Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Century

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Our Century

    So, ladies and gentlement, what is your opinion about the book our century. Good, bad, average ?


    http://www.ourcenturybook.com/
    19
    Very Good
    10.53%
    2
    Good
    0.00%
    0
    Average
    5.26%
    1
    Bad
    21.05%
    4
    Very Bad
    63.16%
    12
    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

  • #2
    Based on the excerpts I've read (could tolerate reading) and the constant lack of citations and primary sources except some clear use of very old and discredited revisionist historians I would say very bad. Your Belgian "neighbour" ljadw, Full Monty, the Ibis and others have provided detailed refutations of peterhof's thesis. Others have mentioned the clear bias as well. Actually I have learned a lot from the refutations, especially at the WWI section. Thanks to all.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by joea View Post
      Based on the excerpts I've read (could tolerate reading) and the constant lack of citations and primary sources except some clear use of very old and discredited revisionist historians I would say very bad. Your Belgian "neighbour" ljadw, Full Monty, the Ibis and others have provided detailed refutations of peterhof's thesis. Others have mentioned the clear bias as well. Actually I have learned a lot from the refutations, especially at the WWI section. Thanks to all.
      From the "Eh what!" Team, thank you.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
        From the "Eh what!" Team, thank you.
        Sorry you too mate.

        Comment


        • #5
          I would say its garbage, but that would be an insult to garbage everywhere.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's sort of an illiterate version of the Unabomber's manifesto.

            The wiretapping FBI agents having to read it will need counseling!

            Comment


            • #7
              While the concept of Our Century is interesting, I felt that there were a number of discepancies between the actual facts and the personal opinions expressed within said e-tomb.

              The strength of the book is that it discusses a number of subjects as one issue, rather than as seperate events. This is sensible, as nation-states do not tend to act alone, nor do individuals who appear on the world stage. Unfortunately, the problem is in the detail. It is possible to call into question the integrity of those specifics, and without fear of intellectual retalitation. For example:
              The twentieth century has experienced three events, the combined effects of which are so catastrophic in terms of human blood and treasure that together, they represent a high-water mark of human folly unprecedented in the history of the world. These three events are World War 1, the Communist coup d’etat in Russia, World War II, and the various conflicts of the Cold War.
              Bold is mine, and I make that four. Further, to base an alternative manuscript on discredited revisionist work, is not necessary an ideal route to take, especially in oder to change the perceptions of any intelligent readership.

              A major marketing fault is that its target audience may be small, with many, in such a distinct segment, unlikely to comprehend lengthy nouns, say of 5 or more letters long. Further, advertising such a novel perception hither at ACG is unlikely to yield many sales. Given that the membership of ACG interested in such diverting amusements, will be puissant on said cerebal diversions, the fortitude of the knowledge base of such illustrious peoples will be one that Peter Hof will be unlikely to overcome.

              I did like the nod towards the Star Wars franchise, with the 'Traditionalists Strike Back'. Hof obviously sees himself as a Jedi, a force for good, fighting against the pervasive lies that have invaded the consciousness of the public. A noble cause indeed. Also, comparing these traditionalists with necromancers was hopefully a nod towards H P Lovecraft, whose creative mythology I particuarly adore.

              So in summary imo:
              Completely
              revisionist
              and
              purportless.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                While the concept of Our Century is interesting, I felt that there were a number of discepancies between the actual facts and the personal opinions expressed within said e-tomb.
                Should be buried deeply?

