**Title: A Review of "The Guns of August"**

This book, "The Guns of August", is a remarkable piece of historical literature. It was read for the 2017 PopSugar reading challenge, fulfilling the category of "A book with a month or day of the week in the title."

From the very beginning, with its poetic first paragraph that vividly brings to life the last moments of the assembled European monarchies, to the simple yet powerful note in the afterword about the staggering loss of life in World War I (1 in 28 French people alive at the start of the war perished), this 1962-published history is truly brilliant.

Although it focuses mainly on the lead-up to the war and the first month of the conflict, the specter of the decades to come looms large over the narrative. This adds to its gripping and tragic nature. In America, where World War I is not as deeply ingrained in the national consciousness, there is much to learn from this book about how events unfolded and changed history.

One aspect that stands out is the portrayal of the Germans. Wilhelm II's paranoia, inferiority complex, and lack of tact or understanding of other nations are just the tip of the iceberg. The German command structure already seemed to lack humanity in some ways, which perhaps set the stage for Hitler's later atrocities.

The book also delves into the German army's advance through Belgium and their acts of reprisal against Belgian villages. The Germans' inability to understand why the Belgians would resist them is a telling example of their mindset. It's easy for the modern reader to see why the Italians in Nice could become French while the Alsatians fled German rule, but the Germans just couldn't get it.

Overall, "The Guns of August" challenges common wisdom about World War I. It shows that Germany and France at least wanted the war for their own reasons. It also provides a detailed look at the various military strategies and the incompetent leaders on both sides. Despite the chaos and blunders, there are also moments of valor and inspiration.

In conclusion, if you're wondering whether to read this book, the answer is a resounding yes! It's a fascinating and thought-provoking read that will give you a deeper understanding of one of the most significant events in modern history.

A historical book that is regarded as one of the classics in its genre and an essential read for those non-experts desiring to learn about the onset of the First World War. After reading it, I can assert that I comprehend the reasons for the popularity of this work. In a simple and accessible manner that sustains the reader's interest, the author commences from a distant vantage point to uncover the causes of the conflict,探寻 them within the mindset of the opposing sides, which were the outcome of historical experiences from the past decades. Then, she narrates in a very engaging way the events that brought matters to an impasse and thus led to the start of the war, ultimately concluding by discussing with us the first war operations that significantly determined its continuity and result.

It is a book that taught me numerous things I was unaware of and many details about things I already knew, ideally filling the gaps in my knowledge of this crucial period, while also being a highly fascinating read. Of course, I have some objections. The writer seems to me to be using her own judgment for some of the protagonists, and I think she did not write as comprehensively as she could have about the Austro-Hungarians who actually initiated the war. However, these details, I can overlook in light of the overall value of the book. Therefore, my perfect score comes out effortlessly.

A Phenomenal Slog

It took me a great many months to painstakingly make my way through this hefty 440-page volume that meticulously details the first, crucial month of the First World War. Tuchman's prose was truly captivating and in some parts, it was utterly delightful, pulling me along through the narrative. However, the military details, such as the distinction between a corps and an army and the sheer number of armies involved, as well as the military philosophy, were at times beyond my comprehension. Clearly, the issue lies with the reader rather than the book itself. There were days when I could only rely on the prose because the battles were simply outside my area of understanding.

I suspect that having a better working knowledge of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, and the Battle of Sedan in particular, would have been of great assistance in understanding the thematic trends that led up to this war. Without that knowledge, the Germans are portrayed (perhaps because they were?) as the sole instigators of all the events, warmongering under the guise of envelopment. But I'm afraid that learning about the Franco-Prussian War would only require delving further and further back in history.

The Germans were also depicted in a rather horrific light in this book - killing townsfolk, burning cities and libraries, and invading neutral countries. Tuchman holds nothing back in her description of their wartime activities. It makes one wonder if the Treaty of Versailles was almost a just consequence.

