Customer Reviews

Real War 1914-1918

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I picked this book up somewhat on a whim. I was looking for a book that would give me good overview of WWI, filling in the details left out in the brief mentions found in our high school history books. And this after reading an abridged version of Winston Churchill's "The Great War". Captain Hart's account is not for someone looking for an "easy read". I don't know of any substaintial account of this war that could be written as an "easy read". Of course Captian Hart is writing with 20-20 hindsight, so he is able to see and give account of the miscalculations and errors. Would we have done any better then Foch and the other allied Generals under the times and circumstances? I have my doubts, but we are in the "now" and can learn from the tragic mistakes of the past. If ever war was "hell", it was so in the trenches of France. Somewhere in France near the Argonne Forest rests the mortal remains of Pvt. George Britton, my great-uncle, killed exactly 4 weeks before the Armistice. In Hart's account, I at least find some facts to help me understand what happened there, and come to grips somewhat with why my Uncle died at a young age, far from home and family. RIP

Hart gives a blistering critique of Allied strategy and tactics in WW I. The story can be tidious for the reader after the intial campaign of 1914 degenerates into the grotesque trench warfare that symbolizes the conflict. Hart repeatedly points out specific tactical mistakes, and grand strategic shortcomings in the allied command. Allenby's campaign in the Middle East is presented as the best allied action of the war. Hart concentrates on the actual fighting, but still brings in the political and social aspects of the Great War. In one of the book's sharpest comments the author insinuates the English government and the English people could be accused of "infanticide" for being so ill prepared for war when they sent a generation of men to die in trenches on the continent. Hart shows what a close ran affair the war was until German miscalculations and allied diplomacy brought the United States into the war. A somber subject brought to life with gripping insights.

B. Liddell Hart is one of the history (not only military) thinkers whose fertile works will be fully appreciated only when time has passed on. As usually, human being reckon others merits too much time later. The whole Liddell Hart work it's an example. Had military staffs read him carefully before WWII, perhaps the output would has been otherwise, or at least different. So may be said about the further wars. "The Real War 1914-1918" is a veritable good analysis of the entanglement that led to war. But not only on military factors, as often happens. He included political, economical and even psycological considerations. Instead of a narrative reconstruction, his abarcative and reflexive study is a pretty good proof about what a writer can do if he possess knowledge, patience, and vocation to teach. As reader can verify by himself with "Real War" on his hands ("Strategy", "Germans Generals Talk" or the others Liddell Hart's books as well), with a such kind of master, every book becomes sadly too much short. Thus, among the books I have had opportunity to read about WWI, I deem "The Real War 1914-1918" simply the best one. You won't be disappointed by your choice.

Liddell-Hart does not advertise his piece as a complete history of the First World War, but centers in on certain key aspects which played a major role on the outcome.

Throughout his book, Liddell-Hart handles each participant in an even-handed manner by providing the evidence with as little bias as possible. He does show how actions caused the victory or defeat in a certain engagement, but stops short of blaming one commander or another for `what they should have known.'

The author divides his book into seven specific sections. In each section, the first `chapter' is designed to provide an overview of the subsequent `scenes', which are used to provide greater detail of events. This style offers the reader a look at the `big picture,' which help them to understand the significance of the more critical events.

This is an excellent history of WWI, giving insight into the causes, the people, and the battles.

Captain B.H. Liddell Hart was one of the great military historians of the 20th century. The Real War, much like his other works, is a condensed, straight forward, and unsentimental telling of a massive, and massively convoluted war. Liddell Hart served in the British Army on the Western Front and was gassed for his troubles. It is a commentary on his scientific view of warfare that he could look back on that experience and conclude that poison gas was not a particularly demonic weapon.

This is a book to read through once and then keep as a reference. If you were limited to only two books on the Great War, this should be one and A World Undone (Meyer) the other.

Richard Vidaurri

Captain's Hart book fell a bit short of my expectations as I was more concerned about the political causes and consequences of the war. Its focus is the military development, and in this regard is an excelente book, in spite of the horrible maps. A work like this deserved a refreshed edition, and good maps are a must to understand the military flow. This book was published in 1930, so the consequences of the Versailles Treaty could not be fully appraised, but Captain's Hart feeling, exposed in the last chapter offer a hint of the terrible outcome. I recommend for those looking for a compact and comprehensive history of military movements and a very interesting account of the use of then new technologies like machine guns, tanks, submarines, airplanes and their impact in the outcome of the war.

Topic: Single volume overview of W.W.I.

Main thesis: Mistakes. Hart's thesis puts me in mind of the wag's observations on chess: whomever makes the second to the last mistake wins the game.

Style: Hart writes with sardonic wit. Initially, I found it fun to read, but by book's end, p.476, it became a bit of a drag.

Bias: I believe Hart's book is fairly even-handed towards both the Allies and the Central Powers, although Hart frequently waxes in romanticisms, such as, moral and gallant.

But at times, Hart will suddenly and, in my opinion, wrongfully, blame the British citizenry. He seems more critical of the English populace than the enemy forces who killed, wounded and maimed millions of their sons, fathers and brothers.

For example: [on the heavy British losses at Ypres 1917] "And for this lack of moral strength the public must share the blame, for they had already shown themselves too easily swayed by clamor against political interference with the generals, and too prone to believe that the politician is invariably wrong on such occasions. The civilian public,indeed, is apt to trust soldiers too little in peace, and sometimes too much in war." [p 367]

Another example: [on four years of trench warfare] "Thus the ultimate responsibility falls on the British people. Even the military conservatism which obstructed improvements and reorganization during the war may be charged to lack of public concern with the training and selection of officers in peace. In the light of 1914-18 the whole people bear the stigma of infanticide." [p 129] WOW!

These bits of sophistry hold no water. The generals and their staffs are, supposedly, the experts at war, not the public. In a democracy, the politicians and the generals bear the burden of the public trust. In peacetime, the public relies on the politicians and weapons manufacturers, and in war, the generals. Yet, in both examples, the public is responsible what's best for the British military, not their professional military overseers. It seems that Captain Hart preferred to blame the people instead of his own comrades-in-arms. This is a case of the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

Recommendation: Hart's Real War is a good place to start only for a basic overview of the First World War. But the book is seventy years old and Hart's lambasting the British people is questionable at best.