The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I

by Edward M. Coffman

SAME COVER AS STOCK PHOTO SHOWN. MINOR SCUFFING & EDGE WEAR ON COVERS. SEVERAL PAGES HAVE LIGHT CURLING AT TOP OUTER EDGE. NO MARKING OR WRITING NOTED IN BOOK.

Genres: History, Military History, World War I, Nonfiction, American History, War, Military Fiction

412 pages, Hardcover

First published November 30, 1967

About the author

Edward Coffman was professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A specialist in military history, he earned his BA, MA, and PhD at the University of Kentucky.

Reviews

[Dimitri · Rating 3 out of 5]

The best recognition of your status as a classic is to be reissued for the next generation. Still, Coffman's greatest asset, a living segment of the Doughboys, feels underused, with only 50 interviewees listed in the bibliographical essay. It takes the joy out of what is otherwise indeed a great primer on the AEF.

He's off on a slow start which contrasts with the feverish pace of the U.S. military's expansion but gives a sense of the magnitude of the task at hand. One of the biggest issues was centralized control by a General Staff to replace the semi-autonomous fiefs of the War Department's bureaus. The vital input of civilian industrialists, who geared their empires to the logistical demands of a citizen army, sits askew of our notion of a military-industrial complex. These were the years of its birth.

The distinction between Regular Army, National Guard and volunteer, in order of perceived superiority-at-arms, crops up constantly. By the time the first transport leaves, a myriad of officers from the pre-war army has been introduced, with their new colleagues close behind over there. The amount of names can be overpowering: much like the Babyboomer generation, only Pershing is a household name.

The impression you're most likely to take away from the first half ? Just when the U.S.A. had its affairs in order, the war was over . The vast machinery in the rear spun with false notes until autumn '18, but its melody would remain on George C. Marshall's mind for the next total war. He's here in a junior capacity. "spot the WWII commander" is a fun game when reading about the American intervention in the Great War; yet one wonders whether some of the better choices aren't buried in the Argonne area.... MacArthur.

The U.S. Navy sent in the millions, just like on the propaganda pamflets, right? Reality was more complicated, one could say needlessly so. Half of the transatlantic traffic was done by the Royal Navy, while over 300 U.S. vessels patrolled the waters around the Home Isles and even the sea straits of the Mediterranean. The diesel-perfumed labour of the wave-rockin' destroyers guarding the Atlantic sea lanes is also described in nauseating detail.

Once we march to the sound of the guns, we march gaily. The mud-choked atmosphere of the impenetrable Argonne Forest is rendered palpable through the veteran's own words, at last. Here the German opponents, weary and overwhelmed as they stood, held on with all the defensive skill acquired over 4 years. Machine guns would even fire from central high ground over the tree tops into the fields below. While the over-enthousiasm of inexperience was no empty charge leveled against the American First Army, their energetic style of attack carried results in spite of heavy casualties. The American focus on size came in handy for preparing an attack by numbers, without exception gargantuan in their requirements of ammunition and road space. What stands out is a good eye for strategic ground : offensives dominated by American formations often targeted long-neglected cornerstones of the German lines in Eastern France, with railroad hubs and the Rhine beckoning beyond. In cracking such tough nut, they also learnt not to be where the enemy's counter-barrage would land, or conversely to press home the charge in the face of neutralizing MG's.

They did not stand alone. The strains of Anglo-American relationships on both the command and cultural levels are strewn throughout the pages, with French and Australians thrown in for happy measure. More time could've been spent on the tactical marriage; we learn almost nothing about which lessons the selective draftees from all states absorbed or discarded. Their habit of replacing the stiff French grenade-throwing motion with a baseball curve, for one, is not mentioned.

The training could be lethally brutal, if following expert about aviation is to be believed: "The French instructors would demonstrate the handling of the stick on the ground, watch the student go through the motions & then send him up to try it alone. Sometimes the novice failed to come out of the Vrille [spin]. This was a calculated risk, for without knowledge of these maneuvers the pilot would be dead meat in combat.

