes scattered about through the text which are cynical, witty, or just amusingly acerbic. The text itself offers all the drama you might expect from court intrigues, military takeovers, and a memorable passage upon the girraffe (a gentle and useless animal, which has been described but not delineated), alongside occaisional steps back from the world of day to day happenings and a more detailed analysis of some aspect of society.
Despite its age then, this remains a classic historical work. Actually, it's probably a classic because of its age--when it first came out it was a bestseller. I'm going to horrify scholarly folk with my essay on it by comparing it to, say, Stephan Ambrose, or some other 'populist' historian. Maybe Max Hastings is a better comparison... Hmm. Does anyone else love those books?
Anyway. If you've a lot of time, it's worth reading this book. If you've a little, somebody must surely have published a 'selected exciting bits of Edward Gibbon'. Surely.
Monday, 3 January 2011
The Pursuit of History (Third Edition)
I'd like to write that this was a load of tosh, purely because of the author's name, but in fairness to the book, I really can't. It was wonderfully interesting, and I read much of it whilst on lunch breaks at M&S, which proved a wonderful antidote to the crippling lack of anything interesting or intellectually challenging that stacking shelves offers.
I'm actually quite getting into this whole historiography thing, really starting to enjoy looking at the practice of history and how it should be done and shouldn't be done and so forth. I also feel like I'm starting to be in a position where I can start drawing my own conclusions. Despite what I initially thought, it seems that the point of historiography isn't just to lambast those historians you happened to have a falling out with at high school. In fact, Tosh doesn't have a go at anyone, and even points out the odd merit or two of psychohistory, which seems to be generally given short shrift (although he does go on to point out that it has its own unique set of weaknesses and runs huge risks of inferring waaaaay too much).
The section on oral history was interesting, postmodernism taken into account and explained without being resoundingly attacked as in Evans' book. In fact, while I initially worried there might be issues in terms of him referring to 'modern' trends in history which were modern thirty odd years back when the book was first written, the last few chapters make it clear that it really has been updated.
I particularly, though, enjoyed one of the first chapters, which looked at social memory and how society perceives history as opposed to how historians say it really happened. This theme was then picked up again in the section on oral history, making hte point that why people perceive things as having happened in a certain way when analysis suggests that they really didn't happen like that, is as interesting as the event in itself. Why is the Battle of Britain in popular culture a David v Goliath contest, when the numbers of fighters were actually pretty similar and many recent historians have challenged whether it was even that close a thing as to whether we were gonna win? Why does nobody remember instances of panic during the Blitz, instead subsuming it all into the wider Blitz spirit? Tosh argues that social memory serves a specific function, legitimating current rulers and practices, as well as offering 'guidance'. While no two instances in history are identical, he argues that history does offer suggestions of alternatives where we perceive no alternatives.
A very interesting book, not too theory-ridden, though it explains all the major theories well and assesses the impact and reasons for Marxist theories popularity amongst many historians. I was also quite chuffed to feel that I knew the majority of the historians he referred to from my first term at Cambridge and other reading :) Thoroughly enjoyed it, though it's not a book you can really read all in one go... Needs spreading out, and the chapter divisions do this well enough. One or two chapters at once is probably more than enough to digest at once.
I'm actually quite getting into this whole historiography thing, really starting to enjoy looking at the practice of history and how it should be done and shouldn't be done and so forth. I also feel like I'm starting to be in a position where I can start drawing my own conclusions. Despite what I initially thought, it seems that the point of historiography isn't just to lambast those historians you happened to have a falling out with at high school. In fact, Tosh doesn't have a go at anyone, and even points out the odd merit or two of psychohistory, which seems to be generally given short shrift (although he does go on to point out that it has its own unique set of weaknesses and runs huge risks of inferring waaaaay too much).
The section on oral history was interesting, postmodernism taken into account and explained without being resoundingly attacked as in Evans' book. In fact, while I initially worried there might be issues in terms of him referring to 'modern' trends in history which were modern thirty odd years back when the book was first written, the last few chapters make it clear that it really has been updated.
I particularly, though, enjoyed one of the first chapters, which looked at social memory and how society perceives history as opposed to how historians say it really happened. This theme was then picked up again in the section on oral history, making hte point that why people perceive things as having happened in a certain way when analysis suggests that they really didn't happen like that, is as interesting as the event in itself. Why is the Battle of Britain in popular culture a David v Goliath contest, when the numbers of fighters were actually pretty similar and many recent historians have challenged whether it was even that close a thing as to whether we were gonna win? Why does nobody remember instances of panic during the Blitz, instead subsuming it all into the wider Blitz spirit? Tosh argues that social memory serves a specific function, legitimating current rulers and practices, as well as offering 'guidance'. While no two instances in history are identical, he argues that history does offer suggestions of alternatives where we perceive no alternatives.
A very interesting book, not too theory-ridden, though it explains all the major theories well and assesses the impact and reasons for Marxist theories popularity amongst many historians. I was also quite chuffed to feel that I knew the majority of the historians he referred to from my first term at Cambridge and other reading :) Thoroughly enjoyed it, though it's not a book you can really read all in one go... Needs spreading out, and the chapter divisions do this well enough. One or two chapters at once is probably more than enough to digest at once.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
The Whig Interpretation of History
This was one of those 'historiography' books that people say you should read when you're studying history so that you understand the subject. For those of you who aren't historians, historiography is effectively the study of history--and the history of history. It can be quite interesting, it can be rather dull. Most books that I've read so far (actually, make that: the two books excluding this one) are in the rather dull and slightly incomprehensible category. This one was in the 'actually, that was rather interesting and well written' category.
Apparently, this book was rather influential, although the 'whigish' method of history which was criticised was beginning to fall out of favour even before its publication. At any rate, some of what's said seems like common sense to me now, based on what we've been told about doing history in lectures etc, but I am beginning to wonder whether seeing what I know about history in this book is like (hopefully!) seeing what a preacher talks about in the Bible.
At any rate, it's a nice short book (fall on the floor stunned!) and apart from a criticism of Lord Acton in the final chapter of the book does a remarkably good job of attacking ideas and principles rather than specific historians. In short, unlike Evans' 'In Defence of History' and one or two other things I've looked at, it doesn't feel like the historian has a personal grudge they want to settle with a fellow historian they fell out with at high school. (Although Evans' 'In Defence of History' is still a pretty decent book, and for those of you who happen to be studying history might have noticed, a rather standard authority in terms of historical practice, even if it does confuse the issues of postmodernism rather more than it helps clarify them). Sorry. That was a rather long digression from what was meant to be a review of 'The Whig Interpretation of History'. Wait, I should be using italics, not quotes... One of the many things I have discovered about footnoting while at Cambridge is that I can never seem to manage to follow all of the little rules at once. And so I have apparently yet to submit an essay which has the footnotes done completely right. But anyway. That's even more of a digression.
The Whig Interpretation of History is remarkably well written, and constantly tied down to a specific historical period--for most of the book, the Reformation and Luther, though other bits receive mention. The basic argument is that abridged history becomes, almost by default, very 'whiggish' in its tone and outlook, showing the great 'march of progress' and smoothing over historical complications by relegating everyone to either pro or anti progress. So, for example, the Catholics were reactionaries trying to preserve a corrupt old order and Luther was a revolutionary thinker who brought about religious liberty and created the modern rights to freedom of worship. But Butterfield makes the point succinctly that in fact, history is rather more complex than that. Luther wanted, ideally, an equally dominating religious autocracy on slightly different lines to the Catholic set up. What really created religious toleration was the clash of ideologies. An interesting point, and certainly one that seems viable.
