History Of World War 1

[NOIRTRASH]

HISTORY OF WORLD WAR 1 by S.L.A. MARSHALL

5 STARS

Its a clear account of the war from 1870, on. Marshall exposes it all. It didn't need to happen but was inevitable because the Brits, Frogs, and Russians were approaching the terminus of their status as world powers, and Germany was eating their lunch in every way that mattered. The war was an excuse to suppress German successes.

The Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was actually a good monarch and was murdered because his good administration appealed to Serbians. He married a Slav.

I was surprised and pleased at how well its written.

 

[ishtat]

SLA Marshall's (1900 - 1977) book was published in 1964, 52 years ago. He writes well in an entertaining style and is particularly strong when dealing with accounts of the combat zones.

Unfortunately Marshall was a consummate liar who grossly exaggerated his own role in WW1 to sell himself and his books. He was in a rear engineering support unit but portrayed himself as in the thick of battle when documentary evidence proved otherwise. However, the memoirs of former generals are notorious for that particular problem and Marshall was hardly unique so we shouldn't be too harsh.

This book deals well with the actual actions and is well illustrated and mapped. As such it is still a good introductory read. His appreciation of strategy is sketchy - not surprising given his age at the time, but few write as well on the experience of lower ranking personnel.

Marshall's views on the politics prior to the war are naive at best and entirely derivative. They appear largely chosen in order to appeal to the prejudices of an American buying public. Marshall's greatest flaw is that if a minor compromise of historical fact makes this (and his other books) more salable that compromise will be made quick smart.

Marshall's first experience as a writer was as a journalist and he writes like one with clearly expressed entertaining opinion, but not worrying about a bibliography or any reference to original research material. He was a first rate journalist of war, but a lamentably poor historian, particularly outside the immediate combat theatre. Read him as an introduction but be very aware of his inadequacies.

Then go and read John Keegan's "The First World War" to appreciate the material handled by a real pro.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

SLA Marshall's (1900 - 1977) book was published in 1964, 52 years ago. He writes well in an entertaining style and is particularly strong when dealing with accounts of the combat zones.

Unfortunately Marshall was a consummate liar who grossly exaggerated his own role in WW1 to sell himself and his books. He was in a rear engineering support unit but portrayed himself as in the thick of battle when documentary evidence proved otherwise. However, the memoirs of former generals are notorious for that particular problem and Marshall was hardly unique so we shouldn't be too harsh.

This book deals well with the actual actions and is well illustrated and mapped. As such it is still a good introductory read. His appreciation of strategy is sketchy - not surprising given his age at the time, but few write as well on the experience of lower ranking personnel.

Marshall's views on the politics prior to the war are naive at best and entirely derivative. They appear largely chosen in order to appeal to the prejudices of an American buying public. Marshall's greatest flaw is that if a minor compromise of historical fact makes this (and his other books) more salable that compromise will be made quick smart.

Marshall's first experience as a writer was as a journalist and he writes like one with clearly expressed entertaining opinion, but not worrying about a bibliography or any reference to original research material. He was a first rate journalist of war, but a lamentably poor historian, particularly outside the immediate combat theatre. Read him as an introduction but be very aware of his inadequacies.

Then go and read John Keegan's "The First World War" to appreciate the material handled by a real pro.

I did, darling. I also read THE GUNS OF AUGUST and others. August 1914 was the end of the line for Britain, Russia, and France.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Little matter if despots are benign or malignant to nationalists and anarchists. It was the middle of the Balkan War, and Austro-Hungary was essentially interested in having a sea coast. Serbia/Montenegro offered that. Many Serbians and Montenegrans didn't care to be dominated. But then, the Balkans have a record of internecine and intercommunity warfare going back nearly ten thousand years. What could Ferdinand expect?

 

[ishtat]

I did, darling. I also read THE GUNS OF AUGUST and others. August 1914 was the end of the line for Britain, Russia, and France.

I agree with regard to Tuchman's 'The Guns of August' (also published in 1962) Good book. For contrast it's worth considering AJP. Taylor's Railway Timetable Theory of Mobilisation.

So far as Britain and France are concerned you are probably too kind. Britain in the previous 400 years had never had an independent army capable of combating the land armies of other 'great powers.' Reasonably effective at dealing with primitive colonies, but not much use independently against modern forces. Did Britain independently win any major land battle in Europe after Agincourt in 1415?

