The First World War: A Complete History

While true that there are flaws, who could expect a complete history of the Great War in 600 pages, this is an essential work for anyone interested in the war that was a suicide of Europe. A war that has forever changed the West and turned the French into what they are today. Very well done. Yes, the proof reading in the hardcover volume is bad, that is not the author's fault. Shame on the publisher for that problem. Gilbert touches on real persons, the men in the trenches. His often poignant use of letters and poetry written by these men bring real flesh and blood to the pages. Poetry written by unknown writers and well known men who, amidst the dread, sparkle with humanity. Highly recommended.

For the most complete history you will have to lug around several volumes written by Hew Strachan. Volume I: To Arms comes in at over 1200 pages, including 50 pages of bibliography and the index.

I selected this book because I have never read a history of WWI before. It is a bit of a slog because Gilbert seems to have written the book out of a nearly infinite series of personal accounts and snippets of everyday life in the war. Those views are good and valuable, but i find myself longing for more political content on the forces that instigated and drove the conflict.

I will say one thing - this book makes it clear that A LOT has changed in 100 years. At the beginning of the 20th Century nations exerted their interests unapologetically. Of course that led to a disaster of unprecedented proportions. Still it is quite a contrast to the nearly surgical method of executing a war these days.

This has been a very absorbing read, very detailed, chronologically ordered account of each sector of this war. Each battle is described right down to almost every single trench fight, while constantly invoking the strategic aim behind the battles.

However, at a soldier's level, this at best is an account of how the British saw the war. How the British felt about the war, and how the British saw other Allies and Enemies seeing the war. While there is enormous amount of coverage of British soldiers' record of letter-writing, diaries and poem-writing (there must be a hundred poems in the book - it seemed like every soldier was a poet at heart), there is not a single mention of any feelings of any other soldier who took part in the war. You want to know what the ordinary German soldier was thinking? Or even Britain's allied French, and American soldiers? You get an acount of what the British thought they were thinking. That's it! And its not for the lack of existence of any record. Its simply that the only research done was from British sources. The only account of any other country taking part in the war, has been of leaders, so you'll find some statements from the Kaiser of Germany, some generals in the French army, Adolf Hitler's letters to his landlord, etc, but no mention of any ordinary soldiers. It was refreshing to read at one point an account of a British soldier writing in his diary how a few German soldiers on the opposite side of the trenches at the frontline let it be known that they too were sick of the war. It finally gave a human face to the "German Soldier". It would have been great to know what a lot of these soldiers were actually writing in letters to their mothers, and what's recorded in the official German history of the war. But there's nothing there. Not for Germans, or the Austrians, or the Turks, and not even for the Allies.

And now for the truly disappointing part: Germans were "cruel" to use poisonous gases. British were forced to use the same gases, such had become the deterioration in mindset caused by the war. Turks and Austrians "butchered" the soldiers, while the naval blockade by British Navy of Germany causing over 80,000 civilians in Germany to die of starvation is mentioned as a matter of fact. Account of Turks handling the British POWs is deeply humanized from the prisoners' letters and poems, talking about the cruelty, but nothing is mentioned of any of the millions other prisoners that any other country possessed.

Churchill was as big a colonist as any other of his time. This is completely over-looked by the British historians, as if this wasn't really a bad thing. It flies in the face of what leaders on the opposite side were trying to do. So while the annexation of Belgium and Serbia and Poland are accounts mentioned in terms that a reader should find disturbing, British proposal of breaking up the Ottomon Empire, handing Syria, Palestine, Baghdad, Basra, Beirut etc to other countries as incentive to join the war should simply be read as military strategy.

If the wording had been the same for annexation of land and killing of people, this book could have been qualified as an impartial history of the First World War.

Martin Gilbert, as usual, has written a very good book. His history of the First World War is not primarily a military history, but instead ranges over a variety of topics on and off the front, including everything from morale to war poetry. This means that his book will probably be of more interest to the casual reader than to the specialist or the military enthusiast.

