The First Nazi

If anyone finds my review helpful, please give me a helpful vote at

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2DV289JBIZNN8/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Too many books; too little time.

I did something with this book that I almost never do: I gave up at 20%.

I did dip into the latter part of the book to see if things had changed. I was surprised to find that 80% of the book involves Ludendorff's World War I years and only minor attention was given to the sizzle of the book, namely the Ludendorff-Hitler connection.

I have done a lot of reading on National Socialism from the perspective of the Nazi war on the Catholic and Protestant churches. Ludendorff figures into this history as an interesting, albeit strange, element. Ludendorff was famous for working in tandem with Hindenburg in winning the decisive Battle of the Tannenberg Forest, and then going on to become virtual military dictators of World War I Germany. After the war, under the influence of his wife, Ludendorff “went strange” and began indulging in “volkisch” politics and anti-Christian religion. Ludendorff was as much of an anti-Catholic as he was an anti-Semite. Ludendorff allied with Hitler in the Beer Hall Putsch, and, by doing so, lent credibility and a spotlight to Hitler's nascent Nazis. Hitler maintained some kind of relationship with Ludendorff thereafter, but marginalized Ludendorff, largely, as I understand it, because of Ludendorff's off the charts wackiness.

So, when I saw this book, I was very interested. I mentally congratulated the authors for writing a book on such an important but now obscure figure.

What I got was as close to disaster as I've seen. I found, unfortunately, that I could not trust the authors to be accurate in the details. For example, the opening paragraph of Chapter 1 begins:

“WORLD WAR I began in a fit of absentmindedness. A mere archduke of Austria and his wife were visiting a minor city called Sarajevo, the capital of Serbia, on June 28, 1914. A patriotic student named Gavrilo Princip, who wanted the Austrian province to secede and join with Russia, shot the archduke in the chest and, accidently, shot his wife too.”

I had a moment of cognitive dissonance on reading that. First, I thought, “was Sarajevo the capital of Serbia?” Of course, it isn't, but my trust that authors of historical work are trustworthy is such that I questioned my memory and had to re-read that line several times in confusion.

Also, Franz Ferdinand was no “mere archduke.” He was the heir to the throne of Austro-Hungary.
And “accidentally, shot his wife too.” Apart from the offhand way of phrasing, is that even right? Princip was a terrorist. Bagging royals was his game.

Here is another example, minor though it may seem:

“The changes that came with the war crept into language. Civilians talked of men being “over the top,” a phrase that originated with soldiers climbing out of trenches. If a man were evil, civilians called him “lousy,” a term that first described soldiers afflicted with lice.”

I don't know what set me off about that observation, but something about it – maybe the fact that louses were a problem before World War I – sent me to the trusty online etymological dictionary, where I learned that “lousy” has been used since the 15th century. (“mid-14c., lousi, “infested with lice,” from louse + -y (2). Figurative use as a generic adjective of abuse dates from late 14c.; sense of “swarming with” (money, etc.) is American English slang from 1843. Related: Lousiness.”) and “over the top” to describe excessive anger was first evidenced in 1968 (“To go over the top is World War I slang for “start an attack,” in reference to the top of the trenches; as “beyond reasonable limits, too far” it is recorded from 1968.”) I am glad I was set off or I might be quoting this as fact, and I don't read books to spread pseudoknowledge.” I am grateful that I learned that interesting bit of trivia – 1968!!! – but I learned it despite this book, not because of it.

Also, notice what I just did there? I fact-checked and footnoted...in this review! There are no footnotes in this book. Instead, for each chapter, we get a list of some books that presumably relate to the material in the chapter. Where it might be found relies on our trusting the authors, but we lose that trust with basic errors. Also, as an attorney – and one of the authors is an attorney – I have discovered that having a habit of providing support for statements keeps one honest. It forces one to look up claims, a process which might result in learning that “lousy” was used before World War I.

