John KeeganThe First World War

The late John Keegan was a master stylist and a historian in full command of his subject. He has the gift of making complex subjects understandable and presenting them in a readable, even thrilling narrative.I knew his gifts from his history of the Second World War. His ability to provide telling details without ever losing sight of the big picture. So, this is a very good place to start reading on World War I (as the Americans call it), or the First World War (the British), or the Great War (as it used to be known before there was an even more tragic one).The causes of the war, to the extent that they are understandable, are well recapitulated, the fighting plans of the great powers are shown for what they are, theoretical castles in the air that make a lot of sense on paper but do not stand the test of reality.The start of the war, the machinery that led Europe from one of the most pleasant and peaceful summers ever to unprecedented battefield deaths in a matter of weeks is explained in an inexorable manner. It is one of the highlights of the book.Keegan calls our attention also to the role of technology. Until 1917, it favored the defense, contributing to the stalemate that almost led to the breakdown of entire societies. Then, in 1918, technological developments boosted the offensive and brought back the war of movement, leading to the final defeat of the Central Powers.The author is right to stress the importance of naval warfare, and the key role of the naval blockade in subduing Germany and Austria-Hungary. He also gives the necessary space for us to understand the secondary theaters of the war, Africa, the Pacific and China, the Middle East and Mesopotamia. And, in Europe, both the Western and Eastern fronts are well covered, as is the Italian front. Keegan is a master and always makes the necessary interconnections, so we understand how a decision or a result in one front affects all the others.Two minor caveats: Keegan is not entirely free from national bias and gives more attention to the British (and Imperial and Commonwealth) army than to any other. He is very good on the others as well, but in more than one occasion, we would have liked to know more about the planning and the thinking of the other armies in an operation where the British took part. The French, although fewer in number, played an important role during the Battle of the Somme and had even better results than the British. Also: is it really true that the French army remained immobile for almost a year after the 1917 mutinies? The book itself makes us think that this was not so, and yet this seems to be Keegan’s verdict.I would have wanted a little more detail about 1918. There is mention to the different armies (in alphabetical order: American, British, French) of the Western Front but it is not always clear how much each of them contributed to the different successes. And there is a lot more that could be said about the successful Macedonian campaign led by French general Franchet d’Espérey, which led to the collapse of the Southern Front and contributed to the German acceptance of an armistice.As I said, Keegan is slightly anglocentric. This does not mean he fails to respect valor. At times we can feel his emotion when describing some heroic action, as with the resistance of Sylvain Eugène Raynal, commander of the Fort Vaux during the battle of Verdun, who only surrendered when there was no more water left. The commander of the German forces, Crown Prince Wilhelm, met him in person and gave him a sword to replace the one he had lost during the battle.For all this focus on Britain, Keegan tries to be fair. He acknowledges qualities in almost all major commanders (Luigi Cadorna excluded) of any army.Maps are good, but few. I found it very useful to read this book with Martin Gilbert’s Atlas of the First World War close at hand.All in all, a very good book, masterfully written. But I would complement it with other works that emphasize the role of the different belligerents. For France, perhaps the works of Michel Goya, or Robert A. Doughty, and for Germany and Austria-Hungary, Holger H. Herwig. There are also good works available in English about the role Italy played. I wish I knew histories of the Great War from the Russian and Turkish viewpoints, but I don’t.Another very minor caveat. As in his History of the Second World War, John Keegan can get some minor details wrong. They don’t really distort the narrative but they are distracting. A good editor could get rid of these for future editions.

