Brian Holden Reid

The British Way in Warfare

The conception of a ‘British Way in Warfare’ articulated by Basil Liddell Hart has had an enduring appeal. In part a reaction to the attrition strategy of the First World War, Liddell Hart offered an alternative vision of pragmatism, indirect approach and strategic manoeuvre. Though outwardly an appealing view, particularly in todays era, it does contain within it crucial deficiencies. Regardless, Liddell Harts undisputable legacy has been sparking and framing the rich debate over British strategy ever since.The conception of a ‘British Way in Warfare’ articulated by Basil Liddell Hart has had an enduring appeal. In part a reaction to the attrition strategy of the First World War, Liddell Hart offered an alternative vision of pragmatism, indirect approach and strategic manoeuvre. Though outwardly an appealing view, particularly in todays era, it does contain within it crucial deficiencies. Regardless, Liddell Harts undisputable legacy has been sparking and framing the rich debate over British strategy ever since.

The American Civil War : explorations and reconsiderations

This major new work brings together key writings on the most critical episodes of American history. Eschewing an overly reverential approach and combining multiple perspectives, the text is arranged around these themes: - The Political Front. - The Military Front. - The Home Front. - The Ideological Front. Examining key protagonists, critical turning points, society, economy, slavery, civil liberties and nationalism, this book offers a unique specialist depth of interpretation and provides an important companion to all civil war studies.

Michael Howard and the Evolution of Modern War Studies

Sir Michael Howard has made an enormous contribution to writing about war since 1950. This essay offers a considered assessment of his work and devotes due attention to the context in which he wrote and the influences that shaped his outlook. Three essential themes have permeated his work: the German problem (and thus the British problem that complicated its resolution), the Soviet problem, and the relationship between war and society. The essay charts his efforts to impart a framework to the study of war and the degree to which it has been shaped by societal, but especially organizational and moral forces. The essay offers a slice of British historiography and intellectual life in the postwar years.

The Vistas of American Military History

The following collection of essays on American military history, or more accurately, on the interpenetration of the military in American life more generally, has been aimed at scholars of US history who are not military historians. This group might include those who are interested in military affairs but would not regard themselves as specialists, those who have no great interest in the subject, and indeed those who would not regard themselves as interested in the matter at all (at any rate until they open these pages, it is hoped). Even a cursory glance at this Special Issue should reveal how the study of the military dimension has an impact upon the study of the perennial and urgent issues that engage historians of the United States in the nineteenth century.1 Military historians in the US are not alone in thinking themselves an unappreciated and even shunned minority whose work is at best under-valued, at worst treated as if it should be distributed in the proverbial plain, brown paper wrappings. Younger American military historians sometimes express envy at the high public profile of such scholars in Britain, and the honors lauded on figures like Michael Howard and John Keegan. They also feel that new directions in the subject tend to be pioneered in Britain. Strong grounds exist for believing that such a defensive outlook is unnecessary (and it is absent from the work that appears here). Two of the most distinguished American historians, James M. McPherson and David Hackett Fischer, write excellent military history within a social, political, economic and cultural context; they both lack formal training in the subject but are attracted to military affairs because of their intrinsic importance.2 The authors of these studies are a blend of the senior and established with younger, rising figures who are sure to make a profound impact on the subject. It is perhaps as well to clarify at the outset what they are not writing about. There are no essays on defense policy or strategy or their correlation with foreign policy. This is an area that has attracted political scientists who explore the relationship between federal

What is Command Culture

Readers of military history are fascinated by commanders, their challenges, doings and foibles and applaud or damn as the mood or historical fashion dictates. Military biographies pour from the presses. During the writing of this essay another biography of General William T. Sherman has appeared, the seventh published since 1992. They average one every three years. During the same period at least 12 books have been published on Ulysses S. Grant. This is a period – towards the end of the 150th anniversary – when there have been significant signs that the Civil War is losing its once irresistible popular appeal among Americans. World War II, Korea and even Vietnam are usurping its foremost place among ‘buffs’. Perhaps double that number of biographies might have been published had this appetite not been sated. The high regard in which commanders continue to be held has led to efforts to extract ‘added value’ from their careers, efforts to draw ‘lessons’ from their conduct for the benefit not just of military men, but many other professions, too, including business and banking. One of the more arresting titles in Grant’s bibliography is Al Kaltman’s Cigars, Whiskey and Winning: Leadership Lessons from General Ulysses S. Grant (1998). General Robert E. Lee has received a similar treatment.

