You’ve never even read the book, both leccy and I have. It is anything but a work of fiction. The term “novel” is akin to unconventional or different here, simply because few historians have ever focused to keenly on the economic aspects of the war…
It is most assuredly not a “novel” but IS novel…
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
If one person makes a claim as to what book, is or is not, this dose mean what their saying is correct, which to me, is just helping them make money by promoting/selling the book, this dose not make this book, any more accurate or correct, as other might have different ideas/views as to the novel/book.
Chunky: the book is NOT a novel. Period. It is classified as a work of non-fiction. All novels are, by definition, works of fiction. As leccy, Nickdfresh, and RS have said, the word novel, as used to describe this book, refers only to “newness” of the thinking, findings, and approach of the author, who is also a prize-winning historian. The book itself won a “history” prize. There is no chance – zero, absolutely none – that the book is “a novel” in the sense of being a work of fiction.
Does that make what he says “correct?” Not necessarily. You are free to argue against his findings. But you might want to improve your English language skills first, and actually read the book before doing so.
Um, I’m an English major, I think I can definitely figure out what genre a book is that this point. I bought the book from a Barnes and Noble (brick-and-mortar) store. It was not in the fiction section, it was in the world history section. The writer, Adam Tooze, is a historian who studied at Cambridge and teaches at Yale University. Your pedantic lack of understanding of basic semantics is a bit tiresome at this point…
In "amazon, advert, selling, hype. for this novel book, the link I was given, it states this:
An extraordinary mythology has grown up around the Third Reich that hovers over political and moral debate even today. Adam Tooze’s An extraordinary mythology has grown up around the Third Reich that hovers over political and moral debate even today. Adam Tooze’s controversial new book challenges the conventional economic interpretations of that period to explore how Hitler’s surprisingly prescient vision- ultimately hindered by Germany’s limited resources and his own racial ideology-was to create a German super-state to dominate Europe and compete with what he saw as America’s overwhelming power in a soon-to- be ideology-was to create a German super-state to dominate Europe and compete with what he saw as America’s overwhelming power in a soon-to- be
I quote this from it; Adam Tooze’s controversial new book challenges the conventional economic interpretations of that period to explore how Hitler’s surprisingly prescient vision.
I can’t read anywhere, where it mention’s, that the book is a factual account to what did happen, only that it challenges what did happen, so to me its still a fictional, novel, account on what did happen. So I will have to ask you, where dose it mention that its a factual,true account on what did happen.
Er … having studied both History and English Literature in my time (in US terms, History major, 1st Class Hons), I really have to say that the idea that “The Wages of Destruction” is a work of fiction is somewhat …odd. History, as practiced, is in the end of the day a literary art form, and would not be worth much if it consisted only of description to the exclusion of efforts at revision and developing new perspectives. However, that is the sort of literary work that the Tooze book represents. To describe it as a work of fiction - like “Pride and Prejudice”, “The Glass Bead Game”, “The Leopard”, even “The King David Report” (very strongly recommended to History students and to history buffs who have not read it), whatever - seems seriously off the beam. I might say that Tooze’s work finds its place among a number of works of economic history concerned with the WW2 and pre-WW2 periods in Germany which do set out to challenge accepted understandings of their subject. I am far from agreeing with every revisionist proposition made by Tooze, by Gotz Aly or by any of the others I have come across to date - but they are certainly evidence-based and thought-provoking, as history … Best regards, JR.
A good place to start would be by reading the book.
This is because people who understand the difference between fiction and works on history do not require a ‘this is a factual account’ stamp on the cover of the book.
It is also because no book worth reading on the history of anything is exclusively a factual account. They are all interpretations, based on the facts presented by the author.
If you want a factual account of Hitler’s war, the factual accuracy of which cannot be challenged, here it is.
Hitler was the leader of Germany which was involved in armed conflict in various parts of the European and North African land masses as well as in various oceans against various nations. Germany lost.
Beyond that, it all starts to be interpretation, starting with various contemporary and later versions and interpretations of the Gleiwitz incident which started Hitler’s European war because of German subterfuge or Polish aggression.
