Not as good as [b:A Short History of World War II|8915|A Short History of World War II|James L. Stokesbury|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1388340762s/8915.jpg|11818] but I think this was a much more confusing time than World War II was. Certainly, if you are looking for a single volume history of the "war to end all wars," this book is a contender, despite the very few maps included. I like that Stokesbury takes us through the causes of the war, then continues to keep the big picture in mind as we are entering and/or leaving individual chapters. He tells it like it is when it comes to the world leaders of the day as well, detailing their successes and failings. ( )

ספר מרתק, כתוב היטב ובהומור עם בדיוק הכמות המספקת של פרטים ושל תמונת על . נהניתי מאוד - אם אפשר לומר ליהנות מלקרוא על הטירוף הזה. ( )

So which would you rather have, comprehensibility or comprehensiveness?

Few writers of history do a better job of explaining than does James L. Stokesbury. His prose is straightforward and easy to understand, and whatever topic he takes up, he chews on it until he has managed to make it make sense.

But should World War I make sense? It was the result of an endless game of "chicken" between the great powers, with the strategies worked out by staff officers and low-level career bureaucrats who were never given any chance to see the big picture of what they were working on, and then executed by incompetents with no real experience in war and no understanding of the new weapons the scientists had given them. It is a tale of men (all of them were men) promoted by rigid rules and the ability to understand the system, because there was no good way to test for competence. Perhaps we shouldn't seek to make The Great War make sense; perhaps it was just a reflection of chaos theory.

And for all his lucidity, Stokesbury sometimes plays a little fast and loose with the data, or simply breezes past a difficult topic where more than one viewpoint is possible. In a book lacking in scholarly apparatus, this leaves the reader with little knowledge of just where the "trouble spots" are.

Do not misunderstand me; this is a brilliant history. It is unquestionably the most straightforward history of the War that I have ever read, and if I were going to recommend a "starter history," this would be it. But if you are going to do an in-depth study, you'll need more -- and, at times, you'll have to be prepared to abandon ideas Stokesbury has given you. ( )

Stokesbury is a grounded scholar with a sense of humor, which makes the utterly tragic history of WWI easier to read about. This is definately a short introduction to a massive and complex story; this war has been parsed into confetti for nearly 90 years now, so there isn't much new to say about it. Nonetheless Stokesbury brings a fresh eye to the politics surrounding the campaigns. His writing is excellent, as is is scholarship, and the book is an enjoyable read. Not quite an easy read, but certainly enjoyable. ( )