THE American Civil War And The Strategy Of Attrition, 1861–65

The American Civil War is a leading example of attritional war. The Unions material superiority and control of public opinion, as well as tactical and organisational dominance, led to the surrender of the Confederacy, and its complete physical, moral, economic and financial collapse. It is important to remember, however, that the American Civil War was in many important respects quite different from the World Wars – and hence when we evaluate the use of attrition, we must do so through the historical lens of the nineteenth century.

Deliver Us from Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South

I cannot be the only British teacher of American history who teaches large numbers of American junior year abroad undergraduates, and among those from the South encounter the ‘‘states rights’’ addiction as an explanation of the coming of the Civil War. They argue this case, sometimes ingeniously, taking pains to remove slavery from the argument and justify it on the grounds of what they were ‘‘taught’’ in high school text books. The mantra of ‘‘states rights’’ is adhered to with the fervor of a theology. This curious disjunction between the world of secondary education and the preoccupations of scholarship is nicely illustrated by Lacy Ford’s excellent account of the South’s preoccupation with the slavery issue. According to the publisher’s blurb, Deliver Us from Evil ‘‘attempts to recapture the varied and sometimes contradictory ideas and attitudes held by groups of white southerners as they debated the slavery question among themselves.’’ Ford’s detailed treatment of these discussions permits him to explore southern political and social thought, and the book is a substantial contribution to intellectual history. One of Ford’s targets is a ‘‘popular mythology’’ that envisages ‘‘the Old South as a timeless society without a creation story’’ (p. 4). Ford is at pains to point out the disagreements, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the southern debate over slavery and rejects any notion of a sweeping continuity of view in the period covered in this book, c. 1787 1845. He thus exposes ‘‘creative tensions . . . and the efforts of white southerners to resolve or accommodate these tensions’’ (p. 5). A powerful influence on his approach has been the pioneering work of William W. Freehling, although his execution of the task is in some ways superior, being more tightly focused and less mannered. He identifies three phases in the southern debate over the future of slavery and its social ramifications: first, 1787 1808, years of ‘‘ambivalence and inaction’’ as southerners came to grips with what many regarded as a troublesome (and troubling) legacy. Second, 1808 1833, years during which the slave owners of the Upper South saw ‘‘diffusion’’ of slavery southwards and westwards to meet the demand from the slave markets in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama as the solution to their problems of bringing slavery to a gradual end; moreover, many came to embrace paternalistic ideas about the treatment of slaves, although such views provoked much suspicion and ferocious denunciation in the Lower South. Third, 1833 1845, a period in which American Nineteenth Century History Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2011, 233 259

Book Review: Davis and Lee at War

South Vietnamese government better than the South Vietnamese. But times have changed; Orientals now prefer to do things badly themselves rather than have Westerners do them well’ (p. 41). Or, in an article describing a visit to Busaco in 1962, ‘The Portuguese peasants are more numerous than I expected; they do not need motor transportation for their simple, happy lives’ (p. 56). Andrew Uffindell, the editor, does his best with this material: the headand tail-pieces he gives to each essay are quite reasonable, and he includes an up-to-date guide to further reading. Some idea of his opinion of the likely readership of the volume is given in the opening paragraph of the introduction, when he feels the need to inform us that ‘Princeton is renowned as a seat of learning and ranks as one of the greatest of American universities’. The editor’s duties included providing footnotes to all but one of the essays and this has been done with great diligence. Unfortunately, though, he does not provide a complete list of Weller’s own publications – surely desirable in a memorial volume – nor does he realize that the article on Wellington’s Peninsular logistics, which he credits as being published in National Defence Transportation, was also published, complete with footnotes, in the Journal for the Society for Army Historical Research (vol. XLII, December 1964), the foremost journal on the subject; while the article on the guerrillas appeared in the Journal of the Royal United Service Institution (vol. CVIII, May 1963) as well as in Armour magazine. One’s confidence is further shaken by the statement that ‘Editorial changes to the actual text of the articles has been kept to a minimum’ (p. 13). If Weller’s work was of greater significance these flaws, and the lack of an index, would be a cause of serious alarm. But at best this is no more than a well laid out, attractively illustrated and easy to read introduction to the subject. As a popular assessment of Wellington’s art of war it is far inferior to Michael Glover’s Wellington as a Military Commander (Batsford, 1968) or Wellington – Commander: The Iron Duke’s Generalship edited by Paddy Griffith (Anthony Bird, 1986), but it may still catch the interest and ignite the enthusiasm of newcomers to the subject. That has always been the greatest strength of Weller’s work.

What made American Civil War soldiers fight

James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp.xv + 237, appendix, notes, index. £20 (cloth);

An American civil war campaign ‐Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville 1862–63

13.95 (paper). ISBN 0–10–512499–5