Responding to problems by ignoring them: Plans made without allowance for the intentions of the enemy are liable to miscarry. On the other hand, wasn't it also true that no plan survives the first enemy contact? I have read uncounted books, fiction and non-fiction, about the 'Great War''. This compact one volume history by British military historian Keegan did not give me many new perspectives, but it does serve as a relatively short comprehensive summary. The book is mostly focused on the military events, the strategy and battles, which is not really my main interest. Keegan himself writes on page 421: the chronicle of the Great War's battles provides the dreariest literature in military history.The undeveloped communication technology of the time is a main theme of the narration. It contributed to the lamentably ineffective diplomacy during the last few weeks before war started. Then it prevented the new weapons of aggression to be used as effectively as it would have been needed for victory. During the big battles like Verdun or Somme, the coordination between artillery and infantry failed. Commanding officers were never able to know the status of action in real time. 'Progress' had created size, but understanding was lacking. Without effective communication, no intelligence and no efficient operation.Communication was lacking not only in the technical sense, but also in terms of international mechanisms for crisis solution. The result was that something developed which nobody really wanted. When it came, we got the well known jubilation everywhere.The importance of logistics and 'scientific' planning: the establishment of rail networks had changed warfare drastically and increased the need for and the advantages of systematic preparation. Military staff colleges had developed in most militaristic nations. Fire power had been enormously strengthened, but nobody had figured out what to do once the deadlock in trench positions was a fact.Germany's Schlieffen Plan was based on the realization that the war needed to be won quickly or it wouldn't be winnable. It would be a dying thunderstorm. The math showed that victory was not possible. The Germans responded to the problem by ignoring it.As Brecht said in the Dreigroschenoper:Ja, mach nur einen Plan!Sei nur ein großes Licht!Und mach dann noch 'nen zweiten Plan!Geh' n tun sie beide nicht.(My translation: make a plan, be a bright light! Then make another plan. Both won't work!)My personal key question about the 'great war' is not so much why it started, but why it dragged on so. Why were all leaders so stuck in their murderous stalemate, why was there no political creativity helping to find an earlier ending. Why were the people so obediently walking to the slaughter for so long.The book's most interesting part is chapter 9, which addresses these problems. It is called 'the breaking of armies'.Keegan shows very well the transition in the German leadership's perception from near victory to the pointlessness of further effort after the American entry into the action. He does not explicitly refer to the terrible 'stab in the back' myth that grew in Germany between this war and the next, apart from mentioning Ludendorff's wrath. Lamentably, Keegan doesn't address the consequences of this war. He stops with armistice, apart from just a very few pages. That's a bit unsatisfactory, but it would certainly have changed the scope of the work.

This was by far the best short single volume history of the Great War that I have encountered. I know more than anyone I know about the Great War and I know literally nothing compared to how much there is to know. It's such a giant, confusing conflict and there was so much happening, all at the same time all over Europe and the world. Reading Keegan's history really helped me put together a cohesive picture of the whole, without getting bogged down in descriptions of individual events or drowned in details. I really enjoyed reading it too, it kept moving and yet didn't omit anything of importance. Great book, highly recommend.

Bien illustre, et on apprend beaucoup. Mais incroyable de n'avoir aucune carte dans un livre de cette taille.

John keegan in his book gives a detailed account of the great war. He dives into the many aspects that provoked the conflicts, refuelled them, the events that followed and the drastic consequences they had on the culturally and economically flourishing European continent of the early 20th century.

I first discovered John Keegan by reading his underrated book on the American Civil War. It then occurred to me that I had never read a book that covered the whole of World War 1 and sought out a book that could do justice to such a huge topic.Well here it is. John Keegan is a master at summarising complex situations and explaining them in a very accessible way. His chapter on how war broke out and all the points it could have been averted reads like a thriller. Unlike other books I have read on the great war focus on one event or one front which always lurch into intolerably dry lists of divisions and daily movements of troops. Keegan has to round up what happened, to whom and why and always does so without you thinking you have been short changed in depth. This is an amazing feat considering what he has to get through in a little over 400 pages.The writing is effortless and opinion neutral. All sides have victories, all sides have failures and brutality is highlighted when it is warranted. The only revisionist part is where Keegan addresses the controversy surrounding the Western military leaders, pointing out how many anachronisms have been heaped on them. That's not to say that this is a love letter to Haig but more a realistic assessment of his flaws and strengths.My personal opinion is that World War 1 is the most misunderstood event in history. In that most people have heard about it but then after than the popular view is all gas, trenches, inflexible generals and poetry. Keegan shows how wrong this view is, while never diminishing the horrors of the Western (and Eastern) front he shows there was a lot more going on than men sitting in trenches, being shelled and writing powerful verse.In short this is an essential book on World War 1.If you liked this there's more historical debate and fun at @HistoryGems on Facebook and Twitter

Wer in einem Band den 1. WK verstehen will, interessante Details, scharfe Analysen, flotte Wechsel zwischen der Feldherren- und Landser-Perspektive schätzt und bekannte Geschichte spannend erzählt haben will, der kommt an dem Buch NICHT vorbei.