History, Butterfield argues, is complication. And from what I've seen of it since starting A-levels it certainly seems to be. People defy neat categorisation. For example, how would a historian in fifty years time slot me into their equations? I'm studying at Cambridge--therefore I'm of an academic turn of mind. I'm a young female who happens to have a thing for aircraft and builds Airfix models--usually the stereotypical preserve of older men. I'm a Christian, but not a member of the 'established' church--both churches that I go to (up here in Preston and down in Cambridge) are 'free' churches with an emphasis on salvation by grace. Spirit fill churches, would probably be the best way of describing them. Aren't people who are 'intelligent' meant to be atheists too? Whenever the library does a display of 'books for men' and 'books for women', I find half the books on the men's stand are ones I've read, and I've rarely read any on the women's stand. Oh, and I live in a 'nuclear' family--mum, dad (been married for nearly 30 years) and younger brother. Aren't we supposed to be in a society where most people don't live in that sort of family? At any rate, you could classify me in any one of several dozen methods, and the same is true of any person. Societies have multiple layers of meaning and interaction, and it's impossible to completely unravel the complexities of our own time, let alone in the past when we have to start relying on sources that by their very appearance and survival tend to be atypical.
So, I think what I'm trying to say is that this is a very interesting book that also happens to be well written and isn't excessively long. In short, a wonderful historiography book to take a look at. And perfectly comprehensible.
Apparently, this book was rather influential, although the 'whigish' method of history which was criticised was beginning to fall out of favour even before its publication. At any rate, some of what's said seems like common sense to me now, based on what we've been told about doing history in lectures etc, but I am beginning to wonder whether seeing what I know about history in this book is like (hopefully!) seeing what a preacher talks about in the Bible.
At any rate, it's a nice short book (fall on the floor stunned!) and apart from a criticism of Lord Acton in the final chapter of the book does a remarkably good job of attacking ideas and principles rather than specific historians. In short, unlike Evans' 'In Defence of History' and one or two other things I've looked at, it doesn't feel like the historian has a personal grudge they want to settle with a fellow historian they fell out with at high school. (Although Evans' 'In Defence of History' is still a pretty decent book, and for those of you who happen to be studying history might have noticed, a rather standard authority in terms of historical practice, even if it does confuse the issues of postmodernism rather more than it helps clarify them). Sorry. That was a rather long digression from what was meant to be a review of 'The Whig Interpretation of History'. Wait, I should be using italics, not quotes... One of the many things I have discovered about footnoting while at Cambridge is that I can never seem to manage to follow all of the little rules at once. And so I have apparently yet to submit an essay which has the footnotes done completely right. But anyway. That's even more of a digression.
The Whig Interpretation of History is remarkably well written, and constantly tied down to a specific historical period--for most of the book, the Reformation and Luther, though other bits receive mention. The basic argument is that abridged history becomes, almost by default, very 'whiggish' in its tone and outlook, showing the great 'march of progress' and smoothing over historical complications by relegating everyone to either pro or anti progress. So, for example, the Catholics were reactionaries trying to preserve a corrupt old order and Luther was a revolutionary thinker who brought about religious liberty and created the modern rights to freedom of worship. But Butterfield makes the point succinctly that in fact, history is rather more complex than that. Luther wanted, ideally, an equally dominating religious autocracy on slightly different lines to the Catholic set up. What really created religious toleration was the clash of ideologies. An interesting point, and certainly one that seems viable.
History, Butterfield argues, is complication. And from what I've seen of it since starting A-levels it certainly seems to be. People defy neat categorisation. For example, how would a historian in fifty years time slot me into their equations? I'm studying at Cambridge--therefore I'm of an academic turn of mind. I'm a young female who happens to have a thing for aircraft and builds Airfix models--usually the stereotypical preserve of older men. I'm a Christian, but not a member of the 'established' church--both churches that I go to (up here in Preston and down in Cambridge) are 'free' churches with an emphasis on salvation by grace. Spirit fill churches, would probably be the best way of describing them. Aren't people who are 'intelligent' meant to be atheists too? Whenever the library does a display of 'books for men' and 'books for women', I find half the books on the men's stand are ones I've read, and I've rarely read any on the women's stand. Oh, and I live in a 'nuclear' family--mum, dad (been married for nearly 30 years) and younger brother. Aren't we supposed to be in a society where most people don't live in that sort of family? At any rate, you could classify me in any one of several dozen methods, and the same is true of any person. Societies have multiple layers of meaning and interaction, and it's impossible to completely unravel the complexities of our own time, let alone in the past when we have to start relying on sources that by their very appearance and survival tend to be atypical.
So, I think what I'm trying to say is that this is a very interesting book that also happens to be well written and isn't excessively long. In short, a wonderful historiography book to take a look at. And perfectly comprehensible.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunters
Well, if you're looking for a comprehensive book on the u-boat war in all theatres during WWII, this is it. If you're looking for a humongous doorstopper to hold up your desk, it'll serve that purpose too. I got about half way through before the detail threatened to make my head explode and I started to lose the thread of the overall campaign. I was also slightly disappointed because my history teacher used a quote from Clay Blair that implied he thought the u-boat war was never particularly dangerous, but although you do get the impression it could've been a lot worse, what happened seems bad enough to me.
An exhaustive (and exhausting to read) catalogue of every u-boat action, and every attempted u-boat action, along with great technical detail about the u-boats themselves and the convoy system and the commanders and... Yeh, you get the picture. I suspect it's the biggest book I've ever seen, except maybe the Bible (which, admittedly, I have read all the way through twice over now, including once in 90 days which was pretty fun), and this was only part one.
I don't think it was meant to be read all the way through. In fact, although it starts off feeling pretty readable, the sheer quantity of information and detail just makes it impossible to read right through. As a reference, I suspect it's incomparable, with a heck of a lot of detailed research work going in to work out exactly which sub sunk which ship and when torpedoes malfunctioned and which ship was doing weather reports when. So if you fancy having a reference to every u-boat operation during WWII, and a nice and to be fair rather interesting, chunk at the beginning about the development of the u-boat arm and the specifications of the ship, this is the book to get.
One other thing I will mention that struck me was the sheer number of times the German torpedoes malfunctioned. Although the Battle of the Atlantic initially went rather disastrously for Britain, the number of ships saved by the torpedoes failing to detonate, or because the magnetic torpedoes which would 'kill' a ship with one torpedo rather than the contact pistols which usually needed two or three torpedoes per ship were utterly useless is quite astounding. In the end, the Germans resorted to copying British torpedoes which kept depth far better. So we were better with them at some things...
An interesting book then, if you've got a lot of time to read it or if you want to use it as a reference.
An exhaustive (and exhausting to read) catalogue of every u-boat action, and every attempted u-boat action, along with great technical detail about the u-boats themselves and the convoy system and the commanders and... Yeh, you get the picture. I suspect it's the biggest book I've ever seen, except maybe the Bible (which, admittedly, I have read all the way through twice over now, including once in 90 days which was pretty fun), and this was only part one.
I don't think it was meant to be read all the way through. In fact, although it starts off feeling pretty readable, the sheer quantity of information and detail just makes it impossible to read right through. As a reference, I suspect it's incomparable, with a heck of a lot of detailed research work going in to work out exactly which sub sunk which ship and when torpedoes malfunctioned and which ship was doing weather reports when. So if you fancy having a reference to every u-boat operation during WWII, and a nice and to be fair rather interesting, chunk at the beginning about the development of the u-boat arm and the specifications of the ship, this is the book to get.
One other thing I will mention that struck me was the sheer number of times the German torpedoes malfunctioned. Although the Battle of the Atlantic initially went rather disastrously for Britain, the number of ships saved by the torpedoes failing to detonate, or because the magnetic torpedoes which would 'kill' a ship with one torpedo rather than the contact pistols which usually needed two or three torpedoes per ship were utterly useless is quite astounding. In the end, the Germans resorted to copying British torpedoes which kept depth far better. So we were better with them at some things...
