![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Antony Beevor and nudging
Jun. 1st, 2016 03:50 pmI have downloaded a sample of Antony Beevor’s “Ardennes 1944: The Battle of the Bulge” (published in the UK as “Ardennes 1944: Hitler’s Last Gamble”. Why the different subtitle? I have no idea) and they always cut off the sample right at the most interesting point. Not stupid, those people at Amazon and similar. I think I’ll be downloading the rest of the book at some point soon.
I didn’t like the previous Antony Beevor book I’d read, which was one of his books on the Spanish Civil War (he’s written 2 of them, I don’t remember which one I own, and I have it in hard copy, not digital, so I would have to LOOK for it in order to establish which book it was). Partly it was because the Spanish Civil War is less a war than a list of atrocities committed by both sides. It got thoroughly depressing, and I finally gave up on the book about halfway through.
The other reason was that Beevor appeared to be playing favourites, at least in the first half of the book (which is the half I read). Whenever he’d talk about an atrocity committed by the Republicans, there was always a reason given. Not necessarily an excuse, but a reason. When he was talking about an atrocity committed by the Nationalists, he didn’t bother with reasons. Now, granted, it sounds like if you’re going to tally up atrocities committed by the Spanish Republicans versus atrocities committed by the Nationalists, the Nationalists will end up “achieving” a higher body count. But it still felt like Beevor was putting his finger on the scale, trying to nudge his readers into supporting the Republicans.
Technically, I suppose I ought to support that. My political sympathies are slightly left of centre, in the general scheme of things. But I don’t like being manipulated by an author into supporting a side, even if it’s a side I might well support anyway. General Franco was a bad man, there’s no question of that. His followers were a brutal bunch, no question of that. But if you’re a historian, present the evidence and let people make up their own minds. Don’t nudge!
I didn’t like the previous Antony Beevor book I’d read, which was one of his books on the Spanish Civil War (he’s written 2 of them, I don’t remember which one I own, and I have it in hard copy, not digital, so I would have to LOOK for it in order to establish which book it was). Partly it was because the Spanish Civil War is less a war than a list of atrocities committed by both sides. It got thoroughly depressing, and I finally gave up on the book about halfway through.
The other reason was that Beevor appeared to be playing favourites, at least in the first half of the book (which is the half I read). Whenever he’d talk about an atrocity committed by the Republicans, there was always a reason given. Not necessarily an excuse, but a reason. When he was talking about an atrocity committed by the Nationalists, he didn’t bother with reasons. Now, granted, it sounds like if you’re going to tally up atrocities committed by the Spanish Republicans versus atrocities committed by the Nationalists, the Nationalists will end up “achieving” a higher body count. But it still felt like Beevor was putting his finger on the scale, trying to nudge his readers into supporting the Republicans.
Technically, I suppose I ought to support that. My political sympathies are slightly left of centre, in the general scheme of things. But I don’t like being manipulated by an author into supporting a side, even if it’s a side I might well support anyway. General Franco was a bad man, there’s no question of that. His followers were a brutal bunch, no question of that. But if you’re a historian, present the evidence and let people make up their own minds. Don’t nudge!
