Fav Historian?

[morse1001]

Originally Posted by Owen D

OK morse I admit I've never read an Irving book. Mainly as his Holocaust Denials have put me right of him. Therefore my arguement I have against him has a huge great hole in it.
Having looked at his website at the amount of research and the sources he used in his Rommel book http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Rommel/ I will give it a go. A controversial character for certain of his views which is a shame if he really has something worthwhile to contribute that then gets ignored.
I know you say you disagree with most of his conclusions but it was a shock at first to see someone admitting publicly they rate him as as historian. I'd never seen a pro-Irving point of view before.

His book on Rommel was fascinating to say the least. his work on the actions of Spiedl was very revealing and shows what helped the allies to win on d-day.

As for being pro-irving, that should not come as a shock as he does come with some very strong recommendations from very important people about the accuracy of his earlier work.

[morse1001]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Absolutely!




And Morse, I know exactly what you mean (I think) with regards to Irving. Any book, especially well written ones, can be interesting regardless of the author and sometimes especially because of some bias. As long as the reader keeps an awareness of where the Author's coming from then why not read anything and everything? How else can we really know about other opinions than our own? I can read Von Manstein's, Guderian's, Hoess's and even Hitler's books (though 'well written' may have little to do with them) and know full well what I'm dealing with. Same could be said for Monty's and Bradley's Histories, incredibly biased but that never stops them from being a genuine part of the bigger picture..

This is it, even bad books can provide the reader with some education, even if it is to avoid the author in future!

Something i always bear in mind is the word written by Maxim Cohn, the former Attorney general of israel, "A layman always reads that which agrees with him".

When it comes to WW2 some of the worst history books were written before it was possible to include info on the various crypto units. The authors had to hide the info or invent things to try and show who the allies or axis powers did with sig int.

I'm afraid my reading choice for WW2 tends to lean towards the individuals at the lower levels. Biographies and memories of bomber command kind of thing like SQ Yates. I tend to avoid hiostorians as I want the smaller picture, not the larger. Wrong I know, but that's just me.
However, i do think it's a bloody shame David Starkey has never researched WW2. Now there's a historian for getting back to basics.

[Owen]

mosquito617I'm afraid my reading choice for WW2 tends to lean towards the individuals at the lower levels. Biographies and memories of bomber command kind of thing like SQ Yates. I tend to avoid hiostorians as I want the smaller picture, not the larger. Wrong I know, but that's just me.

Kitty,
I must admit I'm with you there. Never been much of a big-picture reader, more "view from a slit trench."
I'm not an arm-chair General more an arm-chair platoon Sergeant.

[Herroberst]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

As a student of History you can NEVER afford to completely discard any work even if you disagree with it.

Well said, although I haven't read his book.

Wasn't Slim in Burma?

[morse1001]

Originally Posted by Herroberst

Well said, although I haven't read his book.

Wasn't Slim in Burma?

Yes! But he served in various other places in the far east. His book Unofficial history was an atempt to go beyond the dry offical histories and was a very good book!

[spidge]

Yes he did! One of the best he was too!

"There is a difference between leadership and management. The leader and the men who follow him represent one of the oldest, most natural and most effective of all human relationships. The manager and those he manages are a later product with neither so romantic nor so inspiring a history. Managers are necessary, leaders are essential".
Field Marshal, Sir William Slim
Australian Army Journal, November 1957


Field-Marshal, The Viscount Slim, KG, GCB, GCMG, GCVO, GRE, DSO, MC.
Slim was the epitome, or if you like the quintessential professional soldier. His charisma and energy for the job at hand was admired by those who fought with and for him.

Commissioned as an officer (2nd Lieutenant) in the Royal Warwichshire Regiment in 1914, he was badly wounded at Gallipoli and fought in France & Mesopotamia. In 1940-41 he led British and Indian troops in Eritrea, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

He commanded all levels from platoon to army group in combat with the exception of battalion. His career was one of selfless service and devotion to duty.

In the early days of WW2 he was always leading the action commanding the 10th Indian Infantry Brigade against the Italians in Eritrea and the Sudan (1940-1941), then the 10th Indian Division against Iraqis and Vichy French in Syria (1941).

