Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #81680 in Books
• Published on: 2007-01-10
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 299 pages

Synopsis
The First World War, with its mud and the slaughter of the trenches, is often taken as the ultimate example of the futility of war. Generals, safe in their headquarters behind the lines, sent millions of men to their deaths to gain a few hundred yards of ground. Writers, notably Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, provided unforgettable images of the idiocy and tragedy of the war. Yet this vision of the war is at best a partial one, the war only achieving its status as the worst of wars in the last thirty years. At the time, the war aroused emotions of pride and patriotism. Not everyone involved remembered the war only for its miseries. The generals were often highly professional and indeed won the war in 1918. In this original and challenging book, Dan Todman shows views of the war have changed over the last ninety years and how a distorted image of it emerged and became dominant.

Customer Reviews

Disappointing and poorly researched
I bought this book after having read the enthusiastic comments of previous readers but I have to say I was quite disappointed. The book promises a revolution in the interpretation of the Great War from the point of view of military history and cultural history, but does it manage to achieve that? I reckon it doesn't, as it has left too many things out of the picture, that is, those things that do not fit the author's thesis. For example, Todman strongly absolvitory idea that there is no relation between the rise of Nazism and the end of W.W.I is totally questionable. Surely he manages to sound persuasive because he leaves Fascism out of the picture, by the way ignoring all the researches carried out by important Italian historians like Mario Isnenghi and Giorgio Rochat, who have thoroughly analysed how W.W.I paved the way to Fascism (a political movement whish was mostly led by war veterans, like Mussolini and Italo Balbo, and which in turn strongly influenced Adolph Hitler--another Great War veteran). His exploration of the negative myth of the Great War is not complete, not at all, because he seems to suggest that it's the British war poets who created the negative image of the war, while, had he bothered to read e.g. A.D. Harvey's Muse of Fire, he might have understood that it's an international phenomenon, and that there are dozens of books which depict the great war as the hell it was--sure, if you stick to a parochial point of view which only takes into account British authors you may think that only a few malcontents complained about the war, but if you read also Dorgeles, Lussu, Hemingway, Renn, Remarque, O'Flaherty, Dos Passos, cummings, Kraus and many others you may see things differently (and I am mentioning the literary authors, to whom one should add dozens of diaries, memorials, etc.). Then the issue of how the commanders were judged by subsequent historians is oddly incomplete: no mention of such a key essay like Tim Travers' The Killing Ground, no mention of the fundamental essays by John Keegan. So I see no reason to extol this book, whose intentions may have been good (e.g. I do believe that a totally negative picture of the life led by soldiers in the treches is not totally acceptable, and other classics of war literature might be mentioned, such as Ernst Juenger or Blaise Cendrars), but whose achievemnets are limited and whose overall thesis ("the war wasn't that bad") is still disputable. Then, I absolutely disapprove of another smug argument that Todman seems to like so much, that is, what might be summarized as "we won the war, so what's all this fuss?" It seems that he ignores the story of Pyrrhus' victory--which, for a historian, is unforgivable.

The Great War: Myth and Memory
It is good news for all those interested in the Great War that `Hambledon Continuum' have republished Dan Todman's book, `The Great War - Myth and Memory'.

He provides the reader with an insight into how history can be manipulated by individuals, groups and society as a whole. He explains how the Great War myths were formulated. In order to do this he breaks the war down into seven distinct areas; Mud, Death, Donkeys, Futility, Poets, Veterans and Modern Memory.

Each topic is examined in an interest and analytical manner. He refers the reader to many of the books that have lead to the much vaunted view of `Butchers and Bunglers'.

I personally had my original views of the Great War formulated by the writings of books by AJP Taylor and Alan Clark, the war poets such as Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, along with the television serial, 'Blackadder Goes Forth'. Dan Todman enlightens the reader as to how and why these images and versions of the war were produced, and what effect they on society as a whole.

Professor Peter Simkins rates Dan Todman's book as being one that should be read by all those who have an interest in the Great War. It is a good book which certainly `debunks' many of the well held and factually wrong views of the war.

I would recommend it whole heartedly.

Wide-ranging and knowledgeable
Dan Todman's book provides a further insight into the social and cultural history of the Great War to offset the 'futile slaughter' view still held by so many people. He is particularly good on tracing the development of deeply held myths and covers a wide range of topics. My only reservation about a fine analysis is that to my mind he plays down the key importance of the 1960s in shaping these myths. It is true that not all came to prominence in the 60s but the continuing misrepresentation of the Great War is highly dependent upon those whose ideas were shaped in that decade.