France was still feared by Germany in 1914 despite them having walloped the French in 1870. In fact if you examine France's record she has not won any battle independently since 1809 under Napoleon.

Russia was certainly in a pickle in 1914 and even more so at Brest Litovsk in 1917. However, hardly at the end of the line; within 30 years the new Soviet Empire was by far the most important power in the defeat of Germany in WW11.

 

[MatthewVett]

So far as Britain and France are concerned you are probably too kind. Britain in the previous 400 years had never had an independent army capable of combating the land armies of other 'great powers.' Reasonably effective at dealing with primitive colonies, but not much use independently against modern forces. Did Britain independently win any major land battle in Europe after Agincourt in 1415?

This seems kind of unfair, since you're asking for independent British victories at a time period when, for the vast majority of it, Britain had no continental holdings, not including personal unions, which naturally results in them not really independently waging war on the continent, but instead often with allies. Did Britain independently lose any major land battle in Europe after Calais was lost?

 

[ishtat]

Did Britain independently lose any major land battle in Europe after Calais was lost?

Of course not - because Britain was incapable of putting and paying for a sufficiently significant army in the field to either win or lose.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

My expertise is American Civil War history. From 1961 till now I study it. That's 55 years. Psychotherapy is my other authority, since 1966. 50 years.

I know enough about each subject to know the principal participants had diverse opinions about events and their associates. And I kinda-sorta untangle the diversity to get at the core truth, and the core truth often is at odds with the official truth.

Example: in 1836 one of my ancestors fought a duel. There are 4 eye-witness accounts of the duel, including my ancestors, and all accounts differ significantly. We know who was there and the outcome (both men were wounded) but there's no agreement as to what happened from start to finish, beyond the gunshot wounds. We assume the men followed the dueling choreograph but the actions are anyone's guess.

Jeb Stuarts conduct at Gettysburg was disputed by military experts who observed it and knew all the details....including Lee.

 

[ishtat]

Going back to the original subject of SLA Marshall, he deserves credit for one particular innovation. He persuaded the US army brass to not only get reports from there own officers on the course of fighting but to have the enemies officers report as well (particularly post 1945. Not surprisingly their reports differed significantly.

One unlooked for result of those differences was that later academic historians criticized Marshall's data collection methodology because the results were different whereas had they been similar that would have been far more unlikely. I don't rate Marshall much as a historian but he was a decent writer/storyteller - but in this instance the so called professional historians were being unfair.

An aside Noirtrash's civil war interest is matched by mine in the English civil war 1640-1650. Both very different and both with startling similarities.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Going back to the original subject of SLA Marshall, he deserves credit for one particular innovation. He persuaded the US army brass to not only get reports from there own officers on the course of fighting but to have the enemies officers report as well (particularly post 1945. Not surprisingly their reports differed significantly.

One unlooked for result of those differences was that later academic historians criticized Marshall's data collection methodology because the results were different whereas had they been similar that would have been far more unlikely. I don't rate Marshall much as a historian but he was a decent writer/storyteller - but in this instance the so called professional historians were being unfair.

An aside Noirtrash's civil war interest is matched by mine in the English civil war 1640-1650. Both very different and both with startling similarities.

I usta research for published non-academic historians. I know all the trivia and lost names and places. I usta recover damaged records ruined by water and decay. Most are nothing but once in a while a mess of stains and ink smears reveal treasure. Academics comply with orthodoxy.

I agree the Southern revolt is cut from the English war. The US went to war with Britain 3 times....our Civil War was #3. The cavaliers and roundheads all over again.

 

[ishtat]

I should have mentioned Niall Ferguson's 'The Pity of War - Explaining WW1' 1998.

Basically Ferguson's view is that Britain should have stayed out of it. Germany would have defeated France quickly and then seen off Russia. France would have become a third rate power. Germany would dominate Europe, but more importantly keep Russia in check, and Britain could continue to stomp all over her empire.

Whether the USA would have accepted that outcome is not really dealt with.

Ferguson is very controversial and academics get very irate with him - especially his view that empire was good, not bad for Africa, India etc. He is certainly right wing, but very very smart and well researched.

His opponents used to accuse him of being a racist and imperialist, he cheerfully admitted to the latter but not the former. They were left looking slightly silly when this belligerent Scot married a Somali/Moslem.

He has just completed the first volume of a biography of Kissinger, but I haven't read it yet.

A contraversialist, but if you like a 'boots n' all' argument, well worth reading.