The personalities of the generals - and there were so very many generals and aides-de-camp to keep track of - became increasingly important to the story. Decisions were made based on hubris or fear, power grabs occurred, and there were decisions to appease or favor one general or front over another. Few of them seemed to see clearly or completely, and if they did, like the prophets of the Old Testament, they were disbelieved, removed, or replaced. Not one of them comes out looking like they had any real idea of what they were doing, and as a result, many lives were lost.

Careful planning and the execution of that plan were often seen as losses in this context. Optimism was shattered for both individuals and nations. Tuchman shows the backdrop to all of the decisions in this complex game of chess, and how small decisions here could lead to huge results there, and how those either won or lost battles. Battles that were won in the moment often turned out to be long-term losses. The style of war, a clear precursor to Blitzkrieg, yet relying on a marching, exhausted infantry, showed how the military philosophy outpaced its technology and machine ability in many ways.

I can understand why, in 1962, this book would have been a bestseller and won the Pulitzer. At that time, West Germany and East Germany were separate, the Berlin wall was under construction, and the Cold War was raging. The President of the US was a war veteran, as were most of the government officials. It was a time when many of these issues were still at the forefront of foreign policy and the Second World War was a recent memory.

Nearly six decades later, we are less familiar with the characters, actions, events, and ways of thought of the combatants. The Guns of August began to change the very tenor of society as it was known. My own grandfather was scheduled to be shipped to France in 1918 as a donkey cart driver, but the Armistice fortunately kept him at home. Can you even imagine a donkey cart being used in the Second World War, 20 years later? War had indeed changed, and Tuchman provides some fascinating glimpses of that change.

This is an outstanding yet rather peculiar book. It's odd because the focus leans so heavily on the military aspect rather than the political one, leaving you pondering precisely why and how this war was deemed so inevitable. To be sure, the political leaders are addressed in the initial few chapters, with more attention given to the German Kaiser and the Russian Czar compared to the French and the British. However, the emphasis lies on the generals and the war planners, like Schlieffen, whose plan, formulated in 1905 - 06, seemed to be impatiently awaiting implementation. Political alliances existed, as did military alliances. It was understood that Britain would come to France's aid if France were attacked, and that Germany would assist Austria - Hungary, and that France, Britain, and Russia were allied. Apparently, all that was required was a mechanism to spark the conflict; yet, what was there to spark? What seems lacking from the equation is actual hostility and actual reasons to fight. There's no Hitler here, no rampant evil. Just a collection of nations on standby, with their war plans, generals, and armies.

I had anticipated this to be a more轻松的 read. After all, it was a Pulitzer winner. Tuchman is a brilliant writer, penning in an elegant and sometimes exuberant style that likely few contemporary historians could emulate: "Doubting Lanrezac's mood, Joffre arrived early in the morning at Laon, now Lanrezac's headquarters, to lend him sangfroid out of his own bottomless supply." She has a charming, dry sense of humor: "Their new Secretary for War was a barrister with a passion for German philosophy, Richard Haldane, who, when asked by the soldiers in Council what kind of army he had in mind, replied, 'A Hegelian army.' 'The conversation then fell off,' he recorded." Nevertheless, the book is also extremely dense, with thorough and magnificent research. No contemporary account or memoir has been left unexamined. If you lose focus for a paragraph or two, you'll be lost. She has a tendency not to explain much of the backstory. Things will be alluded to indirectly, such as "Kitchener of Khartoum." You'll have to research it yourself if you're unfamiliar with it. There is an entire chapter titled "The Shadow of Sedan" where she never clarifies what Sedan was or why we need to know about its shadow.

The maps in my edition, in shades of gray and even grayer, were nearly illegible. If you truly wish to understand the outlines and events of these battles, you'll have to refer to other sources.

They say jokingly that history is composed of events that have accidentally fallen into the pen of those who have witnessed those events. The book "The Companion" by an American writer is about the beginning and continuation of World War I. The special style of the translator, Mohammad Qaed, has also contributed to enhancing this satirical tone, and I didn't like this satire. War is always foolish for ordinary people, and homes are set on fire. Even in foolishness, there is always something satirical that can be found.