The plight of the Negro troops (50.000 out of 200.000 , the rest being labourers) gets the attention it deserves in a work written at the height of the Civil Rights movement, in what through American eyes must be a distinctively 'liberal fashion'. Suffice it to say they fought as well as whites - the nickname Harlem Hellfighters doesn't appear out of thin air - but remained trapped in the institutionalized racism of the day.

[Erik Tolvstad · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been on an early 20th Century US History reading cycle for the last couple of years. Coffman's "The War to End All Wars" is the best I've read so far on US involvement in WW1. The first third/half of the book is on how the US Army was created, nearly from scratch in a few months prior to shipping the first elements off to France. Coffman lays out the huge mess of political, administrative, logistic & equipment, finding manpower, training both soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines AND their officers hurdles to be managed, but never completely overcome.

The latter part of the book gets into the American Army and John Pershing's experiences in France. Pershing, was a complex man, stubborn and flawed leader, given near "pro-consul status" by a hands-off President Wilson, which lead to nearly non-stop administrative and leadership battles with his French and British counterparts. While this mid-1960's history doesn't dish a lot of criticism on specific American leaders, the only US commanders that consistenly comes in for praise are Generals Hunter Liggett, Tasker Bliss, John LeJeune, and Admiral William Sims. General Henri Phillipe Petain is also shown most often in a favorable light - with his support of Pershing and American operations. Other British and French leaders are allotted mixed reviews.

While the battlefield events are covered in the last third of the book, it could use some more maps, preferably in greater detail. (That would help tell the story of the battles themselves)

I heartily recommend this book. (I also recommend Coffman's "The Regulars" - largely about US military life in the 1900-1940 time range. It's the mundane stories of life on dusty bases in the Southwest, or in hot, humid Manila, and sometimes the narrative is told as first-person recollections by one-time Army "brats" who grew up on those bases)

[Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book, providing a detailed history of the US military involvement in WWI. Covering topics as diverse as industrial base development, recruitment and training, a constantly changing organizational structure, life for the common soldier, and combat descriptions this book is very detailed. Originally published in 1968, this book was labeled the authoritative work on the subject; given the very in-depth descriptions I am not surprised. I’m sure elements of it are probably up for debate given the span of time since it was written, but the basic facts it lays out do a good job of describing what it was like to put over a million soldiers in uniform and overseas with a military bureaucracy and industrial base which was still set up more for frontier duty rather than modern warfare. Reading how the various establishments were able to (for the most part) be successful in this endeavor was one of the more interesting sub-stories. The author does a good job in bringing up the stories of junior officers and politicians (Truman, Marshall, Roosevelt, etc.) who learned important lessons they would use when they were leaders in the next World War some 23 years later. The lessons for us today are also there: how to make big changes and prepare entrenched peace-time organizations for an unexpected mission in a short period of time. A great book for those wanting to know more about the peculiarities of America’s WWI story.

[Matt Caris · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's kind of amazing that this book still hasn't been superseded as the standard one-volume account of the US military's participation in the First World War, given it was written in the 60s and long before different archival records became available. Yet this is a sound overview of all dimensions of the conflict, particularly of the logistical and organizational challenges the War and Navy departments faced in getting up to speed for the conflict. Certainly not the most "thrilling" read, and it doesn't challenge much of anything in terms of the accepted history of the war or the American participation in it, but this book is a sound reminder that scholarship doesn't have to "challenge" anything to be good scholarship.

The piece that sticks out the most from this account is the sheer scale and timeline associated with the development of the AEF and the naval and air forces that went to Europe. We forget often that in World War II we actually had a significant head-start - the Two Ocean Navy Act was passed in July 1940, selective service began that year as well - relative to where we were in world War I. The conscription, training, equipping, and deploying of the million-plus man AEF in just over a year remains a colossal achievement, and one that seems largely forgotten to both the public and even military planners and national security experts today.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every bit the classic it is said to be. Coffman delivers in every section: deep knowledge, keen observation and analysis, and keeps a cast of characters in the reader's eye while also keeping them in the roles they played. Battle analysis, overall strategy, and constant political intrigue fill the pages of this work. In short, you come away wanting more but knowing you were fortunate to get such a clear rendering.

[Angelyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pure history about WWI. Mostly tactical, logistical and political information but very interesting since I really didn't know much about it. Only glimpses of heroics here and there. Also from American perspective. The attitude of the American soldiers or many of them was "Come on you S.O.B.'s, do you want to live forever?"

[Ozymandias · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good book for anyone who’s interested in the American experience of World War I. America tends to get overlooked in that war since they only showed up in any numbers in the final year and never really suffered the calamities shared by all other nations. The predominant narrative of a pointless, blood-soaked abyss sucking in the youth of a nation doesn’t really fit the American case. All they experienced was victory, and while they suffered and died it was never without hope of eventual triumph in sight.

This book was not what I expected. Rather than adopt a strictly narrative approach, it divides the war into thematic sections. For example, we get one chapter on training, another on the general staff, one on logistics of transporting the American Expeditionary Force, one on airplanes and the navy, etc. Only at the end do we get a straight narrative of the battles fought and the AEF’s experience of the conflict.

I was nonplussed by this at first, but after a while it became clear that it was impossible to tell the whole American experience in any other way. There’s simply too much ground to cover otherwise. Interrupting the building up of the AEF to tell of training camps back in the States or naval developments over in Italy would only cause confusion.

The book also has a good overview of the experience of different subsets of the army, most notably the African-American regiments. The book goes into these units in detail, although it is often (in this and other areas) outdated in approach. The constant reference to “Negro” troops is uncomfortable. Still, the approach is sympathetic and well-researched and emphasizes just how wide a gap existed in WW1. You can see the limits of even enlightened officers. “Black Jack” Pershing, himself a leader of African-American troops, never questioned their ability to be brave. He just doubted that black officers could ever be the equal of white ones. And let himself regard the units that failed as proving that theory while ignoring the ones who succeeded.

I won’t say I came away completely satisfied. I had hoped for more discussion of Pershing’s effort to keep the AEF as one body and not use American troops as filler for some other country’s army and an analysis of how realistic/necessary this was. Indeed, the command staff’s tactical decision-making was a decidedly minor part of the book. From the opposite side, I never really felt that the Face-of-Battle elements it focused on really told us what it felt like to be there. But I feel that I understand a lot more about the army’s organization and structure as well as the attitudes of the soldiers and how their experience differed from that of the other combatants. That’s a lot to cover in one book.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite its decisive involvement in the First World War, military histories of the United States’s role in the conflict are few and far between. And since it was first published over half a century ago Edward Coffman’s account has dominated the field. This is not for any lack of significance of the war in American history. As he notes, nearly 5 million Americans served in uniform during the conflict, including some who were among the most celebrated figures of the Second World War, while millions more took up war work or adjusted their lives to adapt to the nation’s involvement. Yet even with the deployment of what was at that time the largest army in American history and its participation in the climactic battles on the Western Front, histories of these operations remain surprisingly scarce.

While this helps to explain the importance of Coffman’s book, it is not the only reason why it remains the foundational text on the subject. Written at a time when archival records were fully accessible yet veterans were still available to share their insights, his narrative reflects the shared strengths of scholarly analysis and personal remembrance. Including as it does chapters of the mobilization and training of the forces, as well as the naval and aerial aspects of the American effort, it is usefully comprehensive in its coverage of military operations. Yet it is Coffman’s description of the operations of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) that make up the majority of his book, and these chapters still reward reading for their detailed coverage of the combat in which the AEF were engaged. While the decades since have seen the production of many fine works (such as David Trask's The AEF and Coalition Warmaking, 1917-1918, William Still's Crisis at Sea: The United States Navy in European Waters in World War I, and Richard Faulkner's Pershing's Crusaders: The American Soldier in World War I, to name just three) expanding on some of the topics that Coffman addresses, his book remains the best starting point for anyone interesting in learning how American forces waged “the war to end all wars.”

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good account of the USA's military participation in the First World War. While mainly a chronological narrative, there are thematic analyses of different types of warfare, such as the naval and air components. Also important facets such as the experiences of Black Americans are discussed. The battles themselves are described very clearly with a good use of maps.

What makes this book particularly valuable and enables it to stand the test of time is the extensive use of first-hand accounts from participants. The bibliographical essay at the book's conclusion is most valuable in covering all such sources.

