A Combat History of the First World War - The Great War

This is an extensive account of military action with minimal political analysis as to causes and legacy. It covers action on land sea and air, with accounts of weaponry development in all three arenas. It's well organized to follow a chronological account, switching between the many fronts, although Hart leaves no doubt that the decisive area was the Western Front.. There are a few nuggets of new (to me) information, like King Constantine being married to the Kaiser's sister Sophia. Another is the surrender of Jerusalem to a pair of military cooks.

Perhaps the greatest value of the book is as an even handed reference for reviewing the wide disparities in the reputations of the generals. There's a glimpse into participation by the military leaders in the next war, such as Lt. Charles De Gaulle and Lt. Erwin Rommel. It's missing the role of Corporal Hitler.

A unique aspect that is not available elsewhere is the author's skillful inserts of private correspondence of a selection of participants. These range from letters home to dispatch communications. They come from privates to generals on both sides. Late in the war a German soldier writes "The Americans kill everything!" My impression is that the lower the rank the more honest the view of the war. Some letters home are quite poignant.

Maps are limited to theater wide geography, adequate for a general impression of each chapter but not for following the text in detail.

War is by definition such a complicated thing that writing a single-volume history on it is always hard. Stanley Karnow's Vietnam is excellent, as is Ronald Spector's "Eagle against the Sun" on World War 2 spring to mind. Now I think that Peter Hart's book is in the same category.

Hart is the Oral Historian of the Imperial War Museum, and intimately connected to the material he presents. Given the vast array of sources at his disposal, I think he has selected a very good set for this book, as it progresses very smoothly and paints a vivid, detailed picture of the conflict. His writing is lucid and smooth, with occasional witty remarks thrown in to lighten up the sombre story.

He also takes us through the entire course of the war, from pre-war tensions and bungling diplomacy to the triggering events in Sarajevo, and on to the first troop movements. We all know, of course, what a hellish war ensued, but rarely have I seen this presented with such clarity and illustrated with appropriate snippets of personal recollections. These range from generals to privates, and Hart has indeed located truly telling snippets.

He also manages to defuse a set of well-told legends, such as "lions led by donkeys", and with good foundations too. It is true that the technological development in weaponry since the Franco-Prussian war of 1871 took both sides by surprise, and the slaughter that ensued was not expected by anyone. But when fatigue set in, both sides fought wit dull determination until the bitter end. Bungles of the leaders caused havoc and a waste of life in unprecedented scale, and Hart manages to convey the horrors of war very clearly.

All in all, a definite five-star history of the Great War. If you want a concise but complete book, get this one.

A concise yet emotional general history of WWI, an event, as Hart justifiably says, that was the most important event in the 20th century.

Hart does not attempt the comprehensiveness of volume one of Hew Strachan's By Hew Strachan - The First World War: Volume I: To Arms: 1st (first) Edition or even John Keegan's An Illustrated History of the First World War. Hart explicitly confines himself to just the main theaters of the war thus there is no coverage of sub-Saharan operations or events in China, and he concentrates on the Western Front because it is there, he argues, that the war was ultimately decided and mostly by British efforts.

Thus one of the three things Hart particularly emphasizes is the folly of the "easterners", generals and politicians, particularly David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, who wasted resources on pursuing illusive victory in other areas. That includes not only the notorious Gallipoli campaign but the mission creep of operations in Mesopotamia and Palestine after the vital assets of oil fields and the Suez Canal were secured.

Another area of emphasis is an attack on the clichéd image of the war: men going over the top, slogging across a shell ravaged land only to die by machine gun fire, bodies tangled in barbed wire, a stupid slaughter conducted for four long years by stupid generals, "lions led by donkeys" as the famous statement goes. In fact, Allied tactics did change in the use of artillery, how trenches were assaulted, how and when taken objectives were held, and the use of machine guns. The trouble is the Central Powers also learned and changed the way they conducted defense and assaults, and Hart does a nice job of tracing that evolution. British success at Neuve Chapelle in 1915 led to the tactics used in the Battle of the Somme in 1916. That famous disaster was not the result of British stupidity but inadequate artillery support and Germans changing their defense tactics, but the lessons of the Somme led to 1918's Hundred Days that concluded the war.

The stunning success of the combined operations of aerial bombing and close air support, tanks, sophisticated coordination between artillery and infantry, and an evolution in the tactics and weapons used to assault German positions point to the lie of General Douglas Haig being a stubborn, conservative technophobe unwilling to innovate but just blunder to victory by sheer manpower. That is the third point Hart emphasizes: that many of the war's generals did innovate and did their best in a challenging environment of alliance warfare and the strength new technology lent to defense.

Hart bookends his history with chapters on the political origins and consequences of the war making this an acceptable introduction to the war.

But the emotional power of the book comes from the extensive quoting of participants in the events from Count Franz von Harrach, a passenger in the car when Archduke Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated, to soldiers on the war's last day. Enlisted men and officers, sailors and infantrymen and aviators, the Allied and the Central Powers all have their say from a French soldier commenting on the ant-like appearance of soldiers at Verdun to a British artilleryman slaying his horse at the Siege of Kut to men being gassed in a bunker to the horror of leaving comrades to drown in the muddy wastes of a shell-cratered battlefield, Hart brings the feel of the war home in ways many other histories do not. That makes this a worthwhile read for beginning and advanced students of the war.

I read this in galley form from the publisher so cannot speak to the quality of the index or maps, but the published product seems adequate in both.

This book brings you to a lot of realizations. It gets you as a reader to ask questions where there are no easy answers, and perhaps not any answers at all. How in the heck could so many nations be involved in the affairs of a seemingly insignificant place like Serbia? Even with all the details presented in the book, including the assassination of a pregnant woman, you still end up asking yourself these questions. No amount of detail is enough to tell you how or why such chaos took place. It makes you feel helpless. You realize how many of these people could have had the potential to make advancements like Edison or Einstein but were denied the opportunity. And you realize how easily it could have been us in their shoes.