The book is full of the names of military and political personalities and European cities, and again, the special writing of the translator, which was tiring for me. The pain of childhood when watching American movies on TV, my father, who was an officer and familiar with the history and geography of wars, would say with a smile that in these movies, German officers are always depicted as having a limp and wearing a monocle, and the "bad guys" in the movies also have dark eyes, eyebrows, and hair. In this book too, all European nations, especially the Germans and Russians, are included in the negative attitude of the writer, while the British and Americans are less so. It is not known if all Russian and German officers and politicians are limp, gamblers, and addicted to all bad qualities, from which culture did these Russian and German writers and philosophers emerge? Or was the reason for the defeat of France and Germany by the Russians in the wars that took place only the cold winter of Russia?

The book is a narrative along with the writer's imagination. Since he is the "all-knowing" in some places, he is also aware of what goes on in people's hearts and minds.

Between the end and the beginning of World War II in the 20th century, there is a gap of about twenty years. During this gap, a major economic crisis also occurs. War is a terrible phenomenon. Now, whether the previous ones were naive and foolish, or according to Marxist interpretations, they were economic crises of capitalism, or because of nationalism and territorial desires...

We have witnessed the eight-year Iran-Iraq war with all its seen and unseen. We were on a spring Nowruz, alive, watching the American attack with its advanced aircraft on Baghdad on TV, while the Iraqi people, in coffee houses, without any significant footage, were also witnesses with us on TV as the approaching aircraft entered their country, and...

Really, what was the result of Saddam Hussein's stubbornness? Who extracts the oil of Iraq and into whose pocket does it go?

And recently, we saw that Afghanistan, for years with the mobilization of its people and the active participation of well-intentioned and hardworking leaders, etc., was attacked by the Russians and Americans, and in the end, after spending billions of dollars and years of withdrawal of the Taliban, it was triumphantly handed over to them! Really, whose hands is the opium trade of Afghanistan in?

If war, in a time when communication and combat without modern means and weapons were taking place, is so full of wonder and satire for the writer, what would he write if he were alive and witnessed the events of today like us?

Finally, this is also a narrative of one event, but it is by no means the only existing narrative.

The beginning and continuation of wars and policies always have more complex reasons than, for example, the terrorism of a prince by a young Serb.

The year 1914 was笼罩着一层神秘的氛围，让那些有所感知的人为人类的命运而颤抖。条约、联盟以及普法战争遗留下来的旧有竞争，都在一个即将爆发的大锅中沸腾着。塞尔维亚民族主义者刺杀斐迪南大公成为了引发这一切的导火索。然而，在1914年，战争是不可避免的。紧张的气氛弥漫在空气中，随时准备释放出来，而萨拉热窝的枪声恰好就是将整个世界推向混乱所需要的。战争的迅速降临令人猝不及防。这次暗杀激怒了奥匈帝国，在德国的支持下，奥匈帝国向塞尔维亚宣战。

芭芭拉·塔奇曼关于第一次世界大战第一个月的经典著作是一部独树一帜的历史书籍。它的节奏优美，文笔惊人，细节令人难以置信。任何对第一次世界大战以及一般军事历史感兴趣的人都应该阅读它。话虽如此，如果我再次阅读这本书，我想我会给它五星评价。这绝不是一本容易读的书，需要慢慢消化。如果你对军事战术和行动不感兴趣，我不确定你是否会像我一样喜欢它。然而，第一部分对军事的关注较少。

芭芭拉·塔奇曼的散文既睿智又引人注目，许多章节（比如开头）写得非常优美，给这本书增添了诗意。她在描述人物方面非常有技巧，她对将军和其他人物的描述读起来很有趣。她成功地将第一次世界大战的一些关键人物栩栩如生地呈现在读者面前。

许多对塔奇曼的《八月炮火》的评论都说它读起来“像一部小说”。我能理解这种说法想要表达的意思，但同时，非虚构作品不应该需要模仿小说才能变得伟大。这是一本历史书，而且是一本很棒的历史书，碰巧芭芭拉·塔奇曼的散文非常出色。