Or another interpretation being that what started Hitler’s European war was his desire for lebensraum.
Or that Hitler wasn’t really that keen on it, but was captive to elements in his Party who had been unduly inspired by his writings in Mein Kampf (which is neither a work of fiction nor a factual account, but an expression of opinion, just like most historical and all other non-fictional, including scientific, writing based on whatever facts the author(s) choose to present) to go east, then west, then south, and then east.
And countless other interpretations, any isolated one of which will completely fail to explain the complexities behind Hitler’s, and Churchill’s and Tojo’s and Roosevelt’s and Stalin’s motives and actions as they and their nations pursued their own and where it suited them common interests, without introducing the motives and actions of Petain and Mussolini and the leaders of Hungary, Romania and so on.
So, any analysis that challenges what did happen is fictional?
The first problem is to establish what did happen. That is, ostensibly, a simple exercise in gathering facts.
If so, there is no room for doubt about, for example, the effects of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany in WWII.
Unfortunately for those like you who want concrete facts, if you check out the contemporary analyses and later and wider analyses like the the US Strategic Bombing Survey you’ll find that they are, like all writings of worth on history, presentations of facts used to support interpretations which, not infrequently, challenge previous analyses and interpretations based on the same facts. It follows from your approach that, say, the US Strategic Bombing Survey is a work of fiction. That would have come as something of shock, indeed an insult, to those who laboured long and hard to produce it as the most comprehensive analysis of that topic. Perhaps you could refer us to a better factual account which is inherently more accurate, such as contemporary ‘factual’ writings in 1942 demonstrating the massive war winning effects of Allied bombing in Europe, based on tonnages and claimed damage which, oddly enough, weren’t all that accurate and therefore not all that factual?
‘It’ doesn’t have to.
‘It’, being reviews and other second hand opinions of the book you haven’t read.
The custom is to offer a critique of a book on, what for you seems to be the novel basis, of actually reading it.
Never managed better than 2B Hons myself in Modern German History and 2A Hons in (primarily British) Constitutional History as minors in Arts and Law degrees.
We suffered under a teaching and assessment regime unknown to current students. We were expected to inform and challenge our interpretation of secondary sources by examination of primary sources which we had to find by our own laborious research in the pre-internet age in a big building full of books known as ‘a library’, unlike Chunky’s much more time efficient and intellectually less demanding process of disputing what aren’t even tertiary sources which avoids the profound nuisance of actually reading the secondary source he disputes.
In a modern university, he’d almost qualify as a tutor if he could assemble the books he hasn’t read and issue them online to the students who aren’t going to read them.
In short, you have not proven to me, that this novel book, is a factual account, on what did actually happen, all I can read from you, are a lot of words, that just go on, saying how great you are, and not explaining anything, as to this novel book, being factual or fictional, only that you believe it to be correct.
You’re confusing provision of proof by others with your inability and or refusal to understand it.
Chunky, you are free to determine, and by whatever standard you like, whether or not something has been “proven” to you. If you want to continue believing this book is, or may be, a work of fiction, that’s your privilege. We will judge you accordingly.
You see, your beliefs on this subject are of absolutely no concern to anyone else here. We are only trying to help you NOT appear to be a fool. The simple reality is: claiming this book is a work of fiction is like claiming the Earth is flat, or that 2 +2 = 15. The “issue” is honestly that basic, and it is a subject of debate for no one other than yourself. Your inability to accept that you are wrong is amazing, for your argument is based on your interpretation of a word not that is not in your native language, and you debate its meaning with not one, but with many native speakers. At barest minimum, you are guilty of chutzpah – though there are many less-kind words that may also apply.
If it helps clarify things for you, you can look the book up on Wiki – you seem the sort that would appreciate that as an authority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction . Of course, whether the book is “fiction” or “non-fiction” is an entirely different question from whether or not it is “correct” or “accurate.” But to argue about that, you need to actually read the book.
