Customer Reviews

A Short History of World War I

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

James Stokesbury has written what I feel is the best overall book on WWI. Over the past several years, WWI has become fascinating to me, and I now have a library of about 15 book on the subject. Without a doubt, this is the best overall book on the subject. What really sets this book apart is the writing, much more readable than many if not most authors. For example, as much as I like John Keegan's work, this book is better written.

Unlike some authors, Stokesbury pulls no punches. When a commander is dense, stupid, or even worse, he tells it like it is. One of my favorite lines from the book goes something like (I don't have my copy at hand) `General ... was appointed to command the ... army, and was expected to do nothing, which he did exceedingly well.' This gives you a flavor of his writing style. This is not to say that Stokesbury is flippant, just direct.

Stokesbury, who is a historian, writes as well as many novelists. The book is logically divided into digestible chapters in approximate chronological order. Some parts of the war, for example, the naval parts, while important, have only a few episodes worth noting in an overall history, so he has grouped them into three chapters, one on the early battles, one on Jutland, and one on sub warfare.

All in all, I feel this is one of the two best books ever written on WWI, the other being Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August", which only covers a short period of time at the beginning of the war. If you have an interest in WWI, buy this book.

"A Short History of World War I" provides the reader with an excellent overview of the first great cataclysm of the Twentieth Century without becoming bogging the reader in details.

Presented, essentially chronologically, Prof. Stokesbury covers all aspects and major theatres of the war. The origins of the war and the military mobilizations get the book started.

Much of the book is devoted to the Western front, but all theatres are given appropriate attention. The Eastern Front and its effects on driving Russia into revolution are thoroughly explained. I was surprised at the significance of the war in the Middle East. I was aware of the Gallipoli campaign aimed at forcing the Ottoman Empire out of the war by taking Constantinople, and of Lawrence of Arabia, but the intensity of the effort in the southern reaches of the Empire were also interesting. The colonial campaigns in Africa and the Pacific are explained both militarily and in relationship to the colonial aspirations of the belligerents.

The naval campaigns, primarily the U-boat war, are well reported. The adoption of the convoy system as a response to the U-boat threat was an example of the advances made in the techniques of warfare. The narration of the Battle of the Jutland, probably the greatest shoot-out among battleships and other fleet vessels, is skillfully explained.

The Western Front is where the war was, ultimately, won and lost. The interplay among the characters who played on the Western stage makes an intriguing epic. The French search for a winning commander is reminiscent of Lincoln's search for the same, while the British Haig's untouchability reminds one of the revered Robert E. Lee.

After years of stalemate along the Western Front, the situation started to become fluid with the collapse of Russia and the entry of the United States into the war. This set up a race between the German troops heading west from Russia and the Americans heading "Over There". As we know, the Germans were unable to finish the job before the Americans and civil unrest in Germany and Austria-Hungary tipped the balance in the Allies' favor.

In my mind, three tests exist for an historical book. They are whether the book provides an understanding of the subject, whether it encourages further reading and whether it introduces new ways of thinking of the topic. This book passes all three tests.

After reading this book, I felt that I had a general understanding of the course of the war.

One character about whom I emerged with an enhanced interest was Woodrow Wilson. I have long viewed Wilson as a largely ineffective idealist from whom one could learn little. In this book he is seen as one who introduced a new way of looking at diplomacy. His actions in overcoming American isolationism and introducing Europe to American idealism changed America and the world forever.

This book forced me to see World War I from a different perspective. My impression of World War I had been limited largely to a vision of revolting slaughter in the trenches and mud of the Western front. While this is a large part of the story, it is not the whole story. Lloyd George's opposition to the Western Front mirrors Churchill's fascination with Gallipoli and his later emphasis of the Mediterranean theatre in World War II. The thought that World War I could have been decided other than in Flanders' Fields provides a whole new perspective on the war. The suggestions of alternative ways that the war could have concluded constitute a list of opportunities lost and tragedies which could have been avoided.

For anyone desiring an understanding of World War I, this book is a good place to start.

Here we have a straight-forward version of the complete history of WW I, told in a very readable manner.

Not much is omitted in terms of politics and/or battles but Stokesbury has managed to limit this work to 348 pages including the useful index. I bought this book when it first came out in 1981 and read it right away. I have read it since that time as well and found it to be a great repository of facts concerning this monumental conflict.

