Myth of the Great War: A New Military History Of World War 1
3.5/5
()
Currently unavailable
Currently unavailable
About this ebook
Based on previously unused French and German sources, this challenging and controversial new analysis of the war on the Western front from 1914 to 1918 reveals how and why the Germans won the major battles with one-half to one-third fewer casualties than the Allies, and how American troops in 1918 saved the Allies from defeat and a negotiated peace with the Germans.
John Mosier
John Mosier is a professor of English at Loyola University in New Orleans. He is the author of four books of military history: The Myth of the Great War, The Blitzkrieg Myth, The Generalship of U. S. Grant, and Cross of Iron. He has appeared on the BBC, Fox News, the History Channel, Sky News, and Comcast. An active film critic (he served on the Camera d'Or jury at the Cannes Film Festival), he has also written over 100 articles on film for Kino, Americas, Variety, and the New Orleans Arts Review. He lives in Jefferson, Louisiana.
Read more from John Mosier
The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCross of Iron: The Rise and Fall of the German War Machine, 1918-1945 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Grant: A Biography Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Related to Myth of the Great War
Related ebooks
The Somme Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/514-18: Understanding the Great War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Overlord Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5All the Kaiser's Men: The Life and Death of the German Soldier on the Western Front Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Waterloo: Myth and Reality Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5November 1918: Triumph and Tragedy in the Final Days of WW1 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The German Offensives of 1918: The Last Desperate Gamble Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/51915: The Death of Innocence: The Death Of Innocence Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHow to Lose WWII: Bad Mistakes of the Good War Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Blitzkrieg: From the Ground Up Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5At Leningrad's Gates: The Combat Memoirs of a Soldier with Army Group North Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin - The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/51941: The Year Germany Lost the War: The Year Germany Lost the War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Case White: The Invasion of Poland 1939 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Case Red: The Collapse of France Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Kaiser's Army: The German Army in World War One Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Pandora’s Box: A History of the First World War Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Korean War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Russian Origins of the First World War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The First World War: A Complete History Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Secret War: Spies, Ciphers, and Guerrillas, 1939-1945 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Hitler's Hangman: The Life of Heydrich Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Germany Ascendant: The Eastern Front 1915 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mapping the First World War: The Great War through maps from 1914-1918 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Battle of Britain: Five Months That Changed History; May-October 1940 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Wars & Military For You
Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Making of the Atomic Bomb Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Art of War & Other Classics of Eastern Philosophy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Sun Tzu's The Art of War: Bilingual Edition Complete Chinese and English Text Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Last Kingdom Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Masters of the Air: America's Bomber Boys Who Fought the Air War Against Nazi Germany Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Unacknowledged: An Expose of the World's Greatest Secret Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Killing the SS: The Hunt for the Worst War Criminals in History Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Daily Creativity Journal Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Only Plane in the Sky: An Oral History of 9/11 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Heart of Everything That Is: The Untold Story of Red Cloud, An American Legend Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Girls of Atomic City: The Untold Story of the Women Who Helped Win World War II Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Blitzed: Drugs in the Third Reich Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Unit 731: Testimony Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The God Delusion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Art of War: The Definitive Interpretation of Sun Tzu's Classic Book of Strategy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933–45 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler's Eagle's Nest Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/577 Days of February: Living and Dying in Ukraine, Told by the Nation’s Own Journalists Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Faithful Spy: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Plot to Kill Hitler Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Reviews for Myth of the Great War
15 ratings7 reviews
- Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The book is certainly worth reading - the conclusions that a scholar draws from their own review of available evidence always is. But the obvious pro-German bias of the author makes the material suspect. From his writing, it is hard to believe that the Germans actually lost the war, when the historical record shows that they did. And some of the facts presented are totally inaccurate. In writing of the Tavennes tunnel disaster of 1916, Dr. Mosier writes of the incompetence of the French army in allowing such a disaster to happen, and that the Germans would never let anything similar happen in their army. But in fact they had done much the same thing - allowing an unattended cooking fire to set off grenades and fuel in one of the lower levels of Fort Douamont four months previously, killing 679. And the British Army wasn't destroyed in 1918, it continued to advance and capture territory up to the last minute of the war. I am glad to have read the book but still don't look on the "Great War Myths" with nearly as much skepticism as the author.
