Excellently written, excellently read.

A fluid and all-embracing, but concise, narrative of the Great War. Some new perspectives: I particularly enjoyed the ‘background’ punctuations throughout. A thoroughly enjoyable listen.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Excellent one volume history

As detailed accounting of the war as you could expect from a single volume with great care taken to jump back and explain key figures and concepts that help to pick apart why the events of 1914-1918 happened.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Great

Manages to weave these complicated events into a one clear and easy to follow narative. Good naration too.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Excellent narration

An excellent narration of the complex story of the First World War. In particular, the inclusion of background on the personalities and nation states makes for an immersive and gripping narrative.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Masterful.

The single best volume on the Great War.
Everything about this title is superb. I cannot recommend highly enough.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

A masterpiece

Absolutely fascinating acccount of the Great War.

Favourite parts are the ‘background’ chapters that really help bring characters, ideologies, strategies into context.

Would recommend for anyone looking for a thorough account of the war.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

Underwhelming

More of a political history of the time than a military history, enjoyed a few tid bits I didn’t know before. Clearly written by an American who will never understand the conflict in a way a European would. His opinions to me sound slightly sarcastic, writing about European dynasties that had ruled over parts of Europe and Asia for centuries and centuries whilst his own country was just one large native unknown wilderness.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

A disaster

I wanted a comprehensive book on the First World War, and I was satisfied up until I got to the middle. The part in which the author speaks in disparaging terms about Romania while displaying a gross misunderstanding of pretty much everything. The result is misinforming the audience. That a historian of such repute can be so sloppy is unforgivable. He's either an amateur in research or ill-intended. It also made me wonder, what else was he misinforming me about. I listened to the end, cause I wasted a credit on it, but I don't recommend it to anyone.

Just to illustrate some points:
- the author says Transylvania was part of Romania till 1868 when it was taken by Habsburg. Transylvania was never part of Romania. The only time before 1918 when all Romanian principalities were brought together was in 1600, through the very short lived personal union of Michael the Brave.
- it says that after Turtucaia, the German army invaded Dobrogea, where it was welcomed by the local population, which was ... Bulgarian. The author confuses Dobrogea, given to Romania at its independence in 1878 (which used to be populated mostly by Turks, who fled the region, leaving the Romanians to be in majority) and Southern Dobrogea (the so called Cadrilater), in fact two counties obtained by Romania in 1912, after the second balcan war, which was inhabited by Bulgarians and Turks. 4 years later, the Bulgarians in Cadrilater might have received the German army as liberators, but the Romanians in Dobrogea proper definitely did not.
- the author claims the disaster at Turtucaia was obtained by a simple trick of a small German army. It omits to mention the contribution of the Bulgarian army, better equipped (especially with German guns) and better trained by German officers. The same Bulgarian army aided in the invasion of Dobrogea and contributed to the pincer movement which, coupled with the country's geography, forced the Romanian army and government to evacuate to the north of the country.
- the author claims that the 400.000 Romanian army which invaded Transylvania was ill-equipped, ill-trained and slow. The first two aspects are correct, the third is not. In only three weeks the army had occupied almost half of Transylvania, despite heavy losses and being ill-supplied. Transylvania has lots of big rivers which slowed down the advance and helped the Hungarians set up defenses. The advance was slowed only then, but the army was not beaten back until the Germans came to aid. Coupled with the invasion from the south (Bulgaria and the Germans there, the army had to retreat.
- the author says the Russians were scared they had to defend Romania. Actually, they were supposed to help protect the common border in Dobrogea. They failed to help. Moreover, in less than a year, they became a problem on the Romanian front, rebelling and attacking the local population. Bolsheviks had to be driven out of the country by force.

I could go on and on, but the above should reveal how poorly researched and misinformed this whole chapter was. Probably no one care about Romania, and I'm fine with that, but if you call yourself historian, and a good one, you can't mess up like this.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

5 people found this helpful