
The First World War and The Pity of War
Dear Paul,
A few concluding thoughts on these books. The first fact, upon which neither of us has commented, is that both of the authors are Brits, and that the war echoes for them in a way that it does not for us. I doubt that an American author would write with this kind of intensity (different as the two authors are) about the Great War. Indeed, even the Civil War does not elicit from American authors the somber note that pervades these books. The two men are, respectively, two and three generations removed from that conflict and both are accomplished and professional writers--and yet both are grappling with emotions that neither has completely come to terms with. Perhaps the seeming oddness of this says more about the peculiarity of the United States, a country that treats Memorial Day as an opportunity for barbecues and clearance sales rather than for solemn remembrance. But the difference goes deeper, I think: I walk away from the books thinking that World War I still haunts some corner of the English soul, no matter how many other large events have occurred since then.
Secondly, neither author is a combat veteran, or indeed has any direct experience of military service. That is no professional disqualification, I believe--otherwise, only monks could write about monasteries, or surgeons about medical ethics. And with all due respect to combat veterans, including you, I have noticed that one kind of combat experience can create its own barriers to understanding other kinds. (To be sure, blessed personal innocence of war creates its own intellectual hazards in studying it). But there is a profound difference in their ability to put themselves inside the skins of baffled generals, mediocre politicians, dazed and battered soldiers. Keegan can do it, or at least tries very hard; I cannot say the same of Ferguson, who seems always to be measuring the outside of things.
Thirdly, and in a spirit of greater charity than I may have shown in our earlier exchanges, I am struck by how difficult it is to write a history of this war. Sniffing around the footnotes, I could not help but notice the trail of ibid.'s identifying sources. Our authors relied, perforce, on a handful of sources for most of their conclusions, with some important exceptions. I do not blame them for that--the wealth of material on the origins of the war alone would be just too much for any writer to handle. But to do a reasonable job on the secondary sources requires mastery of at least half a dozen languages (English, French, German, Italian, Russian, and Turkish, for starters). By and large, our authors dealt primarily with English and a smattering of German and French books. Even to read, say, the most important hundred books in each language on the subject would be a monstrous task; to then master and interpret the whole an even larger job. I give them credit for trying an ultimately impossible feat of synthesis.
One last observation. As this exchange began I picked up The Great War and Modern Memory, which really is a wonderful book. It does remind one of the indelible stamp World War I placed on our culture. Grim reading as the history of this war is, I think I will be delving more into this subject in the year to come, thanks in some considerable part to you and this dialogue.
I have enjoyed this conversation; I do hope that we will have a chance to meet at some point.
With warm regards,
Eliot
The Tea Party Protesters Are Getting Smarter
Slate's Mobile Site Just Got Better
Who Is Mrs. Cohen From Hadera, and Should Israelis Care Where She Puts Her Money?
What Wired, Esquire, and Hooters Magazines Think You Should Give for Christmas
Save the Planet. Eat More Brie.
How Easy Is It To Hike Into Iran Accidentally?