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5please allow me to read this book free then only i'll be more happier!
- Rating: 1 out of 5 stars1/5"Myths" of the Great War is more appropriate. Mosier addresses many misconceptions that came about largely as a result of government propaganda. None of Mosier's findings are all that revelatory and most of his conclusions are debatable. The tendency to focus on tactical and technical minutiae makes for a tedious narrative and Mosier's often arrogant tone is unappealing. There are much better written and more interesting histories of the First World War.
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5I'm sure that not a single 1 star review has checked the reference material (namely the non-german) used within this book. which they'd find them factually correct, but I guess victor's history is all those readers wished to read, you can find that in your high school history book.
2 people found this helpful
- Rating: 1 out of 5 stars1/5I would agree with the two earlier reviews of this work, it is poor history and bodering on the absurd despite being well written. Mosier clearly fails to establish that the Germans won all the battles - Guise, 1st Marne, Verdun, Amiens etc show otherwise - and doesnt even get close to showing that the Americans won the war as the extended title claims. The book can be summarized as such; Written by an English professor, contains poorly constructed arguments, fails to validate its claims, and wanders into absurdity when making conclusions. Written to be controversial and appeal to those who like to pretend Germany was superior to everyone else.Very poor history.
- Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5In The Myth of the Great War, John Mosier seeks to dispel several views held by historians about WWI. He shows that the Germans were invariably more successful on the battlefield than either the British or the French, even though Germany lost the war. He concludes that were it not for the influx of money, explosives, and men from the United States, the Allies could never have won. He contends “the myth” that the British and French essentially won the war came about because the allied professional soldiers did not tell their respective publics, or even their political superiors, what was really happening.Mosier avers that the striking success of the Germans in the early part of WWII should be attributed not only to the achievements of the German Army of 1914, but to an equal extent, the foolhardiness of Germany’s adversaries. WWI was unusual in that it was the first war in which the majority of combat deaths were caused by artillery, not by small arms fire. The Germans suffered far fewer combat deaths than did the British because of superior tactics and training. They seldom if ever launched the kind of massed suicidal attacks that were standard British tactics, but rather, fought more on the defensive. They also used mortars and heavy artillery to a greater extent than did the Allies. France’s army on the eve of WWI was weak because of lack of central command, underfunding, poor doctrine, and lousy tactics. French doctrine posited that battles would be won by bayonets! At war's end, casualties caused by edged weapons were less than one quarter of one percent of total casualties. Increasing numbers of soldiers with machine guns could mow down any infantry wielding bayonets.The Germans knew they would be greatly outnumbered, but they had a big advantage in firepower. They had much heavier artillery pieces and could fire them at a much higher trajectory. In the first month of the war, the Germans swept through Belgium without any real infantry engagements—their artillery reduced the Belgian forts to rubble, and the forts simply surrendered. The army marched into northern France, then turned southeast in an effort to surround two French armies and pinch off Verdun from Paris. But the Germans found themselves overextended, and so drew back to a defensible position north of Paris. The so-called Battle of the Marne was hardly a battle at all: the Germans had simply abandoned the position near the Marne to take an entrenched position along a more northerly ridge. In the first half of 1915, a German engineer-general, Bruno von Mudra, developed tactics for seizing terrain at relatively low cost. It started with an intense, but short, bombardment, followed by small groups of men attacking with flamethrowers, pistols, and grenades. The French, by contrast, attempted large scale assaults, involving hundreds of thousands of men over a large segment of the front. The French typically gained a few hundred yards at the cost of tens of thousands of men. The Germans typically gained a few hundred yards at the cost of dozens of men. French