An interesting book then, if you've got a lot of time to read it or if you want to use it as a reference.
Monday, 13 September 2010
The Battle of Britain
Well worth reading. Oh, just to clarify, this is the one that's just come out by James Holland. Not perfect, perhaps, but incredibly wide-ranging. To be honest, calling it a book on the Battle of Britain is a bit of a misnomer. It starts with the invasion of France and the Low Countries, it ends in October with the beginning of the Blitz. It doesn't just cover the air-fighting, but instead the war at sea, the war in France, the politics, the attempts to draw in America, the beginning of Lend-Lease, and, of course, the dog-fighting over England. Also gives brief mention to E-boats and the British bombing campaign. In short, a wide-ranging book, which perhaps isn't as detailed on the air-fighting as some books I've read but that's hardly to be expected when it covers such a vast swathe of the conflict. Oh, and covers the invasion planning, the Home Guard, Churchill's consolidation of power, supply and maintenance, and a myriad of related topics, also including the morale of pilots.
It's not overburdened with statistics and diagrams, it's not full of complex explanations of exactly how each aircraft works, and it's not narrowly focussed, although at the end it does seem to drop the story of the E-boats and doesn't give as much detail to the Battle of the Atlantic as perhaps it could, focussing instead on the air fighting. Uses a lot of first hand accounts, and well written enough that I quite happily sat in a library and read it for well over two hours without moving (other than to turn the pages). It is a big book, and I found the section on the Fall of France very interesting as it's not something that's all that easy to find books on.
On the other hand, I didn't agree with some of the analysis of why Britain won. Well, more specifically, I don't agree that the Me-109 (oh, and I've finally found out why it's alternately the Me or the Bf, it actually depends on when the aircraft was produced as the factory was initially called Bayerische Flugzeugwerke and later the name was changed to that of the chief designer, becoming Messerschmitt) was better than the Spitfire. It was interesting that apparently British pilots were more wary of pushing the Spitfire to the edge than the German pilots were of pushing the Me-109, but surely it's better to have an aircraft that can be flown well by everyone rather than an aircraft that can be flown reasonably by most and excellently by a few. The trouble is, while the Messerschmitt was faster and had a better rate of climb, it didn't have as good a turning circle. And in a dogfight, a turning circle was needed, and because of the way the fighters were being used as escorts for the bombers, dogfights were inevitable. Ideally, the Me-109 should have been flown in from the sun, drop down on an unsuspecting Spitfire or Hurricane, shoot it down, climb out the way and scoot off. But radar could be used to estimate heights and as the battle progressed they could be estimated quite accurately by increasingly experienced operators, the Germans did not then have the element of surprise that they had in France. So because of the way the aircraft were being used, the Spitfire was probably the better fighter.
That out the way, I was pleased to see that Holland didn't just say that because the numbers of fighter aircraft were equal that made it much easier for the British than previously assumed. Ah, not quite. Cos they did still have to shoot the bombers down, couldn't just let them meander off over England. It was the bombers that they had to focus on, truth be told, because it was the bombers that could do the damage. The fighters could only damage other fighters; if it was just fighter sweeps coming over England there'd be little point in meeting them.
The E-boat sections were fascinating, I would've liked to see a bit more made of that side of the story. However, I suspect that space was getting limited (as in, 600 pages full of words already and maybe not so great to put that many more pages in). And the politics was well told too, on both the British and German sides and in terms of relations between Britain and America. I think the point could have been made that although Beaverbrook did kick British aircraft production up the bum so to speak, he did so at the cost of various longer term projects, including four-engine bombers, and that there's no way he can be totally responsible for results coming in by the end of the week in which he was appointed. Further, what he did was a short term solution--people can't work the hours he was insisting on long term, not without burning out and starting to make mistakes.
In short, this was a thoroughly enjoyable book and I'm sure it will become a recommended read for anyone studying WWII. It wasn't quite as balanced as it could have been between the different aspects of the campaign--there was little on the British bomber campaign although to be fair it did get a mention which is unusual. And it is, as far as I'm aware, the first time the 'story's' been told like this, in such a wide-ranging interpretation of the Battle of Britain.
Definitely recommend it, might actually buy a copy when it comes out in paperback (borrowed it out the library--hardback history books are pretty expensive to buy loads without any real idea of whether they'll be all that great). So if you see one floating around at the library (although if the queue's anything like it was at mine to get hold of it, as in, about seven more people waiting after me and I thought I'd had to wait a long time for it you might not see it for a while), it's definitely worth taking the time to read it.
It's not overburdened with statistics and diagrams, it's not full of complex explanations of exactly how each aircraft works, and it's not narrowly focussed, although at the end it does seem to drop the story of the E-boats and doesn't give as much detail to the Battle of the Atlantic as perhaps it could, focussing instead on the air fighting. Uses a lot of first hand accounts, and well written enough that I quite happily sat in a library and read it for well over two hours without moving (other than to turn the pages). It is a big book, and I found the section on the Fall of France very interesting as it's not something that's all that easy to find books on.
On the other hand, I didn't agree with some of the analysis of why Britain won. Well, more specifically, I don't agree that the Me-109 (oh, and I've finally found out why it's alternately the Me or the Bf, it actually depends on when the aircraft was produced as the factory was initially called Bayerische Flugzeugwerke and later the name was changed to that of the chief designer, becoming Messerschmitt) was better than the Spitfire. It was interesting that apparently British pilots were more wary of pushing the Spitfire to the edge than the German pilots were of pushing the Me-109, but surely it's better to have an aircraft that can be flown well by everyone rather than an aircraft that can be flown reasonably by most and excellently by a few. The trouble is, while the Messerschmitt was faster and had a better rate of climb, it didn't have as good a turning circle. And in a dogfight, a turning circle was needed, and because of the way the fighters were being used as escorts for the bombers, dogfights were inevitable. Ideally, the Me-109 should have been flown in from the sun, drop down on an unsuspecting Spitfire or Hurricane, shoot it down, climb out the way and scoot off. But radar could be used to estimate heights and as the battle progressed they could be estimated quite accurately by increasingly experienced operators, the Germans did not then have the element of surprise that they had in France. So because of the way the aircraft were being used, the Spitfire was probably the better fighter.
That out the way, I was pleased to see that Holland didn't just say that because the numbers of fighter aircraft were equal that made it much easier for the British than previously assumed. Ah, not quite. Cos they did still have to shoot the bombers down, couldn't just let them meander off over England. It was the bombers that they had to focus on, truth be told, because it was the bombers that could do the damage. The fighters could only damage other fighters; if it was just fighter sweeps coming over England there'd be little point in meeting them.
The E-boat sections were fascinating, I would've liked to see a bit more made of that side of the story. However, I suspect that space was getting limited (as in, 600 pages full of words already and maybe not so great to put that many more pages in). And the politics was well told too, on both the British and German sides and in terms of relations between Britain and America. I think the point could have been made that although Beaverbrook did kick British aircraft production up the bum so to speak, he did so at the cost of various longer term projects, including four-engine bombers, and that there's no way he can be totally responsible for results coming in by the end of the week in which he was appointed. Further, what he did was a short term solution--people can't work the hours he was insisting on long term, not without burning out and starting to make mistakes.
In short, this was a thoroughly enjoyable book and I'm sure it will become a recommended read for anyone studying WWII. It wasn't quite as balanced as it could have been between the different aspects of the campaign--there was little on the British bomber campaign although to be fair it did get a mention which is unusual. And it is, as far as I'm aware, the first time the 'story's' been told like this, in such a wide-ranging interpretation of the Battle of Britain.
