Real War 1914-1918

Rating:
Summary: What a book!
Review: B. Liddell Hart is one of the history (not only military) thinkers whose fertile works will be fully appreciated only when time has passed on. As usually, human being reckon others merits too much time later. The whole Liddell Hart work it's an example. Had military staffs read him carefully before WWII, perhaps the output would has been otherwise, or at least different. So may be said about the further wars. "The Real War 1914-1918" is a veritable good analysis of the entanglement that led to war. But not only on military factors, as often happens. He included political, economical and even psycological considerations. Instead of a narrative reconstruction, his abarcative and reflexive study is a pretty good proof about what a writer can do if he possess knowledge, patience, and vocation to teach. As reader can verify by himself with "Real War" on his hands ("Strategy", "Germans Generals Talk" or the others Liddell Hart's books as well), with a such kind of master, every book becomes sadly too much short. Thus, among the books I have had opportunity to read about WWI, I deem "The Real War 1914-1918" simply the best one. You won't be disappointed by your choice.

Rating:
Summary: The "hell" of war.
Review: I picked this book up somewhat on a whim. I was looking for a book that would give me good overview of WWI, filling in the details left out in the brief mentions found in our high school history books. And this after reading an abridged version of Winston Churchill's "The Great War". Captain Hart's account is not for someone looking for an "easy read". I don't know of any substaintial account of this war that could be written as an "easy read". Of course Captian Hart is writing with 20-20 hindsight, so he is able to see and give account of the miscalculations and errors. Would we have done any better then Foch and the other allied Generals under the times and circumstances? I have my doubts, but we are in the "now" and can learn from the tragic mistakes of the past. If ever war was "hell", it was so in the trenches of France. Somewhere in France near the Argonne Forest rests the mortal remains of Pvt. George Britton, my great-uncle, killed exactly 4 weeks before the Armistice. In Hart's account, I at least find some facts to help me understand what happened there, and come to grips somewhat with why my Uncle died at a young age, far from home and family. RIP

Rating:
Summary: "Mistakes were made."
Review: Topic: Single volume overview of W.W.I.

Main thesis: Mistakes. Hart's thesis puts me in mind of the wag's observations on chess: whomever makes the second to the last mistake wins the game.

Style: Hart writes with sardonic wit. Initially, I found it fun to read, but by book's end, p.476, it became a bit of a drag.

Bias: I believe Hart's book is fairly even-handed towards both the Allies and the Central Powers, although Hart frequently waxes in romanticisms, such as, moral and gallant.

But at times, Hart will suddenly and, in my opinion, wrongfully, blame the British citizenry. He seems more critical of the English populace than the enemy forces who killed, wounded and maimed millions of their sons, fathers and brothers.

For example: [on the heavy British losses at Ypres 1917] "And for this lack of moral strength the public must share the blame, for they had already shown themselves too easily swayed by clamor against political interference with the generals, and too prone to believe that the politician is invariably wrong on such occasions. The civilian public,indeed, is apt to trust soldiers too little in peace, and sometimes too much in war." [p 367]

Another example: [on four years of trench warfare] "Thus the ultimate responsibility falls on the British people. Even the military conservatism which obstructed improvements and reorganization during the war may be charged to lack of public concern with the training and selection of officers in peace. In the light of 1914-18 the whole people bear the stigma of infanticide." [p 129] WOW!

These bits of sophistry hold no water. The generals and their staffs are, supposedly, the experts at war, not the public. In a democracy, the politicians and the generals bear the burden of the public trust. In peacetime, the public relies on the politicians and weapons manufacturers, and in war, the generals. Yet, in both examples, the public is responsible what's best for the British military, not their professional military overseers. It seems that Captain Hart preferred to blame the people instead of his own comrades-in-arms. This is a case of the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

Recommendation: Hart's Real War is a good place to start only for a basic overview of the First World War. But the book is seventy years old and Hart's lambasting the British people is questionable at best.

Rating:
Summary: "Mistakes were made."
Review: Topic: Single volume overview of W.W.I.

Main thesis: Mistakes. Hart's thesis puts me in mind of the wag's observations on chess: whomever makes the second to the last mistake wins the game.

Style: Hart writes with sardonic wit. Initially, I found it fun to read, but by book's end, p.476, it became a bit of a drag.

Bias: I believe Hart's book is fairly even-handed towards both the Allies and the Central Powers, although Hart frequently waxes in romanticisms, such as, moral and gallant.

But at times, Hart will suddenly and, in my opinion, wrongfully, blame the British citizenry. He seems more critical of the English populace than the enemy forces who killed, wounded and maimed millions of their sons, fathers and brothers.

For example: [on the heavy British losses at Ypres 1917] "And for this lack of moral strength the public must share the blame, for they had already shown themselves too easily swayed by clamor against political interference with the generals, and too prone to believe that the politician is invariably wrong on such occasions. The civilian public,indeed, is apt to trust soldiers too little in peace, and sometimes too much in war." [p 367]

Another example: [on four years of trench warfare] "Thus the ultimate responsibility falls on the British people. Even the military conservatism which obstructed improvements and reorganization during the war may be charged to lack of public concern with the training and selection of officers in peace. In the light of 1914-18 the whole people bear the stigma of infanticide." [p 129] WOW!

These bits of sophistry hold no water. The generals and their staffs are, supposedly, the experts at war, not the public. In a democracy, the politicians and the generals bear the burden of the public trust. In peacetime, the public relies on the politicians and weapons manufacturers, and in war, the generals. Yet, in both examples, the public is responsible what's best for the British military, not their professional military overseers. It seems that Captain Hart preferred to blame the people instead of his own comrades-in-arms. This is a case of the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

Recommendation: Hart's Real War is a good place to start only for a basic overview of the First World War. But the book is seventy years old and Hart's lambasting the British people is questionable at best.