German Official Histories
As I am digging through stuff for the next book I thought I would share this little bit of knowledge that might be confusing for some. You notice that the title of this is plural. That is because there are three different ones. So if you hear someone talking about the official history you should be forewarned and prepared for what you are about to read. None of the official histories seem to be totally good. I really don’t know anything about the Australian one and I have heard good things about it. When we look at August 1914 the British history (BOH) has some real problems. However, as it is in the English language, most historians seem to take what it says as gospel. This has led to a lot of myths. British readers have retained an amazing level of interest in the battle of Mons. It really is some sort of fascination with avid world war one authors sending all sorts of details down to the microscopic level for an engagement that really was just a skirmish compared to the massive engagements at the same time between the Germans and the French in the Battle of the Frontiers. On August 22 the French lost between 25 and 27,000 soldiers in that battle. was written for the Anglophone market. It is remarkably one sided. In so many books about the BEF it is most unusual for the German army to receive anything other than a passing mention and, even when it does, careful examination of bibliography and footnotes tends to reveal that little has been included beyond that which may be obtained from a study of the notes on the German army contained in the volumes of the British Official History. Why? A generation of mono-lingual historians has emerged, unable or unwilling to devote the time needed to achieve the mastery of a second or third language, which is an essential tool for the researcher. A further problem arises from the general, but false, assumption that, following the destruction of huge quantities of records during the Second World War, little of value remains. So many of our educators use the BOH uncritically and pass down really bad information. Unfortunately, as the late great historian Dennis Showalter repeatedly said this seems to be the case with most professional historians.
There are, noteworthy exceptions such as Christopher Clark of Cambridge University But his is not clear military history. In terms of pure military history, a trickle of work relating to the old German army during the First World War is starting to appear. Jack Sheldon and Ralph Whitehhead have a led the way introducing excellent and very readable military history texts using German sources that are widely available. In that context, the books of Terence Zuber are worthy of mention. Always controversial, his provocative approach forces us to think more deeply about the subjects he discusses. He does not take the course of parroting back the BOH, but rather puts a lot of credence into German regimental histories. His uncritical acceptance of these along with his mangled logic and ad hominem attacks distract from many points that he wants to make. He has a huge following based on first mover advantage that has steered many people down the wrong road. The British authors generally do not separate the various contingents of the German army in their political, social and historical context. They are fully aware that 19th and early 20th century Germany is more or less a closed book to the modern reader; that the appreciation of German cultural and scholarly achievements, so common amongst our forebearers one hundred years ago, has been lost.
So much for the English language sources, but you cannot uncritically accept any of the three German Official Histories (GOH). The first history was written during the war. It was written by the historical section of the Great General Staff (GGS). We have a two part blog on general staff officers on the website. If you are not totally familiar with those I recommend that you read them. The GGS continued working until 1919 when they were eliminated by treaty. The history series of they were working on was called: Der grosse Krieg in Einzeldarstellungen. This was a series of monographs aimed at the general public with more detail about the battles than was found in newspapers and communiqués. This was envisioned to be about 40 monographs but they did not make it. Only about a third of these were ever finished. For some reason the average historian falls in line with the pre-war myth that the GGS was one of the five perfect organizations in Europe. They had a tremendous reputation and everybody ”knew” that they were always correct and honest. Unfortunately, like the rest of us mortals, they were very concerned about their reputation. Avoiding blame is always present in their work. Even during the war. The GGS was keenly aware that’s the plan they had used in August 1914 was a complete failure. It was somebody else’s fault. Therefore, you find a great deal of misinformation in these monologues. For example in the book on Mons, one passage says that the hoped for blow to the Belgian Army could not be delivered due to the actions of King Albert. FALSE. Was not delivered because of the screwup of the Germans. Another passage says while screening Antwerp, first Army was able to advance without major interference. FALSE. How could the GGS explain this one away? All of this leads you to understand that you have to read critically what the GGS says.
The successor of the GGS, consisting almost entirely of former members of the GGS was an organization called the Reichsarchiv. They produced a history in 14 volumes known as Der Weltkrieg 1914-1918. This massive work was focused on corps level and above and therefore lacked the detail desired buy some readers of the monographs. These are commonly known as ”the red books.” These books also embody the excuse making of the GGS. It is also worth knowing that these works took a very long time to be produced with the last couple volumes coming out during world war two. Much of the writing is flavored by the politics of the day and the Nazi party. These are all available online not translated at the Austrian library.
The third kind of history is what is known as the “green books.” This is a series of 36 publications that was sponsored by the Reichsarchiv. The thrust was entirely changed from the” red books.” These were not the massive tomes focusing on the higher levels. Rather, these were popular military history from the 1920s and 1930s intended to put the best possible gloss on the lost war. They were also intended to boost the reputation of the old army and the GGS. These publications emphasized the heroism of the individual. No fewer than 16,500 officers or men were mentioned. Entitled Schlachten des Weltkrieges these were intended for the general reader. Some of the military history details seem to be sometimes convoluted. I once tried to find clear information on the OB for the 1915 Macedonian campaign. They were wrong. I mean way way off. These are all available online not translated at the Austrian library.
If you want to look at these in person, we donated our entire library of red and green books to the University of North Texas history department.
In conclusion, you now know little bit more about why you have certain English language misinformation. You know that you need to take everything you read with a grain of salt.