Definitely recommend it, might actually buy a copy when it comes out in paperback (borrowed it out the library--hardback history books are pretty expensive to buy loads without any real idea of whether they'll be all that great). So if you see one floating around at the library (although if the queue's anything like it was at mine to get hold of it, as in, about seven more people waiting after me and I thought I'd had to wait a long time for it you might not see it for a while), it's definitely worth taking the time to read it.
The Battle of the Atlantic
How many books have I read with this title now?! This is the one by Marc Milner. And it's pretty reasonable, although I wasn't as impressed as I thought I'd be from reading the blurb. I thought it was going to say much more exciting things, but for the most part it just followed pretty standard lines. Was well written, did make some interesting points though, I'm inclined to recommend this as a good book to read on the Atlantic Campaign as it did cover the whole thing, and there was a good sense of perspective in terms of the air support and the shore based institutions, along with the politics that influenced the battle and the actual convoy battles. Made a very good point at the beginning that yeh, Germany's u-boat arm was dangerous and yeh, Britian didn't have much in the way of ships to fight it, but ships to fight u-boats were much easier to produce in war time under crash programmes than battleships and carriers, which were needed to effectively counter the German surface fleet--which was Raeder's priority before the war.
What else? Well, for a book that according to the blurb was gonna show that Enigma wasn't such a war winner as other things, it sure gave a lot of credit to Enigma and the ability to re-route convoys initially to avoid wolf packs and then to find them so that the u-boats could be fought and destroyed once effective means of fighting them had been found. Did go into the aircraft side of things, which seemed to be, at least according to this guy, the main reason the Battle was won, as it removed the u-boats ability to stay on the surface and re-charge batteries. In turn, that was only effective once decent radar was found to fit to the aircraft so that they could actually find the u-boats. Interesting, if not particularly new, documentation of all stages of the battle. Well written.
I guess the main reason I was a little disappointed in this book was because I've already read a fair bit on the Battle of the Atlantic and the blurb led me to think it was gonna be quite revisionist with a totally different take on things to usual. That wasn't really the case, but it was a pretty decent book.
What else? Well, for a book that according to the blurb was gonna show that Enigma wasn't such a war winner as other things, it sure gave a lot of credit to Enigma and the ability to re-route convoys initially to avoid wolf packs and then to find them so that the u-boats could be fought and destroyed once effective means of fighting them had been found. Did go into the aircraft side of things, which seemed to be, at least according to this guy, the main reason the Battle was won, as it removed the u-boats ability to stay on the surface and re-charge batteries. In turn, that was only effective once decent radar was found to fit to the aircraft so that they could actually find the u-boats. Interesting, if not particularly new, documentation of all stages of the battle. Well written.
I guess the main reason I was a little disappointed in this book was because I've already read a fair bit on the Battle of the Atlantic and the blurb led me to think it was gonna be quite revisionist with a totally different take on things to usual. That wasn't really the case, but it was a pretty decent book.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
The Battle of the Atlantic
Well, I did say I'd read three, didn't I? :) This was the most recent one I read, in fact, I've only just finished it. Admittedly, I have read an awful lot of other books in the period between the book I just reviewed and this one that I haven't written about yet, but I think this one is worth posting about. Just to clarify, this book is by Bernard Ireland.
First off, I have two complaints that could easily have been rectified with a little forethought, problems that are particularly unjustifiable because Pen and Sword is supposed to be a military history specialist. There were absolutely no footnotes, endnotes, or even a short bibliography. In short, although the blurb claims it draws on a wealth of source information, there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. There aren't even suggestions for further reading. The only sources given were a number of statistical charts and tables (which I confess I rather ignored, as they interrupted the flow of the writing, and the information was also given in the text). The second complaint is this: typos. Not a huge number, certainly not as many as I'm liable to make in a first draft, but again something that I think is somewhat inexcusable and could be rectified with decent proofreading. One or two made sentences hard to understand as the grammar was dodgy, the rest were just irritating.
That aside, I have a mixed response to the book. It was, again according to the blurb, supposed to be somewhat revisionist, suggesting that the Battle of the Atlantic was never really up in the air. In fact, the suggestion seemed more that after America entered the war the ultimate result of the Battle of the Atlantic was never in real doubt, something which I certainly wouldn't class as all that revisionist. The main reason I got the book out the library was because I was expecting a nicely controversial, well-argued alternative to what we've been given in class (to be fair to John, he has told us about the alternative view point but I agree that the Battle of the Atlantic could have been decisive prior to America's entry into the War). Instead, I found a book that was mostly of mediocre quality, did not talk all that much about Ultra (again something touted in the blurb which attracted me to the book), and had an over reliance on acronyms, which you were told about once and which then popped up much later in the book when you couldn't quite remember what they stood for. The referral to Germany as 'the enemy' was also confusing, as in some contexts it sounded at first like the author was talking about Britain as Germany's enemy. Certainly there was nothing all that new in the first few chapters, although the narrative was quite interesting and I determined to finish the book.
I was glad that I finished it, it must be said. The last three chapters were excellent, covering the end of the war (these chapters being significantly longer than the chapters in the previous book, I know three chapters doesn't really sound like a great deal) in the Atlantic, after the battle was technically won. The use of aircraft is covered excellently, something I hadn't realised was lacking in the BBC version. In fairness, the BBC version did not cover this period of the campaign in any sort of detail at all. The new technologies and the German attempts to counter them were well written, and the hunting down of u-boats was, again, something that fell outside the scope of the previous books I'd read. In short, while the first part of the book was mediocre, I found the second part particularly fascinating. However, on the basis of the flaws mentioned above, I would still recommend the BBC book above this one, for the simple reason that the main part of the campaign is better covered in the other book, with only the ending being well covered in this one. And, of course, there is still the issue that not a single source for this information is given.
In short, the blurb did an excellent job of making me want to read the book, but most of it was average rather than outstanding. The omission of any references and the typos could, I'm sure, be easily rectified to improve the book in general, but the writing was, to be honest, not as great as in the BBC account of the same title. I was disappointed with all but the last few chapters, which gave a detail and balance that I had previously been unaware with, in terms of how the ultimate hunting down and persecution of u-boats was conducted. Flawed, but still interesting. Perhaps worth getting out the library and just reading the last three chapters.
First off, I have two complaints that could easily have been rectified with a little forethought, problems that are particularly unjustifiable because Pen and Sword is supposed to be a military history specialist. There were absolutely no footnotes, endnotes, or even a short bibliography. In short, although the blurb claims it draws on a wealth of source information, there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. There aren't even suggestions for further reading. The only sources given were a number of statistical charts and tables (which I confess I rather ignored, as they interrupted the flow of the writing, and the information was also given in the text). The second complaint is this: typos. Not a huge number, certainly not as many as I'm liable to make in a first draft, but again something that I think is somewhat inexcusable and could be rectified with decent proofreading. One or two made sentences hard to understand as the grammar was dodgy, the rest were just irritating.
That aside, I have a mixed response to the book. It was, again according to the blurb, supposed to be somewhat revisionist, suggesting that the Battle of the Atlantic was never really up in the air. In fact, the suggestion seemed more that after America entered the war the ultimate result of the Battle of the Atlantic was never in real doubt, something which I certainly wouldn't class as all that revisionist. The main reason I got the book out the library was because I was expecting a nicely controversial, well-argued alternative to what we've been given in class (to be fair to John, he has told us about the alternative view point but I agree that the Battle of the Atlantic could have been decisive prior to America's entry into the War). Instead, I found a book that was mostly of mediocre quality, did not talk all that much about Ultra (again something touted in the blurb which attracted me to the book), and had an over reliance on acronyms, which you were told about once and which then popped up much later in the book when you couldn't quite remember what they stood for. The referral to Germany as 'the enemy' was also confusing, as in some contexts it sounded at first like the author was talking about Britain as Germany's enemy. Certainly there was nothing all that new in the first few chapters, although the narrative was quite interesting and I determined to finish the book.
