What you reading?

Hitler's Pre-emptive War (The Battle for Norway 1940) by Henrik o. Lunde Makes the latest Osprey "Campaign" volume read like childs school project :coffee: Very interesting read, I`m suprised the Norwegians are even speaking to us after the way we treated them, just astounding :eh: The way also our troops were sent to Norway with the wrong kit, badley loaded onto transports, no wonder the campaign was a disaster. Very good read, I may be inspired to write a scenario or two.

Dunkirk, by Julian Thompson - Good on the military bits, but a bit wobbly on everything else. In fact very wobbly. Sometimes lacks objectivity. I know he can write well from some of his memoirs I've read, therefore a bit dissappointing... Just read this too. I found it quite interesting but... there were some fairly elementary errors of fact (& or bad proof reading/fact checking). Amongst the ones I noticed: (1) Just what is a 25mm Boy's Anti-tank rifle? Mentioned twice, someone has obviously got the Hotchkiss25mm ATG & the Boy's mixed up. (2) First use of the 88mm gun in an anti-tank role at Arras - an old myth which I thought had been well & truely debunked by now. (unless he means first trial after someone had thought of it, developed the ground sights & AT ammunition & tried it out in Spain & perhaps Poland). In reality it was mostly the 105mm guns of the German artilllery firing over open sights that did the damage (& there's photographic evidence to support this) but they're only mentioned in passing. (3) SS Totenkopf "Division" in 1940, in reality a reinforced regiment. Although it sounds a bit silly to complain about such things, it does make one wonder what else that's not so well known that is also inaccurately stated. I quite enjoyed his laceration of the French command though!

Hitler's Pre-emptive War (The Battle for Norway 1940) by Henrik o. Lunde ...... The way also our troops were sent to Norway with the wrong kit, badley loaded onto transports, no wonder the campaign was a disaster.. On the list to get..... I remember the tale of the French cruiser carrying all the kit for one of the French units - unfortunately it was too large to dock at the scehduled landing site so that unit landed without its heavy weapons, transport etc. No one had checked! Such basic errors seem to have dominated the British/French conduct of the campaign throughout.

I've just finished a short biography of General de Gaulle by Julian Jackson (an authority on 20th century French history although lambasted by Levied Troop for mistakes in his "The Fall of France"). It was very interesting, as I've always wanted to know more about de Gaulle. He clearly had a messiah complex, suffered from extreme delusions about France's history and achievements and turned Gallic ingratitude into an art-form. But he was what France needed and Western Europe after the war would have been very different without him. Quite mad, though. I need to quickly finish off a couple of Ospreys for Henry now.... :doh:

My favourite De Gaulle quote (well his wife really) At a dinner to celebrate the end of WW2, a journalist asked - "mrs de gaulle, now the war is over what do you want" Mrs De gaulle replies - "A PENIS" At which point her husband leans in and says - "No my dear, the word is pronounced HAPPINESS" :D

'The last year of the luftwaffe May1944 to May 1945'by Alfred Price,that should get me back into wargaming nicely i suppose :doh:

And 'reign of hell' by the classic author of war stories Sven Hassel but thats at work in break times so its going to be a slow read :)

Dunkirk, by Julian Thompson - Good on the military bits, but a bit wobbly on everything else. In fact very wobbly. Sometimes lacks objectivity. I know he can write well from some of his memoirs I've read, therefore a bit dissappointing... Just read this too. I found it quite interesting but... there were some fairly elementary errors of fact (& or bad proof reading/fact checking). <snip> Although it sounds a bit silly to complain about such things, it does make one wonder what else that's not so well known that is also inaccurately stated. It is often said that generals make poor military historians because they subconsciously relate everything to their own experiences and knowledge. A case in point is Sir Michael Rose, who recently had a book published comparing Iraq to the AWI, called "Washington's Wars" (a rather tortuous pun even by my standards). There were numerous factual errors - and not just wrong dates for battles - and some very tenuous links/comparisons based on out-dated misconceptions about the AWI and how it was fought.

Thompson's comments aren't subconscious though, at some points he's quite explicit about relating the BEF experience to how it would have been handled in his day. I actually enjoyed the book despite the flaws. There is a difference between being a historian (military & otherwise) and an obsessive.... There are plenty of hobbyists who can run rings around professional historians when it comes to certain specific aspects, such as the sub-types of tanks used on April 3rd 1945 by the Barsetshire Dragoons against the SS HRPuffenstuff Divison. That doesn't make the historian's viewpoint any less valid. It may however betray a certain lack of research, particularly when the facts are reasonably well known. (Even wikipedia gets it right sometimes!)

I can't comment on the technical bits because my knowledge isn't what it could be. As I've already said, my main criticism is about the lack of objectivity. I don't mind the harsh criticism of the French command (they certainly deserve it), it's the muted criticism of the British for sometimes doing the exact same thing's that doesn't sit very well with me. The French bore the brunt of the German race to the coast, and if the BEF was was in their way they would've gone through them like a hot knife through butter as well. So all the comments about the French cravenly fleeing whilst the plucky Brits manfully retreat do not go down well with me. In fact there's very little analysis of what the French were actually doing at all. I think Thompson suffers from not specialising in one particular period like some of the better military historians do. That's not to say that he doesn't have anything to offer, but I think he fails as a straight military historian.

View Full Version: What you reading?