Who Won the War? Not Us Apparently; the Myth of the Great War - A New Military History of World War I. by John Mosier (Profile Books, Pounds 20). Reviewed by Michael Emery

The Birmingham Post (England), July 14, 2001 | Go to article overview

Who Won the War? Not Us Apparently; the Myth of the Great War - A New Military History of World War I. by John Mosier (Profile Books, Pounds 20). Reviewed by Michael Emery


Byline: Michael Emery

British troops go over the top in France in 1916, but did this strategy simply strengthen the German position?

According to American academic John Mosier, the great myth of the First World War is that the British and French won.

In this new history of the Great War, which has taken him more than ten years to produce, he claims the American intervention in 1917 was crucial in that it was only the arrival of two million US troops that convinced the Germans they could not win.

Mosier's theory is based on more than a decade of research in mainly German and French archives and amounts to the most contemptuous assessment of British and French military strategy that you are ever likely to read.

In this provocative book, Mosier analyses how German weapons, strategy, training and leadership were consistently superior. As a result, casualty and death rates for the British and French were 35 per cent higher than for the Germans.

Compared to the allied 'victories' the German ones were real. Time and again a desperate allied attack would seize a few kilometres of the first line German positions and a victory would be declared - as at Cambrai in 1917, when the church bells in England were rung to celebrate the great triumph. Within a few days the Germans had mounted a counter attack that carried everything before them.

The Allies celebrated hollow victories at enormous cost while the Germans went about capturing countries: Belgium in 1914, Serbia in 1915, Romania in 1916, Italy in 1917 and at the end of 1917, Russia as well.

Whenever the Germans could throw the resources together to mount a major offence on the Western front it was successful. In July 1916, for example, at the end of their Verdun offensive, the German army was master of the battlefield.

Whereas Haig's battlefield tactics amounted to little more than opening up with a week-long artillery barrage on positions the Germans had invariably left, and then marching heavily-laden infantry men towards the enemies' guns and inevitable slaughter, the Germans were far more resourceful. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Who Won the War? Not Us Apparently; the Myth of the Great War - A New Military History of World War I. by John Mosier (Profile Books, Pounds 20). Reviewed by Michael Emery
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.