Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #384101 in Books
• Published on: 2004-11-30
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 462 pages

Customer Reviews

Sadly still pandering to the myopic !
The quality of Mr. Winter's research can be best explained by the selective (mis)use of sources. A great example of the approach taken can actually be found on the cover of the book. Here's what a reviewer is meant to have said about the book........

Denis Winter has lobbed a hand grenade into the British historiography of the First World War... This angry attitude makes for vigorous and splendid entertainment... The author's indefatigable exploration of the sources and impassioned presentation of the case for the prosecution should ensure that his study is taken seriously by all future historians of the First World War.

Brian Bond, History Today

The actual quote from the review is as follows..............

[His] angry attitude makes for vigorous and splendid entertainment, but also raises questions about the author's objectivity and judgement... Occasional factual errors and overconfidence in the handling of casualty statistics also raise questions of judgement on larger issues...

Brian Bond, History Today

While this is nothing to do with Mr. Winter.....rather the dishonest practices of a copy writer, the actual approach is one that Mr. Winter uses throughout the book to make his points.

Not an honest attempt at history.........stay away from this one.

Winter seems to be on some sort of personal vendetta
Throughout the book Winter is 'out to get his man'. He commonly uses value-judged phrases such as "ponderous lines, advancing like a German machine-gunner's dream." Winter further aleges that the British attack on the Somme cannot be said to be due to the German preasure on Verdun as the numbers of French divisions asigned to the Verdun sector grew in the months leading up to and during the Somme Offensive. However he totally disregards the fact that there was only a single track railway to take troops into the battle area; no matter how many men you have, they make no differance if they cannot be brought into the battle.

However the main criticism of this work is the widespread innacuracies that it contains, such as: (1) Misdating a corespondance by 17 years so it supported his conspiracy claims, (2) Quoting another historian out of context as an endorsement, and (3) Inflating casualty figures.

Winter makes much of his Commonwealth sources which escaped the censor, I therefore find it quite ironic that this work has been disowned by the staff at the Australian War Memorial, Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson (both highly respected Austrailian Historians of the Great War).

Overall the only use of this book to a serious student of the period is for identifying arguments which are to be rejected before moving onto more valid areas of discussion, definitly not a book to be judged by its cover endorsements.

A Controversial Book
This is a controversial book in more ways than one. It has left military historians, professional and amateur, divided. General Sir Douglas Haig is perhaps the most controversial general on the Western Front, and also perhaps, the most misunderstood. Denis Winter tries to explore the myth surrounding Haig, particularly his role during the closing months of the war after the great German advance of March 1918. Some of his arguments are not convincing however, since much of the evidence is speculative. Nevertheless, it should be read. You may end up with more questions than answers though.