I'm not going to rate this book with stars, and I'll explain why. From the perspective of its intrinsic quality, the vast amount of documentation it has behind it, the extremely high level of detail, and the degree of analysis of each and every one of the actions that took place in the different countries during that first month of World War I, it doesn't deserve 5 stars, but rather 6 or 7. To be discovered. But this very thing that gives it so much quality, for a reader merely interested in a general knowledge of what the Great War was, makes it a rather insufferable bore.

Well, I exaggerate a little. Although I classify myself among the latter (those who only seek a general knowledge of the topic), it hasn't seemed to me the insufferable bore that I comment on. But it has seemed long to me, excessively long and heavy. At least (I'll be generous) 50% of the detail has been superfluous to me, and in the end, with so many pages and so much data, one ends up not learning much more than having read a short report on the topic, but having dedicated much more time to it.

Sincerely, I have been surprised by the tremendous sales success of this book at the time (from what I have read around) and even today. I understand that it is valued by experts or great enthusiasts of the topic, but that a book like this reaches such a sales level means reaching many more people than those. Of course, it could also be one of those books that sell a lot but are actually read little.

In short, I don't know. As I said: a great work, but that I would only recommend to great enthusiasts very knowledgeable about the history of World War I and with a desire to delve into the details.

Before the eruption of The Great War, two distinct and competing forecasts were embodied in two new books.

In "The Great Illusion," the author, Normal Angell, contended that due to the "interlacing" alliances established among the major powers, a new war was impossible. This interdependence meant that the victor would suffer just as much as the vanquished. It couldn't be profitable, and as it turned out, this was true.

Simultaneously, a German, General von Bernhardi, was penning his own book, titled "Germany and the Next War," which would prove to be as influential as Angell's. As Tuchman elucidates, three of its chapter titles - “The Right to Make War,” “The Duty to Make War,” and “World Power or Downfall” - summarize its thesis. Another of his chapters was titled "Germany's Historic Mission." He had previously authored a book based on the thinking of Clausewitz, Treitschke, and Social Darwinism. He wrote that war is a biological necessity, the carrying out among mankind of the natural law upon which all the laws of Nature rest, the law of the struggle for existence. Nations, he asserted, must progress or decay; there can be no standing still, and Germany must choose “world power or downfall.”

Tuchman's writing is competent, yet not as sensational as the promoters of that era made it seem. She projects World War II significantly onto her book. This was surely part of the allure of a book published in 1962. And indeed, the two wars were connected. However, this approach now feels rather outdated. I believe this projection obscures the World War I narrative rather than clarifying it.

From an essay that exposes the serious flaws in her work, it is noted that Tuchman completely omits the Eastern and Balkan fronts. The actual causes of the Great War are covered in approximately a page.

It's not an independent treatment like Paul Fussell's "The Great War and Modern Memory," which is clearly superior to this book.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

On the night of August 13, 1961, the Government of East Germany initiated the construction of the Wall that divided Berlin, isolating its Western part within the Communist Eastern block.

In 1962, Barbara Tuchman published her "Guns of August", which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize the following year.

The time between Tuchman's book and the events she discussed is about the same as the time between its publication and now, approximately half a century.

These two periods of five decades each may account for two different reactions. On one hand, Tuchman chose as her premise the accountability of Germany and its (sole?) responsibility for the horror of the war. On the other hand, we have a wider questioning and perhaps a more skeptical reception of her views.

Tuchman's interpretation during the Cold War was influenced by the stereotypical view of the Germans as supremely efficient and dangerously single-minded. This idea still persists but in a different form. Currently, it makes us think that fortunately we have Merkel (originally from communist Germany) to guide Europe democratically through its (capitalistic) mess and eases our acceptance when Germany wins the World Cup for the fourth time this year.

Our understanding of that war has also shifted away from focusing on one-sided culpabilities.

Tuchman begins her book with the events that led to the outbreak of the war, concentrating only on the four great powers: UK, Germany, France, and Russia. Even Austria and the troublesome Balkan region are only briefly mentioned. For a broader look at the geographical extent of the conflict, we need to look elsewhere. The bulk of her history is, as the title suggests, the combat that took place at the very beginning of the war, from the last week of July to the first of September 1914.