There are four or five nice line maps which reflect changing events during the war and the softcover binding makes this one easy to take along to the doctor's office. The fonts are also plenty large enough to read in comfort.

If you're looking to expand your knowledge of 20th Century Europe and/or of "The Great War," I cannot think of a better investment than Stokesbury's competent rendering of this fascinating topic.

This book contained a great overview of the war. However, it is dry and lacks the human perspective that makes such authors as Ambrose great. If you like dry facts, this book is a must read for you.

For a "short history", author was way too long on individual battle details. Day after day; battle after battle...
way too detailed for this reader seeking significant causes, major events and overall resolution.

James Stokesbury manages to summarize the war without reverting to a simple list of events. There are very few of the personal stories of individuals (except the major leaders) but there are enough mixed in with the facts and dates to hold your interest. He does include several opinions of his own with respect to some major blunders by both sides. All in all a very enjoyable book for the neophyte and a nice review for the more knowledgeable.

If you do not know much (or anything) about WWI, this is a book for you. Without going into much depth, Stokesbury, who by the way is a well known historian, presents us with a story of the Great War which is enjoyable and easy to read.

This book is an excellent choice for people who feel the need to improve their knowledge and understanding of the 20th century both politically and militarily or always wanted to know what the 'Great War' was all about. Though WW I was neither the only root or source nor the sole cause or effect of this centuries' events, it is a crucial part in it, and this book is ideal to serve such an understanding.
The author covers the complex political, industrial and military aspects of this war's outbreak and course of events. He vividly describes the horrors of the senseless mass attack tactics versus 20th century weapon technology that almost exstinguished a whole male generation. It focuses mainly on the events in Europe, though other theaters aren't omitted completely. Although the land warfare and, to the appropriate degree, naval warfare are covered, I have to advise you that you will not find any elaborations on the very interesting developments of the war in the air.
Besides this little shortcoming and some inaccuracies a very good book nevertheless. The effects of this WW I reach even into our time, they have affected the complete way the 20th century went in one way or another. Therefore, the value of the basic knowledge about this topic cannot be underestimated, and this very readable book (reads like a novel) supplies exactly that information, no more, no less. Highly recommended !

I must agree with some of the previous reviewers in that parts of this book are very dry and perhaps boring...I would submit that there is little excitement generated in trench warfare and these are the areas of this book where it does get mundane. That being said, this still is not a bad book at all...the alliance structure of the late 19th century into the 20th are covered in better than adequate detail (a good springboard for Tuchman's "Guns of August")and the initiation of the conflict is truthfully told as one escalation followed by another (the childish practice of one country trying to "one-up" the other). I think that this is the area where this book really succeeds because we get a clear understanding of how strong this alliance structure became and, subsequently, how the war was essentially un-avoidable. True, the initial battles all seemed to run together as each side tried to "out-offensive" the other but then they settled in for the 4 year trench warfare battle that only dissapated when the United States became engaged. All theatres of the conflict get good coverage and the major battles (Ypres, Gallipoli, Verdun...) are also given their due. The Eastern Front and the Russian "October Revolution" are also highlights as Stokesbury obviously understood the impact of the Revolution on the outcome of the war. Another strongpoint is the realization on the part of the Central powers that the War was un-winnable and that surrender terms were finally warranted. Stokesbury covers this concisely and flows right into the surrender treaties at Versaille (this book did bring up a new fact to me...each country that surrendered signed a different treaty and the Versaille Treaty was for the Germans only). It is a fact that the social and, to a point, the political climates get minimal coverage and this truly does detract from the storyline. In summary, better and more colorful accounts of the War are available elsewhere, but this is a better than average general read and a good starting point for further study.

I liked this book, although it really was one battle after another. It should be required reading for any political leader considering going to war. I have two complaints however which are comon to many WWI books. First, not enough maps. Second and more important, his section on the Brusilov offensive is incorrect. Brusilov had no "specialized units", and the author goes into very little detail about Brusilovs tactics. His conclusions are simplistic and wrong. The idea that lack of artillery lead to Brusilovs success is simply not true. The author is trying to guess why Brusilov was successful, and completely neglects the information that the General wrote in his own book, (A soldiers note-book, A. A. Brusilov). Overall its a good primer and a pleasant read for the military historian, but I gave it only three stars for lack of tactical details, and incorrect assumptions regarding artillery. See The Myth of the Great War, (John Mosier), for the opposite view on artillery.