That being said, the author presents cold facts on what military authorities moved what troops where and when, and who more-or-less "won" each skirmish with a detail of casualties. In addition to that, the author quotes many personal, first-hand accounts from various combatants on the battlefield. These were the best parts of the book. What got me most was the sad tale of a man who went to rescue his fellow wounded soldier, only to be forced to take the soldier's gas mask.

There are also some interesting technological tidbits that appear throughout the book on the development of various weapons. We learn things about items like tanks, submarines, airplanes, and flamethrowers, all of which were fairly new at the time.

I've read a lot of books, but I don't know if any book I've read before has painted such an overwhelming combination of bleakness and realism. Nothing is sugar-coated. Aside from the Christmas description, nothing in the text is uplifting in any way. Gosh, as valuable as the truth is, it can be so ugly...

In searching for a book about First World War beyond the usually recommended and focusing on the actual tactics and strategies on the battlefield instead of various political and social events that other books seem to promote, it was my hope that Peter Hart's "The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War" would fill that need. Upon finishing "The Great War" I can say that the book not only met my expectations, but put to shame some other books that frankly put blame on individuals for the conduct on the war by ignoring the facts.

Hart emphasizes the importance of the Western Front throughout the book as being the main theater of the entire war. Although Hart gives a good amount of pages and thorough telling of the events in the Naval War, the Eastern Front, and several side-show theaters like the Italian, Mesopotamia, and Palestine; he gives the developments in all those other theaters on how they affected the Western Front through various means. The tactical and strategic battle of wits between commanders on both sides on all fronts are given excellent explanations by Hart and are shown to be the reason the war lasted so long and the casualties were so high.

Hart argues that it was the British were responsible for the victorious outcome of the Allied cause, but only after taking over as the main coalition partner from the French in 1916 and with assistance from the Americans whose presence on the battlefield forced the Germans' hand into a failed offensive push in 1918. Throughout the book, Hart shows the three-year progression of collective British thinking about how to fight the war, not only learning from their successes and failures but those of the French and Germans. At the end of the book even Hart admits that if the war had continued into 1919 while entering German territory, the Americans would have surpassed the British as the main combatant given their fresher force.

Sprinkled throughout the book, Hart incorporated first-hand accounts of soldiers from all sides about how combat was like during the war. It is eye-opening look at a sometimes misunderstood war for any reader. Although generally good, Hart seems to just putting quotes back-to-back numerous times in the book which upsets the flow of the overall work. Occasional grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes do crop up as well though they are few and far between so as not to takeaway from the overall work.

For anyone wanting to understand the First World War on a tactical and strategic level, Peter Hart's "The Great War" is a fantastic read and will give the reader a better understanding of this shamefully misunderstood period in history that affects us even today.

More exciting than a movie, a whole lot better than a documentary, exceedingly superior to a lecture. As another reviewer mentions, this is a combat history, so there you go. Guess what's in it. Expertly documented and sourced material. Thanks to Hart, and his credentials are impeccable, anyone can learn, understand, and know--as best as possible--the five W's. "Back to the trenches" takes on a new meaning. While you're at it get Hart's book "Gallipoli," and find out what that movie was really all about.

Aloha,
Loren

Casual history buffs are going to have a hard time putting this down.

Peter Hart's "The Great War" is a single-volume chronicle of the first World War, aspiring to cover the entirety of this massive campaign in less than 550 pages. That is manages to do exactly that without leaving huge swaths of the war on the cutting room floor makes this book a real triumph for the casual and not-so-casual student of 20th Century warfare.

Hart's focus is on the warfare itself, taking aim at the major battles and grand strategy of this tragic war. Unlike many war writers, he doesn't get bogged down in stiff language and overly technical military terminology, instead offering an overview any reader will be able to understand.

To his credit, he also does a great job of dismantling many of the myths surrounding World War I, giving us the reality of life in the trenches without venturing into sentimentality OR anti-war hyperbole. He just lays out reality.

In doing all this, he creates one of the best overviews of the war to date. Highly recommended.

Peter Hart writes beautifully. In clear, concise sentences, Hart delivers the war with honesty and artistry. He doesn't,t take sides and shows the horror in detail. Cataloging mistakes by generals and politicians alike, he demonstrates an encyclopedic knowledge of history.

I understand that it may be different in Europe, but in the United States knowledge of World War I is minimal. For those wishing to improve their familiarity, "The Great War" is the place to start.

This book is organized chronologically and by theatre. It begins with The Road To War and follows with a chapters devoted to the eastern and western fronts and the Sea War for each year. Chapters also cover special topics such as Gallipoli, Salonika, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Italian Front.

The genius of this book is that it is superficial enough to fit in one volume while still telling the whole story. This is a Combat History. It delves only minimally into the political and social currents that drove the war. It is focused on the Western Front. For 1915 the chapter on the Western Front is 32 pages long. The year on the Eastern front is told in 10 pages. Sometimes more is told in what is not said than in what is said. The first United States involvement appears over 90% of the way through the book. The first major U.S. operation is past the 95% mark. I say this not to suggest that the American contribution is under reported, but that this book shows just how late it began and how small it was in comparison to that of its allies.

Although "The Great War" covers the whole conflict, author Peter Hart delves into the significance of various character and incidents involved. He explains the use of aircraft and explores questions such as the quality of generals, the importance of battles such as the Jutland, the relationship between the British and the French on the Western Front and the changing tactics and defenses. He is willing to inject his judgments, such as the worthlessness of sideshows such as Gallipoli and Mesopotamia that took resources from the critical Western Front and the political actions, such as the British confiscation of the Turkish Dreadnoughts that may have driven the Turks to the Central Powers while reporting the raw facts.