In this, she does an excellent job. She dissects the period, spelling out the accumulation of decisions, many of which were mistaken, that clumsily followed each other during those dreadful days. She focuses on three arenas: the Eastern and Western Fronts, and the Mediterranean. After clearly explaining two of the major military strategies, the Schlieffen Plan for both the Eastern and Western fronts and Plan XVII, with all their quirks and twists as well as the idiosyncrasies of those who designed them, she shows how they failed.

Her chapters on the invasion of Belgium and northern France are unforgettable. The brutality of the German armies in their treatment of civilians and cities, leaving in our memories the unforgivable destruction of Louvain and its treasures, as well as the ruined Reims cathedral, is the strongest evidence she can use to claim that Germany was responsible for the war.

She devotes less attention to the Eastern front. She focuses on what has been called the Battle of Tannenberg, and in her account, it mainly serves to prove how the Schlieffen plan had a flawed design. To support the Eastern front, the Western front was weakened too quickly.

She concludes with the Battle of Marne and once again proves to be an engaging narrator. Building up tension as the approach to Paris unfolds, she provides a fitting ending to that episode with the remarkable story of the heroic taxi drivers transporting the men to the front.

The section I found most instructive was the one on the Mediterranean. She creates great suspense in her narration of the pursuit of the German battle cruiser Goeben by the various ships of the Allies. The British made mistakes; they did not realize the direction the Goeben was taking until it was too late. When the German cruiser succeeded in its race and reached the Dardanelles, this prompted the Ottoman Empire, which had been neutral until then, to side with the Central Powers. The result was that Russia was cut off from its access to the Mediterranean ports and its trade was blocked. Its exports/imports dropped by 98/95% respectively, paving the way for the growing domestic troubles that eventually led to the revolution three years later.

This episode has an additional interesting aspect. In its chapter, one can read: "That morning there arrived at Constantinople the small Italian passenger steamer which had witnessed the Gloucester’s action against the Goeben and Breslau. Among its passengers were the daughter, son-in-law and three grandchildren of the American ambassador Mr. Henry Morgenthau." One of those three children was Barbara Wertheim (later Tuchman).

Apart from the Pulitzer, this book is exceptional because it played a decisive role. Margaret MacMillan has emphasized in a recent interview that John F. Kennedy read it during the Cuban missile crisis, and it made him more aware of the difficulty of controlling unexpected events. As a result, he made everyone else in his Cabinet and his top military leaders read the book.

Tuchman's tendency to rely too much on national stereotypes, which detracts from the credibility of her research and interpretation, is compensated for by the role her analysis played in later events. And to use another cliché, books that change people's lives deserve a special place in our libraries.

I let go at around page 280 (out of 440 in my edition).

As I delved deeper, I started realizing that every paragraph was so filled with minute details.

Details about this general moving these troops out of this place and into this wing on this day because of these emotions, this miscommunication, and this people's overconfidence.

It all became so trivial and unbelievably lifeless.

In a strange way, it completely contradicts all of the GR reviews I've read about how this book brings life to the first month of the war.

I also think the writing slowly, gradually became less and less vigorous and more rote as the war left its initial stages and moved to the actual fighting of month 1.

I realized I didn't want to finish this book when it dawned on me that it's all just pointless military maneuvers.

Some of them more successful than others, but almost all of them led by a bunch of overconfident idiots.

I had nothing to gain from learning about these dumb actions and their meaningless military decisions.

I actually really liked the first part of the book and the second part as well.

However, it was the third part, "Battle", that just drained me with its unbelievable tediousness.

And although I hate giving up on books, there are only so many free seconds in my life to dedicate to things I don't enjoy.

Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" is a captivating account of the first month of World War I. In this Pulitzer-Prize winning classic, Tuchman argues that August 1914 marked the end of the Gilded Age and the beginning of the modern era. The book opens with a vivid description of Edward VII's funeral in 1910, attended by all the kings and princes of the west. This scene, with only a few details changed, could have taken place in 1610. However, by September 1914, the world had changed in a fundamental way.

At the start of the war, the leading generals had different strategies. The Germans were determined to execute the Schlieffen Plan, which involved attacking France from the north and taking Paris within 30 days. This required an invasion of Belgium and would likely draw England into the conflict. The French, on the other hand, were still smarting from their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and were eager to prove themselves with an offensive attack. They charged east in a display of medieval gallantry that would have made Charlemagne proud.

