The Guns of August is truly a remarkable work. It stands out not only as a detailed military history but also as a profound analysis of human and organizational behavior.

What compels us? What gives us the impetus to act? Primarily, it seems to be an aversion to facing difficult problems and the desire for career advancement. Perhaps this holds true in your workplace as well.

The book elucidates how the First World War originated and its events during the first month, culminating in the Battle of the Marne. However, Tuchman doesn't just present facts; she offers incisive insights into the relationships and character flaws that led individuals on both sides to make absurd decisions. I have had experiences working with people very much like those described in this book. If they had been in charge of countries and armies rather than companies, it's likely they would have also caused the deaths of millions.

For me, the most poignant section was the description of the Burning of Louvain. It included the destruction of a unique library and the systematic shooting of Belgian civilians in their town squares. Tuchman makes the reader intellectually and emotionally invested, longing to cheer for the French, Russian, and British leaders. But one can't, because they were so shortsighted.

In the end, I became firmly convinced that British and (much later) American intervention was a moral imperative. However, that doesn't mean my heart didn't ache for all the fighters (and the horses, damn it) who were led into such a catastrophe. But especially for the civilians...and that library.

Oh, that library.

The Guns of August is a remarkable piece of history that reads with the captivating allure of a novel.

This engaging work delves deep into the personalities involved and skillfully connects them to the events, breathing life into what could otherwise be a dull recitation.

Even though I'm not a die-hard fan of war novels, this detailed account of the first month of WWI managed to maintain my interest from start to finish.

Tuchman's writing style keeps the narrative suspenseful, despite the fact that the final outcome is already known.

Christopher Brassard of the National War College, summarizing Clausewitz, called war "a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation." This description succinctly captures Barbara Tuchman's depiction.

I was truly overcome by the realization of just how precarious history and our future can be.

Any one of countless factors, such as a miscommunication, an intercepted communication, a rash act, indecision, or a single personality flaw, could send years of planning awry.

Not only did my knowledge of the events increase, but more importantly, so did my understanding of their interrelatedness.

In the first section, The Guns of August describes how policies and attitudes resulting from the Napoleonic wars, through the 1870 Franco-Prussian war and the 1905 Russo-Japanese war, and more immediate causes culminated in WWI.

In turn, I could clearly see how WWI was part of this continuum that led to WWII and ultimately to the shaping of the world we live in today.

Barbara Tuchman is a highly gifted writer who gives readers a profound sense of the underlying flow of history.

She accomplishes this in a style that is both enjoyable while reading and deeply rewarding when finished.

I eagerly look forward to enjoying many more of her books.

I don't have an affinity for technical books that focus on military maneuvers. The constant droning about Colonel Blimp, General von Bomb-them-all, Prince Icantmakeupmymind, and how the 5th Army Group attacks the XVI Corps on the right salient just makes me yawn.

However, here comes a book that manages to make all of this nearly comprehensible.

Tuchman provides an excellent portrayal of the individuals who committed the fateful errors in judgment that led to the four-year nightmare known as World War I and, twenty years later, the even more harrowing agony of World War II. She is an outstanding writer with an abundance of knowledge, which enables her to infuse life, humor, and human interest into this long and tragic narrative of the old world order vanishing inexorably in a quagmire of arrogance, stupidity, and criminally wrong military decisions. This offers a captivating look at a highly diverse group of men who altered the course of world history and brought us to the current state of international chaos.

It is most highly recommended to anyone with an interest in history or the military.

Nope. Maybe it is this particular audiobook version, but I'm really not feeling the love for this book.

With "The Guns of August", Tuchman wrote an incredibly detailed account of the first month of WWI. The level of detail is truly staggering. It includes a vast amount of information about the politics, personalities, military strategy, and philosophical motivations of all the parties involved. So much so that it can almost be overwhelming. And in a way, this excessive detail detracts a little from what otherwise appears to be a one-sided portrayal.