I had known bits and pieces of World War I. What this book does is put the
War into context that aids in understanding the whole struggle; its origins, development, conclusions and legacy. This makes "The Great War" an excellent place to start a study of World War I.

I have always been interested in WWII history but decided to start reading about the"Great War". I wanted to start off my collection with a book that would give a really good overview of the war but did not want to read a 5 volume set for my initial read. This book did that without disappointment. This book touched on most of the major events of WWI. I really appreciated the first hand quotes that were used to illustrate the war in the first hand since all of these hero's are now all gone.

Peter Hart has done an excellent job in covering the combat history of World War I from afar as well as up close. Often military history books will focus on the maps and arrows angle of battle plans, generals and large troop movements. Or, a writer may provide a grunt-level view of combat at a personal level that evokes the blood and sweat of the actual thing. Hart does an admirable job of doing both as well as providing enough situational context to contribute this solid history of the major battles of the First World War.

Starting in the beginning, the author provides a good summary of the national situations and diplomatic moves prior to August of 1914. This is very good context and does an excellent job of discussing the strategic military concerns and factors that pushed the various belligerents into their courses of action.

His handling of the war fighting is superb. Each chapter discusses major conflicts that were significant to the war or had a chance of determining the arc of a phase or the actual outcome of the conflagration. Within these battle summaries, Hart laces first hand accounts of participants - and not just the generals but field officers and enlisted. Although these first person accounts tend to pop into the battle narratives, they are not obtrusive nor do they break the flow in a meaningful way. He avoids the pitfall of some authors who try this approach of quoting very long passages of witness accounts and in my mind his selections are just long enough to convey "what-it-was-like" without making the reader forget what was going on in the immediate larger picture.

A very admirable telling of the war fighting aspect of World War I.

This is an excellent summary of the Great War. It touches upon all the major combatants and theaters, including often overlooked areas like the Italian campaign and the war in Mesepotamia. The best feature is the integration of disparate features of the conflict such as the air war and sea blockade with the strategic aims of the opposing combatants. The allies get much more coverage than the Central Powers, and the British get more than their share of coverage vs French, US, Italians, Russians. This is a common defect, one that detracts from the book's intent, and one reason I give it 4 stars. But it is highly readable and informative. I can't think of a better 1-volume summary of the Great War and would recommend it to anybody interested in this subject.

The About the Author section above notes a couple of Peter Hart's previous works on World War One but, strangely, neglects to mention his first titles which dealt with the war in the air (Bloody April, Aces Falling). I suspect most of us come to this period initially through an interest in early aerial warfare, and Peter Hart's books are unsurpassed on this subject.

As might be expected of the Oral Historian of the Imperial War Museum, most of these earlier books are liberally laced with personal quotations which bring a human element to the greater operational narrative. Also, as might be expected, they are heavily Anglocentric--almost exclusively concerned with the British experience. This volume is no exception in that latter regard, and also uses personal quotations (if I am not mistaken, some of which are duplicated in his most recent prior title, The Somme), though not quite as liberally as his other works.

I had some concern that he may have been over-reaching in attempting a one-volume comprehensive overview of the British combat history in WWI. However, though appropriately focused on the Western Front, the author very successfully gives an appreciation of the global scale of that conflict.

Not bogged down in the "lions led by donkeys" calumny which has dominated the perception of that war for the better part of a century, this work benefits from the more recent scholarship and reinterpretation of that conflict. The author presents the case for this reinterpretation within the context of the grand strategic debates of the time succinctly and convincingly.

If you have never read one of Peter Hart's WWI histories, you owe it to yourself. They are unmatched for clarity, readability and insight. This volume is no exception.

This book does for WWI what William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany did for WWII.

Hart's tome has the same sort of play-by-play detail that Shirer's book has, which admittedly requires readers to be committed work work their way all the way through this book. With that being said, Hart sets that stage of The Great War geographically, socially, politically, historically, and technologically before tackling the events and motivations behind the onset of WWI.

It doesn't make sense to go into great detail about everything in this book, but WWI was immensely important to the development of our current world. In this book's pages you can read about the terror and devastation as 20th century technologies meet 19th century military tactics. You can read about the decision and outcome of using chemical weapons at Ypres, France, the terror experienced by ground troops when they saw the first battle tanks as airplanes fought dog fights over no-man's land. You can also learn about the implementation and first large-scale deployment of submarines and unrestricted submarine warfare.

I could go on and on, but when it comes to WWI, this is a notable single-volume overview of this important conflict that I've.

5 stars for fans of military history

Peter Hart's "The Great War" arrives slightly before the 100-year anniversary of the beginning of World War I. It is a masterful look at the war that changed the face of 20th century western history.

Hart dedicates a chapter on the road to war, where he examines the political causes of the war. He also explained the basis for the military strategy of the Germans and the Allies. The book is laid out chronologically, with Hart taking an annual look at the major changes on the Western Front; the Eastern Front; and the Sea War. Certain other events merited their own chapters, such as Gallipoli, Salonika, Mesopotamia, Italy, and Palestine.

The book is extremely well-written. I am a visual person, so I enjoy charts and maps to illustrate battles. The review copy did not have placeholders for photographs, maps or charts, so I hope this was simply an oversight and not indicative of the final version.

Knowing little myself of World War I, I enjoyed Hart's book. I would recommend it for anyone wishing to learn more about the "Great War".

Peter Hart delivers exactly what he promises in the title: a thorough history and detailed look at combat during the First World War. Those looking for an overview of the entire war, or an examination of the political causes of the war, would not be poorly served here, but the book focuses on the battlefields and is better as a companion study piece for those strictly, or more deeply, interested in the martial arena of the conflict. I've read several books on WWI and count this among the best of them; Hart's eye for detail, his ability to discuss both (or several) sides of the battles and strategies make for compelling reading. I'd highly recommend it, but not without a caveat or two. Hart tends to lean a little pro-British; he gives credit where credit is due, but he gives a little more credit to his countrymen. No history book is written without a bias, though, and this is hardly a major fault, just something to keep in mind. And I would emphasize, again, this book would be of far greater interest to those (like me) who enjoy the nuts and bolts of strategy and tactics; for those looking for a quicker overview of the war, go elsewhere first -- but do come back here, as this book will add depth and understanding of the conflict to any student of the war. Well worth your money.