An Interesting read though far from complete. The book has an interesting turn in reporting ad nauseum the poets, philosophers,and pacifists that were involved in the war. A touch more perspective on the dough boy would have been a relief.
The details of the events are nice. Perspective of the horrors of war makes one wince at how the world could participate in a war of this magnitude. So, there is some redeeming value to the text.
Unfortunately, the run of the text tends to jump back and forth and has a slightly disruptive style. Other than the largest theatres, you tend to lose track of what was happening. If this were written in sections about the separate theatres it may have been easier to read.
Overall, use Keegan for the best texts on the Great War. Use this book for perspectives on the horrors.

This is one of the most confusing books I've encountered on any subject. Having read other comprehensive histories which did a far better job in tying everything together I was utterly disappointed at how haphazard and devoid of substance this one was. After finishing this fairly hefty book, I still have no idea why the Allies won. Judging by his description of events, throughout 1917 and the first half of 1918 the Allies were nowhere close to winning. The Germans had brought Russia to its' knees and could now commit all of their resources against the Western Allies. All of a sudden in 1918 a big turnaround happened and Mr Gilbert gives no clue or idea on how this came about. Even if the author's intent had been mere narrative without analysis, his account of events is so muddled that every few pages it felt like starting a completely different book. His constant emphasis on poetry from the period was pretentious, annoying, and irrelevant.

The two things I did learn from this book were that WWI was even more complex than I had originally thought, and that I need to find a better book about WWI.

I'm not privy to the specific tchniques that Gilbert used in compiling this volume, but one suspects that he compiled a large computer database with each entry carefully dated. He ignored any large scale accounts such as analyses of campaigns and battles and, instead, concentrated on personal accounts, letters, and poems. (He apparently discarded none of the latter). Finally, he sorted by date, edited this chronological assortment of personal accounts, and called it a "complete history."
The result is a disjointed, small scale view of the battlefield with little insight into the large events that made up World War I. One is left with a sense of the incredible stupidity of the political and military leaders that led to the senseless slaughter of millions of men. If you didn't already know that, then buy the book. If you already knew this essential fact about WWI, there may be better (and more complete) histories out there.

This work is a testament to why wars are often pointless and tragic wastes of humanity. The author does not dwell on the reasons why the war was fought and hence, does not waste the reader's time in rationalization. He instead presents first-hand accounts. Other reviewers criticize the inclusion of so much poetry, but to me this is a testament to the fact that the war was in fact largely fought by 19th century romantic youths who had been sucked into something overwhelming. The book's humanity compensates for the tediousness of the endeavor. How glamorous can four years of trench warfare be?
I fault the book because the author oftentimes copies directly from sources without critical comment. Hence, the historical record he presents is largely biased by those original sources. My largest grievance is with the few references to the French Senegalese troops described in a few breif instances and listed in the index. The French Senegalese troops allegedly, if I may paraphrase: "fled the battle field at the first sight of smoke and later were found raping white nurses". I am not exaggerating! This is what the text of the book says and there is no effort to point out or correct the obviously false and racist caricature that lies in the original sources. This really upsets me and disappoints me. Some sort of balance should have been achieved. Someone should write a volume on the participation of colonial subjects in the war effort. Thank you for taking the time to read this review.

Martin Gilbert's book is narrative history at its best. What happened and why it happened; he leaves it to us to understand why it must never happen again. All the key events are well chronicled, and the only sadness is that by the end the death of innocents is submerged behind the 'glory' of victory.

I didn't know much about World War One. So, I went to the book store. I held this book and John Keegan's in hands. This one was cheaper.
When I had finished reading it, I began referring to WWI as the "Poet's War" because apparently it was fought primarily by poet's and philosophers.
I finally went and purchased Keegan's book. Read that, not this. It doesn't cover the build up to war as well as Keegans. It doesn't cover the grand sweep of the battles as well as Keegan's. It doesn't explain things as well as Keegan's. It does list a lot more poets who took part in the war.

