Book NOT to read..

I was reading Len Deighton's "Blitzkrieg: from the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk". I had to stop reading it because of some egregious errors.

First error was saying that their was an election in January of 33' and that Hitler formed a coalition. In actuality, the last election was in November and Hitler was put into power because of Franz Von Papen's behind the scenes machinations to remove Kurt Von Schleicher as Chancellor, who by the way, had schemed to get Von Papen removed.

Second error was even worse. He states that the Anschluss with Austria occurred in 39' when in fact it happened in March of 38'. That is Nazi history 101.

The third and final straw was the mislabeling of his drawing of a PzKw III as a PzKw II. One would think he would know what he or his artist drew!

I stopped there because with such blatant errors I don't know how much of the history I can trust.Needless to say, I am disappointed.

 

I can understand what you mean. It's always annoying to read these kind of errors. On the other hand I know the story of an editor who changed sentences in a manuscript and it was published with a description of the Spitire being a "two engine aircraft"....!!! The author wasn't even aware of it and everybody though he was the one who wrote that stupid sentence.

 

When it comes to history I do feel that there has to be more of an effort by all parties involved to make sure that as much of the book is accurate as possible. At the same time I understand that errors could and do slip through and to discredit a book based on 3 facts alone seems rather hastily, i hope that you did not miss out on some information in there that could have been useful to you to know.

On a side note a few years ago from Barnes and Nobles me and my brother picked up a Civil War title it was approx 500 pages but it was marked down to 2.50 $ because of a few inaccuracies they were pulling it i believe, because of the inaccuracies it seems like you would take everything with a grain of salt, but with the way that each country had manipulated the files and media on such events it seems like you would have to do that anyways.

 

This was basic stuff. If they book cannot get the basics right, how can I trust them to be correct in discussing the complex aspects of the subject? It is a matter of trust.

 

I find Frank K's writing on the German Army intolerable.

 

Strange Victory about the fall of France in 1940 written by Ernest May,professor American (!!) historyn p5"On june 22,German cavalry clattered down the Champs Elysées in Paris in a victory parade,with their fuhrer Adolf Hitler looking on . Hitler taking the salute in Paris big news. On p. 445on Dunkirk):as told, almost 340000 men(123000 of them French and more than 85000 vehicles safely reached ships or boats that transported them to the British Isles. The BEF returning to England with their 85000 vehicles ?? German strength:he gives 76 "first-line"(!) divisions and 26"second-line " divisions,the truth being 93 and 42 reserve of whom 24 participated in the offensive!Iam wondering if he ever consulted Frieser(Blitzkrieglegende) because his tankfigures are totally conflicting with the ones of Frieser. Professor may should better continuing his works on American history and keep silent on European and World War II history,of which,obviously,his knowledge is negligable.

 

forget school teaching altogether and go open up a weenie stand ...........

geez there have been authors galore misinterpreting the facts and figures should we expect anything different even in a more modern hi-tech age ?

 

..gosh, that really is the comment of someone who has evidently never ever had any involvement in the tortuous process of producing a book - I'm afraid to say that it's not just a question of dashing off a manuscript and forwarding to publisher for printing, but a long and complicated business fraught with potential for error & omission at any stage along the way. Even the software used can introduce totally unsuspected errors & typos!

 

err... Wouldn't WWII and American History be partly the same thing? Dr. May is a very respected historian and former Harvard dean. Just because his "tank numbers" don't match other books doesn't necessarily mean his information is wrong. Numbers in regards to things such as this, seldom if ever agree completely. Here is a portion of a review I found on the book you mentioned.

BookPage Nonfiction Review: Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France

 

The Blitzkrieg Myth by John Moiser. Easily the worst book ever written on the subject bar none. The guy is just dead wrong on everything.

 

I wrote the author a rather long e-mail and told him essentially he was an idiot. He replied he had a PhD and I didn't. I then told him "See! I was right!"

 

The instances given above could be typesetting errors not discovered by proof reading.

 

Excellent... Someone else whos read it... In full agreement... Although his brief chapters on gamelin, chamberlain and daladier are interesting..

 

mike the book is a littany of how france let the world down.. Revisionist to the extreme. Its not just facually inacurate...for want of a better word...false is my word... I wont use the l word. He even quotes a comp simulation pentagon supposedly used to push his theory that france should always have won.. Turns out this simulation was big 3 a rather inferior spectrum console game i own which bears no possible resemblance to any thing labled simulation.