Explaining the Great War, its causes, what happened, why and the aftermath is a complex and demanding task. The Great War by Peter Hart rises superbly to the challenge. The structure of the book, year by year, front by front is comprehensive and easy to follow. It is supported by excellent maps of all the fronts which allow easy cross reference with the text.

Peter Hart demonstrates a mastery of the subject but is able to convey the twists and turn of events and characters in a clear and convincing manner. A great strength lies in the stories within the story. The use of personal quotes bring to the book the raw emotion of war and what its participants, from generals to private soldiers, sailors and airman, thought and experienced at the time. The choice of photos follows the strong narrative set within the book, not only complementing and enhancing the text but almost acting as their own photo story book of the conflict.

It is also a book that avoids a single nationalistic perspective of the war. A book that recognises the contributions and sacrifices made by both sides, the wide range of countries involved and the complexity of war. The strategy and tactics used and how they developed are tracked across the war years. The political backdrop and the characters behind the scenes who drove conflict are interweaved.

The centenary of the start of the Great War is almost upon us.Numerous books will be written offering single perspectives on this all important conflict. For a balanced, comprehensive, accessible, clearly written and entertaining understanding of what happened and why, there is unlikely to be a better buy than this book from such an experienced historian and maturing author.

We are accustomed to thinking about World War I in terms of human waves being sent "over the top" to rush to their doom in the face of barbwire and machine guns by old generals and field marshals who had not a clue about the nature of modern warfare. For innovations we think about the tank, and perhaps Germany's stormtrooper tactics of 1918. Peter Hart, Oral Historian of the Imperial War Museum in London exposes this common knowledge to be a myth. In fact, there was a great deal of tactical innovation taking place from 1914 to the very end of the Great War. That did not mean that hundreds of thousands did not die in these frontal assaults. What it means is that there was innovation taking place on both sides, among the Central Powers and by the Triple Entente, on both offense and defense. Any offensive innovations tended to be offset by defensive innovations as the Great Powers struggled to find ways to break through the enemy's trenches and to make their own more defensible.

Hart analyzes these innovations. Sadly, hundreds of thousands of men would die in 1914 trying to fight a war in the style of a bygone era before the need for innovation was recognized. Hart provides plenty of examples, including that of the French 3rd Colonial Division, which lost 10,500 killed, wounded, and taken prisoner, out of 15,000 on 22 August, as they, clad in Napoleonic era uniforms of red and blue, officers clad in white kepis and gloves, assaulted entrenched German soldiers. The author explains that "In these battles few people at any level of command had much idea of what was happening and for the troops on the ground it was all utterly baffling. Pre-war tactics seemed to have no impact. Bayonet charges led only to more slaughter, while calling up artillery support was often doomed to failure."

It was not all one-sided. The French had their famed 75s, for example, but Hart concludes, as have other historians, that "the Germans were more tactically astute, better equipped and far more skilled and drilled in the arts of war than their opponents." Hart offers plentiful first-hand accounts to provide the reader with close-up looks at what pre-war grand strategy wrought. If you have read first-hand accounts of trench warfare before, these examples will not come at you unawares (I always think back to the most harrowing account I've read, SOME DESPERATE GLORY: The Diary of a Young Officer, 1917) but they are chilling just the same. Hart takes the reader through the events of the fall of 1914, as the Germans advanced across Belgium and into France and the desperate attempt to stop them before they reached Paris. He is unsparing of all sides, revealing their blunders and miscalculations, and where he can, tries to set the record straight, for example, the myth of the British stand at Mons, which Hart calls "wishful thinking" and a "fanciful version of events."

The Western Front was, he says, "one of the most complex military conundrums of the modern age" and here we see the pressing need for innovation. Both sides recognized they could not go on as before. Yet the French and British, Hart argues, had to attack because of the loss of so much coal and iron resources to the Germans (and later to take pressure off Russia). And it is silly to place all the blame on the generals. As Hart points out, Joffre was "under intense pressure to remove the invaders from the sacred soil of France": the status quo was not an option. Where innovation is concerned, we see the recognition that proper synchronization of artillery and infantry was essential, and this quest, often Quixotic, continued until the guns fell silent in 1918. Hart praises Haig, pointing out that at Neuve Chapelle in 1915, the British general did not simply repeat the mistakes of the past: "he had clearly taken note of the French experience in the Champagne battles and was already grappling with many of the fundamental problems of making an assault against entrenched positions." So already, just a year into the war, innovation was taking place: how to deal with wire obstacles? How to deal with enemy artillery? How to manage reserves and follow-up forces to exploit breakthroughs? How long a preliminary bombardment? An early development was the "bite and hold", which called for biting off a small chunk of enemy territory and then fortifying and holding it against counter-attack. This method did not work well at first, due to a shortage of artillery, but the British continued to work at it and perfect it, and did with General Sir Herbert Plumer's offensive at Messines in 1917.

Hart calls the Battle of Arras in 1917 the "midpoint in the development of British offensive tactics. The British had improved their artillery but the Germans had improved the Maxim machine gun, replacing the sledge-mounting with a bipod and wooden stock and pistol grip. The British and French added tanks, and both sides continued to improve their aerial arms (e.g. the Sopwith Camel, SE5 and the German Albatros). Poisonous gas was added to both arsenals, and the British added Lewis guns, Stokes mortars and rifle grenades.