However, what I can't get past is that the well-known (western) figures like Foch, Churchill, etc. come out looking pretty good. Even Haig and French, despite their shortcomings which Monty later wrote about frankly, seem to be presented in a relatively favorable light. On the other hand, the less well-known personalities, mostly Russian and German, seem to be caricatures. There is a lot of national stereotyping going on. But perhaps this is just exaggerated by the narration of this particular audiobook version, which attempts to read different characters in actual accents. Why would they do that?

It is seriously making me dislike the book.

The guns of the Great War first roared to life on August 4, 1914, when Germany invaded Belgium. In a sense, those guns of mechanized modern war have never truly fallen silent in the more than a century since that fateful day. Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August presents the story of how the First World War began in a powerful and resonant way.

The roots of the war, as Tuchman describes, date back to the long-standing national rivalry between Germany and France. Both countries had met on numerous battlefields and anticipated future conflict. France relied on the doctrine of élan, while Germany adopted the highly organized Schlieffen plan.

The Schlieffen plan, developed by Prussian strategist Count Alfred von Schlieffen, involved a massive strike by the German right wing across Belgium to overwhelm the French left. However, this plan violated Belgium’s neutrality, which was guaranteed by an 1839 treaty. German officers like General Helmuth von Moltke insisted on following the plan, despite its flaws.

The German invasion went forward as scheduled, but Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality led to a two-front war with Great Britain and Russia. Tuchman also devotes attention to the atrocities committed by the invading Germans, which she traces back to the German experience during the Franco-Prussian War.

The overall theme of The Guns of August is that war is a beast that takes its own path, regardless of the best-laid plans of politicians and generals. The book shows that the First World War led to a series of events, including the Russian Revolution, the Great Depression, and the Second World War.

This 1994 edition of The Guns of August includes well-chosen photographs and maps, as well as a foreword by Robert Massie. The book effectively achieves its goals and should be required reading for any leader who may be inclined to rush into war without considering the consequences.

DNF

The language of this book, which was written in the 1950s, is slightly outdated. Coupled with the numerous small details and countless names, I realized after reading 50 pages that I hadn't retained anything. And I took my time with those 50 pages, attempting to absorb all the information.

I'm specifically trying to gain a better understanding of WWI and European history in general. However, the problem is that most books go into such great depth that I tend to get lost in the details while trying to see the big picture.

I would greatly appreciate any suggestions! Maybe there are some books or resources that can present the information in a more accessible and comprehensive way. I'm open to any ideas that can help me improve my understanding of this complex and fascinating subject.

**Title: A Critical Look at "The Guns of August"**

Perhaps you can forgive me for saying so or perhaps not, but this book about the First World War elicits conflicting feelings in me. On one hand, every opinion, from giving it a five-star rating to wanting to throw it on the fire and never speak of it again, seems justifiable. On the other hand, I am unconflicted in that its strengths are also its weaknesses, or possibly the other way around.

This book is not popular history as it is not history at all. It is more like a painting, designed for a specific occasion and to be viewed from a certain distance and in a particular light. When standing in the right place with the right light, its broad brush strokes and bright colors work perfectly. However, if you stand slightly to the left or right or if the light is not just so, then it appears as a mess.

Tuchman's book is entertainment, not history. Judging it as history is like watching a Western and complaining about the tactics of the plains Indians or doubting the veracity of the arrival time of the 7th cavalry. The point is that it is a spectacle展示了 horse riding and sharp shooting wonders. The apparent historicity of the setting and a few characters is neither here nor there.

Those who praise and like this book for being like a novel are correct. Tuchman borrows heavily from the techniques of fiction, perhaps more specifically from pantomime or the Western. In this story, the Germans are the black-hatted, moustache-twirling villains. German singing is especially brutal in her opinion. The French are presented as dunghill cockerels, magnificently colorful but a bit ridiculous. The British, or English as she generally calls them, are divided and fail to realize the consequences of earlier decisions. The Belgians are respectfully treated, and King Albert is almost saint-like. The Russians are a joke, and the Turks are dismissed. The implication is that the First World War will be an incompetent mess until the USA gets involved.

To give an idea of what this book is like, Tuchman makes some statements that raise questions. For example, she seems to be inconsistent in her treatment of certain events and characters. There are also some inaccuracies and the use of drama over facts.

