Book Review: The First World War
I finished reading John Keegan's The First World War a couple weeks ago. That's a period of history that I didn't know too much about, other than the aftermath and how it set the stage for World War II. World War II is a much more popular topic. It's so easy to draw it as a contest between good and evil. World War I is not so clear; it represents the death throes of the monarchial systems from previous centuries. This is what I liked best about Keegan's book: the causes of the war are laid out in detail.
What I didn't like was the lack of maps - the maps that are included frequently omit places that Keegan highlights in the text, and in general are too few. The other problem with the text is that it moves at a fairly fast pace, and Keegan seems to assume that the reader has a good background in 19th century history, particularly in the Napoleonic wars and the conflict over the Alscace-Lorraine. It's a good idea to get some background before diving in.
One thing that was a bit mysterious was Keegan's defense of the generalship on both sides. After a few hundred pages detailing the carnage at each battle, Keegan suggests that the generalship was not a failure of individuals, but a lack of technological advantage - upon the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, the fronts stagnated and the infamous trench war resulted, finally to be broken with the advent of tank warfare and the entry of the US ino the war. This seems to let the leadership off lightly - Keegan also notes the failure to exploit the relatively new technology of radio, and the lack of secure communications in general. I think these are colossal failures - the high command was usually cut off from the front lines soon after the start of shelling when land lines were cut, and this resulted in an unmanageable battlefield. Similarly, the insecure communications resulted in diplomatic fiascos like the Zimmerman Telegram. To me, WWI represented a failure of leadership above all - diplomatic and military failures.