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

by Peter Hart

Named one of the Ten Best Books of 2013 by The Economist

World War I altered the landscape of the modern world in every conceivable arena. Millions died; empires collapsed; new ideologies and political movements arose; poison gas, warplanes, tanks, submarines, and other technologies appeared. "Total war" emerged as a grim, mature reality.

In The Great War, Peter Hart provides a masterful combat history of this global conflict. Focusing on the decisive engagements, Hart explores the immense challenges faced by the commanders on all sides. He surveys the belligerent nations, analyzing their strengths, weaknesses, and strategic imperatives. Russia, for example, was obsessed with securing an exit from the Black Sea, while France--having lost to Prussia in 1871, before Germany united--constructed a network of defensive alliances, even as it held a grudge over the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Hart offers deft portraits of the commanders, the prewar plans, and the unexpected obstacles and setbacks that upended the initial operations.

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

544 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Peter Hart is a British military historian.

He has been an oral historian at Sound Archive of Imperial War Museum in London since 1981.

He has written mainly on British participation in the First World War. His books include; The Somme, Jutland 1916, Bloody April on the air war in 1917, Passchendaele, Aces Falling (on the air war in 1918), 1918 A Very British Victory and Gallipoli.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Military History of the War.

This is a focused and quick account of the Great War through the lens of a British military historian, Peter Hart. In summary it is a very accomplished account which delivers exactly what you would expect. It is hard to be disappointed by this book. Hart starts with brief context of Europe before the war and the raising tensions, for example imperial rivalries, the naval race and the Balkans tensions. Then we move into Sarajevo, the July crisis and then all hell breaking loose.

I really enjoyed Hart’s style of writing, he doesn’t try to make it complicated or over write the text. He has that gift we all seek with non-fiction writers, can they make this subject interesting and pull away the trimmings, allowing the reader to keep up? Yes he can and that is what I appreciated most about this book. Which overarching histories of great subjects, the fine-grain detail is often missed, but both types of books are needed to commit the subject matter to memory.

Harts book focuses on a command level overview of all the battles and campaigns, from the Western Front to the Italian Front, the Eastern Front, the war at sea, in the air and Mesopotamia. He weaves this nicely with accounts of soldiers from both sides in their letters and diaries. This nicely comes together to give context to every major event. Hart still tackles the more difficult questions, such as ‘lions led by donkeys’, explaining Sir Douglas Haig worked extremely hard and used the tactics that were available to him at the time, even if unimaginative. He also shows how Russia and France, did little to stop the war, so can take some of the blame like Germany. Britain is does not come through clean either, the breach of The Hague Convention in the blockade and the shameless expansion of the empire and destabilisation of the Middle East are highlighted. The latter still rumbling on today.

The battles are described really well, the way of fighting, the horror and the pity are all encapsulated in this most sobering of disasters to fall upon the human race. Hart has done a great job and it is nice to read such a book which delivers exactly what it says on the cover. I’m looking forward to my next Peter Hart book now.

[Bevan Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well written and engaging combat history of the war, and a recommended 'single volume' history. It is strong on the military strategy and decision making and events, interspersed with plenty of quotations from participants to avoid the story becoming too esoteric. The book doesn't focus on the social experience to the same extent as books like Martin Gilbert's The First World War: A Complete History and keeps focussed on the military sphere. There isn't all that much politics and Hart keeps his attention on the major theatres of the war rather than being comprehensive. You'll certainly learn a lot about the strategic aspects, and good analysis of the reasons for success and failure at different phases of the war.
Hart has quite strong views on some aspects which make the book interesting. He regards the Gallipoli campaign as a waste: "Gallipoli achieved nothing but to provide the Turks with the opportunity to slaughter British and French troops in copious numbers in a situation in which everything was in the defenders’ favour."(1) He is also a defender of Sir Douglas Haig. Whilst the "Lions Lead By Donkeys" argument is overstated there is no doubt he took a very long time to adapt at the cost of a lot of lives.
Overall however a very good one volume history of the Great War.

(1) Hart, Peter (2013-04-04). The Great War: 1914-1918 (p. 185). Profile Books. Kindle Edition.

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is an easy thing, now nearly 100 years since the most important event of the 20th century started, to dismiss World War I as a needless, pointless exercise that solved nothing and accomplished nothing. The Great War, a Combat History of the First World War, attempts to take the reader down the path that the military decision makers walked from the years leading up to the war, to the end on Armistice Day. By doing so, the reader should be able to see why decisions were made and why very often that military decision makers made the best choices in front of them.