I enjoyed reading it immensely. Somewhere between Keegan's sometimes overwhelming numbers and Strachan's daunting compendium lies this humanizing account of the Great War. I'm not enough of a historian to tell you what may or may not be wrong with this book, but I am enough of a reader to say Gilbert has written an informative and engaging page turner. Well done.

This is a review of the first edition hardback, not second edition.

Martin Gilbert has authored a great number of history books and achieved some level of notariaty since glombing on to Winston Churchill's legacy and writing a number of official biographical volumes on the famous Briton.

This work entitled, "The First World War, a Complete History" was published in 1994. Its subtitle would more accurately be, "a Short History". In all fairness, a one volume, 600 page book, cannot possibly be a `complete' history of that conflict.

The Great War, as it was then known, was truly a world war, involving more countries at war on more battle fronts than the Second. Gilbert makes the attempt to provide a chronology of events, military and political of this great conflict.

In many ways, the task is herculian, an almost impossible undertaking for any writer, even with a working staff.

Generally, Gilbert does a fair job at providing an intelligible narrative, hitting all the high points, interspersing personal stories, and adding an explanation of political and social factor brewing below the surface.

For a reader seeking a basic outline on WWI, it would be a good primer. Be forwarned though, it is pretty much a standard restatement of British war propoganda complete with archtypical (undocumented) German atrocity stories.

The book is short on footnotes, most of which are beside the point to inform the reader the artillery Captain named Harry S Truman was later elected president of the US. Thankfully, however, they are on the bottom of the page instead of in the back of the book. Where, by the way, are a number of maps for reference for the geographically challenged younger folks.

The most glaring error in the book, aside from some confusing pronoun usage, is in his short treatment of the so-called "Zimmerman Telegram" on page 308 and later.

This forgery by the British, desperate to get America in the war, was supposedly from the German Foreign Minister in Berlin (Zimmerman) to the German ambassador to Mexico in Mexico City. In exchange for Mexican support, should America come into the war, Germany would supply money and arms to Mexico. With a German victory, Mexico would be promised return of lost territory in the Southwest.

The only problem with Gilbert's repetion of the lie, is that while it was declared a suspected forgery by American pacifists at the time (1917), it was proven to be so with the expiration of the British Official Secrets Act suppression in 1967.

Since we live in Winston Smith's 1984 world these days, you will be hard pressed to find this factiod on the internet. But those of us old enough to remember 1967 news remember well the splash it made then.

So, while this is a worthwhile short version of WWI, the reader should be well read enough on the subject to recognize the old British propaganda in it and dismiss the unfootnoted allegations.

By the way, avoid Gilbert's condensation of Churchill's "World at War", on WWI, it is very poor, sections taken at random, slapped together without bridges.

After this work, I won't bother to read any more Gilbert. His writings may well be assembly line staff work, can't say for sure. There are better authors around.

Martin Gilbert has created a fascinating account, filled with relevant eyewitness statements, of the harsh reality and monotony of the First World War. The biggest drawback to this work was the repetitious references to Winston Churchill as being the unsunf hero of the British cause, and as the man who possessed all the answers to end the war successfully. Overall an interesting and fulfilling read.

While Gilbert paints a vivid picture of the war and its effects on both individuals and the nations that participated in it, he constantly shifts his focus from myopic anecdotal accounts to high level overviews of the events that occurred. His account of the war would have been much more readable had he been more consistent in his historiographical methodology. As with so many other historical accounts that cover specific events, this book would have benefited from the input of a competent editor.