William Slim was sent to take up a corps command in Burma in 1942, maintaining morale and discipline during the retreat from Rangoon to Imphal where British forces were reeling under the Japanese onslaught. The situation was desperate but Slim conducted a steady withdrawal while in close contact with the enemy. Slim concentrated on improving the welfare of his men, reducing disease and building up an adequate supply chain. He was appointed commander of Burma Corps, and then XV Corps. Slim assumed command of the Fourteenth Army in February 1944 with an offensive toward Arakan. He cleverly repulsed the last Japanese assaults against Imphal and Kohima, before going on the offensive himself. Outflanking the Japanese on the Irawaddy River, Slim regained the strategic initiative. The subsequent British advance through central Burma, in which Slim used armor and mechanized formations in extremely difficult terrain, was a masterpiece of military skill. By June 1944, Slim's "Forgotten Army" had decisively won the Imphal / Kohima battle restoring allied prestige.

At war’s end, Slim was commanding Allied Land Forces, South East Asia.

His humble background, and lead from the front attitude inspired his troops and gained him unreserved respect. His Military career was fulfilled when his appointment in 1948 as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the first Indian Army officer ever to serve as the professional head of the British Army.

He was also Governor General of Australia whilst still being a serving Field Marshal and a Knight.

Originally Posted by Owen D

Kitty,
I must admit I'm with you there. Never been much of a big-picture reader, more "view from a slit trench."
I'm not an arm-chair General more an arm-chair platoon Sergeant.

View myself more of a Pilot Officer. But knowing my luck I'd be an Erk.

[spidge]

Funny.......I can picture you with headphones and a microphone!

[morse1001]

Originally Posted by spidge

Yes he did! One of the best he was too!

"There is a difference between leadership and management. The leader and the men who follow him represent one of the oldest, most natural and most effective of all human relationships. The manager and those he manages are a later product with neither so romantic nor so inspiring a history. Managers are necessary, leaders are essential".
Field Marshal, Sir William Slim
Australian Army Journal, November 1957


Field-Marshal, The Viscount Slim, KG, GCB, GCMG, GCVO, GRE, DSO, MC.
Slim was the epitome, or if you like the quintessential professional soldier. His charisma and energy for the job at hand was admired by those who fought with and for him.

Commissioned as an officer (2nd Lieutenant) in the Royal Warwichshire Regiment in 1914, he was badly wounded at Gallipoli and fought in France & Mesopotamia. In 1940-41 he led British and Indian troops in Eritrea, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

He commanded all levels from platoon to army group in combat with the exception of battalion. His career was one of selfless service and devotion to duty.

In the early days of WW2 he was always leading the action commanding the 10th Indian Infantry Brigade against the Italians in Eritrea and the Sudan (1940-1941), then the 10th Indian Division against Iraqis and Vichy French in Syria (1941).

William Slim was sent to take up a corps command in Burma in 1942, maintaining morale and discipline during the retreat from Rangoon to Imphal where British forces were reeling under the Japanese onslaught. The situation was desperate but Slim conducted a steady withdrawal while in close contact with the enemy. Slim concentrated on improving the welfare of his men, reducing disease and building up an adequate supply chain. He was appointed commander of Burma Corps, and then XV Corps. Slim assumed command of the Fourteenth Army in February 1944 with an offensive toward Arakan. He cleverly repulsed the last Japanese assaults against Imphal and Kohima, before going on the offensive himself. Outflanking the Japanese on the Irawaddy River, Slim regained the strategic initiative. The subsequent British advance through central Burma, in which Slim used armor and mechanized formations in extremely difficult terrain, was a masterpiece of military skill. By June 1944, Slim's "Forgotten Army" had decisively won the Imphal / Kohima battle restoring allied prestige.

At war’s end, Slim was commanding Allied Land Forces, South East Asia.

His humble background, and lead from the front attitude inspired his troops and gained him unreserved respect. His Military career was fulfilled when his appointment in 1948 as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the first Indian Army officer ever to serve as the professional head of the British Army.

He was also Governor General of Australia whilst still being a serving Field Marshal and a Knight.

Dear Old Uncle Bill!

it is said of Slim that he never forgot the smell of mens boots!