                My take on 'Our Century'? Mr Hof's prose is acceptable and the book is well structured making it a relatively easy read for someone without knowledge of the history of the 20th Century. Indeed with a patient proof-reader or two, a course in the basic principles of academic writing and a sympathetic editor there might be the bones of an introductory text for casual students of contemporary History here. Hence I can't bring myself to rate this work as 'very bad'. But the book is so poorly referenced and error strewn that it has one gasping in disbelief or banging one's head against the nearest wall or desktop in frustration. Sometimes it's difficult to ascertain which sections are Mr Hof's own work as against which are 'borrowed' from more established writers. Selective editing and the misattribution of quotes, either poorly contextualised or taken out of context altogether, combined with the lack of proper referencing leaves one wondering whether Mr Hof's book would be better entitled 'My Century' since it bears so little resemblance to the one most of his contemporaries experienced. It's hard to know whether the errors are a function of the poor referencing or vice-versa. Either way there can be little doubt that the proper application of footnotes or endnotes would allow both the author and/or his readers to follow up on his ideas, either correcting the errors or expanding upon the issues raised.

                To summarise I'd love to use the old literary joke that reviews a book as being both good and original ...... except that the good bits are not original and the original bits not good. Unfortunately even the unoriginal parts are not very good for all the reasons listed above.
                Signing out.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                  Should be buried deeply?

                  My take on 'Our Century'? Mr Hof's prose is acceptable and the book is well structured making it a relatively easy read for someone without knowledge of the history of the 20th Century. Indeed with a patient proof-reader or two, a course in the basic principles of academic writing and a sympathetic editor there might be the bones of an introductory text for casual students of contemporary History here. Hence I can't bring myself to rate this work as 'very bad'. But the book is so poorly referenced and error strewn that it has one gasping in disbelief or banging one's head against the nearest wall or desktop in frustration. Sometimes it's difficult to ascertain which sections are Mr Hof's own work as against which are 'borrowed' from more established writers. Selective editing and the misattribution of quotes, either poorly contextualised or taken out of context altogether, combined with the lack of proper referencing leaves one wondering whether Mr Hof's book would be better entitled 'My Century' since it bears so little resemblance to the one most of his contemporaries experienced. It's hard to know whether the errors are a function of the poor referencing or vice-versa. Either way there can be little doubt that the proper application of footnotes or endnotes would allow both the author and/or his readers to follow up on his ideas, either correcting the errors or expanding upon the issues raised.

                  To summarise I'd love to use the old literary joke that reviews a book as being both good and original ...... except that the good bits are not original and the original bits not good. Unfortunately even the unoriginal parts are not very good for all the reasons listed above.

                  I thought the book was absolute tosh.

                  However, to be fair, he has actually written a book.
                  He does include a great deal of detail.
                  He does consider Germany from its Birth in 1871 under Bismarck to its demise under Hitler as one issue, at least in part.

                  What he fails on is in taking information out of context, or to use Eddie Izzards method of comedy: treat the important elements as insignificant, and the trival as vital.

                  It's far too revisionist to be taken seriously as an academic work, but at least he's made the effort to put his opinion across. That said, I've only read the dubious free parts, and would instantly retract any praise for the work if he has blamed any Ally for the Holocaust, even in part.
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                    I thought the book was absolute tosh.

                    However, to be fair, he has actually written a book.
                    He does include a great deal of detail.
                    He does consider Germany from its Birth in 1871 under Bismarck to its demise under Hitler as one issue, at least in part.

                    What he fails on is in taking information out of context, or to use Eddie Izzards method of comedy: treat the important elements as insignificant, and the trival as vital.

                    It's far too revisionist to be taken seriously as an academic work, but at least he's made the effort to put his opinion across. That said, I've only read the dubious free parts, and would instantly retract any praise for the work if he has blamed any Ally for the Holocaust, even in part.
                    I think we're on the same wavelength. In some respects the book is almost counter-revisionist in tone because takes very immediate post-event analysis and tries to present it as the only valid analysis. This approach does have merit BUT the historian has to be consistent, strict and show in detail why later documents and writings are regarded as inadmissible. One can't simply pick and choose sources according to what suits your agenda, consciously or otherwise, without appearing to be hideously biased. Blithely accepting the excuses of one set of politicians whilst castigating another for more or less the same thing just doesn't wash.
                    Signing out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It's a very promising first volume of a fantasy trilogy, but where are the orcs?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Crap is an euphemism :it is the work of an amateur-historian (which is not negative,most of us are amateur historians)who is totally illiterate,but who is replacing the basic knowledge by an enormous arrogance:it is the work of someone who writes that Napoleon I and Napoleon III are cousins,and claims that well-known historians as Mombauer,Strachan (all well-known historians) are illiterate biased stupid ones .

