I thought of that, and laughed out loud, reading an end note in John Mozier's Blitzkrieg Myth last night. He had been getting letters about an earlier book - also with "myth" in the title - which some readers innocently failed to recognize as revisionist:
"I thought I had made it clear that I didn't feel these were factors of any great importance. Perhaps that portion of my preface should have been printed in larger type..."Mozier has this cathartic habit of arguing with the public, his readers, and pop historians in his notes:
The whole issue of numbers is treated with great coyness by historians - for obvious reasons.Nowhere moreso than in Civil War history, I would add.
A harsh although not overly harsh judgement.Here is reassuring a reader about his own comments on a certain general.
... the silence on the subject is suggestive.Rather like the whole body of Civil War history. Vast, uncountable pages of silence that scream "intentional omission."
A complex and still little known matter.Worth many suggestive silences no doubt; silence is how complexity is managed on our side of the non-fiction fence.
Readers whose most recent knowledge of D-Day comes from popular films may find this surprising, but it is true nonetheless.Another laugh. Attention fans of Turner and Burns.
And finally, here is the Civil War predicament in a nutshell:
As is often the case in military history, when the facts conflict with national interests or personality cults, the response ... has simply been to ignore the evidence presented - the main reason why so much historical controversy is specious.Almost the entire field of Civil War history has been and is specious. So you WWII history reformers have company.
