What do you think?
Rate this book
Writers & Readers Documentary Comic Book #36
World War II for Beginners
Illustrated by Naomi Rosenblatt and Shey Wolvek-Pfister, an introduction to World War II, which covers what it was about, why it broke out, who its main characters were and other relevant areas.
176 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1991
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 24, 2025
I generally like this series of books and I've read other books by this author so it pains me to give such a low rating to this one but there are several issues here which make this one a tough sell.
In general the narrative is good, snappy and gets your attention...but, it's also flawed in 3 ways:
1. Proofreading. This is the most forgivable since so many major publishers seem to let all kinds of ridiculous usage and typos go through (calvary?) but the ones here are of every variety (I'm looking at you, Edwin Rommel).
2. Factual errors. This one is harder to stomach in a history book and it means someone did sloppy research. No, Herschel Grynzspan did NOT shoot the German Ambassador to France. He tried to, but ended up shooting a lower level employee of the embassy instead. Selkirk gets the bridges of Arnhem and Remagen mixed up (even in 1991 that wasn't a hard one to fix). And there are plenty of other examples that start to put this book into the category of not one that you can use as a reference for trivia night--or for a research project. (Unless you're writing about WWII Reception in which case have at it.). And there are things like calling the German General VON Paulus, which is an error, but an error with a historic pedigree since people have been making that same error since 1942. (It's a lot like older history books that insist on calling Lenin "Nikolai" which is a similar error with a pedigree.)
3. Finally there are the errors of mythology. Now here we start going into issues of interpretation, but this is one where it's popular histories like this that are especially damaging in perpetuating these myths. And it's particularly disappointing because in general I like to this series of books as a place where knowledge is expanded and not simply the narration of common myths.
Now, like I said, some of these myths are a matter of interpretation and debate (I'm looking at you, Maginot Line haters) but some of them are chestnuts of mythology that have long since been busted --and a grand example of this is the story of the Polish lancers charging at German tanks in 1939--that never happened. Of course, this is another example of an error with a pedigree--it dates back to German propaganda--and of course it fits with a certain narrative about industrialization and modern warfare--but of course, as any historian of the Eastern Front will remind you -- the Germans invaded Russia in 1941 with plenty of cavalry as well. And from the beginning to the end of the war the Germans were very much reliant on horses for transportation and their military wasn't nearly as mechanized as books like this insist on wanting you to believe.
Another example is the so called "Tanaka" plan which this book seems to treat as an authentic Japanese plan for world conquest but which has long since been acknowledged by most historians as a propaganda forgery. Is at as evil a forgery as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Well, it's more like if there was never a Mein Kampf but some Polish person forged it during the war--after Germany had already basically started doing some bad things.
Now, I've seen some of these latter category myths (the Polish lancers especially) in some of the very reputable sources that Selkirk cites in the bibliography so to some extent Selkirk's text isn't uniquely problematic in that regard. (I was literally reading the same account of the Polish cavalry in Sulzberger's tome from American Heritage that Selkirk lists in his biblio.).
Okay, but is the general tone of the narrative off base and wrong? Not really. It's a quick and lively read and you do get introduced to the general course of World War II. It's just that there are so many problems that there should be a huge emphasis on the "for Beginners--and please don't stop at that level" here.
As a teaching text, it might be great to use this book to teach methodology and reinterpretation. But for the regular reader I'd advise trying something else because this is about as bad as trying to use Looney Tunes cartoons to teach physics.
In general the narrative is good, snappy and gets your attention...but, it's also flawed in 3 ways:
1. Proofreading. This is the most forgivable since so many major publishers seem to let all kinds of ridiculous usage and typos go through (calvary?) but the ones here are of every variety (I'm looking at you, Edwin Rommel).