I was glad that I finished it, it must be said. The last three chapters were excellent, covering the end of the war (these chapters being significantly longer than the chapters in the previous book, I know three chapters doesn't really sound like a great deal) in the Atlantic, after the battle was technically won. The use of aircraft is covered excellently, something I hadn't realised was lacking in the BBC version. In fairness, the BBC version did not cover this period of the campaign in any sort of detail at all. The new technologies and the German attempts to counter them were well written, and the hunting down of u-boats was, again, something that fell outside the scope of the previous books I'd read. In short, while the first part of the book was mediocre, I found the second part particularly fascinating. However, on the basis of the flaws mentioned above, I would still recommend the BBC book above this one, for the simple reason that the main part of the campaign is better covered in the other book, with only the ending being well covered in this one. And, of course, there is still the issue that not a single source for this information is given.
In short, the blurb did an excellent job of making me want to read the book, but most of it was average rather than outstanding. The omission of any references and the typos could, I'm sure, be easily rectified to improve the book in general, but the writing was, to be honest, not as great as in the BBC account of the same title. I was disappointed with all but the last few chapters, which gave a detail and balance that I had previously been unaware with, in terms of how the ultimate hunting down and persecution of u-boats was conducted. Flawed, but still interesting. Perhaps worth getting out the library and just reading the last three chapters.
The Battle of the Atlantic
Yes, I know I reviewed a book with the same title not so long ago (well, okay, a fair while ago but I've not been posting for a while because I've been busy at college), but it seems to be a popular title. I have actually now read three books with this title, this being the second, and I would class this as the best history of the campaign as a whole from the three.
It's the BBC version, written by Andrew Williams, and proved not only informative with regard to both sides of the story, but also liberally filled with first hand accounts which brought the campaign to life. It's a well produced book, with good organisation of chapters, an excellent section on Enigma, and I didn't notice any typos which is always encouraging. Very readable and enjoyable, it was also informative enough that I used it as a reference source for an essay plan on British incompetence and lack of resources 1939-1941. I was particularly impressed with the focus on the intelligence battle and on the information about the u-boat service from crew members through to the command systems. An enjoyable read as a book and not just as a history book on a campaign you should probably know about, I was certainly impressed. Where it lacks is that it relegates the last two years of the war, after the battle was won, to a single chapter. Certainly understandable, it in no way detracts from the excellent narrative of Autumn 1939-Spring 1943.
In short, if you want to learn a little about the Battle of the Atlantic, a battle vital to keep Britain fighting in World War Two as the island was hugely dependent on imports both to feed the population and to provide raw materials for the war industry, this book is the right one to get. There're good explanations of the important technical points, and a welcome reluctance to use obfuscating terminology that makes you rely on a technical dictionary to understand the text. It's also an interesting read as a book.
It's the BBC version, written by Andrew Williams, and proved not only informative with regard to both sides of the story, but also liberally filled with first hand accounts which brought the campaign to life. It's a well produced book, with good organisation of chapters, an excellent section on Enigma, and I didn't notice any typos which is always encouraging. Very readable and enjoyable, it was also informative enough that I used it as a reference source for an essay plan on British incompetence and lack of resources 1939-1941. I was particularly impressed with the focus on the intelligence battle and on the information about the u-boat service from crew members through to the command systems. An enjoyable read as a book and not just as a history book on a campaign you should probably know about, I was certainly impressed. Where it lacks is that it relegates the last two years of the war, after the battle was won, to a single chapter. Certainly understandable, it in no way detracts from the excellent narrative of Autumn 1939-Spring 1943.
In short, if you want to learn a little about the Battle of the Atlantic, a battle vital to keep Britain fighting in World War Two as the island was hugely dependent on imports both to feed the population and to provide raw materials for the war industry, this book is the right one to get. There're good explanations of the important technical points, and a welcome reluctance to use obfuscating terminology that makes you rely on a technical dictionary to understand the text. It's also an interesting read as a book.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
The Battle of the Atlantic
A well written and interesting account of the battle, it had one major flaw. Admittedly, it wasn't really the books fault--the information was only declassified after this book was published--but it does highlight the problems of using books published only a short time after the events they describe (I guess I count fifteen years after the end of WWII a short time in this case). In fact, if there's a more recent edition with an extra chapter or so and some modification to the rest of the text, I would highly recommend getting it. The classified information absent from this book was the cracking of the Enigma code, which had a huge impact upon the Battle of the Atlantic. In this account, the use of Enigma was hidden under that of High Frequency Direction Finding equipment or Huff-duff, which enabled u-boats using their radios to be detected. As radio was a key part of the wolf pack tactics, it was obviously of use, but the ship-based ones were difficult to use and not introduced until later in the war.
It describes in detail the tactics used by both sides, and illustrates with interesting examples of convoys sunk in convoy. A great book, with the exception that it's not quite complete. Read in conjunction with a book on the Enigma code (like Station X, more on that in a sec or two), it does give a useful account of the Battle of the Atlantic--one of the most vital campaigns in WWII. Without success in the Atlantic, Britain would be starved out of the war, without success in the Atlantic, Britain could not be turned into an oversized military camp prior to D-Day as there was no way troops could be sent across an insecure Atlantic. Thus, without the Allies winning the Battle of the Atlantic, Britain would have been completely unable to fight on. Interestingly at the start of the war, despite the success achieved by German u-boats in WWI, nobody seemed to grasp that the u-boats would be a threat once more. The British believed that the use of convoys (introduced this time right at the start of the war, rather than when shipping losses all but crippled the country) and Asdic would nullify the threat posed by the u-boat, and Hitler didn't really seem that fussed about the Navy at all and particularly not about the u-boat arm. It was only when he saw the spectacular success of the sinking of the Royal Oak in harbour that he allocated a greater amount of money to build more u-boats.
It describes in detail the tactics used by both sides, and illustrates with interesting examples of convoys sunk in convoy. A great book, with the exception that it's not quite complete. Read in conjunction with a book on the Enigma code (like Station X, more on that in a sec or two), it does give a useful account of the Battle of the Atlantic--one of the most vital campaigns in WWII. Without success in the Atlantic, Britain would be starved out of the war, without success in the Atlantic, Britain could not be turned into an oversized military camp prior to D-Day as there was no way troops could be sent across an insecure Atlantic. Thus, without the Allies winning the Battle of the Atlantic, Britain would have been completely unable to fight on. Interestingly at the start of the war, despite the success achieved by German u-boats in WWI, nobody seemed to grasp that the u-boats would be a threat once more. The British believed that the use of convoys (introduced this time right at the start of the war, rather than when shipping losses all but crippled the country) and Asdic would nullify the threat posed by the u-boat, and Hitler didn't really seem that fussed about the Navy at all and particularly not about the u-boat arm. It was only when he saw the spectacular success of the sinking of the Royal Oak in harbour that he allocated a greater amount of money to build more u-boats.
Monday, 15 February 2010
The Brink
Fascinating. After reading One Minute to Midnight, also on the Cuban Missile Crisis, I came to the conclusion that it was interesting to read about but that the particular book I started with was a very poor account. I'm about ninety per cent sure that this one was by a guy called David Detzer, but again I took the book back to the library without making a note of who wrote it--that name is from Amazon and as it doesn't have a picture of the book I can't guarantee it's actually the right one. At any rate, this was a far more complete work and gave some interesting insights that were lacking from One Minute to Midnight. For example, he suggested that there might not have been nuclear warheads in the Cuban missiles, points out that the missiles involved were pretty pathetic specimens at any rate with nothing like the range the US government claimed, and were hopelessly inaccurate. One is left seeing the whole crisis as mere posturing on the part of Kennedy, and I honestly wonder whether there was any point making such a fuss over it. Figures from Jane's and the US government were quoted in terms of missile range, the ones from Jane's were significantly lower than the ones from the US government, both, apparently, were exaggerated. Of course, it was published while the Cold War was still going on, so you can't be certain that the author's figures are correct, but it certainly gives scope for speculation. Incidents that One Minute to Midnight made out were unique to that account which allegedly took in little known incidents were included in this book too, including the U2 flight that got lost over the USSR etc. So if you're looking for a good history of the crisis, with information on both sides (somewhat optimistic over Cuba in my opinion, but there is certainly an attempt at even-handedness) and an explanation of what the missiles actually were and what other missiles were around and a fairly rounded narrative, I have to recommend this one. It's just a case of whether you can actually find it...
