World War I Books

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: VPaulus
On that matter you might find also interesting a book by David G. Herrmann "The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War". Here the focus is on land armies and not about the naval race.

Many thanks. Not available as a Nook Book so I guess I'll have to read it the old fashioned way. [:)]

[wodin]

VPaulus my two favourite memoirs are War the Infantry knew by Capt J C Dunn (was the MO of Graves Welch battalion). The Frank Richards memoir was also the Welch battalion.

My No2 is Under Fire by Henri Barbusse.

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I have about 300+ books on WW1..

Wow, if I have any WW1 questions, I'm coming to you Wodin! [&o]

[VPaulus]

Both, "Under Fire" and "Storm of Steel" are in my WWI backlog for a long time. I bought "Storm of Steel" a couple of years ago but it seems there's never enough time to read all the books I want. [:(]
But I've already decide that the next memoir will be from James McCudden "Flying Fury".

"The War the Infantry Knew", is also a classic, always listed in any WW1 bibliography.

What about one volume WW1 history... what do you all think it's best? I've seen some people mentioning "A World Undone". I still have in my backlog David Stevenson "1914-1918: The History of the First World War". The last I've read was Hew Strachan's "The First World War". I've enjoyed it although many people consider it too much light.

[parusski]

I also recommend A World Undone

A World Undone: http://www.amazon.com/World-Undone-Stor ... orld+war+1

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This game has really given me a yearning to read up on WWI. Does anyone know any good books? Requirements:

- To start off I am looking for a quality one volume overview of the conflict from 1914-1918
- I do not want anything that focuses on first hand accounts, rather I want an overview of the conflict (like Beevor's The Second World War) to get me started; I can drill down into detail once I know the general timelines etc.

I saw The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark a couple of days after buying this game and on impulse I bought it. It has very mixed reviews on Amazon - ranging from 1-5 stars. The main comment from the 1-star providers is that the author has a German bias. Anyone read the book and/or come across this author before?

warspite1

So has no one read anything by Christopher Clark?

[wodin]

To Conquer Hell: The Battle of Meuse-Argonne 1918 by E Lengel. It's a superb read that many of the American players would be interested in.

@VPaulus this is a great indepth overview..The Great War: 1914-1918 by Ian Beckett. A World Undone is a great starter book for an overall picture. I also recommend it.

@Warspite..I say as others have said A World Undone, not to heavy and a superb intro to the War. Also John Terraine released a WW1 book which would suit aswell.


Also so far Peter hart has written some superb books on WW1..he is releasing a new book in April which covers the whole war. SO keep an eye out for it.

Peter Harts new book next year.

[Amaranthus]

I just finished reading "World War I - A Short History" by Norman Stone. It's a modern interpretation (published 2010) and an excellent, concise read (at 240 pages, you can get through it in about 3-4 hours at a leisurely pace). It's really a superb primer.

[jwduquette1]

I'll second (or is it third by now) reading "Castles of Steel" by "Robert K. Massie". Great book on the Naval aspects of WWI. Great drama.

[johng5155]

If you are interested in German war plans leading up to 1914, try "The Real German War Plan, 1904-14" by Terrance Zuber. He looks at the actual plans developed over the period. It is interesting that they changed every couple of years, based on the current political climate in Europe. "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson is an interesting analytical study of the war from a modern perspective.

[micha1100]

Since I read several positive reviews about Tuchman's "Guns of August" I feel compelled to add my own opinion: the book is well-written but should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Tuchman is no historian and it shows. Time and again she makes factual mistakes and misrepresentations. For example a recurring theme is that the French cause is just because they were fighting to "free" the French province of Alsace-Lorraine that had been occupied by Germany after the war 1870/71. Tuchman somehow fails to mention that the region had been German for many centuries and had only been annexed by France after the Thirty-Years-War, and in 1871 still more than half of the inhabitants were native German speakers, so the issue is by no means as clear-cut as one is led to believe by this book. Also, the fact that after the end of the war France not only took back Alsace-Lorraine but also original German territories (and would have liked to annex still more) does not exactly prove the French cause a noble one.
One also does not learn from this book that both sides wanted the war, and Germany only was the aggressor because it had to strike quickly to have any chance (btw the French had no qualms to invade German territory at the start of the war, they just were not very successful doing it).
But the worst for me was that Germans are always described as blood-thirsty, uncivilised ogres. I understand that Tuchman, being Jewish and writing a relatively short time after WWII, had no love for Germany but her obvious bias completely spoiled the book for me.

