World War I

by S.L.A. Marshall

A "full-dress history of the war by one of our most distinguished military writers" (NEW YORK TIMES), WORLD WAR I takes us from the first shots in Sarajevo to the signing of the peace treaty in Versailles and through every bunker, foxhole, and minefield in between. General S.L.A. Marshall drew on his unique firsthand experience as a soldier and a lifetime of military service to pen this forthright, forward-thinking history of what people once believed would be the last great war. Newly introduced by the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, David M. Kennedy, WORLD WAR I is a classic example of unflinching military history that is certain to inform, enrich, and deepen our understanding of this great cataclysm.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World War I, Military History, Military Fiction, War, European History

528 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1985

About the author

S.L.A. Marshall (full name, Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall) served in World War I and then embarked in a career in journalism. In World War II, he was chief combat historian in the Central Pacific (1943) and chief historian for the European Theater of Operations (1945). He authored some 30 books about warfare, including Pork Chop Hill: The American Fighting Man in Action, The River and the Gauntlet and Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War.

Reviews

[Richard Bensing · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a down and dirty, single-volume book about World War I. Marshall is known as a military historian, so the largest focus of the conflict is on the battles. The book glosses over the deeper societal and political environment that was in place at the time. It gives just enough information to place the war in context, but leaves out quite a lot of the greater details. The book does illustrate, quite clearly, how useless the war really was and how maddeningly incompetent the belligerents’ military and political leaders were as the flower of European manhood was crushed in the meat grinder of the Western Front. It’s a decent read for anyone looking to get a quick sample of “the war to end all wars.”

[Bobbi]

I really wanted to get through this book, but it was a history of the military actions and, while I know I should know what went on, I just couldn't make myself read through it. I kept getting the names, places mixed up. Oh well, I'll try another one at some point.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

The name S.L.A. Marshall has evoked mixed reactions to those I've mentioned it to. Some say he was one of the finest American military historians of the 20th century; others say he was a dishonest hack who made things up to sell books. So you can imagine the curiosity inside me when I decided to start this book.
I immediately found this account of World War I to be one of the most readable, gripping, and informative narratives of war that I've ever read. Marshall writes with a lively, argumentative prose that hooked me from the first chapter. He is not afraid to cast harsh judgment upon the major characters in the story of World War I. In particular, he blames Leopold von Berchtold for being the primary villain behind the escalation of hostility in the summer of 1914. In fact, I would say that his narrative of the domino collapse that led Europe to war following Archduke Ferdinand's assassination is the clearest I've yet read, and I've read a lot in my attempts to understand it.
Marshall makes his opinions of the major leaders, including Foch, Joffre, Ludendorff, and Molke, very clear. Their follies are laid bare, but Marshall still gives them credit where it is due. One of the high points in the book is Marshall's description of battles. I often struggle to follow these in the works of other authors, who can make battle narratives a convoluted mess. Marshall's are quite easy to follow. He has a knack for putting a visual of the battle into his reader's head, and thus you can easily follow the battles at Verdun, Operation Michael, St. Mihiel, and others, quite easily.
That actually brings me to my first gripe. Marshall's ability to explain battles clearly helps to offset the terrible quality of many of the maps in the physical copy of the book. They are grainy and blurry, and often, the most important places are tucked into the center of the book beyond hope of perception. This is not Marshall's fault, I know, but it detracted from the visual aspect of the book.
One other gripe is that a few important facets of the war are either lacking in attention or overlooked. First, the Battle of the Somme is described, but rather cursorily. Marshall goes through the main points of the battle- the British leave their trenches, force the Germans out of theirs, but the offensive falters and basically that's that. In a one-volume survey, I suppose that's all you need to know, but for such an important and bloody battle I think it deserves more attention. Second, the air war is ignored entirely. This was the first major war to use aircraft in any capacity, and I think ignoring it is a bit of an injustice. Not one mention is made of Manfred von Richtofen (the "Red Baron"), Albert Ball, Roy Brown, or Eddie Rickenbacker. Why not?
Beyond these issues, this is indeed a very solid account of the First World War. In addition to the Western Front, considerable attention is paid to the war with Russia up until the Revolution, the war against Turkey, and the Middle Eastern campaign culminating in the seizure of Jerusalem. All of these descriptions are excellent, particularly of the Russian story. That was one point in the book where I couldn't put it down.
Some reviewers have complained that the account is a little too pro-American towards the end. To this I mostly agree, but I am willing to give Marshall some leeway, given that he was writing for American Heritage and not just for himself. Even in this regard, though, he still manages to be pretty balanced. He doesn't always cut General Pershing a break, and he sharply criticizes Woodrow Wilson for effectively stinking up the Versailles negotiations. His most apparent pro-American sentiment seems to be for the American doughboys themselves. (Side note- prospective readers may be interested to know that no mention of Marshall's controversial fire ratios are to be found in this book.)
While people who are already experts on World War I might not learn much new from this account, I still highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it and is interested in the War to End All Wars. Marshall's lively style may not suit everyone, but for some reason, it really clicked with me.