Peter Hart, an oral historian at Britain's Imperial War Museum, brings to this work not only the IWM's unique access to the high level strategy and material artifacts of WWI, but the primary sources from the war that give this book an added dimension of realism. He divides the chapters chronologically, and geographically. What gives the chapters especially strong weight is his frequent use of stopping his narrative and having, at times, lengthy quotations from letters and interviews from the actual combatants, particularly junior officers and non commissioned officers, from all sides. By doing so, he is able to show, in real time, the consequences of strategic and tactical decisions on those who were tasked with actually having to carry them out on the many fronts of this war.

Hart places the weight of the blame on Imperial Germany, though he is free to cite the overreach of the other powers involved. He clearly writes of the strategy that Germany thought it needed to win the war outright, and to dominate Europe (and Europe's colonial lands), and why he believed that the western front was the key to victory and why he believed that Germany's ultimate main enemy was the British Empire. Even though most of the fighting on the western front was between French and German forces, he does logically maintain his thesis that Germany's main antagonist was Britain. The whole of Germany's main war plans involved winning the war quickly, within six months by knocking out France and removing British influence from the continent. Once Germany failed to force French capitulation by 1915, Hart shows how the war moved into a war of attrition, where Germany could not win, but hoped to avoid losing.

As a reader, you do get caught up in the battles - the terrors of combat that shook so many he quoted. The frustration of so many in military leadership, like British General Haig, for instance, at the unrealistic expectations that the politicians and general public back home had of the war is clear. You do understand and sympathize why so many Russian soldiers mutinied against their command, even as you know the coming darkness ahead for that land. And you do come away with tremendous respect for the many ordinary soldiers who so often went over the top, or through forests, or even worse, held their ground, in the face of hours and hours of relentless artillery fire. As a reader, you should feel a sickening discouragement of the many who breathed their last, went over the top, and died, by the tens of thousands, in numbers the world was not prepared for, for over four years.

The primary weakness of this work is that the primary sources relied upon are primarily British, and then a mix of French and German. Russian sources play a minor role, as do many others in the Austrian Hungarian services. So this is a British centric view of the conflict. The writing and combat understanding is sound though, so as a real war history, the reader should get this war, and understand why Hart does NOT simply dismiss the whole thing as pointless, but points again and again to the fact at how virtually everything since this war was influenced by it. The author takes a very realist view of human nature and its many violent tendencies, and the ability of men caught in awful situations to think through bad situations as well as they can. As a one volume combat history, this should sit well with John Keegan's narrative, even as this book is more narrowly focused.

[Gerald Churchill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Hart's "The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War" is exactly what the title states. It is a one-volume campaign history of World War I. The book covers the Western Front, the Eastern Front, the sea war, Gallipoli, the Sinai and Palestinian Fronts, the Mesopotamian Front, the Salonika Front, and the Italian Front. If you are looking for a book about the campaign in east Africa or Japan's land grab of Germany's colonies in the Pacific or China, look elsewhere. That said, the book is a fairly comprehensive survey of the First World War.

Hart begins with a discussion of the causes of the war and assessments of the belligerents' military capabilities. He then recounts the conflict, beginning and ending with the Western Front. For Hart, the Western Front is the war's major theater of operations, although he follows the Eastern Front and points out how it links to the Western Front. He denounces all other fronts except for the Italian Front as a waste of the Triple Entente's resources.

Hart takes a more empathetic view of the generals, particularly Sir Douglas Haig, than is usually the case. He points out that the generals were feeling their way through largely uncharted territory and that they did adapt their tactics to the situation that they faced. He uses Russia's Alexei Brusilov, Great Britain's Sir Douglas Haig, and Germany's Erich Ludendorff, among others, as examples of senior officers' adaptability.

"The Great War" is written capably, although it has some grammatical and typographical errors, and the book includes many excerpts from soldiers from private to general that describe various situations. It has theater maps, but the maps could be more detailed. In addition, they could show the armies' movements. Future editions of the book will be much more useful with these deficiencies corrected.