For everyone else: I recently came across something I at least thought was humorous, and is at least tangentially related to this discussion. I thought I’d toss it in, via the following link, for the appreciation of those who can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MUsVcYhERY
It’s hardly a novel proposition that reading involves reading words.
Alas, not.
If you understood the hierarchy of academic honours grades you would have realised that JR had top honours, and I was saying that I fell short of his standard.
Maybe you want to accuse him of saying how great he is, because he has been independently assessed by his university as being in a tiny proportion of students who in most universities are awarded first class honours only on the basis of outstanding work? Or you could just accept that he put forward that information to demonstrate that he is well qualified to discuss history.
I didn’t express any belief about the correctness or otherwise of the book, nor do I have beliefs, as distinct from interpretations and informed opinions, about anything to do with history. Nor are my interpretations and informed opinions fixed for all time as, unlike most belief systems, they change as I acquire more information.
Had you read my lots of words, and understood their clear and simple import, you would have grasped that I said that writing on history involves interpretation.
There is no such thing as a correct history. Readers make their own assessment. Some works have a wide consensus that they are sound interpretations. Others don’t. Some works are widely regarded as sound on some or most topics in them, but not on others, and vice versa. Moreover, some works focus on aspects of history, such as in the book you dispute the economic aspects, while others are social or political or feminist or Marxist etc histories which interpret particular aspects of a period or event or view it from a particular standpoint. Some works which are well regarded at one time fall into disfavour at a later time, for all sorts of reasons. Then there are local variations which corrupt the facts and lead to implausible interpretations, such as Japan’s treatment of Japanese war crimes and crimes against humanity in WWII.
If you bothered to read the lots of words by Ardee, Nickdfresh, JR and me above you might begin to grasp that nobody is claiming that the work you dispute or any other history is absolutely correct, and that you are wasting your time and making a fool of yourself by insisting that incontrovertible proof be presented to you that any writing on history is correct, because that is not the way the study of and writing about history works.
[/QUOTE]and that you are wasting your time and making a fool of yourself[QUOTE]
Me making a fool of myself 
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
I found this to be interesting to read.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazis_and_the_german_economy.htm
Thank you Ardee, I had a good laugh with your link, don’t worry about it, your understanding of english will improve, if not, let me know, and I will help you.
Gee Chunky, what specifically did you find interesting about a high school level history site and its very brief overview of the German economy?
Chunky, I am glad you had a good laugh at the video. Since you only added your appreciation about two hours after your original post, should we assume that’s how long it took you to get the joke?
If so, don’t worry about it. We don’t usually expect very much from posters who show such difficulty figuring out how to use the “quote” function properly.
So far as making a fool of yourself goes – well, foolish is as foolish does. I’m not sure whether you’re quite as big a fool as you act – you are mildly amusing, in a “deficient” sort of way – or if you’re actually a better-than-average troll. Either way, I think you’ll eventually find the same treatment here.
And finally: rest assured, if I ever feel the need of your help in understanding English, you’ll be the first one I contact. Until such time: Toodles!
Actually, I think the site referred to was more of a middle school level. But I suggest we get thread back on track and just ignore those incapable of substantive contribution. Would you perhaps care to elaborate on some aspect of The Wages of Destruction? Or pick another topic to get things moving past the current pothole into which things have descended?
I guess so. I suspect we could even split off this thread into an appropriate topic focusing on Wages. Personally, what I found most fascinating was Tooze’s deconstruction of the Albert Speer legend in regards to “The Armaments’ Miracle,” a miracle that was in no small part due to the efforts of Todt laying the groundwork prior to his suspicious death in a plane crash. I also learned the term “solipsistic” for the first time in regards to Speer’s often self-serving aggrandizement of his “miracle” through his use selective statistics and carefully chosen timelines of production increases. For example, Speer used the low point of panzer production under his doomed predecessor to contrast with a high point during his tenure seemingly for the purposes of propaganda. Speer might have rationalized this as necessary to keep the home front morale up, but there was certainly no small element of a calculating, cynical pol attempting to amalgamate as much power as possible. Through reading, it was pretty clear that Speer ultimately makes Tooze’s skin crawl with his disingenuous, post-war self-apologia that resulted in his escaping the hangman’s noose, along with his selective amnesia of the memories contained in his own wartime journals over his seeming ability to lack any sort of humanity when it came to working Jews, Poles, and others to death without the slightest remorse --all while casting himself as a bit of a reformed, slightly unwilling (but very talented) administrator that was a very big cog of the machine of evil.