Btw I am German myself so I guess I'm somewhat more sensitive in that respect but I do believe that while "Guns of August" makes for an interesting read it should not be used to form one's opinion about the conflict. Actually, to really understand what happened in 1914 one has to know the European history of the decades or even centuries before, but I think not many historians disagree with the short version that the Great war was simply a struggle between two power blocs for control, with no side unilaterally to blame.

[Jestre]

Totally agree about GOA, it is pretty much just the official British propaganda line taken during the war and wrapped up in the pretty package of Tuchmans writing ability. Extremely biased as is many British authors views of WWI. Churchill and Liddell Hart were two of the more fair British historians of the War prior to the modern day writers.

[jwduquette1]

This title may have been mentioned above already, but a month or so ago I finished reading "Three Armies on the Somme" by William Philpott. It may have contributed to me buying CtGW. It's not the page turner that "Castles of Steel" is, but it's good coverage of the Somme as well as an in-depth assessment of "attrition" as a national strategy. Perhaps Philpott is a little too cold blooded in his treatment of attrition as a viable strategy. His points are probably mostly valid or perhaps even all valid in this regard. But I must admit that I found the author's disassociation with the human element associated with an "attritional strategy" a little disconcerting.

[Aurelian]

I liked Toland's 1918. Silly me lost it years ago.

[warspite1]

Thanks for all the advice. I have got two books recommended above (I don't think one was mentioned).

I have bought Martin Gilbert's The First World War - A Complete History, for the overview. I also got Niall Fergusson's The Pity of War. I like the work he has done for TV so thought this might be interesting. As my first love is the navy, I also got Castles of Steel. Just need to finish the last two chapters of Churchill & Sea Power, and then I'll attack WWI. Lots of reading ahead [:)]

[wodin]

Supposed to be abit one sided the Martin Gilbert book.Think you should have gone for A World Undone. The Pity of War is a good book though.

[SteveD64]

I'm currently reading A Naval History of World War I and even though I'm only a couple dozen pages in, it's been an interesting read. Especially since it covers all the navies and gives some insight into Austrian/Italian/Greek/Turk/Russian naval strategy.

http://www.amazon.com/Naval-History-Wor ... 1857284984

[SteveD64]

This looks interesting as well, and is available at my local library. [:)]

http://www.amazon.com/Pyrrhic-Victory-F ... 0674027264

[Johnus]

Jestre:

The Guns of August is NOT British propaganda, nor is it even pro-British. Tuchman goes out of her way to critisize the way the 1914 campaign has been remembered in Britain. I quote: [F.E. Smith "laid the foundations of a myth. . . . It was as if the French Army had been an adjunct somewhere in the offing. In fact the BEF was never at any time in the first month in contact with more than three German corps out of a total of over thirty. . . . but the idea that it 'bore the weight of the blow' was perpetuated in all subsequent British accounts . . ." She is particularly critical of Sir John French.

micha1100:

Ms. Tuchman ridiculed all of the principals for their stupidity, where they deserved it, no matter their nationality. Nor did I come away with the impression that she thought the French had a better claim to Alsace. I agree that she was toughest of all on the Germans. This was, however, written in 1962, before the age of political correctness. And, you must admit, that this era was not Germany's finest hour. This was a different age and the leading figures look, from our perspective, somewhat like figures from a comic opera. The Germans behaved and and spoke the most ridiculously of all. (Don't feel too bad. I'm of Italian descent and I cringe at some of the tape of Il Duce's speaches.) The war may have been the result of an old fashioned power struggle and not, of course, a contest between good and evil. But Germany's leaders were incompetent (and ruthless) and the results were catastropic for Germany.

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: micha1100

Since I read several positive reviews about Tuchman's "Guns of August" I feel compelled to add my own opinion: the book is well-written but should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Tuchman is no historian and it shows. Time and again she makes factual mistakes and misrepresentations. For example a recurring theme is that the French cause is just because they were fighting to "free" the French province of Alsace-Lorraine that had been occupied by Germany after the war 1870/71. Tuchman somehow fails to mention that the region had been German for many centuries and had only been annexed by France after the Thirty-Years-War, and in 1871 still more than half of the inhabitants were native German speakers, so the issue is by no means as clear-cut as one is led to believe by this book. Also, the fact that after the end of the war France not only took back Alsace-Lorraine but also original German territories (and would have liked to annex still more) does not exactly prove the French cause a noble one.

Tuchman reviews France's motivations from France's perspective - and there is not a single shred of doubt that France was resolved, almost to a man to recover the "lost" provinces. The historical background you provide is completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the book.