If Goodreads allowed half-star reviewing, I would give this book a 3.5. I do not see fit to give the book a 3.0, however. Therefore, my rating is 4.0. "The Great War" is a worthwhile combat survey of the First World War.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Hart's The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War provides a solid, if not groundbreaking overview of that conflict. Hart, a long time oral historian at the Imperial War Museum, makes excellent work of firsthand accounts, balancing top-level strategic accounts of battles and campaigns with letters, diaries, memoirs and oral histories of participants, both officers and foot soldiers. Hart focuses primarily on the Western and Eastern Fronts, with a few significant peripheral theaters (Britain's misadventures in the Middle East, the sanguinary Salonika Campaign and Italy's "White War" with Austria) receiving briefer treatment. When not stressing the brutality of life in the trenches and certain death in No Man's Land, he argues that generals of both sides struggled mightily to adapt to the realities of modern warfare, with machine guns, gas, airplanes and tanks outpacing conservative generals' ability to adjust to them. Some, like Germany's Ludendorff and Russia's Brusilov, pioneered tactics that presaged the second war's blitzkrieg while others, like Britain's hapless John French, Italy's incompetent Luigi Cadorna and the balance of French commanders struggled mightily to adjust, at the cost of millions of lives. Hart devotes a fair amount of space to defending Douglas Haig, British commander at the Somme and Paschendaele, and whether you find his defenses of the much-maligned Haig (as a conservative commander who nonetheless overcame his shortcomings and prejudices through bloody trial and error) persuasive is down to the individual reader. While there's no shortage of books on the Great War, and Hart's detailed looks at the Somme and Gallipoli are better, this is a perfectly good, highly readable single volume account.

[Olethros · Rating 3 out of 5]

-Visión estrictamente militar del asunto.-

Género. Historia.

Lo que nos cuenta. Relato desde un prisma eminentemente bélico de las circunstancias que permitieron (o provocaron, según el caso) el estallido de la Primera Guerra Mundial, las principales ofensivas, batallas y acciones que tuvieron lugar durante la misma divididas por frentes y años, tomando el mar como un frente en sí mismo, con un breve repaso final a las consecuencias que tuvo el final de la misma.

¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:

http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...

[Shawn Deal · Rating 5 out of 5]

An exceptionally researched breakdown off all the military battles of note in the First World War. Very well written, with a lot of detailed accounts by the men who were there.

[Dachokie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sensible Summarization of an Immensely Convoluted Series of Events …

This book was reviewed as part of Amazon's Vine program which included a free advance copy of the book.

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.

[Adil Ehsan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was very interested to read this as I am a major fan of the military history of World War 2 and believed this would be an excellent precursor to better understanding that conflict and the development of military doctrine as a whole. After all arguably no other war as much radical change as the great War from the widespread use of chemical weapons, airplanes, trench warfare, machine guns and armor to name a few. It's understandable therefore that High Command challenges would be considerable in adapting to this. Word on the book was that Peter Hart did a good job of showcasing this innovation, it's challenges and turning around the popular argument that High Command was inadequate to this. However I was disappointed as while the book covers these aspects it spends far too much time going over the combat itself without providing context. For example there are only so many times one can read that the trenches were horrible before you say point made move on. The introduction of chemical shells is glossed over and no serious information is given beyond the effect it has on the trenches such as what was the strategy if any behind its use, doctrine etc.? Since none of this is covered it's very hard to build on the assertion that High Command had a strategy beyond throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. The book consistently states that the commanders were unfairly maligned but fails to make the case and is full on contradiction.


For instance in the chapter dedicated to the Somme , the author stresses that the British forces were as ably led as possible for the time. However this simple assertion is contradicted through the rest of the chapter where he shows the significantly better French performance in attack, the inadequate artillery planning, Haigs failures to learn from French experience and lastly the always innovating German defences. In the face of all this its hard to contend that the British high command consisted of the best and brightest being innovative in their tactics. It's this consistent contradiction that makes the book seem to be trying to prove a point that history and even the book itself cannot sustain.

Ultimately the book fails to make the case and isn't written in a narratively satisfying manner. To add human color we consistently get passages from individual soldiers memoirs but nothing from the author. The history itself is provided in terms of this happened followed by that but little broader context. It makes for a relatively disjointed experience.

[Florence Ridley · Rating 3 out of 5]

A clear and succinct overview of the major events of the First World War. Hart's style is engaging and simple and the use of first person testimony provided spots of human interest. The book served my purposes perfectly as I was merely looking for a timeline of the war as background for my dissertation on war literature, but I found myself frustrated by its superficiality at times. Combat encounters were often glossed over and major battles were reduced to bare details - presumably a necessary sacrifice in a text attempting to recount four years' worth of fighting, but still something that stood out as restrictive and limiting. Hart also takes an apologetic stance towards Joffre and Haig which amused me, as did his description of Lloyd George as the "Welsh wizard" out of nowhere in the middle of the book, a phrase which was neither explained nor re-used. Lacking in literary and analytical merit, the text was nonetheless an entirely adequate piece of pop history.

I was surprised by some instances of poor writing and typos that I couldn't believe made it through editing. Although Hart's style is fine, if not academic, some sentences were so sloppy that, even without obvious typos and repeated words, I had to stop and laugh. This book is fine, but if you're looking for an overview of the First World War, I am certain there are better options out there.

