Books on the WW1 (1 Viewer)

[darshil]

Hey junior historians,

Any nonfiction books, memoirs, fiction or movies helpful for the study of the core? I had All quiet on the western front and some poetry on mind. Any other material? Thanks !

 

[Kittikhun]

The Great War by Les Carolyn.
The First World War- the war to end all wars by Peter Simkins (and others). Osprey publising.

Post your inquiry on this site and they should recommend you some good books. There are a lot of authors, history enthusiasts and doctors of history there.

World War I - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Books - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

I recommend you also become a member and post your own questions there and ask for any help during your studies. Sorry, for not posting more since I'm now in a rush. Hoped I've helped and good luck with your studies.

 

[darshil]

thanks man

 

[Empyrean444]

You probably won't come back; nevertheless:

The Cambridge history of War gives a good condensed overview of the war

The Art of War in the Western World by Archer Jones gives a good overview of the basics and some interesting stuff on strategy (for example, German concentration on interior lines)

Basil Liddell Hart (I'm not sure what book exactly) has written some excellent stuff on wwI.

Anything by John Keegan regarding the matter would also be excellent.

 

[Kittikhun]

Here's link to the book I told you about titled The First World War published by Opsrey.

The First World War (Essential Histories Specials): Amazon.co.uk: Hew Strachan, Geoffrey Jukes, Peter Simkins, Michael Hickey: Books

It is a very good book and goes into depth about everything about World War One and is only about 400 pages long. Anything by Opsrey is a must buy but they can be pretty expensive but this book will cover everything about World War One in depth. It's a must read for every student doing the HSC.


Anything by John Keegan regarding the matter would also be excellent.

I agree with this but only if you are reading his books for an overview. I've read his book The Second World War and he has written in some major errors in his work which could have been rectified easily by practically anybody interested about World War Two. e.g. saying that in Operation Market Garden during September, 1944, the code name Market was concerned with the objectives of the 101st and 82nd US Airborne divisions objectives south of Arnhem and the code name Garden concerning the objectives of the British 1st Airborne Division and its objective of securing the objective of the Armhem bridge over the Rhine River. This is completely wrong. The code name Market was designated for the airborne part of the operation and Garden designated for the objectives of the armoured part of the operation undertaken by the British XXX Corps. I haven't read any other sources that agree with his passage in the book (wikipedia, Citizen Soldiers, World War Two-Day by Day)

His work is good though about going into the politics side of it and 99% of it is correct but as discussed on armchairgeneral forums he is more of a journalist than a historian.

I haven't read his book The First World War yet but I've read an interesting comment on his book on Amazon-

Keegan's examination of the various major battles is superficial. The reason for this is no doubt the vast reach of the subject. In a book of some 400 pages he looks at every campaign of the war. This means that he is limited in what he can say about any battle. His discussion of the battles around Verdun for instance are nine pages long. It is Keegan's view that the Generals were not incompetent. His view is that the main reason for difference in the First and Second World wars was the use of radio sets. The cumbersome sets of the first war made it impossible to coordinate the various arms of the services. With small mobile sets everything changed.
Unfortunately he fails to look at the reality of the individual battles and to see why break throughs did not eventuate. Was it prudent to plan a battle at Ypres when it should have been clear that the preliminary bombardments would turn the battlefield into a quagmire and prevent the movement of heavy equipment through them and preclude any real advance. Was it sensible on the first day of the Somme battles to assume that an artillery barrage had been successful and to march army units across in tight formation so that German machine gunners could have a field day. The book really fails to look in an analytical way at the war based on most modern studies.

Amazon.co.uk: Customer Reviews: The First World War

I'm not poking out on this guy. His introduction in The Second World War was great but when I read these errors that I thought practically anybody knew I got a bit skeptical with him. I'm just saying read his books only for an overview since most of his work is correct and covers most aspects of the war pretty well except for a few minor mistakes.

 

[darshil]

Im gonna go to the library and have a heap of em on me, like they show in the movies. Its gonna be good

i just hope i can finish them by the end of the year. Thanks for the replies

 

[akatsukisan]

For WWI at sea "Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea" by Robert K Massie is a fascinating read. Also "The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I" by John Mosier is quite good, especially for weapons of WWI.

 

[Empyrean444]

Here's link to the book I told you about titled The First World War published by Opsrey.

The First World War (Essential Histories Specials): Amazon.co.uk: Hew Strachan, Geoffrey Jukes, Peter Simkins, Michael Hickey: Books

It is a very good book and goes into depth about everything about World War One and is only about 400 pages long. Anything by Opsrey is a must buy but they can be pretty expensive but this book will cover everything about World War One in depth. It's a must read for every student doing the HSC.


Anything by John Keegan regarding the matter would also be excellent.

I agree with this but only if you are reading his books for an overview. I've read his book The Second World War and he has written in some major errors in his work which could have been rectified easily by practically anybody interested about World War Two. e.g. saying that in Operation Market Garden during September, 1944, the code name Market was concerned with the objectives of the 101st and 82nd US Airborne divisions objectives south of Arnhem and the code name Garden concerning the objectives of the British 1st Airborne Division and its objective of securing the objective of the Armhem bridge over the Rhine River. This is completely wrong. The code name Market was designated for the airborne part of the operation and Garden designated for the objectives of the armoured part of the operation undertaken by the British XXX Corps. I haven't read any other sources that agree with his passage in the book (wikipedia, Citizen Soldiers, World War Two-Day by Day)

His work is good though about going into the politics side of it and 99% of it is correct but as discussed on armchairgeneral forums he is more of a journalist than a historian.

I haven't read his book The First World War yet but I've read an interesting comment on his book on Amazon-

Keegan's examination of the various major battles is superficial. The reason for this is no doubt the vast reach of the subject. In a book of some 400 pages he looks at every campaign of the war. This means that he is limited in what he can say about any battle. His discussion of the battles around Verdun for instance are nine pages long. It is Keegan's view that the Generals were not incompetent. His view is that the main reason for difference in the First and Second World wars was the use of radio sets. The cumbersome sets of the first war made it impossible to coordinate the various arms of the services. With small mobile sets everything changed.
Unfortunately he fails to look at the reality of the individual battles and to see why break throughs did not eventuate. Was it prudent to plan a battle at Ypres when it should have been clear that the preliminary bombardments would turn the battlefield into a quagmire and prevent the movement of heavy equipment through them and preclude any real advance. Was it sensible on the first day of the Somme battles to assume that an artillery barrage had been successful and to march army units across in tight formation so that German machine gunners could have a field day. The book really fails to look in an analytical way at the war based on most modern studies.

Amazon.co.uk: Customer Reviews: The First World War

I'm not poking out on this guy. His introduction in The Second World War was great but when I read these errors that I thought practically anybody knew I got a bit skeptical with him. I'm just saying read his books only for an overview since most of his work is correct and covers most aspects of the war pretty well except for a few minor mistakes.

Yes, I see your point.

He seems really good on a couple of points though:
understanding the link b/w politics and war (ie showing that they are not the same or inextricably connected)
The experience of the soldier and how this influences warfare (The face of Battle)

 

[rach19]

War memorial in Canberra if you can get there, or check the website - theres also a number of books to purchase as well.

MrDonn.org - World War I - World History Free Lesson Plans, Activities, Games - this site was really helpful in revision of modern topics, not just core.