History depends on how you look at it, and that is something that changes over time and over place. This book looks at how that has happened in the writing of the seminal event of the 20th Century, World War I -- the Great War. It is a fascinating exploration for those interested in the War. More broadly, it is an important book for those who are interested in history in general, showing vividly how much the interpretation of events can change, depending on who is doing the telling, and when the tale is told.

The authors, one a Frenchman and one an American, cite the dizzying volume of historical work on the Great War, noting that over 50,000 titles are listed in a French-language historical library (the Economist magazine cites 25,000 books and articles: maybe that's just in English). They review this literature longitudinally (over time), by country, and by topic. The national differences are profound: the consensus of anglophone writers is that the war was a tragedy, but the French view is tends towards a war of national survival. And the differences over time are profound as well. In the 20's and 30's, the focus was on the diplomatic and military aspects of the war, with a big contribution from political leaders and generals, pointing out how right they were. After World War Two, the historian's focus on the Great War shifted to social and economic factors, with a significant Marxist influence. And in the last few decades, the focus has shifted to cultural and individual topics, including the way in which the Great War is remembered. This adds up to a highly illuminating look at how the historical idea of the Great War has evolved -- and will doubtless continue to evolve.

But the importance of this book goes beyond an examination of one conflict, no matter how significant. It is a vivid illustration of the fact that writing history is a process of combining selected pieces of evidence to tell selective stories. Those stories depend on who is writing the history, on where they are writing it, and on when -- and why -- it is written. It is too easy for the reader of history to forget that even the most compelling work is a partial view, and that "what really happened" can never really be determined. That's not to say that everything is relative, but in history, most things are. ( )