[Sotiris Karaiskos · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting approach to the theme of the First World War. The writer largely leaves aside the political dimension of the subject and confines itself to purely military issues. This way he gives a comprehensive picture of the war, describing in detail the major battles that shaped the final result, interfering in these exciting descriptions excerpts from the narratives of those who participated, giving us a complete picture of these battles. I especially like the fact that he is making references to most of the World War I frontiers, although there are some omissions, such as the complete absence of references on developments in the Far East and sub-Saharan Africa (but for this you can read the excellent book African Kaiser: General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and the Great War in Africa, 1914-1918). As for the absence of the political dimension, there are certainly books that say a lot about it, so it is useful to have someone focused on the war operations, especially if the writer does a good job like in this book.

[Rafa · Rating 4 out of 5]

La gran virtud de este libro es no caer, y denunciar, la fácil crítica a los militares de la Primera Guerra Mundial por su falta de recursos e imaginación para eludir o superar la guerra de trincheras. La verdad es que, dados los medios, los conocimientos y la tecnología de que se disponía en la época era difícil lograr resultados espectaculares como se verían en la siguiente gran guerra. Hubo generales inútiles, pero también otros con recursos. Se investigó y se crearon pavorosas nuevas armas para superar las trincheras, se idearon nuevas tácticas y técnicas, pero al final tuvieron que pasar 4 años para que pudiera romperse el punto muerto que se alcanzó a los pocos meses de comenzar el conflicto.

Se puede estar más o menos de acuerdo con el autor, en varios puntos discrepo, pero no se le puede negar que rompe con los textos más populares y eso, hoy en día, es de agradecer. El pero al libro es que, para mi gusto, y recalco esto, es mi gusto, abusa de los extractos de diario y cartas que si bien entiendo son necesarios para dar contexto es verdad que hay páginas enteras de ellos resultando hasta cierto punto repetitivos.

Punto y aparte es la traducción que como suele ser habitual en esta editorial deja algo que desear en cuanto a estilo y mucho que desear en cuanto a temas técnicos, sinceramente no creo que cueste tanto contratar los servicios de una persona con conocimientos técnicos para que repase el texto y a algunos no nos chirríen los oídos.

[Reynold Witmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you will only ever read one book about World War One, this should probably be the one. Hart's skillful use of personal writings and eyewitness accounts give this fast moving telling of the war incredible depth. Hart managed to summarize well many of the infinite complexities of the diplomacy, politics, and social agendas of the war. But this book isn't about those elements, it's about the combat.
I found this book refreshingly in its treatment of the many factions of the war. Most strongly, Hart battles the timeless "led by donkeys" memory of the war. I enjoyed this book for the respectful treatment of the French for their astonishing efforts; the recognition of the colossal, albeit misguided, Russian sacrifice, the fair-minded treatment of the imperialist strains that survived the war.
Hart's somber treatment of the horror of war is well put together. The men who lived and died in this most man-made hell speak chillingly, passionately for all who will listen.
I will read this book again.

[KB · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I hear 'combat history' I think of a top-down view, detailed troop movements, lots of maps. Informative certainly, but not always the most fun to read. Then I found out that Peter Hart is an oral historian. I know oral history can focus on lots of different things, but I tend to associate it with more of a bottom-up perspective. Keeping that in mind, I was interested to see what Hart was going to do with his combat history of World War One.

So, this is not really the First World War from the bottom up. Hart's introduction lays good groundwork for the rest of the book. Here he says: "At heart, this is a history that will examine the nature of the immense problems encountered by the commanders who bore the ultimate responsibility in battle; the strategic imperatives that drove them into battle; and the tactics they devised to achieve success." He is also deliberately leaving out some of the more "obscure campaigns" to give space to the better known battles that contributed more to the outcome of the war.

In a book so battle-heavy, I think it could've run the risk of being too repetitive. I didn't find that to be the case at all, though. Part of this is that you're not just getting the battles themselves. Hart also covers the thought process of generals and officers, preparations, and conditions such as terrain and climate/weather. This prevents the book from literally being just battle after battle. The context really helps to situate the reader, and prevents the battles from blurring into one another.

And although Hart's writing is largely focused on commanders, he includes some incredible quotes from enlisted men, lower ranking officers and NCOs. Here's one from a French second lieutenant: "The worst mental suffering during wartime occurs when one's thoughts run ahead of one's actions, when the imagination has full rein to contemplate the dangers in advance - and multiplies them a hundredfold. It is well known that the fear of danger is more neve-racking than the danger itself..." Or this account from a German corporal:

The gas was so thick now I could hardly discern what I was doing... I reached for my gas mask, pulled it out of its container - then noticed to my horror that a splinter had gone through it leaving a large hole. I had seen death a thousand times, stared it in the face, but never experienced the fear I felt then. Immediately I reverted to the primitive... my eyes fell upon the boy whose arm I had bandaged... I leapt at him and in the next moment had ripped the gas mask from his face. With a feeble gesture he tried to wrench it from my grasp; then fell back exhausted.