Saturday, 9 January 2010
D-Day
This was the Antony Beevor one. And, after waiting for over a month for the library to pass it on to me, I was disappointed. I think the person on the waiting list after me will also be disappointed. It was a good book, don't get me wrong. But it was not as good as I'd heard it was supposed to be, and it certainly wasn't worth the excitement over the fact that it had finally got up to me.
I will give Antony Beevor his due. It was well written. It was, for the most part, quite readable. It did highlight certain aspects of the campaign that I was unaware of, most notably the high civilian casualties (apparently the Allies killed more French around the Normandy campaign (build up and during) than people were killed in the Blitz). There was also a highlighting of the problems of friendly fire, particularly in terms of air support bombing the wrong people. And I think I mentioned before that Beevor reckoned that unit casualties were higher in Normandy on both sides than they were on the Eastern Front.
However, there were a number of bad points too. The emphasis on friendly fire incidents got to the point where it was both tedious and you started to get the impression he thought the Allied soldiers and Air Forces went to Normandy with the sole intention of incompetently shooting each other, and it took away from the descriptions of the actual fighting. There was a huge focus on the inferiority of the British and American tanks, which also got tedious. Every time there was a mention of a Tiger (the German one), there was the reminder that 'this tank often accounted for three or four Shermans without getting destroyed. It had better armour and a longer range gun, so it could start shooting before the Shermans were within range'. As you can imagine, after the third or fourth time, it was rather irritating. The format of the book was also confusing. Chapter titles seemed to bear little to no relevance to what filled the chapter--they might relate to the first half, but then the author would move on to something else and not bother to change chapter. It got rather confusing to try and follow what was going on, particularly as there was some skipping about in terms of time and place. Beevor's attitude towards Montgommery seems to shift depending on what section of the narrative he's in--at times he seems to suggest that he's had an unfair bad press, at others that he completely deserved it. As the overall commander, Eisenhower gets surprisingly little mention. The use of different notation for Allied and German divisions (one was infantry, one was referred to as infantarrie, I'll let you work out which was which...) did solve a problem which I've sometimes had in working out which was which. However, that did not prevent the descriptions of Allied divisions sometimes becoming difficult to follow. This may have been because the generals kept getting moved about; in reality I suspect that it was a little bit more to do with the fact that despite the repeated emphasis on the failings of our tanks, there was no attempt to make sure that this part was repeated at least vaguely as a reminder of who was who. Perhaps a cast list would've been helpful?
Another point to keep in mind is that this book is not, despite it's title, mostly about D-Day. There is virtually no mention made of the intricate planning that took place before hand, and the actual events of D-Day make up a tiny fraction of the book. One thing I will say: I thought that Max Hastings was being overly harsh towards Typhoon pilots in his book Overlord; Beevor does confirm these statistics, but makes the point that they were quite effective against unarmoured supply vehicles and that tank crews would often leap out of their tanks and hide when Typhoons attacked. He agrees with what I would say, in that over-exaggerated claims don't mean that the attacks were ineffective. You're always going to get exaggerated claims because, let's face it, if you're in a hostile area flying low to the ground are you really going to turn round and check to make absolutely certain that you did destroy that tank?
I suspect I sound overly critical of this book. Perhaps I am being so, but I get annoyed at books that are overrated, particularly when the inside jacket claims they're basically the best, most comprehensive coverage of the battles in Normandy you're gonna find. It wasn't. I don't suppose that in a one volume book you're likely to get all that close to comprehensive, because there was a lot of fighting. There was massive over-emphasis upon the shooting of prisoners, and whether one side or the other engaged in it more (I got the impression that if you became a POW, particularly if you were taken by the Allies, you were more likely to get shot than to survive, which I'm pretty certain was not the case). There was, it began to seem, before every battle a discussion of how many men were casualties because they got bombed by their own side. I'm not saying it's not worth knowing that there were friendly fire casualties; I am saying that surely the actual fighting deserves more emphasis than friendly fire. There were more statistics relating to friendly fire incidents than there were relating to how many were killed fighting the Germans, or at least it felt that way. There was a lot about the miseries of being a civilian, and you were subjected to the same rant about this every time a village was liberated. The poor French were torn between welcoming their liberators and viewing with horror the devastation caused to their country. Fine. But that's not necessary to be put in every time a village is liberated. We're not that stupid.
I'm starting to rant a bit now, I apologise. This book was not completely awful. There were some interesting segments. Unfortunately, it suffered from poor organisation and over-emphasis on certain aspects which, while worth a mention, are not the main part of the story. There was also little about the German perspective, though there was a 'chapter' on the bomb plot to kill Hitler. Fine, but a good portion of the chapter was not about that, and while there's a good amount on what it was like to be an Allied soldier (if you were in a tank at least), there was little of this on the German side. It did show the improvements made during the campaign, which was a little lacking from Max Hastings book. However, on the whole, Overlord is a much better book than D-Day. Neither, however, actually talk all that much about D-Day itself and focus more upon the campaign in Normandy. I have yet to find a book that's just about D-Day, though I have one by Stephen Ambrose to read, which I suspect might be.
If you see this book on the shelf in the library, it is fairly good. It might be worth reading, just for the odd insight here and there. However, I wouldn't recommend you go out and buy it. It's not that good.
I will give Antony Beevor his due. It was well written. It was, for the most part, quite readable. It did highlight certain aspects of the campaign that I was unaware of, most notably the high civilian casualties (apparently the Allies killed more French around the Normandy campaign (build up and during) than people were killed in the Blitz). There was also a highlighting of the problems of friendly fire, particularly in terms of air support bombing the wrong people. And I think I mentioned before that Beevor reckoned that unit casualties were higher in Normandy on both sides than they were on the Eastern Front.
However, there were a number of bad points too. The emphasis on friendly fire incidents got to the point where it was both tedious and you started to get the impression he thought the Allied soldiers and Air Forces went to Normandy with the sole intention of incompetently shooting each other, and it took away from the descriptions of the actual fighting. There was a huge focus on the inferiority of the British and American tanks, which also got tedious. Every time there was a mention of a Tiger (the German one), there was the reminder that 'this tank often accounted for three or four Shermans without getting destroyed. It had better armour and a longer range gun, so it could start shooting before the Shermans were within range'. As you can imagine, after the third or fourth time, it was rather irritating. The format of the book was also confusing. Chapter titles seemed to bear little to no relevance to what filled the chapter--they might relate to the first half, but then the author would move on to something else and not bother to change chapter. It got rather confusing to try and follow what was going on, particularly as there was some skipping about in terms of time and place. Beevor's attitude towards Montgommery seems to shift depending on what section of the narrative he's in--at times he seems to suggest that he's had an unfair bad press, at others that he completely deserved it. As the overall commander, Eisenhower gets surprisingly little mention. The use of different notation for Allied and German divisions (one was infantry, one was referred to as infantarrie, I'll let you work out which was which...) did solve a problem which I've sometimes had in working out which was which. However, that did not prevent the descriptions of Allied divisions sometimes becoming difficult to follow. This may have been because the generals kept getting moved about; in reality I suspect that it was a little bit more to do with the fact that despite the repeated emphasis on the failings of our tanks, there was no attempt to make sure that this part was repeated at least vaguely as a reminder of who was who. Perhaps a cast list would've been helpful?
