A Short History of World War I [Paperback]

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.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this | Permalink Comment Comment

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.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this | Permalink Comment Comment