Initially I thought this was an interesting read, giving a bit more personal account of the war from soldiers' perspectives...however, after a couple of chapters it becomes evident that the author either is biased against Germans (he claims his grandfather was Jewish and lived in Poland during its invasion by Germany in WW2, so this might explain a lot) or is not really interested in giving an historical, balanced view of the Great War. Literally all alleged German atrocities (many of them unproven, unfounded or exaggerated) are related as fact, while British/Allied atrocities are literally non-existent...hard to believe when it comes to World War I. On the same scale, Germany's strategic decisions and colonial interests are usually presented as evil/warmongering, while Britain's centuries old colonial exploitation is simply presented as something natural and acceptable. The Kaiser is often quoted and presented as a brutal leader, while the British War Council and commanders who send hundreds of thousands of troops to certain death are simply doing their job, and so on and so on...

I finished the book but the clear bias of the author damages his credibility and I will be reading another book on the subject to get a better view of this period. Avoid.

Having read all the reviews previously written very diverse
range of views.Its that kind of book.You either love it or
hate it.Most of the soldiers certainly on the commonwealth
side were working class.However the author gives a disproportionate
[did I spell that correctly?]amount of quotes to poets and effete
young things.Also yes a very British viewpoint.Very little coverage
of the war in Africa.I know it was a sideshow but not even a map.
Well written undoubtedly and easy to read but somehow unsatisfactory.

Like the reviewer called "Corndoc", I thought the best part of this book was its focus on personal stories. I also liked the way Gilbert kept reminding us that this war would be followed by another, even worse.

This account is written in a rather slapdash way with the author jumping back and forth from one engagement to another and then back again. Hence it becomes somewhat difficult to follow each important battle in a comprehensive and cogent manner. Moreover the maps supplied are simply inadequate.

I was extremely disappointed with Martin Gilbert's The First World War: A Complete History. Gilbert gives very short shrift to the Central Power's perspective. Gilbert painstakingly documents every instance of German excess in Belgium while ignoring the effect of the Allied Blockade, resulting in the "Turnip Winter" of 1917. While it is important to document the savage brutality of trench warfare, the British war poets quoted by Gilbert cannot claim to speak for the majority of combatants on either side. This work falls quite short of being the complete history of WWI.

To many people in the late 20th century, World War I is simply a remote happening, which they cannot connect to their world and their lives. Gilbert's book brings the story alive, with many fascinating by-stories interwoven. To understand why the world looks as it does today, one could do much worse than to read this magnificent book. Thad Zajdowicz

Over the past several years, and in no particular order, I have read (and re-read) certain parts of this book a half-dozen times or so. Written as a chronologically-ordered reference, "A Complete History..." is one of those titles that may or may not ever be read cover-to-cover, but will be pulled off the shelf time & time again.

The book's value is severly compromised by the lack of maps. It is impossible to follow the progress of the war and to understand exactly what is going on. I was so frustrated that I had to pull out an atlas and try to pinpoint the areas that the author was refering to. In the end I just gave up and the book has been gathering dust in my library ever since.

I read numerous histories and believed the cover hype about this being an excellent book. It isn't. It is as simple as this, if you want to believe the lies that the British and French General Staffs were telling their governments and the people, then this book is replete with them. However, if you wish to read the historical facts about World War 1, then you should read one that contains actual facts rather than the opinions of this author.

whale

This is the single worst attempt at military history that I've ever seen.

No maps were included. Just a bunch of crappy poetry written by thus and such's dead brother in law.

Avoid at all cost. This isn't history, it's hundred year old gossip that had little to do with the war but piss and moan about trench waarfare.

This wonderful paperback was delivered by (admittedly) a substandard postal employee during a rainstorm. (I can say so because I worked my way through college in the 1960s as a mailman.) Instead of putting the package under the overhang, the individual placed the parcel in a plastic bag outside in the rain. By the time I fetched the box, it had become a reader copy. painful even to look at. The fault, as I see it, lies equally between the seller and the post office. As it is (of course) impossible to obtain redress from either party, I have tossed the book into the camping trailer, thinking to read it next summer on our next trip. The principal fault lies with the seller, who ought to anticipate the worst, but he failed to wrap the book in plastic in order to resist water damage. This is a common practice that ought by now to be universal.