Another point to keep in mind is that this book is not, despite it's title, mostly about D-Day. There is virtually no mention made of the intricate planning that took place before hand, and the actual events of D-Day make up a tiny fraction of the book. One thing I will say: I thought that Max Hastings was being overly harsh towards Typhoon pilots in his book Overlord; Beevor does confirm these statistics, but makes the point that they were quite effective against unarmoured supply vehicles and that tank crews would often leap out of their tanks and hide when Typhoons attacked. He agrees with what I would say, in that over-exaggerated claims don't mean that the attacks were ineffective. You're always going to get exaggerated claims because, let's face it, if you're in a hostile area flying low to the ground are you really going to turn round and check to make absolutely certain that you did destroy that tank?
I suspect I sound overly critical of this book. Perhaps I am being so, but I get annoyed at books that are overrated, particularly when the inside jacket claims they're basically the best, most comprehensive coverage of the battles in Normandy you're gonna find. It wasn't. I don't suppose that in a one volume book you're likely to get all that close to comprehensive, because there was a lot of fighting. There was massive over-emphasis upon the shooting of prisoners, and whether one side or the other engaged in it more (I got the impression that if you became a POW, particularly if you were taken by the Allies, you were more likely to get shot than to survive, which I'm pretty certain was not the case). There was, it began to seem, before every battle a discussion of how many men were casualties because they got bombed by their own side. I'm not saying it's not worth knowing that there were friendly fire casualties; I am saying that surely the actual fighting deserves more emphasis than friendly fire. There were more statistics relating to friendly fire incidents than there were relating to how many were killed fighting the Germans, or at least it felt that way. There was a lot about the miseries of being a civilian, and you were subjected to the same rant about this every time a village was liberated. The poor French were torn between welcoming their liberators and viewing with horror the devastation caused to their country. Fine. But that's not necessary to be put in every time a village is liberated. We're not that stupid.
I'm starting to rant a bit now, I apologise. This book was not completely awful. There were some interesting segments. Unfortunately, it suffered from poor organisation and over-emphasis on certain aspects which, while worth a mention, are not the main part of the story. There was also little about the German perspective, though there was a 'chapter' on the bomb plot to kill Hitler. Fine, but a good portion of the chapter was not about that, and while there's a good amount on what it was like to be an Allied soldier (if you were in a tank at least), there was little of this on the German side. It did show the improvements made during the campaign, which was a little lacking from Max Hastings book. However, on the whole, Overlord is a much better book than D-Day. Neither, however, actually talk all that much about D-Day itself and focus more upon the campaign in Normandy. I have yet to find a book that's just about D-Day, though I have one by Stephen Ambrose to read, which I suspect might be.
If you see this book on the shelf in the library, it is fairly good. It might be worth reading, just for the odd insight here and there. However, I wouldn't recommend you go out and buy it. It's not that good.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Munich
On the basis that this book, by David Faber, was absolutely brilliant, I'm making an exception to the general rule I decided on that I was not going to review any books I'd read last year and not done so far. It's also the book which gets both my 200th review (or at least, 200th post with the label 'books'), and first one of the New Year. I thought I'd better pick a good book for this one :)
Munich is basically a book that covers the year 1938 in great detail, from both British and German perspectives, and with a fair bit about the Italians thrown in for good measure, along with some France and USA. It charts the lead up to the Munich Conference of 1938, and the result of that conference. A fascinating book, one that I couldn't put down, were it fiction I would compare it with Tom Clancy. For want of a better comparison, that's what I'll still do. If you've ever read one of the Jack Ryan series by Tom Clancy (probably his others too, but I can't speak from experience), you'll know what I'm talking about. Political thrillers of the highest order, the processes of government dealt with judiciously, the characters brilliantly depicted, the tension such that you can scarcely bear to put the book down, even if it's four in the morning and you've to be up for college in the morning. That's basically what reading Munich was like. Change the names, maybe a couple of details, and David Faber would've written a great piece of fiction. But the evidence of careful research is there, and this book was both highly enjoyable, gripping, and informative.
One of the criticisms often levelled at narrative history seems to be that it draws no judgements, it's not proper, analytical history. It was not difficult to see Faber's opinions in this book. Nor was it hard to agree with him. The parallels between Chamberlain's style of government and Hitler's were astounding. They weren't highlighted, but at the same time Chamberlain was basically forcing Eden to resign with a bit of a manufactured disagreement over Italy to hide the true reason (Chamberlain's out of hand rejection of the US offer to mediate in Europe) which couldn't be made public, Hitler was creating scandal to get rid of those generals he did not quite approve of. This wasn't pointed out, but it was something you noticed. And one of the other things was that at the end, I found myself more disgusted with Chamberlain, based on his personality, rather than with Hitler.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough. My history teacher also keeps recommending it, and every time he does, Grace (person I sit next to in history, who leant me the book while I leant her the AJP Taylor one) and I look at each other and nod. If you are doing A-Level history and Appeasement, or at any other level I guess, it's absolutely brilliant. It gives you fantastic insight into the events, and it's not even boring! To be perfectly honest, even if you have no interest whatsoever in history, you'll probably still find this book fascinating, and it works as a book to read for entertainment too.
Munich is basically a book that covers the year 1938 in great detail, from both British and German perspectives, and with a fair bit about the Italians thrown in for good measure, along with some France and USA. It charts the lead up to the Munich Conference of 1938, and the result of that conference. A fascinating book, one that I couldn't put down, were it fiction I would compare it with Tom Clancy. For want of a better comparison, that's what I'll still do. If you've ever read one of the Jack Ryan series by Tom Clancy (probably his others too, but I can't speak from experience), you'll know what I'm talking about. Political thrillers of the highest order, the processes of government dealt with judiciously, the characters brilliantly depicted, the tension such that you can scarcely bear to put the book down, even if it's four in the morning and you've to be up for college in the morning. That's basically what reading Munich was like. Change the names, maybe a couple of details, and David Faber would've written a great piece of fiction. But the evidence of careful research is there, and this book was both highly enjoyable, gripping, and informative.
One of the criticisms often levelled at narrative history seems to be that it draws no judgements, it's not proper, analytical history. It was not difficult to see Faber's opinions in this book. Nor was it hard to agree with him. The parallels between Chamberlain's style of government and Hitler's were astounding. They weren't highlighted, but at the same time Chamberlain was basically forcing Eden to resign with a bit of a manufactured disagreement over Italy to hide the true reason (Chamberlain's out of hand rejection of the US offer to mediate in Europe) which couldn't be made public, Hitler was creating scandal to get rid of those generals he did not quite approve of. This wasn't pointed out, but it was something you noticed. And one of the other things was that at the end, I found myself more disgusted with Chamberlain, based on his personality, rather than with Hitler.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough. My history teacher also keeps recommending it, and every time he does, Grace (person I sit next to in history, who leant me the book while I leant her the AJP Taylor one) and I look at each other and nod. If you are doing A-Level history and Appeasement, or at any other level I guess, it's absolutely brilliant. It gives you fantastic insight into the events, and it's not even boring! To be perfectly honest, even if you have no interest whatsoever in history, you'll probably still find this book fascinating, and it works as a book to read for entertainment too.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
The Pilgrimage of Grace
Hmm. I didn't finish this book. I got fed up. By Geofferey Moorhouse, this is one of those unfortunate books that suffers from too much detail in a dry, boring manner. I have nothing against detailed books. I quite like them. But this was just irritating. I was intrigued to know more about the only aspect of the English Reformation that I actually knew something about. However, the author seemed to feel it was his personal mission in life to act as though it was a completely ignored part of the English Reformation and that he was the only person who had ever paid it any attention whatsoever. Huh? There was a nice section on it in the Dickens book which I reviewed previously, and as I said, it was virtually the only aspect of the English Reformation I had a bit of knowledge about to start with. We'd covered it in oh, maybe Year 8 or something, briefly. If there was one thing this book did not suffer from, it was brevity. And yet, the actual reasons for the Pilgrimage of Grace were, I felt, inadequately covered. The author basically took it as read that they were fundamentally spiritual in grievance, and that was why it happened, making scant reference to the whole history of protest and the fact that the harvests had been bad which always makes things worse. There was an over reliance on narrative and detail about what exactly happened when and what happened next and what happened next on the other side and... you get the picture. It seemed to just go on and on and on, so I'm afraid I got fed up and took it back to the library without having finished it.
