The First World War
Michael Howard
And the second book I read this year is a non-fiction work, a trend that may not hold this year like it did last year. I should break down the numbers on fiction vs. non-fiction, but we're here to discuss Mr. Howard at present. I look at this book on two levels. The first is the most basic: Howard is attempting to provide the unknowledgable reader with a brief outline of the events of the Great War, you know, the other world war. On this account, the book is engaging and quite interesting. Howard sketches out the basic framework of 1914 from which the war emerged and proceeds to explain major battles and turning points quite succinctly and with a keen eye for what most casual readers will understand. Howard rarely gets caught up in clumsy foreign terminology, and when he does, it is usually explained.
The other level of this book is the editorial level, which is unfortunately unavoidable when constructing a history. Though Howard doesn't approach the book with a distinct scholarly thesis in mind, he does have a British bias that should be more carefully avoided in a volume so intended for the uneducated masses as this one purports to be. Firstly, Howard doesn't fully acknowledge the fact that scholarly opinion regarding the outbreak of the war, and subsequent blame, is quite split. He passes a cursory glance at the fact that there is a controversy, but he is nonetheless quite content in blaming Germany for the outbreak of war. I find this to be more than a little suspect, and I would have at least preferred a bit of explanation. I feel that the book wouldn't have suffered too horribly if a little more attention had been paid to the debate.
Similarly, Howard's book constantly berates Germany, often to the point of being humorous. Howard is quick to point out that German troops burned Belgian cities, but his feeble attempt to disguise his bias ("British propoganda said...") seems more silly than scholarly. Howard points out that the Germans began the use of poison gas, but paints the British decision to use it in retaliation as mere defense, not arguing with the moral dilemmas facing a power using such an admittedly horrible killing device. My favorite contradiction of this variety was Howard's treatment of airplanes. Though the Germans are barbaric for first utilizing airplanes in the war, the British are heroes for inventing strategic bombing. Blame goes all around, and Howard just can't seem to get his head around that, to the detriment of his credibility.
His most laughable offense is his proposed defense of the Treaty of Versailles, which he says (not argues, mind you) was justified and has "stood the test of time." I don't know which history books he's smoking, but everything I've read on the treaty pretty much paints it as a disaster. Howard defends the creation of Yugoslavia which, by copyright in 2002, has turned into a cauldron of ethnic hatred and strife, perhaps related to the attempt to unify distinct peoples, to say nothing of the British "unification" of Iraq which probably has something to do with the current sectarian violence there. But I digress. Howard actually blames Germans for blaming the Treaty of Versailles (and its unpayable reparation scheme, which Howard himself directly alludes to) for their economic woes in the coming decades, as if it were wholly irrelevant that Germany was made the stool pigeon for the universally war-hungry European powers of 1914.
Howard's book, while being a good general introduction to the actual mechanics of the war America has forgotten, is thus still caught up in Allied propaganda. I can recommend it if looked upon skeptically, but Howard's main accomplishment here is to show that history is indeed written by the victors, a lesson his brilliant Treaty of Versailles taught the world by 1945.
Grade: B
Michael Howard
And the second book I read this year is a non-fiction work, a trend that may not hold this year like it did last year. I should break down the numbers on fiction vs. non-fiction, but we're here to discuss Mr. Howard at present. I look at this book on two levels. The first is the most basic: Howard is attempting to provide the unknowledgable reader with a brief outline of the events of the Great War, you know, the other world war. On this account, the book is engaging and quite interesting. Howard sketches out the basic framework of 1914 from which the war emerged and proceeds to explain major battles and turning points quite succinctly and with a keen eye for what most casual readers will understand. Howard rarely gets caught up in clumsy foreign terminology, and when he does, it is usually explained.
The other level of this book is the editorial level, which is unfortunately unavoidable when constructing a history. Though Howard doesn't approach the book with a distinct scholarly thesis in mind, he does have a British bias that should be more carefully avoided in a volume so intended for the uneducated masses as this one purports to be. Firstly, Howard doesn't fully acknowledge the fact that scholarly opinion regarding the outbreak of the war, and subsequent blame, is quite split. He passes a cursory glance at the fact that there is a controversy, but he is nonetheless quite content in blaming Germany for the outbreak of war. I find this to be more than a little suspect, and I would have at least preferred a bit of explanation. I feel that the book wouldn't have suffered too horribly if a little more attention had been paid to the debate.
Similarly, Howard's book constantly berates Germany, often to the point of being humorous. Howard is quick to point out that German troops burned Belgian cities, but his feeble attempt to disguise his bias ("British propoganda said...") seems more silly than scholarly. Howard points out that the Germans began the use of poison gas, but paints the British decision to use it in retaliation as mere defense, not arguing with the moral dilemmas facing a power using such an admittedly horrible killing device. My favorite contradiction of this variety was Howard's treatment of airplanes. Though the Germans are barbaric for first utilizing airplanes in the war, the British are heroes for inventing strategic bombing. Blame goes all around, and Howard just can't seem to get his head around that, to the detriment of his credibility.
His most laughable offense is his proposed defense of the Treaty of Versailles, which he says (not argues, mind you) was justified and has "stood the test of time." I don't know which history books he's smoking, but everything I've read on the treaty pretty much paints it as a disaster. Howard defends the creation of Yugoslavia which, by copyright in 2002, has turned into a cauldron of ethnic hatred and strife, perhaps related to the attempt to unify distinct peoples, to say nothing of the British "unification" of Iraq which probably has something to do with the current sectarian violence there. But I digress. Howard actually blames Germans for blaming the Treaty of Versailles (and its unpayable reparation scheme, which Howard himself directly alludes to) for their economic woes in the coming decades, as if it were wholly irrelevant that Germany was made the stool pigeon for the universally war-hungry European powers of 1914.
Howard's book, while being a good general introduction to the actual mechanics of the war America has forgotten, is thus still caught up in Allied propaganda. I can recommend it if looked upon skeptically, but Howard's main accomplishment here is to show that history is indeed written by the victors, a lesson his brilliant Treaty of Versailles taught the world by 1945.
Grade: B
No comments:
Post a Comment