Interesting. How does this play into the idea of German “craftsmanship” as opposed to quantity of production? Certainly they did make improvements, going from the MP 38 to the MP 40, the MG 34 to the 42, etc. Hitler also screwed up the works repeatedly, insisting on certain resource-intensive systems in lieu of higher output of more conventional weapons (e.g., if I recall correctly, Guderian (?) wanted more PzKw III and IV instead of tigers, etc.) But even ignoring such meddling, the general “myth” is that Germans spent too much time and resources building high-quality weapons, when simpler weapons, of slightly lower quality but much higher numbers would have served them better? I thought Speer was credited with doing what he could do move in this direction, that it was a necessary part of trying to move Germany towards a true “wartime” economy?
I confess idea of historical economics too strongly (and adversely) recalls the terribly dry economic textbooks of my college days. How readable did you find Tooze? I am certainly kind of surprised he applied solipsism to Speer – narcissism, maybe, but then, I’ve never studied his biography all that carefully. But that (solipsism) would seem to be an “attitude” working against survival working with Adolf. Clearly Tooze ventures beyond mere economics. But the few excerpts I’ve read of the book seemed to focus almost entirely on economic aspects of the war. Which makes sense, given his premise. Is the book, as a whole, a chore or a pleasure to read?
I derive a certain degree of cynical satisfaction from the possibility that Speer’s manipulation inspired the standard conduct of corporate CEOs over the past few decades where they do much the same to enhance their bonuses, frequently without doing anything to improve the corporations’ real performance.
I’m with Tooze on that.
Speer’s post-war self-creation and re-creation of himself as ‘the good Nazi’, ably assisted by the convenient absence of contradiction from other major Nazi players due to their suicides, executions by the Allies and disappearances, cannot, as pointed out above, withstand even the most superficial analysis of his own sanitised version of his conduct, let alone a more objective version of his conduct as a major player at the heart of Hitler’s regime.
Given Speer’s brilliant success in pulling off his recreation as the oxymoronic ‘good Nazi’, he would have been better employed in Goebbel’s propaganda position.
Ardee, I’ll thumb through my copy a bit and try to give you a proper response. But from my faulty memory, quality became a big issue when it came to materials such as steel and even hydrocarbons. The Germans did make an effort to simplify their weapons systems certainly, and Hitler also certainly meddled. The instance that comes to mind was his insistence that the Panther Mk V have lots and lots of armor on the front making it nearly impenetrable to most Allied guns. Of course, this was much to the detriment of the powertrain and to the thinner side armor that was quite vulnerable to nearly any gun at combat ranges --turning a very effective and reasonably priced weapon system into something a bit more costly and difficult to produce.
I recall Tooze also used the Messerschmidt 109 as emblematic of German production problems in general and expanded on it a bit to counter the deceptive emphasis some put on the Nazi “wonder-weapons”. He used the fact that the Me109 was produced to the end of the war in large numbers --even after being hopelessly outclassed unless flown by an experten pilot-- by nearly every later Allied fighter. He of course mentions that Germany had some cutting edge projects with jet technology, but the bulk of production was devoted to piston designs, certain people on this forum and others crow about Germany having more jets on D-Day or something should bear this in mind. They fail to mention that Germany was desperate to get nearly anything in the air and that aircraft were effectively ONLY made in Germany during the war and largely by very skilled Germans. The Luftwaffe did try some projects in France and The Netherlands for production, but with very little payoff and only a couple of hundred training aircraft ever came of it IIRC. Tooze also mentions that there was always a conflict between Speer and his bitter rivals in the Luftwaffe between panzer vs. aircraft production and the struggle for resources for each…