我认为关于比利时被入侵以及德国战争意识形态形成方式的部分非常有趣，尤其是她谈到德国人通过故意破坏城市和对平民发动战争来制造恐怖的策略，这是一个在1914年震惊世界的新概念，并且在许多方面塑造了未来战争的形态。这并不是像人们可能认为的那样，是一本分析第一次世界大战原因的书。塔奇曼在开头确实提到了这一点，但这不是她的主要关注点。这是对第一次世界大战第一个月的详细叙述，而且是非常精彩的叙述。

This was the very first non-fiction history book that had such a captivating quality, reading almost like an enthralling novel. I found myself devouring it, hardly taking a moment to catch my breath.

Prior to delving into this book, I had only a fragmented understanding of World War I. However, the sheer and persistent idiocy exhibited by so many individuals involved in the war held my attention firmly to the pages.

One of the most fascinating aspects for me was the way the French stubbornly insisted on donning their vivid red uniforms as they charged across fields and through forests, directly into the hail of machine gun fire. They simply could not fathom the fact that their so-called "elan" would not compensate for the reality that they were highly visible and easy targets,蹒跚 towards a swift and certain death.

This small piece of trivia about the war truly encapsulates its essence. It serves as a foreshadowing of what was to come in the 20th century - a landscape of carnage, stupidity, and technology advancing at a rapid pace, overwhelming the past like a series of shattered eggs.

It constantly reminds me of that classic Loony Toons scene with Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, where one starts with a pistol, the other acquires a shotgun, then a cannon, and finally, someone brings in a nuclear weapon or something along those lines.

This book provides a perfect window into the character of various European nations. While things have changed to some extent since that time, not a great deal has truly altered (if you catch my drift).

It is, without a doubt, the best history lesson I have ever had. Tuchman's writing in this book is truly outstanding. I highly recommend it and firmly believe it should be required reading for all.

For us Iranians, even though 30 years have passed since the war, we still don't know exactly how many casualties there were, how much damage was done, and what the actual course of the war was like.

However, this book by Barbara Tuchman has dissected the first month of the war 100 years ago in such detail and analyzed the individuals and their ideas so thoroughly that it can truly serve as a model for Iranian researchers.

In addition, this book has only 80 pages and a bibliography.

It is a concise yet comprehensive work that provides valuable insights into a significant historical period.

The detailed account of the events and the in-depth analysis of the people and their motives make it a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the causes and consequences of war.

Overall, this book is a great contribution to the field of history and should be studied and appreciated by scholars and enthusiasts alike.

I'm not at all surprised that this book won a Pulitzer Prize when it first came out in 1962.

This is a very accessible, readable history of the build-up to World War I. It provides a detailed description of events through the first month of the war, August 1914, with a bit from the early part of September thrown in.

It's important to note that this is not a history of the entirety of World War I. Instead, it focuses more on how World War I became World War I. If things had turned out just a little different during that period, Germany might have had a quick victory, and world history would've been very different. The myopic French battle plan, with the generals' immunity to the facts on the ground, left little prospect of them coming out as victors in that first month. Everything hung in the balance during that month. By mid-September, the dye had been cast. The world was locked into years of trench warfare, chewing up millions of lives, with one colossal battle after another solving very little. How they reached that point is a fascinating story.

I was amused to read in Wikipedia that an academic historian called this book "hopelessly unscholarly." That's probably a good thing for the rest of us. The Oxford English Dictionary is very scholarly and useful, but I wouldn't want to read it. This book will continue to be a living document as long as people care about how the world ended up the way it did and long after more "scholarly" works end up gathering dust in some reference library.

I highly recommend this one. It offers a captivating and engaging account of a crucial period in history that had a profound impact on the world we live in today.