[Marc Towersap · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite good for a quick history of WWI. I had to go back and re-read the first chapter trying to figure out why the death of ArchDuke Ferdinand spawned such destruction, especially when it appeared most of the key players, including his own father, didn't see his death as an overall tragedy. I didn't fully realize how late in the war we Americans entered, at least from a soldier-perspective. For a quick introduction to WWI, it's highly recommended!

[Brian Manville · Rating 5 out of 5]

World War I can be thought of as literally a circus of stupid. Generals Haig and Ludendorff routinely appear on lists of the worst generals of all time. There were few shining lights in the various officer corps during the war. This is what makes S.L.A. Marshall's contribution to the examination of the Great War unique, and, quite honestly, refreshing.

It is the wont of many WWI historians to want to glamorize or romanticize the conflagration. It surely does not warrant such treatment, and Marshall goes to great lengths to detail all the stupid, vacuous, inept, inane, and vainglorious and to put the war in its proper context. There was nothing romantic about WWI; battles were nothing more than charnel houses with dead bodies and ruined fields and towns as a tragic epitaph to the events. The advent of barbed wire, machine guns, tanks, and large mortars inflicted untold suffering on both sides. All of this was a tragic result of a world event that sent people rushing to war.

This book seems somewhat out of time, even though it was written in 1964. It's tone and tenor seem more applicable to this jaundiced, sarcastic era we live in today. Nevertheless, it is the book WWI historians need to read because the truth is laid out in all its unvarnished tragedy.

BOTTOM LINE: A refreshing take on WWI.

[Michael Salerno · Rating 5 out of 5]

SLA Marshall put together what in my opinion, is one of the best single volume compendiums written on World War 1. Marshall is able to succiently and efficiently cover different major topics of the this era, evaluate it from all sides involved and spin it with his understanding as well as the significance of each event in both the contemporary era, but the future.

This book also has helped grow my interest in World War 1. Marshall has a military background, which makes his analysis of different battles and theaters deeper, especially with my limited understanding of unit tactics. He gives such a great analysis, that it makes it much more apparent as to why tactics changed in the World War 2 era as well as how the trench warfare tactics developed in this war.

5/5 - Will definitely be reading more of Marshall's works. I highly recommend this book to anyone that wants to start learning more about World War 1 and how it impacted our world in terms of warfare, politics, culture and where extreme political views began to find their legs.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

A deep dive into the tactical level of warfare in the First World War. If you are the type of reader who is captivated by the tactical details, you'll find a lot to enjoy here. Chock-full of battle maps and other historical sources to piece things together.

Personally, I more enjoy the study of the operational and strategic levels of war, and the social implications. If you can get a cheap copy, the first chapter regarding the war's outbreak in 1914 makes for an interesting read. Chapters dedicated to the Russian withdrawal, as well as the American entry, were also worthwhile.

Very much a slog in my personal opinion.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was probably a good survey of World War I like 60 years ago, but today it feels old-timey and at times way too rah-rah. There's a lot of stuff that Marshall spends a lot of time on in here that more modern historians don't care about at all, and there's a lot of stuff that Marshall glosses over that modern historians spend much more time on. This is like reading a history of what history books used to be.