Of course you're not getting the level of detail that you would in a single volume about each battle, but Hart provides a good overview of how tactics developed, and how unique these fronts and individual battles could be. And I definitely also appreciated that Hart didn't just focus on the bigger theatres, especially since I'd never read anything about Gallipoli, Mesopotamia ("'God created hell but it wasn't bad enough so he created Mesopotamia'") or Italy. All very different in their own right.

Was the chapter on Macedonia a little disappointing? Yeah. Three years of that front's existence is covered in eight pages. True, it was one of the sideshows that bore little influence on the outcome of the war, but Mesopotamia, which Hart says the same thing about, gets a chapter twice as long. He does a good job describing conditions, but I feel he also sort of gives the impression that nothing happened there, which really isn't true. Even the larger battles fought on the front aren't presented in much detail in this book. We still need to do better with Macedonia.

I think the layout of the book also helps break it up. The Western and Eastern Fronts and the war at sea are placed chronologically, but those 'sideshow' theatres are interspersed throughout. Those chapters would've felt out of place at the beginning, like they were an afterthought if they were at the end, and felt like they were breaking up the chronology if they were all lumped together in the middle. Dispersing them at different points was a smart choice, I think.

Hart wraps up the book by looking at casualty figures, and what happened as a result of the war. He also addresses some often repeated myths. The big one, of course, is 'lions led by donkeys.' In his opinion, some officers were indeed incompetent, or too conservative, too reckless. But can the majority be summed up like this? He doesn't think so. To him, they largely were doing the best they could under extreme circumstances. War hadn't really been fought like this before, and improvement in tactics only came about through trial and error. But it's a hard thing to try and rationalize when you're dealing with people's lives.

There's some typos here and there, some inconsistent spelling of Polish words, and the maps were quite insufficient except for locating cities or villages were the battles took place. While I was kind of thinking (and maybe hoping) this book would have that bottom-up style to it, what Hart presents with this book is very, very good. It never felt boring or repetitive. The battles all felt unique and stood out from one another. Overall I think The Great War gives readers a great overview of the battles, the nature of the fighting and how it developed, and the perspective of those in command.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid military history of the First World War. Hart’s writing is clear if somewhat dry and includes a good number of first-hand recollections; Hart’s work includes a large number of lengthy first-hand accounts, which may annoy some but these are usually well-chosen and interesting. While he does include the deliberations of the various commanders, Hart mainly looks at the war through the eyes of the soldiers. Hart is good at analyzing strategic decisions and strengths and weaknesses of the combatants. He is particularly good at describing the unique conditions of the different theaters.

Hart also debunks many myths about the war, such as the whole “lions led by donkeys” myth and, his treatment of Douglas Haig is largely favorable. Hart also debunks the mythical image of the Great War being nothing but a giant futile trench war of attrition, being careful to show all the tactical innovation and changes that took place on the Western Front. The slaughter on the Somme and elsewhere is often blamed on the stupidity and uncaring attitude of the higher-ups, but Hart is careful to emphasize other reasons: the slaughter at the Somme, for example, was more a result of inadequate artillery support and evolving German defensive tactics rather than the stupidity of Douglas Haig.

Hart’s work is dominated by the European theater, and he makes no apology for omitting events in the various “side-show” theaters like Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Hart argues, convincingly that the war was decided and won in Europe, and his treatment of “Easterners” like Lloyd George and Churchill is somewhat scathing, as Hart blames these side-show theaters and the mission creep there for diverting resources from the crucial Western front.

Hart’s writing is for the most part pretty good, with a few things that must have slipped by the editor, like this painful one on page 138: “It is tempting to dwell on the dramatic stories of failure rather than the rather more mundane accounts of success…” or on page 325: “The High Seas Fleet was a ‘risk fleet’ that in the end the Kaiser lacked the nerve.” Or the annoyingly random exclamation mark on a fact on page 83 that Hart, for some reason, finds particularly exciting: “Dressed in light blue uniform, they were armed with the 8mm bolt-action magazine Mannlicher M1895 rifle, which was both reliable and capable of extremely high rates of fire--up to thirty-five rounds a minute!”

Still, there were also some humorous, if ghastly, anecdotes, such as the one about a severely wounded adjutant at Vimy Ridge: “He was wounded in the forehead and blood trickled down his cheek. He shouted, ‘The bastards! They’ve punctured my brandy flask! En avant! En avant!’ brandishing his revolver, apparently indifferent to his wound, but another bullet finished him off.”