Not recommended, as you can see, unless you have a particular fascination with the Pilgrimage of Grace and are desperate to get to know all those little details that you probably won't find anywhere else. But other than for that purpose, it's not a particularly good book.
Not recommended, as you can see, unless you have a particular fascination with the Pilgrimage of Grace and are desperate to get to know all those little details that you probably won't find anywhere else. But other than for that purpose, it's not a particularly good book.
Overlord
This book is by Max Hastings, and deals with the Normandy Campaign. It's well written and interesting, though he completely disparages the contribution of the Air Forces in helping to win the battle--he basically claims that the RAF/USAAF cooperation with the ground forces was negligible, played no really significant part, and even suggests that in parts it did more harm than good. Hmm... I know I'm slightly biased on the whole RAF thing because I absolutely love aircraft and aviation history, which would tend perhaps to go the other way and exaggerate the achievements of that branch, but I suspect he was going a little too far. The same was true of my opinions regarding his book on Bomber Command, which basically said exactly the same thing (the RAF/Bomber Command was pretty useless), which I can't agree with. Okay, the bombing did not achieve the results expected, but it sure as heck achieved something. Maybe it should have been more concentrated, maybe there should have been a focus on the synthetic oil plants, maybe a million things, but it's impossible to deny that it did something. You cannot drop that quantity of explosives on something (even if some did miss), without attaining some results. But his complete criticism of the ground/air cooperation seemed a little OTT in this book too. He cited an example where an aerial controller was killed and there was no one to take his place. Well, let's just make a couple of points. Controlling aircraft from the ground is not going to be an easy task. You have to know enough about flying to know what landmarks should be pointed out and which should be ignored on the basis that they won't be visible. You need to have equipment that works, that you can carry around (wireless was hardly what you'd call easily portable), you need training. So it's unsurprising that there was no one to replace them really. Another thing that annoyed me in this respect was the way in which Hastings suggested that things did improve in the campaign, but failed to actually go into this properly, leaving the overall impression that the air domination was utterly useless.
It was, however, quite well structured, and provided a good overview of the operation. It lacked some depth in parts, for example with relation to the use of airborne troops, but on the whole it was a good book. The pictures in the middle bits again were poorly labelled and didn't do much for the story, but this criticism can be levelled at almost any history book. Even D-Day by Anthony Beevor, which I think so far to be the better of the two, has not integrated the pictures very well at all. However, these considerations may come from the publishers on the basis that its uneconomical to put a lot of words onto the picture pages, as obviously the glossy paper is more expensive to use. There were little sections thrown in that gave a sketch picture of a piece of equipment and information about it. These would perhaps have been better in their own section for reference too, with a little note as to which were included in the section when they first showed up, and the quality of the sketches was also pretty poor--it was hard to distinguish much in the way of features, and they almost may as well have been a mere silhouette. Again though, this is a criticism that would perhaps more fairly be directed towards the publisher.
On the whole then, it was a good book, but not spectacular. A good coverage of the subject, but it was by no means comprehensive, and certain aspects were skimmed over with the explanation: these have been well documented in other books. Fine, but this book itself is now pretty old as far as getting hold of copies is concerned, and probably out of print (one sec while I check that...), hmm, seems to be the case. There was an edition came out near enough four years ago, and there's another coming out in a couple of months, but the trouble with that is that the library I live near has a nasty tendency to stick older books away somewhere in the bowels of the library system and you have to go fishing on the computer to dig them out. So while there might have been a spate of books on that particular subject at the time of writing, it's no guarantee that they're still hanging about now. I have to say, I'm finding the Antony Beevor one a better book, but I'll let you know for certain when I've finished (unfortunately, this one isn't out in paperback yet, and therefore on the basis of comparing how much the two books cost, I'd have to go with Overlord as being better value for money as they make very many similar statements and are both well written and equally readable, though D-Day seems to take into account a more balanced picture). One thing it was good on was the German perspective, detailing hte experiences of various groups of Germans in opposition to the Allies--this is something that lacks from D-Day. Both are good books, but if you're getting them from the library I'd have to go on the side of D-Day on the basis that it seems slightly more comprehensive.
One thing I will add: don't read this book if you're looking for a detailed account of D-Day itself. Were Cobra and Goodwood really a part of Overlord? I was always under the impression that was just the initial period, the actual landings. Maybe I'm mistaken here, but it seems as though the book goes a little outside the scope you'd assume from the main title, though beneath it adds that it is about the 'Battle for Normandy'.
It was, however, quite well structured, and provided a good overview of the operation. It lacked some depth in parts, for example with relation to the use of airborne troops, but on the whole it was a good book. The pictures in the middle bits again were poorly labelled and didn't do much for the story, but this criticism can be levelled at almost any history book. Even D-Day by Anthony Beevor, which I think so far to be the better of the two, has not integrated the pictures very well at all. However, these considerations may come from the publishers on the basis that its uneconomical to put a lot of words onto the picture pages, as obviously the glossy paper is more expensive to use. There were little sections thrown in that gave a sketch picture of a piece of equipment and information about it. These would perhaps have been better in their own section for reference too, with a little note as to which were included in the section when they first showed up, and the quality of the sketches was also pretty poor--it was hard to distinguish much in the way of features, and they almost may as well have been a mere silhouette. Again though, this is a criticism that would perhaps more fairly be directed towards the publisher.
On the whole then, it was a good book, but not spectacular. A good coverage of the subject, but it was by no means comprehensive, and certain aspects were skimmed over with the explanation: these have been well documented in other books. Fine, but this book itself is now pretty old as far as getting hold of copies is concerned, and probably out of print (one sec while I check that...), hmm, seems to be the case. There was an edition came out near enough four years ago, and there's another coming out in a couple of months, but the trouble with that is that the library I live near has a nasty tendency to stick older books away somewhere in the bowels of the library system and you have to go fishing on the computer to dig them out. So while there might have been a spate of books on that particular subject at the time of writing, it's no guarantee that they're still hanging about now. I have to say, I'm finding the Antony Beevor one a better book, but I'll let you know for certain when I've finished (unfortunately, this one isn't out in paperback yet, and therefore on the basis of comparing how much the two books cost, I'd have to go with Overlord as being better value for money as they make very many similar statements and are both well written and equally readable, though D-Day seems to take into account a more balanced picture). One thing it was good on was the German perspective, detailing hte experiences of various groups of Germans in opposition to the Allies--this is something that lacks from D-Day. Both are good books, but if you're getting them from the library I'd have to go on the side of D-Day on the basis that it seems slightly more comprehensive.
One thing I will add: don't read this book if you're looking for a detailed account of D-Day itself. Were Cobra and Goodwood really a part of Overlord? I was always under the impression that was just the initial period, the actual landings. Maybe I'm mistaken here, but it seems as though the book goes a little outside the scope you'd assume from the main title, though beneath it adds that it is about the 'Battle for Normandy'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)