[Michael McCluskey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent history, though strewn with archaisms. Opinionated to a fault often, but since the author is a veteran of the war he describes, it works. Entertaining, but not for the easily offended.

[Yahya Fadhlulloh al-fatih · Rating 5 out of 5]

WW II : "gun evolution"
WW I : "automation rifle is for gay"

[Michael Carrier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Data lost in transfer. Inherited from my Dad. Great read. Well written.

[Christopher Moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent volume on World War I history. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to get started learning about the First World War.

[Richard Seltzer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read as research for my novel The Name of Hero.

[Jroos · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the length and topic it was a pretty good read that covered a great deal of the war. At times a bit confusing regarding all of the different military unit names/numbers.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

First printed 1964.

[Derek Weese · Rating 3 out of 5]

I recently became moderately (ok, insanely) obsessed with anything and everything WWI thanks to reading Max Hasting's excellent book: Catastrophe 1914. This was the first 'overview' title I purchased after reading Hasting's excellent book. There's already been plenty of reviews of this book which as a classic, originally published for the 50th Anniversary in the mid 60's, but I still feel the need to say a few things.
First of all, and I knew this going in, S.L.A. Marshall (SLAM) is easily one of the most opinionated and controversial military historians ever to come out of the United States. That is part of his charm, but it's also grating in this book. While he served as an officer in the A.E.F. in WWI and saw some serious action and went on to be a Staff Officer in WWII, he still should have learned a bit of the historians objectivity. Literally every politician and military commander (really, every single one) comes under fire from Marshall's angry pen. Some of his observations are both witty and ring true, but oft times they become simply overbearing. This may have been the style of the times, writing styles have changed drastically in the last fifty years, but I found it highly irritating after page 100.
He skims through some of the more important aspects of the war, especially the crucial battles of 1916 on the Western Front (The Somme and Verdun) which, I think, were the turning points of the war against Germany. Both of these battles, while not the more glorious types of victories such as Normandy or the comeback win in the Bulge from WWII were crucial to allied victory. In both battles the cream of the Imperial German Army was killed off, and Germany (already struggling against pretty much everyone in the world who mattered militarily at this time outside of the US) did not have the limitless manpower resources available to make good these two grinding, horrible battles of attrition.
Marshall also gives very short shrift to the vital peripheral theaters of the war that helped determine German defeat such as the war in Africa and the Middle East. In fact, he skims over the majority of the military operations of the war that don't involve the A.E.F. Granted this is a broad overview so I somewhat expected this. But the later attention given to the A.E.F. was, I felt, unwarranted.
Finally, as said above, Marshall gave far too much credence to the US Army's operations in the final few months of the war.
Granted, the presence of US troops provided a hell of a tonic to a demoralized French Army and they did add weight that the Germans could no longer push against. But the A.E.F. was (and I hate saying this as a somewhat patriotic American) incompetently led and more often than not was simply outclassed by their British, Australian/New Zealand, Canadian, Belgian and French counterparts. I agree with Marshall, the A.E.F. should be given credit for the work that they did and the blood that they spilt, but he spent so much time on them that he lost sight of the grander picture which was that the B.E.F. and the French Army were winning the war while the US Army was getting shot to hell by inferior numbers of German troops in the Meuse-Argonne. It's a sad fact but a fact nonetheless.
My final gripe with this book, and it's understandable considering it was written during the height of the Cold War, is the lack of detail on the Eastern Front. The mere fact that the Russian Army didn't collapse until the Revolution in 1917 meant that millions of German and Austro-Hungarian troops were tied down fighting the Russians when they could have been better used in the Western Front. While the Russian Army was routinely smashed by the Germans on the field, the Germans could never win a decisive battle against their tough foe. And the Russians smashed the Hapsburg forces equally as frequently to more often then not erase any strategic advantage a German advantage may have brought. While I think Marshall (and subsequent military historians) are correct that the Eastern Front was a secondary theater in terms of importance to the overall war, this does not mean it was UN-important. Far from it. At least the millions of Russian and Teutonic men who bled and died and sweated in this theater are owed the honor of having their story told, and told well. Hopefully the current centennial will fix this problem.
Still, the book was well written (as long as you can ignore Marshall's constant opining) and was a quick read if a bit light on detail. Still, a decent primer that only made me hungry to learn more. Needless to say Amazon will love me now, I've already bought half a dozen more books thanks to these past two.
Not bad as a synthesis work, just pair it with either Hew Strachan's or John Keegan's work to get the more modern (and less opinionated) view point. (And yes, I bought both of those...)