The analysis of the book remains very superficial. The book appears to have been written for 6th graders who need to be hit over the head with the notion that World War I was just an awful experience. We learn about the horses that were killed and how awful trench warfare was and the rest. We also learn that Ludendorff was a dunderhead, although brilliant at a tactical level, that the victory at the Battle of Tannenberg Forest has been overstated, that he marginalized Hindenberg – who actually became Chancellor in the late 1920s, and that he had all kinds of crack-brain schemes to end the stalemate.

The book traffics in the worst features of modern history. It is polemical and it projects the authors thoughts into the minds of historical figures. We learn, therefore, that Ludendorff had no sympathy for anyone, which could be true, but the description of Ludendorff is no different than the Chateau Generals of the French. It might be nice to understand how these people rationalized for themselves their approach without being hit over the head with the notion that they were merely selfish. As for crack-brain schemes, everyone was looking for an answer; Churchill was responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign for the same reason. Perhaps, Ludendorff, one might think, wasn't individually responsible for all the trench warfare and immobility of World War 1?

I was also offended as a mature reader at the level of writing in this book. Again, I felt like it was meant for 6th graders being introduced to World War I. I made a game of highlighting egregious writing examples. Here are a few:

“He passed edicts to ban contraceptives. He could not accept the idea that a German woman had the right to refuse to bring a child into this miserable world, a world that he was destroying.”

Preach, much? Also, didn't most countries ban contraception?

“The women were miserable and were losing their families. The workers were wretched, torn away from their families too. So they had everything in common, and often they drew close. Alarmed, Ludendorff passed laws forbidding women from having sex with foreign workers. People wondered how Ludendorff's police were to enforce this. Would they hide under people's beds and listen for moans?

Did people really? Evidence, please? A footnote to a source? None are provided.

“Indeed the word robot was coined right after this war, in 1920, by a Czech dramatist, Karel Capek, in the play Rossum's Universal Robots. The word described the new trend of the time: the mass production of willing victims, the thinking slaves who were dying by the millions.”

Actually, “robot” is a Czek word for “work” or “worker.” Interestingly, it appears to be cognate with the Spanish word “trabajo” which also means work.

“Soon he wrote several inspired works that were anthems for the nation's doomed men, men who were not grateful to be called “the grateful dead”— which was what nations wrote on their war memorials.

That just reads like it was written for an elementary school child. So did this:


“The British even trained birds to help them!”

Gosh! Birds?!?!?!

Also this seems be directed at young readers with its “a medal known as....” Most writers would have enough confidence in their readers to write “the Blue Max medal.”

“The Germans celebrated their tardy victory even though the delay upset their invasion plan. Ludendorff, previously unknown, became the hero of the hour. They gave him a medal known as the Blue Max, the highest honor his army could confer. It seemed as if Germany were winning the world.”

Speaking of which, I have never seen “ace” used so often to describe someone who wasn't a fighter pilot with five or more “kills,” but here we are:

“In France, two ace officers....”

“But Ludendorff wondered, were these 600,000 men ace troops or militia?”

“The ace German general Wilhelm Groener...”

“...an ace writer, Michael Pearson...”

“Prime Minister David Lloyd George was the ace politician of the United Kingdom....”

And worst of all...

“Years later, Dr. Roger Chickering, an ace professor of German history at Georgetown University....”

The virtue of the book may be that it is an easy book for younger readers to read. The problem, though, is that the reader can't trust the material. When I find myself fact-checking information, and finding it wrong, I feel that I must stop reading. I have too many books to read to want to risk the chance that I am going to be screwed up by some untrustworthy bit of information. Now, admittedly, this book did cause me to learn some things. For example, I was fascinated to discover the history of the Tannenberg Memorial based on going to the internet after reading an offhand description of the memorial in this book, but, again, that was despite this book, not because of it.

Accordingly, I reluctantly have to recommend against anyone reading this book. The amount of pseudoknowledge that a reader will walk away with just is not worth the time, money and effort.