Hart probably exaggerates the decisiveness of the role played by Liman von Sanders in the defense of Gallipoli, and he is disparaging of the Turks’ fighting ability in general, claiming that the Turks won at Gallipoli only because the entire situation was in their favor. Hart has apparently not read Edward Erickson’s Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War, which debunks this myth; it does not appear in the book’s bibliography.

Oddly, the American contribution to the Allied victory in 1918 is given only cursory treatment, even though Hart’s main focus is on the Western Front and especially on the idea that this was where victory was decided. But, in all, an excellent, if not completely comprehensive, history of the war.

[Chuck · Rating 3 out of 5]

This isn't a bad history of WW1, though it is limited. As the subtitle says, it's a combat history. Hart's perspective is that of a conservative British nationalist. For example, he is a big fan of Haig and Jellicoe, two figures who are heavily criticized by many historians. When I say he's a nationalist, I mean that he tends to interpret events from the point of view of Great Britain. For example, take the naval Battle of Jutland. Most historians see it as a tactical victory for the Germans, or as at most a draw. However, Hart maintains that it was a victory for the Brits, because the strategic situation didn't change. True enough, but it glosses over how poorly the British navy was led in the battle.

[Tim Armstrong · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was interesting enough, though I don't think a history of the First World War that focuses only on the combat aspect of the war is enough of a topic to hold my interest for long. The book lived up to it's title which I appreciated and I found many parts interesting, but ultimately I think a person would be better served by reading a fuller history of the war, instead of one focusing solely on the combat aspect. It just felt like there was context missing at time.

[Windsor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really couldn't stand the first 100 pages of this book. WAY too many full page quote descriptions. I understand why the author did that (it is an insanely hard war to understand if you do not) but wow it's insanely hard to read at points. Overall, I love this book though. Great analysis and description. I love the quotes (insert laughter here) at the beginning of each chapter. Really brings to fruition the horror of a war which, in a lot of ways, was worse than the second. The Second World War was horrifying, but the First defined what horror would be, if not more so because of the mass amounts of death due to just sitting in a trench for four years. Hart does an exceptional job explaining how hard it is for the Allies and Central Powers to transition from a 19th century style of warfare into the 20th century. They are stuck in a world where even in 1918 Germany is still trying to win with the Americans just coming on the scene and the British becoming hardened students of war. I would give more credit to the French for holding the line than Hart does especially considering that Hart describes they were basically fighting the land war by themselves for two years. I would also give an insane amount of credit, as Hart does, to the British. It is exceptional to see an island empire bring the numbers to the Western Front that they did from all over the Empire. They learned quickly from the German successes to the point where they are doing what the Germans did in 1914 but better in late 17 and 18. I wish there were 4 1/2 stars, but alas.

[Jaime Mendoza · Rating 3 out of 5]

Militarmente está bien documentado y bien explicado. Hace una valiente defensa de muchos de los generales y comandantes de la Gran Guerra, contrario a lo que se ha ido extendiendo a lo largo de los años.

Sin embargo, se centra excesivamente en Gran Bretaña en casi todas sus páginas, además de reducir a que Alemania era la gran culpable de una forma excesivamente simplista, en un ejercicio arriesgado de digerir. Es evidente que es un libro que no trata de explicar las causas, ya que habla del aspecto militar, pero afirmaciones tan rotundas que se permite hacer cuando hay innumerables trabajos que tratan de explicar todo el contexto sin caer en señalar a un único antagonista dejan una sensación amarga.

La inclusión de textos literales de los distintos protagonistas de la guerra es un punto a favor, restado a su vez por el excesivo número de estos, dificultando muchas veces la lectura y haciendo que sea pesada.

Mi nota sería un 2.5, pero el esfuerzo es de destacar, por lo que el 3 es adecuado.

[Dana Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really well written overview of the major campaigns and battles of WW1, with some political context. The author clearly states this is primarily from the British perspective and as such the focus is placed mostly on the western front and British campaigns elsewhere. This is well done as an overview. Given the skill of the author at presenting, I wish more detail was given of the eastern and Italian fronts, but the author does preface that his expertise is primarily the British experience.

[Martin Cabral]

A very interesting bird’s-eye perspective on the Great War.

Although it reads a bit too apologetic toward the generals in general—and Haig in particular—and overlooks major events such as the Armenian Genocide, it still offers a great deal of value through its use of quotes from the war’s many participants.

[Mac McCormick III · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War by Peter Hart is exactly what the title indicates, it is a combat history of the war.

"In this book, we will look at the whys and wherefores of the military conduct of the Great War in an attempt to discern what was really going on, rather than attempt to reference every political, social, or artistic movement."