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent introductory history of World War One .S.L.A, Marshall, who is almost forgotten nowadays, was a war correspondent and editorial writer for (his own words) " ...that richly appointed Republican Men's Club that James Scrips and George Booth built on Lafayette Avenue", the Detroit News. during its glory days, when he and H.K. Kelsey, the very liberal 'commentator" who argued with the News' Republican editorial writers., were its biggest stars. The News sent Marshall to report on every human conflict from 1933 to 1967, when he was discarded as passe' and replaced by the equally able-and equally conservative-but much younger Robert Debs Heinl. Marshall, who served in the war , offers a richly detailed, vividly told, and carefully thought out history of the first great holocaust lf the century of violence. It is still a fine introduction to the war, and an important book for understanding the twentieth century.

[Chad Malkamaki · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall a very good history of WWI, with details on all major fronts of the war. Marshall does a good job introducing the initial lead up to WWI, and a good job with the aftermath. Also, once the USA joins the war the writing is more clear than the middle chapters.

Issues I had with this and why I didn't rate it as five stars; the maps are horrendous. I'm not sure if his original text included full color maps, but these presented in this edition in grey scale are almost unreadable. Blurry, small type, and weird maps that look like they were paintings of the geography of the battle from weird angles made it frustrating trying to figure out the action, where towns were located, and weird placement within the text (maps instead of introducing the battle would be located in the next section after the action was over). Also, the text jumps around when the Allies and Germans are met in the great stalemate that makes up most of the war. Marshall jumps from country to country, and general to general, not organized very well and I had to reread many sections to understand what was happening.

One advantage of reading in the 21st century, I was able to utilize the internet for clarification on maps, and the personalities that made up the Great War.

[Jim Gallen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s “World War I” is a good survey study of the Great War from its inciting spark in Sarajevo through the Versailles Treaty. It consists primarily of narrative with black and white photographs of scenes and individuals involved and maps to aid the readers in understanding the course of battles. I feel that the significant facts of the War are covered albeit with the speed necessary to get through the War in under 500 pages.

Although I have read a fair amount about World War I, I did learn things from this book that I did not remember from other works. I think author S. L. A. Marshall did a good job in illustrating the modifications Moltke made to the Schlieffen Plan. He brought out the lack of fertilizer as of greater importance to Germany than lack of food, made me more aware of the continuing British concern of rebellion in Ireland after the Easter Uprising and made the peace process, both on the Russian Front and at the conclusion of the War more understandable.

This book is dated based on writing style, photographs and illustrations and I found Jon Keegan’s “The First World War” (see my review) to be more satisfying, but Marshall’s tome remains a worthwhile read. Historians interpret history through their own eyes, hence a fuller view is obtained by reading histories written over time. I have been trying to study World War I during the Centennial and “World War I” has served as a good refresher. I would not recommend it as a first overall history but after you have been introduced to the Great War and have read some more specialized volumes, a book like this is helpful to pull it all together and put it into context.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed and cohesive, an excellent overview of the war. Marshall's book is in-depth and readable. However, an unbiased history book this is not. Marshall has opinions about everyone involved in the conflict, and he isn’t afraid to rattle them off to the reader ad nauseum. His intrusions never last long enough to completely derail the narrative, however. S.L.A. Marshall also sees everything in perfect 20-20 hindsight, which makes it very easy for him to criticize EVERYBODY. Also, he ends at an awkward moment after the war: Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch. True, Ludendorff was also there, but there's a LOT more history that goes on after the Putsch leading to the rise of the Nazis and World War II.
Also, this book is just that: an overview. There isn't tons of detail on every single battle of the war, so if you're looking for that, look for other books.
If I have anything critical to say about this book, it will be about the analysis of the conflict as a series of chess moves. Mr. Marshall traces most events back to the intentions of a single individual (may these intentions be correct or erroneous). This desire to rationalize the development of the war in terms of the influence of the individual political and military figures does not capture the chaotic atmosphere of the period.
The maps were cool: they're presented in 3D, which allows the reader to better appreciate the terrain challenges the opposing armies faced, but some of them are so dark you can barely read the names of the places on them.
A good book...if you know nothing about the war already, that is.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a solid history of World War I, but it goes into too much tactical detail of each battle for my liking, so I found myself skimming through the last third or so of the book up until November, 1918. Also, as others have said, Marshall injects a lot of hindsight opinion on the events and leaders, so you have to filter some of the text out in order to maintain a non-biased understanding of the war.

