"A Short History of the Great War" by James L. Stokesbury

One down, 99 (or so) to go!

As an introductory overview to the Great War, Stokesbury proved to be an excellent choice (full disclosure: I read this one 10 or 15 years ago, though my poor abused memory didn't really remember much about it).  Stokesbury does an excellent job of presenting an overview of the entire war, managing to hit most all of the big highlights, theaters, campaigns, personalities, technologies and the like.  He does this with a dry sense of humor, and notably without the bitterness and condescension that can be found in other Great War histories.  There is a hint of cynicism here and there, but it was coupled with a definite feeling that he could understand how the war could grind on like it did, and his cynicism seems more the result of the feelings of inevitability, frustration, and hopelessness at how the war unfolded.  Given the constant striving to break out somewhere, anywhere; the pyrrhic victories; the supremacy of the defense and the lack of technology that would favor movement, this seems justified.

Stokesbury follows a fairly straight-forward, linear approach to his history.  He does an admirable job of looking at every region touched by the war; from Africa, to the Middle East, and even manages to mention the relatively minor events in the Pacific.  Still, his focus always returns to the Western Front, as it inevitably must.  Although a "short history," he pulls this off well.  One can quibble with what he leaves out, but that's the price of keeping it short but comprehensive.  I will, however, quibble, because I can!  The one thing he explicitly pays little heed to during the course of the war is politics, aside from in Russia where it was so utterly critical.  He calls the war the "soldier's act" (followed by the "politician's act" when it ends).  Being a Clausewitz fan, this might be a little too neat of a division, but hardly a fatal flaw in this particular book.

Speaking of coverage, one area I thought he seemed to hit inordinately often was the Italian campaign.  I did not go back and do a page count or anything, but it seemed to come up more often than might be expected -- perhaps I'm just thinking that because of the news story recently about discovering frozen soldiers and positions from the war still intact from those battles.  Given that this theater does not get much attention in most histories, I suppose I can't fault him.

Melting glaciers in northern Italy reveal corpses of WW1 soldiers

The Short History of World War I came out in 1981; the publisher's blurb says it was the first general history of the war in 20 years.  I don't know how accurate that statement is, but given how this war was overshadowed for so long by World War 2, it seems plausible.  In fact, one of the things that Stokesbury says is that many older histories of the Great War were inaccurate or skewed, and it was high time for a revisiting.  At the same time he seems to hit on many of the common explanations for why the war started, and how it was fought.  For example, he uses terms like "blind leadership," mentions that "wisdom was not a dominant quality" among leaders, and so on.  Ultimately, his root causes boil down to a "dangerous political imbalance," with population growth as the most profound driver of it.  He adds that nationalism and Darwinism led to militarism.

My only other criticism of the book is that it did not have enough maps!  There were a few serviceable ones, but they were all wide area, and not terribly helpful in following the action, especially on the Western Front during some of the key campaigns and battles.  I'm a map fiend, so I could not let this pass unsaid! 

So, bottom line, Stokesbury is an excellent guide and intro to the war from the 10,000 foot level.  Next up will be Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie.  Perhaps "Massive" would be more accurate, as this one is 1000 pages, give or take.  I'm not quite a hundred in, so it might be a bit before I can post on it!

First Book

Happy New Year! 

I'm starting my first reading selection this week with A Short History of World War One by James Stokesbury.  Based on some sage advice, I'm using this book as an overview of the entire war, sort of a quick tourist-eyed view before starting to delve into more specific topics.  I'll probably read a few more general histories, as well, as time goes on to keep from being buried under details!

More to follow on Stokesbury when I can get through it.  My plan remains to read approximately two books per month between now and December 2018.

A copy of the current book list is at:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0CQHdL1aq0qeml0S3BjSVRKeGs/edit?usp=sharing

Any suggestions on this project are appreciated!