Hart takes a dim view of the various sideshows - Gallipoli, Salonika, Palestine, and Mesopotamia - arguing that the troops expended there would have been put to better use in the main theater of battle. And in truth, there is something to be said for his claim that in these places the enemy was fought simply because he was there. Germany was not going to be impacted much by the fall of either Baghdad or Jerusalem, and Salonika was a bother to the Bulgarians but no more than a gnat's bite to the Germans. His judgment is that all these campaigns were a waste of resources given the hundreds of thousands of men expended there: Palestine sucked in 1.2 million British soldiers and when Turkey surrendered, Britain had another 217,000 soldiers committed to Meospotamia. The Salonika campaign cost the British only 23,787 battle casualties but a half-million non-battle casualties.

Neither ignored nor given central focus is the naval war, both above and below the surface. Hart examines the war at sea in three parts: 1914-15, 1916, and 1917-18. He discusses the various surface actions as well as the U-boat's commerce war against Great Britain, as well as its role in bringing America into the war. This is not to ignore Russia: Hart discusses the war in the east as well, and does not ignore the innovative tactics of Brusilov, but Hart's primary focus throughout the book is the Western Front and, in particular, Britain's war on the Western Front.

To be sure, Hart's account is very Anglocentric. This is not a surprise coming from an Englishman. There are plenty of Frenchmen who think France played the decisive part in the war and no shortage of Americans who give the AEF the credit. Hart develops the argument that while France provided the bulk of the soldiers in the main theater of war, that it was Britain that tipped the balance (with some help from America). It is difficult to make a counter-argument: America lost "only" 116,000 men while France paid the butcher's bill with 1,400,000 dead.

This is a very compelling book written in a very readable and engaging style. At just under 500 pages I could wish for a bit more detail, given the scope of the war (Japan's role is left out entirely) and of course, my uncorrected advance reading copy lacked plates and maps. But plates and maps will only enhance what is already an excellent military history of the Great War. I highly recommend Hart's book to everyone interested in the "war to end all wars."

My previous reading usually maintained a preference for the Second World War, but lately I've been seeing (and reading) a lot more about the First really global conflict. Part of that is due to the fact that to truly understand WWII you have to go back to the roots of its problems in WWI, but perhaps another part is because the centennial of the beginning of the war is nearly upon us and we'll be seeing more books about it.

And Peter Hart's is both a welcome addition as well as a comprehensive combat history, which understandably emphasizes the more major battles. Most histories I've read focus on the Western Front; and while Hart admits his also leans that way, he does more than just give token service to the Eastern Front. His explanation setting up the European situation and how war began was one of the better and more clear that I've read. It was also interesting that he explains the motives and reasons for many of the decisions by generals and commanders, most of which are often portrayed as foolish and the result of stubbornness and tradition in other writings, including Adam Hochschild's still good To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918. I also appreciated that while it's a "combat history" it doesn't focus inordinately on the generals and their strategies - as John S. D. Eisenhower's Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I does, despite its claims to the contrary. And while some will think it heresy to say, I also found Hart's style more readable than even Tuchman's The Guns of August. (I haven't read John Keegan's history yet.)

My only complaint is with the frequent use of lengthy quotes by everyone from top commanders like Joffre to lowly privates. Such an approach serves on the one hand to personalize the narrative and give the perspective of simple soldiers as well as generals, but on the other hand the frequency and length of many quotes is disruptive to the narrative. For me it made it harder to really get into the book, despite the additional perspective it adds. Still, this is a valuable and surprisingly comprehensive history of what is becoming a fascinating part of history for me.

I've always loved reading history books. I started in Medieval England, branched out to France and Germany, than from there moved up through the times until finally reaching the 20th century. For some reason I skipped over World War I and went straight to World War II. Recently I've had a growing interest in World War I and am slowly picking my way through various histories and biographies. Hart's The Great War does a pretty good job and has strengthened my interest in The War to End All Wars.

Hart's perspective is a little different than the typical American focused perspectives of the war. Where they usually pay homage to England and France before moving on to the affect of and might of the US, Hart specifically takes the perspective that he would focus on the major battles of the war, mostly of which were fought by the English and French. He doesn't diminish the US and what they contributed, knowing full well it was the men and materiel that the US brought at the end that defeated Germany, but instead states that without the French and English the war would have ended before the US would have entered it. This too is what happened in World War II as the English were the last remaining nation to withstand the Germans.

This look at the war adds a perspective that I find more engrossing because the English and the French had immense losses as they withstood the fighting might of Germany. Hart writes succinctly and fluidly, easily making the war accessible to the common reader. The only aspect that I thought could have been better was his usage of long quotes from those involved. I loved reading their words, but in a narrative history it doesn't really have a place and diminishes the work that Hart put into building the narrative of WWI. These should have been edited down and assimilated in to the narrative and would have made a much more poignant impact.

That being said I am happy to have read Hart's account and perspective. I look forward to reading more of Hart's other books on WWI. A recommend.

4 stars.

The historical significance of World War I is often lost in the rubble left by its cataclysmic offspring ... World War II. But, the Great War's impact on the world is profound, not only as politically setting the stage for the Second World War, but as a proving-ground for weaponry and tactics that made battle arenas of the ground, sea and sky. The widespread front lines covered mass areas, multiple fronts on several continents and a millions of combatants from all over the world. Peter Hart does an exemplary job of tying a four-year amalgamation of chaos into a single, condensed volume with THE GREAT WAR: A COMBAT HISTORY OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR.

Hart's account of World War I's combat serves as a thorough overview that I found critical in helping me understand the war as a whole ... no easy task. Chapters are organized chronologically and by theatre. While the bulk of the book primarily focuses on the Western Front, pitting Germany against the French and British, Hart give ample coverage of the Eastern Front and the Sea War. Special chapters are dedicated to the Gallipoli Campaign and lesser-known combat theatres in Italy, the Balkans and Middle East. Most of the major battles (Verdun, Somme, Jutland, etc.) are individually addressed in their appropriate (chronological) chapters and Hart does a great job keeping all the events flowing in a forward direction throughout the book ... I never felt "lost" at any point during my reading.