2. Factual errors. This one is harder to stomach in a history book and it means someone did sloppy research. No, Herschel Grynzspan did NOT shoot the German Ambassador to France. He tried to, but ended up shooting a lower level employee of the embassy instead. Selkirk gets the bridges of Arnhem and Remagen mixed up (even in 1991 that wasn't a hard one to fix). And there are plenty of other examples that start to put this book into the category of not one that you can use as a reference for trivia night--or for a research project. (Unless you're writing about WWII Reception in which case have at it.). And there are things like calling the German General VON Paulus, which is an error, but an error with a historic pedigree since people have been making that same error since 1942. (It's a lot like older history books that insist on calling Lenin "Nikolai" which is a similar error with a pedigree.)
3. Finally there are the errors of mythology. Now here we start going into issues of interpretation, but this is one where it's popular histories like this that are especially damaging in perpetuating these myths. And it's particularly disappointing because in general I like to this series of books as a place where knowledge is expanded and not simply the narration of common myths.
Now, like I said, some of these myths are a matter of interpretation and debate (I'm looking at you, Maginot Line haters) but some of them are chestnuts of mythology that have long since been busted --and a grand example of this is the story of the Polish lancers charging at German tanks in 1939--that never happened. Of course, this is another example of an error with a pedigree--it dates back to German propaganda--and of course it fits with a certain narrative about industrialization and modern warfare--but of course, as any historian of the Eastern Front will remind you -- the Germans invaded Russia in 1941 with plenty of cavalry as well. And from the beginning to the end of the war the Germans were very much reliant on horses for transportation and their military wasn't nearly as mechanized as books like this insist on wanting you to believe.
Another example is the so called "Tanaka" plan which this book seems to treat as an authentic Japanese plan for world conquest but which has long since been acknowledged by most historians as a propaganda forgery. Is at as evil a forgery as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Well, it's more like if there was never a Mein Kampf but some Polish person forged it during the war--after Germany had already basically started doing some bad things.
Now, I've seen some of these latter category myths (the Polish lancers especially) in some of the very reputable sources that Selkirk cites in the bibliography so to some extent Selkirk's text isn't uniquely problematic in that regard. (I was literally reading the same account of the Polish cavalry in Sulzberger's tome from American Heritage that Selkirk lists in his biblio.).
Okay, but is the general tone of the narrative off base and wrong? Not really. It's a quick and lively read and you do get introduced to the general course of World War II. It's just that there are so many problems that there should be a huge emphasis on the "for Beginners--and please don't stop at that level" here.
As a teaching text, it might be great to use this book to teach methodology and reinterpretation. But for the regular reader I'd advise trying something else because this is about as bad as trying to use Looney Tunes cartoons to teach physics.
October 17, 2024
Considering the format's inherent limitations, World War II for Beginners offers a surprisingly comprehensive overview of not only the war, but the historical context out of which it arose and, to an extent, its lasting impact. The war doesn't even start until about a quarter of the way through the book, which I think is precisely as it should be in a book such as this. While giving some room to Hitler's own personal development, it's more interested in why someone of his character could appeal to the German people at that time, which I think is a far more productive direction to take the psychological history in!
It does, however, stumble in repeating some frustratingly common WWII myths. Most notably, it states that Stalin's failure to respond to Germany's invasion in a timely manner was due to an inability to believe that Hitler would betray him. In reality, Stalin was well aware that war with Hitler was coming, but he expected to be the one on offense. He assumed Hitler was too smart to try something as foolish as invading the USSR (Richard Overy's book Russia's War has a great debunking of this myth). Though an annoying myth, it is one believed by many even academic historians, and so I can't be too disappointed the comic book history fell for it too!
Aside from small and/or common errors such as that, this book is excellent.
It does, however, stumble in repeating some frustratingly common WWII myths. Most notably, it states that Stalin's failure to respond to Germany's invasion in a timely manner was due to an inability to believe that Hitler would betray him. In reality, Stalin was well aware that war with Hitler was coming, but he expected to be the one on offense. He assumed Hitler was too smart to try something as foolish as invading the USSR (Richard Overy's book Russia's War has a great debunking of this myth). Though an annoying myth, it is one believed by many even academic historians, and so I can't be too disappointed the comic book history fell for it too!
Aside from small and/or common errors such as that, this book is excellent.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews