The First World War

The "War to End All Wars" wasn't. Instead it was the harbinger of things to come. In spite of the evidence of the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian war and several others, the Generals hadn't learned that the new technologies had changed the face of warfare forever. In many ways, the after effects of the war are still among us. It started in the Balkans, strangely enough only a few dozen miles from where the second Peloponnesian war had started, and where the Bosnian, Serbian, etc. 'wars' were fought a few years ago. In its writing style, this book almost reads like a good novel. In the completeness of its treatment of the subject, this book is encyclopedic. Aspects of the war such as the fighting between South Africa and German South West Africa (now Namibia) are covered where even some larger multi volume histories have ignored them. This is likely to become the definitive book on the First World War.

Few scholars today can match Hew Strachan's grasp of World War One's history. This is an excellent work that describes how global the war truly was and how it impacted its own generation as well as the next century to come. Anyone interested in World War One should consider reading this work.The book covers many topics and it is somewhat interesting to see the placement of relatively obscure theatres, Africa, the high seas, and the middle east placed early in the book. Most other works relegate these areas to one combined chapter or footnotes to a larger picture. But these show how the war affected the entire world and rightly deserve their own chapters.What is most appealing about this book is how it refuses to lay total blame on Germany for the war. Ever since Versailles, France, Britain, and to a lesser extent, the United States, have sought to blame Germany for everything the war caused. In this respect, Strachan follows Holger Herwig's argument on his work covering Germany and Austria-Hungary's relationship. Each power went to war with specific aims and all were legitimate in their own opinions. By losing, Germany got the short end of the stick. Of course Germany's harsh treaties with Russia and Romania were prophetic in that they were a preview of things to come at Versailles.Strachan argues the Central Powers stood little chance of outright military victory (mainly because Germany had no serious allies to support them) and thus sought to weaken the Entente in any way possible. Most belligerents assumed there would be a 1919 campaign and were somewhat surprised when the Central Powers ultimately imploded in October and November 1918.The book is well-written and very readable. It has many photographs but no maps. His theory that the war contributed much to the 20th century is right on the mark. I disagree when he says World War Two was not inevitable based on the Versailles Treaty, but that is how scholarship works. He's not wrong, he just didn't offer enough evidence to convince me otherwise. Strachan is attempting a three volume project on the war and this book is an overview. Even he agrees the project may be ambitious as the first volume took fifteen years to complete. But he makes up for it with this one-volume book that is among the most comprehensive on the market today.

This new account may not uncover any new scholarship but its picture packed pages ensure that it is a worthwhile read. Nearly half the book has pictures in it and there is a wonderful inset of color photos. The color photos show the unique international character of the allied armies, from Senegalese French troops to Vietnamese and Sikhs. The rest of the text is a plodding, sometimes enjoyable read about the first world war and its important events. From Jutland to Serbia to the Fall of Russia, the French mutinies and Gallipoli the war is covered. There is not quite enough coverage of the Turkish-Russian theatre or of the Armenian genocide but this is to be expected. There is good coverage of the many weapons used, including the German rail guns, the 250mm long guns. Scant coverage is given to German surface raiders or Von Spee but `Castles of Steel' is the superior choice for the naval war anyway. In final summation this is a good read and the pictures are excellent. Seth J. Frantzman

Hew Strachan has written an excellent history of the war that deals with how Germany and its allies lost the war politcally and militarily. According to Strachan, Germany lost the war politically because it did not have any civilian agencies for wartime concerns such as rations and the making of munitions. Due to this weak civic structure, the military took over areas of the government that should have been dealt with by civilian ministries and as a result Germany became ecnomically impaired during the First World War. Germany also failed to use the forces of nationalism to its advantage in Africa and its plan to exploit Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East faltered because it was in direct opposition to Turkish secular nationalism. Germany struggled in the war due to the fact that it did not have a common strategy with Turkey and Austria.The Turks and Austrians launched military operations that did not directly benefit Germany's war aims because of this lack of strategic planning. The British, French, and the Americans, however, in 1918 were able to put aside their national differences and launch coordinated attacks on the Germans. The three above mentioned nations were also able to out produce the Germans in the latest technological equippment such as tanks.The only weakness of the book is that Strachan appears to skim over the Eastern Front but for anyone who wants a concise history of the war I would highly reccomend this book.