Despite the French's efforts, the Germans were able to hold their ground and inflict heavy casualties. The Battle of the Frontiers (August 14-24) was a disaster for the French, who were driven back to their starting positions. Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front, the Germans annihilated the Russians at the Battle of Tannenberg. In the west, the Germans were getting closer to Paris by the day. The French made a desperate last stand at the Marne, using taxi drivers to ferry troops from the capital to the front. In a remarkable turn of events, the French and British were able to repel the exhausted Germans and win a historic victory, ending the Germans' hopes for a quick and decisive war.

"The Guns of August" covers a wide range of topics, from the naval buildup to reactions in America and beyond. Tuchman's writing is superb, making this book a pleasure to read. The history is well-researched and fascinating, and the book provides a valuable perspective on one of the most important events in modern history. Overall, "The Guns of August" is a true masterpiece and one of the best nonfiction books I've ever read. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in history or military strategy.

"Dead battles, like dead generals, hold the military mind in their dead grip, and Germans no less than other peoples prepare for the last war."
-\\t Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August.

A 100-page book about the first month of a four-year war.

In this book, a war story is told that turned the world upside down. Maybe if it hadn't happened, the world would be very, very different now.

The author tells the history in the form of a story, and the individuals are no longer just names. By introducing their personality traits, we can see why someone made a certain decision or why a certain event occurred. The personalities of the commanders and kings are fully fleshed out, and this makes the decisions they made understandable and comprehensible to the reader.

This book not only provides a detailed account of the war but also gives us a deeper understanding of the people involved. It shows us the complex web of emotions, motives, and circumstances that led to the events of the war.

Overall, it is a fascinating read that offers a unique perspective on a significant historical period.

This book came highly recommended, and now I fully understand the reason. Tuchman truly makes the war come alive, and I must admit it is a rather harrowing experience.

For any serious aspiring scholar of the First World War, this book would serve as an excellent starting point. It has just the right ratio of general overview to detail, making it perfect for a casual reader like myself.

It made me realize that we had only studied the war from the British perspective at school, which was many, many, many years ago. It was extremely interesting to see the French and German sides of the story. In fact, I'm not sure if it's just my imagination, but the author seems to devote the majority of the book to discussing the French point of view.

If you have even the slightest interest in World War I, you could do far worse than to read this book. It offers a comprehensive and engaging look at a significant period in history.

**A Few Things I Learned from "The Guns of August"**

The Germans had a dark side even before they became Nazis. Their leaders held ideas about Europe after the war that were alarmingly close to Hitler's vision. They were murderous, cruel, and arrogant. For example, Erzberger believed Germany should use victory to gain control of the European continent forever. This involved abolishing neutral states at Germany's borders, ending England's hegemony, and breaking up Russia. He envisioned a Confederation of European States with some under German "guidance" and others, like Poland and the Baltic group, under German sovereignty, with no voting power in the Reichstag. Belgium's status was uncertain, but Germany would retain military control over it and the French coast. Germany also aimed to acquire French and Belgian colonies in Africa.

The only army truly prepared for war was the German army. The French, British, and Russian armies were no match for the well-organized Germans with their feasible plan. However, the Germans lost due to multiple fronts and other reasons, similar to WW2. The Belgians played a crucial role by deciding to fight. Their heroic resistance delayed the Germans, forcing them to leave forces behind and disrupting their plan against France.
Before reading this book, I was ignorant and thought the war was unplanned and started for no real reason. But I learned that Germany had been planning this war for years, just waiting for an excuse. "The Guns of August" provides a detailed narrative of the first six weeks of World War I, including the decisions to go to war and the start of the Franco-British offensive that stopped the German advance. Tuchman also includes discussions of the plans, strategies, and world events that led to the war, as well as international sentiments before and during it. I found the book very interesting and learned a lot. Although the descriptions of army movements and tactics were sometimes hard to follow without a map, overall it was an engaging listen. I admit I expected more details about the other stages of the war, such as trench warfare, the roles of air forces, and the first appearance of tanks, but apparently, this was outside the scope of the book.

The narration of this book is truly excellent. And, of course, it is a classic, boasting vivid and gorgeous writing. The opening paragraph is justifiably renowned.

So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens - four dowager and three regnant - and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history's clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.