Throughout the book, Hart supports the straight-forward historical accounts with heavy doses of personal accounts. These personal accounts proved to be very effective in adding color to the history and graphically emphasizing the horrible nature of the conflict. The commentary comes from all sides of the conflict, including low-level frontline soldiers, high-ranking commanders (Haig, Ludendorff), young combatants destined to be prominent in future conflicts (Udet, Rommel, Churchill) and even a poignant farewell note-to-family found in the clutches of a wounded soldier left to die in no-man's land. Hart does a good job of keeping the rather bland minutiae of strategy and tactics alive by constantly reminding us of the human element behind the facts and figures.

While I am sure more detail (individual chapters) could have been devoted to the more critical engagements like the Somme, Marne, Tannenburg, Verdun, etc., I feel it might have taken away from the summary-aspect of the book. Told primarily from a British perspective, Hart is even-handed in his coverage of the conflict, especially his attention to the Eastern Front (and the effects of the burgeoning Russian Revolution on Russia's war with Germany). The political aspects of the war are even highlighted as having an impact on the battlefields. My only frustration with the book was absence of maps (which I would deem critical in supporting the topic at hand) and I am hoping the formal release of the book will include maps, tables and appendices to enhance the text.

Overall, THE GREAT WAR is an excellent book for anyone interested in a sound overview of how World War I was fought. Hart does an excellent job in breaking down a complex event into an easy-to-understand format; I would consider this book essential reading on the subject matter.

I love reading or watching documentary's about World War I or World War II. I haven't read anything in a while regarding World War I, so I was primed up for some fresh information (yes even in history there is always fresh information). Hart takes an interesting approach in showing how and why military leaders made the decisions they made. He does this for numerous battles through World War I, and I found the data to be fascinating. It's easy to think of the war back then as nothing but a run and shoot style war, but many of the leaders made some really good decisions (and really bad decisions) but Hart allows us to understand why. It's evident that back then (as it still is now), what politicians are expecting or believing and what is actually happening on the ground are not necessarily the same. A great book for any war buff, I enjoyed it.

Despite World War I's lack of widespread appeal, at least compared to World War II and at least here in the United States, books about it still appear at a decent clip, particularly one-volume treatments, and I suspect that trend will only accelerate as the 100th anniversary of the war approaches. Peter Hart's military history of the war joins the ranks of the very best of those books, and despite its focus on the British experience, THE GREAT WAR gives credit where it is due non-Britons -- especially the French and Americans -- and it ought to be of interest to military history readers the world over, in the US and elsewhere.

This isn't a rollicking good read, but it is a good read nevertheless, packed with excellent descriptions of campaigns and battles, from the Western Front to the Eastern, from Italy to Mesopotamia, and brimming with insightful analyses of those events. Hart's integrative approach blends coverage of strategy, tactics, weapons, and technology, as well as a dash of politics and diplomacy, into his narrative. I suspect this will be THE single-volume World War I book to read during the 100th anniversary.

With the Centenary of the Great War fast approaching, together with the inevitable avalanche of books that will accompany it over the next six years, the challenge for the student of this conflict will be to sift out the books that add to the body of knowledge & steer clear of those that regurgitate old, sometimes out of date or discredited views. This is particularly relevant when it comes to looking at single volume histories of the war - with the aim of these books being the concise explanation of the key issues and events in such a way as to engage and inform the reader.

Peter Hart's "The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War", published by Oxford University Press in May 2013 is the latest entry to the field and comes at a particularly timely moment.

Hart is well known not only through the numerous books he has already written on the conflict but also in his role as Oral Historian of Britain's Imperial War Museum - and it is this latter experience that enables him to add a level of personal connection with the combatants through their reminiscences and thereby bring a new perspective to global events.

While the actual sequence of events that lead to war are still the subject of debate, the case is clear in this book for the inevitability of war in August 1914 after decades of inconclusive conflicts and unresolved geopolitical ambitions. With none of the participants prepared to accept a reduction in their national "economic, political, military and imperial ambitions", the slide towards war was unavoidable.

Hart deserves credit for highlighting the often neglected role of the French in the early years of the war - their losses of 27,000 dead on one day in August 1914 in the Battle of the Frontiers is not widely known but should be to place British losses on the 1st July 1916 into context. The time bought by the French nation in the opening two years of the war at an appalling cost should not be under recognised - without that blood sacrifice, the war would have taken a very different course.

While Hart does focus on the major fronts with reduced emphasis on the more peripheral sideshows, this is entirely in line with his view that these had the greatest potential to win the war and therefore demand the bulk of the attention. A central tenet of his argument is that the war was only going to be won by defeating the main enemy, Germany, on the main front, the Western Front. Hart is correspondingly scathing in his criticism of those "Easterners" such as David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill for diverting scarce resources to what were essentially sideshows. Having said that, the book does not neglect the other fronts with Gallipoli (unsurprisingly bearing in mind Hart's previous two works on this fascinating campaign), Salonika, Palestine and Italy all receiving good coverage as does the war in the air and at sea. Coverage of the African fighting is missing but this omission is understandable given the ambition of covering the entire war in one volume.

The book provides a detailed narrative of the ways in which technology and tactics improved and adapted throughout the war leading initially to the successes of the opening day of the Cambrai offensive in November 1917 before coming to a logical conclusion in the form of the "all arms battle" of the Hundred Days campaign that began on 8th August 1918 and lead to the surrender of the German forces on 11th November.

Hart does belong to the "revisionist" school of military history - or possibly even post-revisionist - in that he generally holds the achievements of the senior commanders in higher regard than the discredited "butchers and bunglers" fraternity of historians - but, while acknowledging the concept of a "learning curve", Hart is clear that the opposition had their own learning curve and hence stresses the importance of who was learning quicker at any particular time. The learning curve was far from being a smooth one.

