Talk:The Guns of August

Early comments

There's a lot of things wrong with this article. Tuchman also describes in the opening chapters the situations that created the crisis, and she wrote a whole other book on the social issues leading to the conflict, which should be mentioned, since it does not have its own article.

"Beginning on July 28, 1914, The Guns of August plays out the cataclysm of events that lead to a continental war, as well as the strategies behind the war which would lead to inevitable stalemate." The book actually starts before that, and the latter half of the sentance should be rephrased as a separate sentance. Also note that describing the stalemate (is it generally described as such?) which developed as "inevitable" is fallacious, see Hindsight Bias.

"In the early days of August 1914 Germany was in a state of massive mobilisation. Their plan, years in the making, was to sweep in a giant arc across Belgium and northern France and, by the end of the month, descend on Paris, the heart of their longtime enemy. It is this single month that would spell out the future of Humanity." Quite a sweeping statement, that last bit. It needs to be removed or attributed to someone as their opinion. This badly written paragraph is in the introduction for what reason, pray tell? Historical background I could see, but about the book itself, not the history of the war.

More later. Tenebrous 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope that my edits of this article do not offend anyone. I tried to leave parts of the original wikipedean's comments in the text. I also tried to bolster some points that I did not think he/she had represented well enough -- namely the point of spreading German Kulture across Europe if not the world. This did make the entry a little choppy.

I also added my personal view, which may be frowned upon, that this book is not a Military History but a History book on the effects of Military actions. Feel free to remove that comment if this is felt to be inappropriate.

Lastly my copy of the book is an older printing (Dell 8th printing, June 1967, 575 pages) so my page number references may be wrong. The references are second and fourth pages into the chapter (next time I get to a bookstore I will verify the numbers).

Please let me know if anyone feels things are misplaced or of poor form - this is my first contribution.

-Todd 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do disagree with you as to the book's classification; most histories don't go into detail on battles, commanders, etc. However! Neither of our opinions have any business being in the article--stick to the facts. I'm sure that it's been sold as both History and Military History. My copy is 1980 from Bantam, but I don't think it matters as to the edition as long as we're consistent. Tenebrous 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops...

Sorry about the minor edits - I guess I need a class in proof reading. -Todd 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries ^_^ typos are the least of our problems on Wikipedia. Tenebrous 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

I would love to find some sort of critical analysis on this book or, failing that, a review by a notable historian. Google searches aren't turning up anything, but I'll keep trying Tenebrous 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Thanks for the changes to the first section. It reads nicer and the additional reference is valuable.

Since I am new to wikipedia I am wondering about the deletion of the "Analysis" section.

I think I need to first ask if there is a template for non-fiction (I did not find one in Wikipedia:WikiProject Books). If there is one, then my comments below may not need to be read. It seems to me that there needs to be a section that discusses the book at a more personal level that would be able, through editing, to gain consensus on the value to the book.

Discussion pages might be aimed at doing this. In which case, I will repost the original "Analysis" (I am not sure who the author was) and then mine in this discussion. That really was my greatest concern in the edit that I did. I was surely removing part of the original author's view of the book.

So, 1) is there a template I have missed? 2) Don't you agree the "Analysis's" should be a) preserved or b) brought to a consensus.

-Todd 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you are talking about does not belong on wikipedia. The editors' opinion of this book would be about as POV as it gets, and WP:NOR and WP:V prohibit us from including that kind of material.
The authors' opinions or identities are not supposed to matter. Nobody owns these pages, and everyone is encouraged to edit them. We get to include facts (with a cited source), and the opinions of other notable people that have been published in some form. Wikipedia is not the place for your opinion, my opinion, or any other editors' opinion, see WP:NOT.
The 'Analysis' section should be reserved for critical analysis of the book by notable, published critics. I'm rather irritated at not being able to find anybody commenting on the content; I'd like to rely on book reviews only as a last resort. Tenebrous 23:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

England/Britain/Great Britain

Guys, just a reminder - England and Britain are two different things and cannot be used as synonyms.

I think the easiest way for Americans to look at it is to think of England as the rough equivalent of a single US State. Therefore, referring to the United Kingdom as 'England' is like referring to the entire United States as 'California', 'Alaska', 'Washington', 'Alabama' or any other single state. It's clearly not, since that excludes the 49 other states that are part of the United States. Saying 'England' excludes the three other nations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) which make up the United Kingdom.

Also, on the use of Great Britain - Great Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland (or Ireland as it would have been during World War I) so is similarly incorrect. The full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To be on the safe side, stick with UK and/or Britain. If you're unsure then do feel free to use the talkpage to find out - that's why they're there. 88.104.157.205 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Clausewitz page numbers

I'm having a devil of a time tracking down some Clausewitz quotes. My source is The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman says (p 39) that among Clausewitz' objectives of war is that of "gaining great victories and possession of the enemy's capital." Guns gives the cite for this (from the 3-volume Graham translation) as Clausewitz III, 209-10. This apparently doesn't correspond to the online versions of Graham (for example http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_War or http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/ONWARTOC2.HTML ).

Can anybody give me a cite for any online English translation of this quote?

Is there any rule of thumb for converting page numbers of one translation of Clausewitz to another?