The book also has excellent - and very necessary - maps. My paperback copy has aged, with curled Post-Its marking the map pages. However, since I've read the paperback book several times, I managed to get by with the maps in my head. This shows the enduring appeal and value of this classic work, which continues to captivate readers with its vivid descriptions and historical significance.

The Great War often remains in the shadow of World War II, perhaps due to the sinister colors of Hitler and Stalin. But in fact, the First World War has fundamentally changed the previously naïve world. "Guns of August" has a Pulitzer, has fans like Kennedy, but above all, it is an extremely exciting read for the first month of the war, the most dynamic and mobile one, before it turns into the trench horror that will paralyze the warring sides for four years. Barbara Tuchman has achieved something palpable, which for me borders on a literary feat.

We have an abundant context that gives us an idea of why, in the end, it comes to this slaughterhouse. There are detailed descriptions of well-known historical figures - Kaiser Wilhelm, Asquith, Poincaré, Nicholas II, as well as the direct creators of the events - the high-ranking military. In those years, their influence was enormous and they had the freedom of action and prerogatives that would be impossible today. It was easy for me to forget that Moltke, John French, Foch, Joffre, Haig are real people, not literary heroes, and this is a rare achievement for a non-fiction book.

And what about the battles? I have not read more vividly and interestingly presented military actions, with the different perspectives of the respective camps, so that we have an idea at every moment of what is happening in the German, French and English headquarters, before, during and after each battle. The book also has its climax - the Battle of the Marne, which everyone knows how it ends, but it is presented with so much suspense and emotion that until the last moment I wondered if a reversal would occur.

Tuchman is very objective and does not shower criticism on any camp. In this sense, she cannot be accused of favoritism. And yet, her antipathy towards the Germans, those who wanted war the most, is palpable. For me, however, the behavior of the English headquarters was more repulsive, with that typically annoying English evasion, prevarication and refusal to take clear commitments. They turn out to be an unreliable, weak and overly cautious ally of the French army, although later they will compensate with heroism in the Battle of Ypres.

So, I am very, very satisfied that I read "Guns of August", which so far ranks in the top 5 for 2019.

Two groups of men

Will never return to the normal state

Those who have gone to war and those who have fallen in love

Roman Roland

I don't know if the two words of nationalism and religious nationalism were removed from the realm of human thought

And if humans really had no understanding of these two words, to what extent would the wars, violations, brutalities, and self-perturbations that have their origin in injustice and tyranny over the spirit and body of humans be taken?

Truly, ignorance is the greatest sin of humanity. This ignorance does not recognize German nationalism nor religious nationalism (the Taliban, al-Qaeda).

Pan-Germanism, which claims superiority over European culture and considers others as second-class human beings who should only serve them, believes that domination over others is its mission and, with the philosophy of (Nietzsche) and natural sciences (Darwin's theory), sees war as a natural need for humans. The dogmatism of Germany burned the city library of Louvain in Belgium on 25 August 1914, and the interesting thing is that these violations were approved by the prominent and cultural establishment of Germany... They believe that people like Thomas Mann consider war as purification, liberation, and a great hope!! And peace as an element of the corruption of civilization! How can one believe that these people are from the Goethean race?

Now compare this civilization that the Pan-Germanists had in mind, which was manifested in the burning of the library, with the religious nationalism of the Taliban, who detonated the Buddhas in Bamiyan province on 21 March 2001 to destroy the statues that, according to their religious laws, were a cause of apostasy....

Truly, what is the difference between Germany under the rule of Wilhelm II and the Taliban?

And again, repeating the first question, if humans did not know what nationalism is (whether of a religious or ethnic type), what difference would this world have from now?

Who is the answerer of Felix Foeh, the child who was three weeks old and was killed in the massacre by a mob in the city of Dinant (in Belgium)?

This was an extremely excellent read. It was so outstanding that I truly wish Barbara Tuchman had continued and encompassed the entire war and its consequences, rather than just focusing on the first month. It is highly readable, detailed, and features vivid characterisation, making it feel like a great novel (and I mean this as a compliment). I particularly relished the first section, which dealt with the lead-up to the outbreak of war.

Although in general I believed Tuchman was able to explain events with great clarity, when it came to the battles, I sometimes found myself getting confused and having to reread a passage. But this is likely more due to my own weak powers of concentration rather than Tuchman's writing. However, I was not aided by the模糊的、不频繁且无益的 maps in the edition I read. But that was a minor concern - it is definitely recommended.