The book's illustrations are helpful in providing visual context, the maps are clear and concise and the notes and index are extensive. The lack of a bibliography with archival sources is unsurprising given the range of the book's coverage in terms of theatres and years.

Peter Hart's achievement in this volume is not only in providing a clear description of the war combined with a detailed examination of the significance of key events, but doing this while maintaining a very personal level of contact with the participants - and this goes from the individual soldier in the front line all the way through to those who were directing the conflict. Professor Gary Sheffield has described Hart as the "master of anecdotal history" - he is - but he is also a damn fine historian.

Highly recommended for all those interested in increasing their knowledge and understanding of the Twentieth Century's greatest conflict.

Peter Hart manages to cover all fronts and all four years of the war succinctly but with enough detail to give a sense of the human element. He also debunks a number of myths about the war spread by lesser, but better known writers like Barbara Tuchman.

The First World War is a challenge to write about because of it's geographical breadth, number of countries involved and length of time. Yet Peter Hart has accomplished this in The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War. He illuminates the broad strategic issues for the various countries which lead to the actions they take. He picked the key battles on the Western, Eastern, and Italian fronts along with the Balkens, Palistine, Mesopotamia and the Sea war. He looks at the commanders on both sides and the issues they faced and their decisions. He identifies both the change in defense and attack strategies and how the introduction of new technologies (poison gas, tanks, etc.) impacted the conflict. While the book is a high level view of the war, he brings to life the battles by utilizing the correspondence of ordinary soldiers letting us sense the mud, barbed wire, trenches and utter horror of this war. A masterful job!

`The Great War' by Peter Hart is a compact, comprehensive chronology of World War One that offers a clear and concise narrative, interwoven with personal testimonies many of which are sourced from the Imperial War Museum. The book is structured into small succinct chapters that encompass most aspects of the war providing students of this conflict with an overview of the events that happened on the Western Front, Eastern Front, Gallipoli, Salonika, Italy, Palestine and the war at sea. Some of these topics are new to me and I was completely hooked by Peter Hart's ability to convey the subject to the reader. It is written in the same style and spirit as the author's previous books and demonstrates consistent scholarly research. It is an enormous challenge for any author to write about an epic subject as the First World War within 500 pages, but Peter Hart has successfully written a book that is engaging and informative. He shows the horrors that the men who fought that war like lions, explains what they had endured on a daily basis, at the same time showing that their commanders were far from donkeys; they were under pressure to achieve results, to adapt to new technology as they strived for victory. This book will also appeal to new students of the conflict as an invaluable introduction to a vast, complex and controversial subject.
Peter Hart has met many veterans from World War One through his role as Oral Historian at the Imperial War Museum. Now that the veterans have passed away, historians such as Peter Hart and another author Paul Reed (who has also interviewed WW1 veterans) have become themselves the last link to that generation who listened to their accounts from first hand and can now relay them to our generation today. The firsthand accounts of the participants are the heart and soul of the book which complements the easy to read commentary.
Peter Hart has established himself as one of the leading chroniclers of World War One of our generation in his ability to tell the stories of those that took part in this awful conflict. He has set the benchmark for other authors to aspire and I am sure that this book will be widely referred to in the years to come. I will certainly read the book again and will refer to the author's opinion and comments on the various theatres of operation of this war during my studies in the future. Congratulations to Peter Hart for producing another invaluable contribution to the study of World War One.

With the centenary of the Great War looming ever rapidly, interest will, and could said to have already, rise extremely quickly, and with it books, documentaries, films etc etc. One issue with the Great War, especially in the UK, is that by and large it is misunderstood, with many myths and even just basic inaccuracies that have been put forward and regurgitated by authors, the media, documentaries and others.

What this book does, and very timely too, just in time to reach as wide an audience as possible before the centenary, is describe, simply, the war. Not from any country's individual viewpoint (how many in Britain are aware of what happened on the Eastern Front, or indeed of any part of the Western Front not occupied by the French, who lost more men by the end of 1914 than we lost in the entire war?), or forcing an opinion, but simply putting the facts as to what happened, why it happened, and what the result was, interspersed with first hand accounts put into context and helping to illustrate the author's point or give further information as to what it was like to be on the ground. Many books on the Great War either focus on first hand accounts, or by giving a general overview and just describing units without getting a feel for what it was like to be there - this book manages to weave the two together very well.

I cannot highly reccommend this book enough for anyone interested in the war - I have been studying various aspects of the Great War for around six years now, but just several pages into this book I realised just how little of the conflict as a 'World War' I actually knew, and am extremely glad this has come along and re-educated me!

Good factual account of "The Great War." Another really good piece of mystery fiction set in WWI: Shadow Agenda: A Mystery Novel of World War I (A Frank Wells Mystery) (Volume 1)

Many people today do not realize that by the time the United States joined the fighting in the later part of 1917 the Great War was already being fought for three years. In this new edition of a history of World War I Peter Hart's "The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War" is a significant contribution that attempts to make sense of the human folly that contributed to one of history's greatest tragedy.

With clarity Hart writes of the events that triggered a chain reaction of diplomatic ultimatums that followed the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the presumptive heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Hart describes how the world's state of affairs led up to the assassination showing how the stage was set for catastrophe.

Interspersed with letters and reports from soldiers in the trenches, Hart is able to present scenes of courage and misery that occurred on the field of battle across Europe. These personal accounts bring some life into the otherwise vastness of the area of operations where battles were fought.

Hart's main focus is on the major battles, their success and failures both tactically and strategically are touched on as well as the painful (in terms of human life lost) learning process the commanders gained from the battles.

A personal thought on that learning process of the commanders. It is always the soldier on the front line facing the enemy who pays the price for the sometimes recklessness and stupidity of both generals and politicians.