Chief of Staff Joseph Joffre thought the French could overwhelm the Germans by sheer numbers. He was mistaken because the Germans had greater firepower and did not need superior numbers. On July 1, 1916, the British and French launched the Battle of the Somme, a massacre in which they sustained about 700,000 casualties (compared to 250,000 for the Germans) and gained about 200 square kilometers. The British tactics were especially suicidal, using waves of infantry walking slowly in formation, carrying over 40 pounds of provisions per man. The year ended with the British launching another semi-suicidal attack at Cambrai. The initial result was the gain of a few kilometers of ground and the announcement to the home government of a great victory. However, the Germans, as usual, held back their troops until the British had exhausted their charge, then counter-attacked successfully, driving the British back to their original start line.In 1917, the Germans switched to the offensive, hoping to knock the British and the French out of the war before the Americans could arrive with a whole new army. Mosier sees the years 1917-18 as a great race between Germany and the U.S.A. The Germans launched a great offensive in March 1918 and almost destroyed the British Expeditionary Force in Flanders. They were stopped by French reserves, however. The Germans then attacked farther east and south, but there ran into the Americans, who fought exceptionally well and defeated them at Belleau Wood. For the first time, the Germans did not dominate the battlefield. Shortly thereafter, the Americans took back territory the French had been unable to take for the last four years of fighting.The German general staff realized that the American army would probably prevail. Their government contacted President Wilson directly, and said it would be willing to stop the war based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points. The German army was still intact and on French and Belgian soil. Mosier argues that the Allies wanted to continue with the war, but they knew the Americans held all the cards. He writes, “The Allies caved in. … Suddenly, the Great War was over. Peace had broken out.” Evaluation: Mosier, an English professor, is an amateur historian who relies on secondary sources for his analyses. He tends to focus on the operational level of war, and his observations on the course of individual battles are generally sound. But he lacks an understanding of the political milieu in which the war was fought. Nor is he willing to broaden his conceptual lenses to admit evidence that contravenes his uninformed theories. It is true the British were reluctant to give up the old tactics of war that worked so well in the past but proved woefully inappropriate in modern settings with advances in weaponry. Nevertheless, Mosier’s theory about the sudden collapse of the German army in the face of the American threat is simply inaccurate. This ignores the effects of the British blockade, to name just one significant factor, which led to the sinking of German ships carrying nitrates for explosives and fertilizer for farmers, the starvation of German citizens (a fifth of all the calories consumed in Germany before the war had come from abroad), and diminution of support for the war by the German public. Other factors were in play as well; Mosier’s alternative interpretation of history is just too simplistic to hold up in the complex light of reality.Maps and pictures are included in the book. Recommended for details of battles, but not for the theoretical scaffolding in which Mosier places them.
- Rating: 1 out of 5 stars1/5I rarely read a book that I don't find useful in some way, but this is ridiculous. Though Mosier does mine some German sources to make his point that the Germans were technologically superior in the First World War, his suggestions that they were some kind of ubersoldaten is ridiculous. Mosier goes on to suggest that only the entry of the Americans and their superior fighting ability saved the Allies is equally simple-minded and ridiculous.1. Though it may not seem so, the Allies, particularly the British were evolved technologies and tactics that changed the war in the summer of 1918. 2. Pershing espoused the "spirit of the bayonet" in the Argonne fighting, which cost the Americans dearly. The U.S. ignored the lessons of 1914-18 and made the same silly frontal assaults the French did in the opening days of the war. 3. My recollection is that the Germans lost this war. If they were so superior to the Allies, how did they lose? Did the Americans fight at Amiens, or Arras in 1918? I don't think they did. Did the French mismanage the attack at Verdun and wreck an entire field army, or was that von Falkenhayn's mistake?This is just bad history.