Unlike other World War I histories I've read, Hart's book focuses on the military aspects of the war rather than also considering the political and diplomatic aspects of the war. It's not to say that things aren't put into political context, Hart just doesn't go into great detail. Instead we get the stories of the Western Front, Eastern Front, Dardanelles, the War at Sea, the Mesopotamian Front, and the Palestinian front.

First, it didn't take long for me to realize that this book is distinctly told from a British point of view. Hart is careful to indicate that the British may have been in a supportive role to the French on the Western Front but he also leaves no doubt that he sees the British contribution as one of the key factors in the defeat of the Central Powers. He gives credit where credit is due but you definitely come away from the book with the idea that if wasn't for the British, the war would have been a lost cause.

Second, I like how Hart uses current terminology to describe what was going on in World War I, which may make it easier for readers in this day to understand what was going on. He uses "coalition warfare" which the current day reader would be familiar with from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to describe how the relationship between the British, French, and eventually the Italians and Americans worked. He also used "mission creep," which current day readers would be familiar with, to describe what happened in the Mesopotamian campaign. It just goes to show that concepts like coalition warfare and mission creep are nothing new under the sun; they've long been practiced, we just fail to learn from history.

"Direct quotes from the generals and admirals will show that there was usually a rhyme and a reason to their decisions, while evocative accounts from the men they commanded will show the terrible consequences of those orders for the men who had to enact them. In this, the book will reflect what they knew, or thought they knew, at the time, rather than offer insights vouchsafed by hindsight."

This quote from Hart's Preface sets up what for me was one of the central themes of The Great War. Throughout the book, Hart endeavors to tear down the "Lions led by Donkeys" line of thought that many have of World War I leadership, particularly when it comes to the leadership of the British Expeditionary Force. His arguments are framed within the evolution of tactics in a new technological age of warfare and the supportive nature of the BEF to the French Army within the framework of coalition warfare. In particular, Hart shows Haig in a much more positive light than other books I've read. It's also worth mentioning that when it comes to the Sea War Hart treats Jellicoe much the same way, placing Jellicoe's decision making within the global mission of the Royal Navy rather than just the mission off of the Western Front's coast.

The quote above also indicates how the book is constructed. Hart makes excellent use of quotations from not just the general officer level but also from the field officer level and the NCO/enlisted levels of the armies. He describes what happens in his words and uses the quotations to give an inside look at the decisions being made by the generals and the effect those decisions had upon the men carrying them out at the front.

"Those with special interest in the more obscure campaigns such as the capture of Tsingtao... or the heroic German resistance in East Africa will find them omitted in favour of more detail on the dramatic key campaigns that still shape our lives today."

This explains why there is little mention of what I guess Hart would consider the "periphery" of World War I. I would have liked to have seen the African campaign covered in the book because just as the Mesopotamian and Palestinian fronts directly impacted what is going on in the world today, you could argue the same for the African Campaign. The effects of Colonialism directly shaped the state of affairs we're in today whether it was in the Middle East or Africa.

I would have liked to have given The Great War a four star review but it is another good military history book ruined by the mis-placement of maps in the Kindle edition. It actually has pretty good quality theater level maps for Kindle but unfortunately they're all at the beginning of the book rather than located in the appropriate parts of the book with the campaigns being discussed. It really is inexcusable; it wouldn't be done in a print version of a book, why do it in an electronic version of a book? If the print version of The Great War has the maps in the right place it is certainly deserving of four stars. As long as you keep in mind British bias, if you're interested in a military history of World War I, I would certainly suggest this book as one to read as we enter into the centenary.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Readable history at its very best. A "Must Have" book.

[Derek Weese · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an excellent, if highly uneven, military history of the First World War. Hart lays out, in his introduction, right away that there are events that he won't discuss as he feels that they're simply not central to the decisive events of the war or that they were themselves, nothing more than a sideshow. Among the casualties in this historical culling is the Caucasus Campaign, a campaign I had wanted to read about. No matter.
Hart has written a truly excellent history of WWI, even if it is highly, some might say unfairly, unbalanced. His coverage of the Eastern Front is cursory, while his focus is almost exclusively upon the Western Front. While this is understandable as the Western Front was where the war was won (and most likely to have been lost by either side), it shows a bit of a lack of appreciation for the fact that the battles waged in the East had significant impact upon events for especially Germany. As Germany was the central figure of the war, and much of it was dictated by her and her actions, then the Eastern Front should, finally receive equal billing if for nothing else as it consumed German attention for much of the war.
Other theaters get only cursory treatment such as the Italian front while the Macedonian/Salonika front, while properly labeled a waste of British resources, is still, I think, underserved. And the war in the Middle East is also a bit lightly touched upon. But, again, Hart emphasizes this in his introduction, so I shouldn't complain. And, as I've said, this is an excellent book. His treatment of the Western Front battles is superb, and he is mostly good with balancing the account of both the French and the British side when discussing the Entente forces, something many British authors can't seem to do. He's also fair, even praiseworthy, of the Americans.
All in all I would recommend this book to those delving deeper to WWI as long as they already had a balanced introduction prior. As a military history its top notch, though its focus on the Western Front, in exclusion in part of the Eastern, is a bit of a shame in retrospect. Still, well worth the time and money. I'll definitely be keeping it in my library and will be purchasing, when I can, the rest of the books written by Mr. Hart.