                        It is the work of some one who writes :

                        Röhm was a communist

                        Hitler was a socialist

                        Franco was a nazi

                        Overlord was a big mistake

                        Germany was deliberatedly and suddenly attacked in 1914


                        Even at the HCH and RD,one would laugh at him .

                        Remember the story of the overcoats :in his memoirs,William Hohezollern wrote that the Germans found British overcoats in some Belgian towns,and did conclude that this was THE proof for a secret Belgian-British
                        anti-German conspiracy before 1914 and that Germay had thus a good reason to attack Belgium .

                        Wel,our genious from LW swallowed this nonsens enthusiastically and proclaimed urbi et orbi that this was the ultimate proof for the anti-German conspiracy of Edward Grey .

                        And,his stubborn refuse to accept any correction of his blatant nonsense:

                        The mysterious Serbian newspaper who was threatening Franz-Ferdinand for his planned voyage to Sarajevo: it was a newspaper from Chicago.

                        His allegation that Poincaré asked the Ochrana to kill Jaures.

                        His allegation that Poincaré knew what would happen at Sarajevo.

                        His allegation that Queen Alexandra could not go abroad because of her anti-German feelings.

                        Everytime,he has been corrected,but,everytime,he ignored this arrogantedly.

                        And his story of Edward VII with his manicured hands,who was meeting Gambetta,a French ruffian .

                        And the story of House the nazi,etc,etc.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by clackers View Post
                          It's a very promising first volume of a fantasy trilogy, but where are the orcs?
                          During WW1 they were deployed a long way from home - http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/schol...i-WH1Auck.html - but I'm less sure of their WW2 record at this point in time.

                          The biggest problem with the author's approach isn't that he relates fiction, although the lack of proper referencing makes checking his facts far more laborious than it needs to be, but that he overplays the ones that support his thesis whilst ignoring or glossing over the ones that don't. Nick says more or less the same thing above -
                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle
                          What he fails on is in taking information out of context, or to use Eddie Izzards method of comedy: treat the important elements as insignificant, and the trival as vital.
                          Mr Hof makes much of a quote from Edward Grey regarding Germany posing as great a threat to European peace and stability as Napoleonic France. I found 1500 hits on Google and they all seem to come from discussion forums where he had started, or participated in, threads regarding WW1. Is it a genuine quote? Well, it appears in Lord Morley's 'Memorandum' and it's cited by Keith Wilson with an Official Documents reference so it seems so. The problem is that Mr Hof isn't drawing upon Morley or British Government documents, despite their being being relatively easy to access online, but Harold Elmer Barnes ('Genesis Of The World War') and Mr Hof doesn't make that clear! If one tracks back to the original one discovers that Barnes only uses part of the relevant section of Morley's memo and does not contextualise the quote properly. It's the kind of thing an undergraduate would get pulled up for by a university professor if he cited it in an essay.
                          Signing out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by clackers View Post
                            It's a very promising first volume of a fantasy trilogy, but where are the orcs?
                            Doing extra duty on The Hobbit. Couldn't make for contractual reasons...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                              During WW1 they were deployed a long way from home - http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/schol...i-WH1Auck.html - but I'm less sure of their WW2 record at this point in time.
                              I resemble that remark, you, you, you Essex Lad, you!

                              But as I'm a Wellingtonian exiled to Auckalofa, and not a Jafa (Just Another Fabulous <cough> Aucklander) I'm prepared to be described as another breed of demi-human.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X