[Alec · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good compendium of the first great war. It is filled with a lot of facts and is very linear in what happened. It can be a lot to handle at times but you will gain a lot of knowledge from this book.

There is nothing horrible or spectacular about his writing style. He does a good job of not being biased toward any one side and seems to give equal criticism to all powers.

Do not expect a riveting read from this book but if you want to know what happened in world war I, read this book.

[Steve Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative narrative of causes and results leading up to the first World War. Much time is spent on the battles. I found more interesting the chain of events leading to the outbreak of war. Also the economic results hit upon Nicholas II's Russia leading up to the Bolshevik revolution. Marshall makes no small point that he was not a fan of Woodrow Wilson and the decisions he made towards the end of the war and at the Treaty of Versailles. Regardless, this is an excellent narrative of the First World War. Not too long, not too brief.

[Don Heiman · Rating 4 out of 5]

S.L.A. Marshall wrote the history "World War 1" for the American Heritage Press" in 1964. It was released again in 1971 and became a reference book for instructors at the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in the 1970's. The history of war campaigns is outstanding. I especially enjoyed the book's maps and treatment of war strategies as well as tactics. Today we are still dealing with the effects of World War 1 failed policies and treaties. The book lacks comprehensive references and the index is weak. The writing is clear and easy to follow.

[Joe A · Rating 4 out of 5]

S.L.A Marshall has written a most concise one volume history of the "Great War"! From the opening two shots on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo that forever changed the world - to the bitter defeat on November 19, 1919 of the Treaty of Versailles in the U.S. Senate (dooming the dreams of the stricken President Wilson for a League Of Nations) he brings us all the major and many minor actors in this greatest of all tragedies. A war that never needed to be fought producing the bitter seeds of an even more destructive war less than 20 years later.

[Tiffany E. · Rating 5 out of 5]

World war 1 is a famous topic. S.L.A. Marshall writes a perfect representation of the bloody battle. He writes in such detail that the reader definitely understands. It is so descriptive and precise in cataloging all the events. If you want to know about trenches there is a large chapter just for you. If you want to know how the war started just read this book. This is a scholarly book. The facts are true, the evidence is key. For high schoolers and up. Enjoy!

[Frederick Coxen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be an excellent book for understanding the history of The Great War. Marshall gives the reader insight into the main characters that directly impacted how the war was fought and its final outcome. The book strikes a balance between enough and to much detail.

Overall the book offered me a solid understanding of World War I.

[Alexis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very well written to describe World War I in one volume. The battles go into much depth, and the explanations are good throughout the book. However, with so many names and different events/people, the book does get confusing at times. The first pages of the book were the hardest for me because I had to adapt to so much information being thrown that quick.

[Robert Morrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most World War I tomes get lost in either the absurd complexity of egos or the political viewpoint of the author. This is a story primarily of the actual conduct of the war and forms a more cohesive narrative than most.

[Drpsychorat · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is well written & researched and a good 1st book about WWI. Unfortunately, in the Oyster edition, there were no maps, pictures ect to stop the in depth history. It was very difficult to conceptualize as a result. I gave it a 3 in spite of these glaring omissions.