I wonder who I might recommend this book to. It is not a good first book about WWI as it omits important details and simplifies complex issues. If you are going to read it, it should be for the entertainment value. Tuchman is excellent at making cutting observations, some of which are funny. However, her rhetoric rules, and her statements may not stand up to closer scrutiny. This is entertainment, and you could also watch "Oh what a lovely war" which takes less time and covers more of the war. Both will give you a skewed impression of the war, but maybe being open to different perspectives is more reasonable than believing in a single, objective truth.

This book truly lived up to every single expectation. Robert Massie's introduction did an excellent job of setting the context well. Barbara Tuchman clearly demonstrated that being a member of the Academy is not the only criterion for being a great historian. Her focus on the quality of her prose really makes her stand out as she concentrated on telling a captivating story. Many historians tend to get overly preoccupied with theory, fashionable terminology, and speculation on causation, thereby neglecting the art of exposition.

The story of the first month of World War One is absolutely fascinating. The criticism of the book by the likes of Sean McMeekin and Christopher Clark is completely unfounded and seems almost like mere name dropping. Before reading the book, I had gained the impression that it was an exposition on the causes of World War One. However, it is not. The events and machinations of Balkan politics are incidental. Instead, this is the story of war leaders and strategy in the very first month of the conflict.

The characters are brilliantly drawn, and the story, with Tuchman's prose, keeps us on the edge of our seats (even though we already know the outcome). French's unreliability, the Kaiser's erratic behavior, and Jofre's fixation on Plan 17 to the exclusion of the evidence are all vividly presented.

This is a book that is extremely difficult to put down. I listened to the Audible edition, which was superbly narrated. The accents made it very easy to follow the multinational participants. It's a truly engaging and informative read.

The Guns of August is not a bad book.

However, it is one that is falsely advertised.

For instance, the Goodreads description claims that TGOA is about the "people and events that led up to WWI" and that the book "reveals just how the war started, why, and why it could have been stopped but wasn't."

While Tuchman does indeed touch on these issues, the vast majority of the book is actually a highly detailed account of the various European powers' military moves during August 1914.

The author devotes a significant amount of time to such minutiae as the lengths of marches, the weapons used, and even the amounts of ammunition available per soldier.

I am certain that there are military history enthusiasts who would highly appreciate this work.

However, I, on the other hand, wanted what was advertised - a book about the events and reasons that caused WWI.

Regrettably, The Guns of August is not that.

It focuses more on the military aspects during a specific month rather than providing a comprehensive exploration of the broader causes and events leading up to the war.

As a result, it left me feeling somewhat disappointed as it did not meet my expectations based on the advertised description.

I'm quite certain that nobody gives a flying fuck about what I have to say regarding Barbra Tuchman’s wonderful, entertaining, interesting, and heartbreaking masterwork.

But I'm going to say it anyway.

General Marshal Joseph Jacques Césaire Joffre is like the iron lion of France. He stood tall and firm against the huns. He was a big, fat, fuckin' STUD, and he's the star of this story.

Sangfroid, in case you didn't know, is French for cold-blooded. What they mean by it is being cool under pressure. Joffre was as cool as ice in a vice.

Élan vital, sometimes, refers to a half-baked notion about spiritual forces that animate the living. That’s just embarrassing rubbish. But in this case, it means ‘vital force’ or vitality, and Joffre believed it was all that mattered in war.

Joffre faced a modern war machine borg of a German army, equipped with piece o' crap 19th-century equipment, stupid red pants, and cloth hats, and was totally outgunned. But he said FUCK YOU and the HORSE YOU RODE IN ON, and stood his ground in what became known as the miracle on the Marne. He, along with a whole bunch of other brave souls, stopped the German advance dead in its tracks.

Fuck. Yass. Ya Bitches.

20 million people died in the horror show of mud and bones at the border of the old world and the machine age. Another 20 million were wounded. Countless other lives were ruined. But France held against the German horde.