Thanks. -- 201.53.4.206 10:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Effects/JFK

Sorry, but JFK's EXCOMM did not have time to stop and read a 500+ page book during the Cuban Missile Crisis. According to the back of the recorded book I've got in front of me, "[JFK] was so impressed by the book, he gave copies to his cabinet and principal military advisers, and commanded them to read it." In Robert Dallek's One Minute to Midnight on the CMC he stated essentially the same thing. I believe it was also made available at all U.S. military bases. Vargob (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I added citations to a passage I recently came across in Robert McNamara's memoir talking about Kennedy's request that his top officials read Tuchman's book. It seemed to be a better source for the anecdote than the unsupported statement on the audio CD jacket, so I added it to the article. jabloom99 December 27, 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Irony

It seems ironic that such a well-written article, apparently written mostly by someone who knows the subject, can cite almost no sources yet can offer countless opinions. I doubt if this essay would get a passing grade as a high school term paper which requires valid sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This comment and the tags imposed on it, presumably by Wikiwatcher are misconceived. This is not an article on World War I, but an article on a book on World War I. I have not read the book, but I presume the article is accurately summarising the content of the book. As such the whole article is (presumably) well-sourced. What is lacking is a critical discussion of the content and the views of other historians on its content. This will be found in reviews of the book when published, and in subsequent historical books on the subject. Peterkingiron (talk)

Tags, criticism

Tags have been added to appropriate sections (four in number), but removed from the start of the article. The reason being that, while improvements made since 2010 may remedy much of the article, other sections remain undocumented (little or no page or chapter reference to the book).

There is not as yet any general criticism of the book. The "Critical analysis" section mostly presents B.T.'s criticism of the historical actors, rather that a critical analysis of her book. E.g., it appears that only one or two outside critical sources have been referenced. Elfelix (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Since: split up "Critical analysis" section. Elfelix (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening section and continued need for improvement

I've just gutted the opening section. It's still far from perfect, but the existing opening (while interesting) ran for nearly two full pages and accounted for over one-third of the entire article, much of which read like a cross between a sales pitch and a review. I started to edit the other sections, which seem to be written in a similar way, but it's been a long time since I read the book so I'm probably not the best man for the job. -- Dapper cthulhu (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

German war aims

Added her incorrect opinion that the Septemberprogramm was actual policy; it was a discussion document that was never adopted. But of course her skill was in her writing, and not as an academic specialist on the German military-political archives.86.42.199.2 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing this section because the original editor doesn't know how to read. At no point in the book is the Septemberprogramm even mentioned, but Tuchman repeatedly quotes the encirclement arguments of the German leadership, notably and extensively Kaiser Wilhelm II. Pages 314-316, in the chapter titled 'The Flames of Louvain', deal exclusively with the German treatment of Belgian civilians based on a supposed precept of Clausewitz. [Writer and date unknown, but probably 76.23.31.171, 24 August 2014].

Fischer's theories went far beyond the Septemberprogramm (merely one of the more prominent documents he used). Fischer revived the charge that Germany began the World War to pursue its foreign policy. German guilt was much discussed in the 1920s, following the punitive Versailles treaty. That discussion ended with "a verdict of not guilty" as the origins of the war were seen as many and shared, not only in acts of several nations, but also in European imperialism and social darwinism, and the treaty system. Fischer, however, reignited these charges against Germany, generating much heat, especially considering that Fischer's accusations came during several intense decades when West Germans were painfully seeking to understand, repent, and reconcile regarding their nation's guilt for subsequent Nazi war crimes. The World War I controversy continues, yet the general result appears similar to that of the 1920s. Yet when Tuchman wrote, Fischer's theories were new and widely discussed, and the critical response had just begun. Elfelix (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tuchman's reference to Septemberprogramm, if any, not located. Elfelix (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Correction: Tuchman discusses the September war aims, pp. 360-361. Elfelix (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tuchman does not cite or discuss Fischer, or list Fischer or any of his books as a source. Fischer's first book, Germany's Aims in the First World War, was published in 1961 (and not published in English until 1967), and The Guns of August was published in 1962. Most of the sources Tuchman does cite are much older, the great majority were published before the Second World War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabloom99 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Square brackets

The text is littered with numbers in square brackets, e.g. "in chapter nine [53-78], the author argues etc". I have not seen this system elsewhere and it is not explained in the article. Are they page numbers? If so, which edition? Why this non-standard format? 194.176.105.147 (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

carrier or carried?

This phrase doesn't make sense as written:

"...allowed himself to be carrier away..."

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

spelling error - fdewaele, 29 June 2015, 19:14 CET

Kennedy funeral

The long paragraph at the end of the Cultural Impact section, which describes the Kennedy funeral and it’s attendees, seems to me irrelevant. I will remove unless someone can justify it. Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Max Hastings quote

The article quotes Hastings referring to someone else who apparently described the book as "hopelessly unscholarly". The article refers to Hastings as a "historian". The implication is that Hastings himself considers it unscholarly.

Hastings is not qualified to speak on historical scholarliness; he is known primarily as a journalist, focusing on military matters. He has also written volumes on historical topics. He seems to have flunked the only degree he attempted (UCL), so unless I'm ill-informed, then he is no scholar.

Also, if some academic described the book as unscholarly, surely the citation should be to that academic; at least it should mention this academic's name, and say why he thought it was unscholarly.

I think this paragraph is WP:UNDUE and should be deleted.

MrDemeanour (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)