The difficulty of reviewing an advance copy of a subject of such great interest is hampered by the fact that blank pages appeared where maps should have been. Trying to follow the locations of battles that are mentioned in the text made it difficult to follow the action by continuously having to go to other references for maps. However, I did not allow this discrepancy to affect my rating of "The Great War." I only mention it because it was annoying and made the job of reviewing that much more difficult.

I give "The Great War" 4 stars. I think it was well written and could be of interest to anyone wanting to know more on the subject.

However, for someone who is going to read only one book about the First World War I highly recommend "A World Undone: The Story of the Great War 1914 to 1918" by G. J. Meyer.

Act II of the end of European world domination was World War II.

The author tells the history of the First World War in details of the battles, strategy of the leaders, and all of the unforeseen circumstances that occurred. The roots of this war go deep into the history of Europe in general, especially of the unified Germany and France. The seeds of the next war seem to be sowed by the aftermath of the end of the previous war. And as WW I grew from the seeds sown in the Franco-Prussian war and other skirmishes, so the seeds of WW II were sown by this one.

A good read, with plenty of information about other aspects to supplement the descriptions and circumstances of key battles.

Good material but found myself proverbially wading through this book i.e., it was a struggle to keep attention and certainly not a fast read. I do think the author did his due dilligence in researching for the material found here.

Peter Hart takes on WWI history using a different tact, other than his Britian-centered view. His technique of interspacing analysis and interpretation with sections of actual letters written by soldiers, sailors and their officers by name and by both sides, drives the "horror of war home." Much more effective than just descriptions and/or raw statistics.

Hart covers the major battles of the war with great insight, political analysis of the times and its interfacing pressures, overlaps and skulduggery. The Germans did not win the war by Christmas 1914 as planned. So the war then proceeded in terrible ways. But the description of that original set of campaigns by 'participants' is riveting, not to mention similar episodes over the next four years. A simple example from Lieutenant Jaques Cisterne, 4th Battalion, 300th Infantry Regiment.

"We had hardly gone 100 metres when we spotted behInd us an artillery battery galloping along at full speed in our direction... When they got within 400-500 metres the artillerymen dismounted and dropped thier battery into action. In less time than it takes to write, shells were raining down on our heads. At the center and rear of our column a hail of 77 mm shells shells burst with great force in the ploughed fields and us all in a thick cloud. This surprise attack was all the more unexpected because everyone was convinced other French units were staying behind to protect our backs. It had the effect of creating panic in the ranks and there was terrible disorder as the men, deaf to appeals of their NCOs, began dumping their equipment to allow them to run faster, dashing madly towards Foret du Banel about some 100 metres away.."

In 1915, both Artois and Champagne were closed down after horrible disasters and thousands of casualties. In the interest of time and space I will not discuss 1916 and 1917, exceot to say that outside of German submarine action on merchant fleets, the navies were snooty potpurri for the admirals and provided little succor to either side, despite the losses of both at the Battle of Jutland. Add in the disputably almost worthless 4 year Mesopatamian campaign. Its goals were met by 1915 and then the generals played for three years wasting resources and people in a bit of prideful goal overreaching without real need. This also happened in other campaigns.

Some argue that there were great technology advances and a rush to the future most of the war. True to a point, but at what cost? After 1914 the generals learned and developed great advances in tactics as those of the 1850s and 1870s were gradually updated based on the ongoing mismatch of weaponry and infantry. The Russians and the Austrians and the Slavs fought each other until, later, the Russians collapsed due to the revolutions at home. Then the Americans came. That is a story in itself.

I believe that much of the war could be characterized as pride of empire and prideful goal posting and marching where generals toyed with the lives of millions of young men - and killed them.

Thus is history made. This take on WWI is highly recommended, but look at it in context of other books and other wars. The great war's glorification in history per se ignores its reality and ending and the 20 year resultant build-up to WWII.

An enjoyable read, not too much detail but enough for a generalized understanding of the BEF, French and other forces. I particularly liked the discussion of secondary fronts that often get neglected in other works such as Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Italian fronts.

The first question that must be asked of any book claiming to be serious history is: what's new here? The answer re this book, sadly, is nothing. As other reviewers have pointed out, this volume is nothing more than a rehash of old theories and campaign summaries, possibly published to use the centennial as a sales-booster. The author does deserve some credit for including vivid first person accounts of the actual fighting, but that is the work of some research assistant, rather than the author. Mr. Hart also deserves more than some condemnation for his staunch defense of Douglas Haig, perhaps the least competent and most inhumane general ever to lead a modern army. Mr. Hart's claim that Haig was only doing the best he could with the tools and tactics of the age won't wash. Even chimpanzees can alter their behaviors based on learned experience; to say, as Hart does, that Haig could not makes him out to be less than intelligent a chimp. Which, doubtless, countless bereaved wives, sisters, and mothers would have affirmed. Save one's money and spend it on the likes of Keegan and Fussell, historians as great as the war they revealed anew.

Rarely does a researcher find such an exhaustive history as THE GREAT WAR. Told in a conversational tone, it seems every detail of WWI has been illuminated within these pages. Definitely a keeper for future work. Easily indexed, the complex material is well organized and useful.

"The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War" by Peter Hart is a text book style written account of the beginning and duration of WWI. It is not for the average reader. It is written with the die-hard war historian in mind. I knew little about WWI prior to this book. Mostly high school history class. This information was pretty much all new to me. It also was a lot of information to take in at once if one knows little about the war or the politics of turn of the century Europe. It is well written and I believe well researched. I don't really know, I am trusting Hart that it is accurate. I received this book for free from [...]

The Germans are to blame, the Western Front is most important, the Brits were the best soldiers.

The book is well written but gives the impression of being written only to profit from the war's centennial. There's nothing new here, just a British professor rehashing the old party line.