When I was a kid in the 80’s, I spent a wild, fun, and utterly carefree night with some freaky arty euro kids, hanging out by the river Seine beneath the beautiful Pont Neuf.

A mere 50 years before that night, people my age were dying by the tens of thousands so that we could enjoy that peace, innocence, ease, and prosperity.

If the Germans had taken Paris, the French plan was to demolish that bridge. And there it stands today.

I hate war.

I’m glad I never had to go.

I loved this book.

I needed this book.

Vivre la France!!!

I've been delving into a significant amount of reading regarding World War II lately. However, my understanding of World War I is rather limited, consisting only of what I can faintly recall from my school days. Namely: the arms race, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, something about the Somme, the mention of gas and the call "gas gas quick boys", and the Treaty of Versailles. I also vividly remember visiting the imposing marble monument that the Canadians constructed at Vimy Ridge.

The 21-year span between 1918 and 1939 is not an overly long period. There is merit to the argument that the two world wars should be regarded as one continuous conflict with a brief interlude in the middle. Hitler's invasion of France in 1940 bears a striking resemblance to the Schlieffen plan. With the downfall of three major empires - the Ottoman, the Austro-Hungarian, and the Russian - World War I perhaps has a stronger claim than World War II to the title of "the defining event of the twentieth century".

Tuchman is highly talented in weaving a narrative and vividly描绘ing the key personalities. The book is extremely engaging and even lively. On the other hand, she has an obsessive fixation on the minutiae of troop movements, while I would be more intrigued by the overarching and underlying socio-political themes. There is relatively little discussion here about nationalism and imperialism, domestic politics, or the popular opinion of the war. Practically all we learn about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is Bismarck's prescient comment that the Great War would be initiated by "some damn foolish thing in the Balkans".

As an accessible introduction for someone with limited knowledge of World War I, it is excellent. For a more in-depth and substantial exploration, there are undoubtedly other sources to turn to (I would welcome recommendations).

I used to parrot the common belief that had the WWI reparations not been enforced on Germany, WWII might never have happened. Now, I realize it would have been an uphill battle to persuade the Allies that the reparations were unnecessary.

On August 25, the conflagration in Louvain commenced. This medieval city, situated on the road between Liege and Brussels, was famed for its University and the peerless Library established in 1426. The Germans burned Louvain not as a penalty for purported Belgian transgressions (defending their neutral nation against German invaders), but as a deterrent and a caution to all their foes. General von Luttwitz, the new Governor of Brussels, during a visit by the American and Spanish Ministers for official business, told them, “A dreadful thing has occurred at Louvain. Our General there has been shot by the son of the Burgomaster. The population has fired on our troops.” He paused, regarded his visitors, and concluded, “And now, of course, we have to destroy the city.”

I knew precious little about the war, or rather, I recalled almost nothing from school. So, Tuchman’s remarkable history gradually constructed the tale and the “suspense” of how the Germans were halted into a narrative that held me spellbound. Would the English ultimately engage in combat? Would Gallieni obtain the troops he required to safeguard Paris? Would the troops坚守ing the eastern flank along the Moselle hold firm? I understand it’s absurd to be apprehensive about a war whose outcome one knows, but her writing is that captivating.

Tuchman is a maestro at summarizing the prelude and tracking each of the belligerents and key neutrals through the initial weeks of mobilization and combat. She delineates the master plans that underpinned both German and French mobilization designs, with their diametrically opposed assumptions. She deftly sketches rapid, memorable portraits of the generals and politicians, enabling you to comprehend how each of their decisions stemmed from both the situation and their temperament. She devotes just the right amount of time to each strategic and tactical decision before reverting to another front to catch up with events there. And she describes the movements of each of France’s six armies and Germany’s seven armies on the western front with such clarity that the reader never loses sight of who is where, even if listening rather than reading, as I was (although I occasionally referred to the maps in a paper version).

Undoubtedly, there is an allied bias in this history, but it’s difficult to fathom how there could not be. However, Tuchman doesn’t shy away from revealing all the weaknesses, snobbery, fears, and confusion among the Allies. I concluded, appalled by the stupidity and destruction, only to be shortly followed by more of the same.