“[General Joffre] signed the order that would be read to the troops when the bugles blew next morning. Ordinarily the French language, especially in public pronouncements, requires an effort if it is not to sound splendid, but this time the words were flat, almost tired; the message hard and uncompromising: ‘Now, as the battle is joined on which the safety of the country depends, everyone must be reminded that this is no longer the time for looking back. Every effort must be made to attack and throw back the enemy. A unit which finds it impossible to advance must, regardless of cost, hold its ground and be killed on the spot rather than fall back. In the present circumstances no failure will be tolerated.’ That was all; the time for splendor was past. It did not shout ‘Forward!’ or summon men to glory. After the first thirty days of war in 1914, there was a premonition that little glory lay ahead…”

-\\tBarbara Tuchman, The Guns of August

Let’s start with a couple items. First, there is nothing left to be said about Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August. Second, that is not going to stop me. The Guns of August is not only the most famous book written about World War I, it is one of the most famous history books on any topic whatsoever. It won the Pulitzer, became a bestseller, was name-checked by politicians, and still provides a tidy sum to Tuchman’s heirs and designees. Even today, if you do a general search for “World War I” on Amazon, this is the first thing to pop up, even though it was originally published in 1962.

This actually isn’t my first time reading this. Ten years ago, I tore through it during the weekend I was waiting for my bar exam results. A weekend, I hasten to add, with not a little anxiety and cocktail consumption. I’m pretty sure I loved it; I’m also pretty sure it didn't penetrate very far. I decided to read it again as part of my WWI centenary reading project to gauge if my vague, decade-ago recollections were correct.

They were. This is an awesome book. The Guns of August covers the first month of World War I as fighting erupts on both the Western and Eastern Fronts. Famously, however, Tuchman begins in May 1910 with the sight of nine kings riding in the funeral of King Edward VII of England. Tuchman uses the chapter on King Edward’s funeral to give a brisk overview of the troublesome context that brought Europe to cataclysm in 1914. The next section covers the operational plans and purposes of the four main belligerents: Germany, wedded to the grand sweeping offensive devised by Schlieffen; France, haunted by defeat in the Franco-Prussian War; Great Britain, blessed with a mighty navy and small Regular Army; and Russia, the feared steamroller with legions in numbers like the stars. Each of these nations had engaged a delicate balancing act in which old friends became enemies, old enemies became friends, and all sides seemed simultaneously convinced that war would never come and war had to come.

Tuchman’s setup is relatively quick. In well less than 100 pages, she broadly sketches the strategic situation at the time of Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination in Sarajevo. The July Crisis is handled even faster. In a page in a half, Tuchman dispenses with a fraught month over which thousands of gallons of ink have been expended. This brings us to the heart of the book – the events of August 1914. The early days of the month are spent on Great Britain’s decision to uphold both Belgium neutrality and their tacit wink-wink-nudge-nudge “understanding” with France. Once Great Britain made it clear she would not sit on the sidelines, German troops began crossing the border into Belgium, beginning what Moltke called “the struggle that will decide the course of history for the next hundred years.” (Moltke, otherwise a failure, certainly pegged this right).

Thus begins the battle section of The Guns of August, which comprises the bulk of the narrative. Tuchman covers the siege of Liege, the French thrust into Alsace, the Battle of the Frontiers, the arrival of the British Expeditionary Force, the invasion of East Prussia by Russia, and the Battle of Tannenberg. When the book ends, the pieces are all in place for the Battle of the Marne, which transformed the conflict from a war of maneuver into a war of trenches, barbed wire, and mechanized slaughter. (You might have noticed the absence of events involving Austria-Hungary or Serbia in that list. For some reason, they are almost entirely left out of the book).

World War I battles are overwhelming. I’ve found that it’s a rare author who can make them even partly imaginable. Earlier battles – like Waterloo or Gettysburg – took place on comprehendible fields that you can walk to this day. Not so with these titanic clashes. Here, you have fronts of 40 to 80 miles, with armies of upwards of a million men. Often times the recounting of these fights devolve into a confusing Roman numeral soup of Armies, Corps, and Divisions moving hither and yon, crossing rivers and capturing intersections and moving through quaint little villages. Unless you have a very good map sitting next to you, it’s nearly impossible for any but the most devoted to fully grasp all the troop movements. Here, Tuchman makes the wise choice to take a pretty macro view of the battles, usually at the Corps level. Even so, it can be a lot to absorb. Moreover, her choice to look at things with a wide-angle lens means that the proceedings are filtered through the eyes of God and the generals, rather than the more tactile experiences of soldiers.

