WW1 book

Printable View

12-10-2010, 14:46
il2rmb

WW1 book

Can anyone suggest a good book about the first world war? I'm reading Fall of Giants by Ken Follett and wanted to read more about the war.
12-10-2010, 14:56
ERNO

Quote:

Originally Posted by il2rmb

Can anyone suggest a good book about the first world war? I'm reading Fall of Giants by Ken Follett and wanted to read more about the war.

"All Quiet on the Western Front"-they even have an old black and white movie on it. I rate it: ****

The SOMME- The Darkest Hours on the Western Front, By Peter HART
Aces Falling-War Above The Trenches, 1918, By Peter Hart
World War 1, By H.P. Willmott
Great War, By Paul Fussel
Under The Guns of The Red Baron, The complete record of Von Richthofen's Victories,and victims fully Illustrated, by Norman Franks, Hal Giblin and Nigel McCrery
12-10-2010, 15:09
ChadAmberg

I always liked reading The Guns of August. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_August

Shows why the war started and how the initial fighting went.
12-10-2010, 15:50
Tim K

"The First World War" by John Keegan is a pretty good comprehensive history.
12-10-2010, 16:10
JohnTRourke

Most of the English histories are written by English writers aka the victors.

and if you really read between the lines, if the English were so great, why did they get this ass kicked constantly throughout the war and had BY FAR the largest war losses.

Read this book:
The Myth of the Great War by John Mosier. documented, footnoted and just plain common sense.

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Great-War...018974&sr=1-21
12-10-2010, 16:26
ChunkyMonkey

Go to militaryphotos.net and search of the great war. There are few great threads where members posted family letters, unit photos from that era.
12-10-2010, 16:36
Scanker19

An incomplete history of WWI, has a lot of "did you know this" type stories.
12-11-2010, 08:56
KevDen2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim K

"The First World War" by John Keegan is a pretty good comprehensive history.

Also by John Keegan, "Doughboys." I am in the middle of it now, great book and a pretty easy (but long) read
12-11-2010, 18:51
OgenRwot

I've got this one on my shelf to be read at some point...

The World Crisis by Winston Churchill
12-11-2010, 19:11
KevDen2005

Correction to my earlier post, "Doughboys" is written by Gary Mead, for some reason I thought it was John Keegan, my bad. Still a great book.
12-12-2010, 01:39
FL410

I have an amazing book about WW1. Hundreds of facinating and disturbing pictures. I'll look up the title when I get home so you can order it from the library. It was written right after WW I and before WW II, so the perspective of the time is also very interesting.

Actually, I'm not sure the book is still in circulation. If it's not, I'll lend it to you if you promise to scan it and make it available online.
12-12-2010, 08:09
JohnTRourke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tor Larson

JohnTRourke

"Largest war losses"??? Think you might need to do a bit of research before you make statements like that. Where did you get this misinformation? It is a fact that Germany lost more than ANY other country in WW1. Look it up...she even lost more than Russia!

Don't be slamming the country that beat the Krauts twice within 25 years.

You mention Mosier's book, which is fine, but he is so wrong on many things. When it came out it turned some heads but now with time the book is slipping with the experts. I enjoyed it years ago but only as a companion to other books. How he came to his conclusions are beyond me. England won the Great War- that is a fact. You can't take that away from history. No other country did what England did and survived it all as the victor. England fought Germany to a stalemate on the Western Front, defeated Turkey almost by herself, fought successfully on multiple fronts including Africa and Asia, invented the tank and armored warfare, defeated Germany on the high seas, and blockaded Germany almost into starvation. No other power did this. Germany? Hell no! Germany couldn't even follow a simple invasion plan and capture Paris...let alone Verdun, Flanders, Channel ports, etc. Mosier throw figures out showing that Germany was winning the war but...not really. Offenses like Verdun, Somme, Kaiserschlact, etc were pretty balanced- a meat-grinder for both sides. It was a war of attrition that Germany was not built to win. England tactics were somewhat flawed but what do you expect with Haig and Kitchner in control?

If Germany kicked England's ass so well then why did Germany lose on the Western Front? Germany had over 200 divisions during the war while England had a total of 40 divisions max. That Contemptible little army of volunteers did mighty fine against a conscript juggernaut. Total losses? England lost 800,00+ while Germany lost over 2 MILLION! England's population was 45 million while Germany had 65 million so percentage wise Germany lost way more than England. Your "largest war losses" is incorrect. Even Italy almost lost more than England during the war and everyone knows how great the Italians are at modern warfare. Serbia and Turkey had the highest casualty rates of the war.

England bore the brunt of two World Wars pretty much by herself-until the US showed up to help with the fight. Germany failed twice to win- great record there. Only a country for 140 years and responsible for 2 World Wars and being occupied/ divided for almost 50 of them. Losers.

In WW2 England survived the Uboat war, Dunkirk, the Blitz, Burma, and fighting in N Africa. Gotta give props to a country that did all that. I'd take a Brit any day over a frickin Kraut.

we're going to have to agree to disagree.

America won WWI, that's clearly obvious. France had quit by 1917. Britain never made any progress on any front. The German's were moving big on the western fronts in the spring of 1917 (before American's got there), by the time America got there in force , the war was pretty much over, the german's couldn't move them nor deal with their simple numbers.

Sorry the English were the worst participants (general staff level) in the war by far. Even the French learned (by 1917) how to move and not waste entire divisions. The British never learned. In 1918, they were still sending men over the top with full packs in big rows. The Americans learned from the French (thank god) and never did that. If most American's didn't read English, or the war had ended before Wilson conned the public into going, the history would be seen different.

As we all know, the victor's write the history.
12-12-2010, 11:38
JohnTRourke

Like I said
we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Even if I did spend 3 hours pulling up facts (which I'm not going to do right now), you wouldn't be convinced anyway.

so, what's the point?

shoot well, drive safe, live long.
12-12-2010, 15:27
JohnTRourke

Like I said and you're clearly proving.

What's the point?

You could be slapped in the face with dead guys come to life and it still wouldn't change your mind.

You're the big man of the internet battle.

Enjoy your victory belt, wear it proudly wherever internet geeks hang out.
12-13-2010, 12:12
Tor Larson

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnTRourke

Like I said and you're clearly proving.

What's the point?

You could be slapped in the face with dead guys come to life and it still wouldn't change your mind.

You're the big man of the internet battle.

Enjoy your victory belt, wear it proudly wherever internet geeks hang out.

Didn't know it was a battle- thought it was a simple debate. Victory Belt? Internet Geeks? I'm not the one with over 800 posts on this site. Guess next time I will know to avoid discussions with you. Live and learn.Thanks for nada.