[Hans · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are looking for one book to get a good overview of the First World War on the various battlefields, this book will help you get going. Is it perfect? No, it's not. It mainly covers the British involvement in the war, followed by the French and German efforts. There is some good coverage of the Eastern front too, but the Western front is the main effort. Just like during the real thing. The Americans do enter, but are not covered in great detail. It's just enough to understand what their entry to the war would do to the German army. The other empire armies are covered, but not in great detail.

However the coverage of the development of technologies and battlefield tactics is really good. What happened once the movement stopped and the armies dug in? How did this evolve and what did the armies do to break the stalemate? What happened at the HQ's and how did the generals adapt to developments? What did they try to do and how effective was this? Why were they unable to do certain things despite the fact that they knew things had to change?

The book also covers the war at sea, the Italian front, Gallipoli, and some of the other fronts. This to show the reader the overall effects of them, but also how they influenced the availability of men and weapons to the Western Front. This was after all the main front where Germany needed to be defeated. Why were men, that were needed in the West, shipped off to other fronts.

The strategies and tactics are mixed in with numerous eyewitness accounts from all armies. These accounts show the reader the blood, sweat and tears shed by the millions that fought and suffered during the war. The numbers are really staggering.

Again, the book is not perfect but it will really get you going and will trigger you to look into some of the details or events brought up in its pages.

[John Bellamy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very odd book. As a summary narrative of the major armed encounters of World War I, most especially and quite properly the unspeakable carnage of the Western Front, it is as good as anything I’ve read on the subject over the past three decades. And Hart’s generous inclusion of excerpts from first-person accounts of the various conflicts brings a very human dimension to his tale of cumulatively numbing woes. What many readers, and most emphatically, this one, will find perplexing. however, is Hart’s passionate defense of the strategy and tactics of the British generals who oversaw their end of the four-year marathon of frightful slaughter he so ably chronicles. His stated purpose is to demolish the enduring conviction that the soldiers of the British Expeditionary Force were “lions led by donkeys”—hapless cannon fodder whose lives were thrown away by appallingly unimaginative and almost criminally inept commanders. Notwithstanding his frequent reiterations of this thesis, his narrative does little to dispel the conclusion that the British generals—most especially Haig—were stubborn butchers who needlessly and repeatedly squandered the lives of their men. Indeed, the 470-plus pages of his otherwise splendid history in fact offer powerful and eloquent evidence and testimony that the Tommies of the Great War all to often died in vain, and all too often for the familiar reason that “someone had blundered.”

[Bob H · Rating 4 out of 5]

This, in broad overview, is a history of the Great War, focused on the military aspects: the maneuvers, the tactical innovations, the bloody failures. It breaks down the different theaters and time-lines in understandable portions: eastern front, western front, the war at sea, the Balkans, the Middle East, year by year. The frequent use of vivid first-person accounts is helpful and always on point. The naval and air wars get their due mention, as do the novel, and horrid, technological innovations: poison gas, tanks, aviation. That the author can do this succinctly and not get bogged down in the details, as the combatant nations did, says much for his research and analysis. His prose is readable and the campaigns told easy enough to follow without resort to a military atlas.

It's odd that the author can mention the peripheral campaigns, Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, Palestine, the Falklands/Chile naval battles, and omit the East Africa campaign, which was important enough to divert 250,000 Allied troops -- and, arguably, was the one campaign of that war that the Germans won.

In all, it's a good recapitulation of the war in time for the centennial. It's not as focused as more-celebrated works like those of Barbara Tuchman or Robert Massie but as a single-volume history, it's fine. Highly recommend.

[Markus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read of the horrors of WW1. The interwoven personal accountants of the participants of the various events were especially interesting.

[Louise · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another insightful and comprehensive book by historian and author Peter Hart.

[Yannick Daelemans · Rating 2 out of 5]

A perfect example of a WW1 book written by a hardcore conservative Anglophile.