As military history, this might come up a bit short. But in other areas, Tuchman excels. She is excellent at the personalities, bringing a dry, sardonic wit to the characters populating this crowded stage. Take, for instance, her brilliant evocation of General Joseph Joffre, the French Commander-in-Chief: Every morning at eight o’clock Joffree presided at meetings of the section chiefs, a majestic and immobile arbiter but never the puppet of his entourage as outsiders, misled by his silence and his bare desk, supposed. He kept no papers on his desk and no map on his wall; he wrote nothing and said little. Plans were prepared for him, said Foch; “he weighs them and decides.” There were few who did not tremble in his presence. Anyone who was five minutes late at his mess was treated to a thunderous frown and remained an outcast for the remainder of the meal. Joffre ate in silence with a gourmet’s entire devotion to the food. He complained continuously of being kept in the dark by his staff…He used to rub his forehead, murmuring “Poor Joffre!” which his staff came to recognize as his way of refusing to do something that was being urged upon him. He was angered by anyone who tried too openly to make him change his mind. Like Talleyrand he disapproved of too much zeal.

Tuchman can be pretty sharp, noting continuously how Joffre never missed a meal or an hour’s sleep. But at the same time, she is sympathetic to the humanity of all involved. She presents a very mechanistic view of the outbreak of war, how dogmas like “the cult of the offensive” and master plans such as Schlieffen’s right wing dictated the early stages. At the same time, she recognizes that these were only plans, and that at any point, someone could have changed them. She also recognizes that many of these men were not capable of that.

Tuchman is also the master of the literary set piece. Her opening paragraph, quoted partially above, is Exhibit A in how to hook a reader and deliver a scene. Her handling of the escape of the German battle cruiser Goeben (an incident Tuchman initially wanted to devote an entire book to) is masterful, and shows how individual decisions can greatly affect the outcome grand events. (The Goeben and the Breslau both escaped the Germans by entering the Dardanelles and presenting themselves to the Ottomans as a gift. This helped pull the Ottoman Empire into the war on Germany’s side. What followed – Gallipoli, Sykes-Picot – has ramifications that are still felt today).

For whatever reason, I had it in mind that this was a good WWI starter book. Upon rereading, I don’t think that’s the case. It’s fantastic, but complex enough to require a bit of background reading in order to fully engage it. I could go on, but I’ve already gone on longer than necessary. It’s all been said before. The critics are right. The Guns of August lives up to its lofty reputation.

Well, finally I was able to finish this book, and I realized that I'm not such a bookworm after all

Two unknown blessings are health and safety.


This book begins with the funeral procession of Edward VII, the King of England, with the presence of nine kings in 1910, then it deals with the causes of the outbreak of World War I and finally vividly describes the events of the first month of World War I.

The events and incidents of World War I are described in various books, and with a simple search, one can obtain a wide range of information in this regard. For this reason, I only mention a case about the situation of Iran at that time - which, of course, is not mentioned in this book.
Although Iran had declared neutrality in World War I, in the first half of 1916, it was occupied by three foreign countries. The Russians had occupied a large part of the northern and central parts of Iran, the Ottomans in the west of Iran, and the British in a large part of the south of Iran. At this time, a large part of Iran's agricultural products were consumed by the British army, resulting in a sharp decrease in foodstuffs inside Iran. Strangely, the British army prevented the import of foodstuffs into Iran.
On the other hand, the Ottomans, who had taken parts of Azerbaijan and the west of Iran, committed massacres of thousands of civilians.
In addition to these, a wave of poverty, hunger, killing, and contagious diseases became widespread in Iran, and all these factors combined so that between 8 and 10 million people out of the 18 to 20 million population of Iran perished in the years 1917 - 1919, and the country that had declared neutrality in the war suffered the greatest human losses.

The shadow of security and peace remained on Iran and all over the world.

October 20, 1998.