This is strongly recommended as a thorough and accessible account of the USA's involvement in the military aspects of the war.

[Henry Davis IV · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book on U.S. involvement in World War I, this works would benefit from decent maps and more depth in its last chapters.

[Shaunte Ruiz Zundel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good details and written well. Difficult to read only due to my lack of knowledge of WWI, but left me wanting to understand more.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not a big fan of military history, but I needed to read about World War I as it seemed to be glossed over in the shadow of World War II in history classes. It almost seems reduced to trivia answers: the Archduke Ferdinand, trench warfare, doughboys, the Red Baron, Treaty of Versailles. Maybe the fact that the US was late to enter the war and it was relatively brief and less painful than the Europeans' experience that it is almost overlooked in US history studies. Go to any large bookstore (while you can) and peruse the history and military aisles. There are rows and rows of Civil War and WWII books. Entire sections. And nestled in between you will probably find the obligatory account of the Spanish American War (most likely focusing on Teddy Roosevelt) and maybe a book or two about the Great War in Europe.

But what was the experience of the United States? Even if it was a short engagement the mobilization was massive compared to the somewhat recent conflict in Cuba. And the country was a very different place than when a previous generation raised arms in the Civil War. How did that happen? That is what I wanted to read about. With no compelling recent books I found The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I written in 1968 by Edward Coffman. The book is exactly as advertised in the title. It barely covers the European conflict prior to the American involvement and then focuses exclusively on the planning, mobilization, administration, and finally major battles.

The battle description in the latter part of the book were interesting from the perspective of the decision-making and communications challenges, however it did not capture the true experiences of the thousands that lived and died through the horrors of early modern warfare.

The first half of the book described a mobilization effort that is still almost unbelieveable. The United States had a very, very small standing army and the institutions and infrastructure were basically nonexistent, or relics of the Civil War. That includes people and knowledge. The conscription, training, feeding, clothing, and moving of more than a million men from a standstill is remarkable. Of course many had little to no training. Others used sticks instead of guns for practice until they reached the front. Tanks and airplanes were brand new technology that no one knew how to use and maintain, let alone to understand and coordinate optimal military strategies for them.

The infrastructure created, including the financing and industrial relations, will obviously be key to the country's ability to expand into a world power in the coming century, specifically its lead role in WWII. (Personal shout out to Mr. Bernard Baruch for his leadership in WWI as the most famous alum and namesake of my graduate school!) While the book stopped with the armistice, I want to know more how much the country was truly changed by this experience, how much infrastructure remained versus dismantled, and how the attitude of people changed as the soldiers returned to waving flags and bands with stories of the horror of a great war, all against a backdrop of a rapidly world and their country's position in that world was changing.


Coffman's book is a fine read. 3/5 stars. As mentioned the focus is exclusively on the American experience. While it is not a page turner, it is readable and appears to be thorough, with a good use of primary sources and accounts from multiple perspectives. Written in 1968, there are fleeting references to Vietnam and he anticipates World War II, often hinting at people who would later become prominent in that story.

[Peter Sprunger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Coffman discusses WWI from the perspective of the soldiers rather than work through in typical chronological order. It is light on military strategy and maps but heavy on stories and perspectives. Because the United States had a relatively small military when we entered WWI, there were numerous logistical problem faced. How do we transport our troops over? Do we have enough capacity to build the needed boats? Who will be in charge of all the new troops and who will train those that are to be in charge? It isn't the most exciting read and gets a little monotonous towards the end because every story has the general theme of "we didn't beat them with experience, we beat them with numbers".

[Dave N · Rating 5 out of 5]

This books is invaluable for understanding how the US responded to both its entry into the war and the lead up to its entry, which was pretty interesting in and of itself. The role of private business and businessmen was edifying, as was the helter skelter nature of so much of the planning and provisioning for the army. That the AEF was valued more for its presence than its prowess on the battlefield is no secret, but the effort it took to get those troops from one side of the pond to the other is something that's barely touched on in other books on the War. And the descriptions of the individual soldiers and how they experienced the end-days of the conflict (as well as their experiences in Europe during and after the War), were illuminating.

[LaNita · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps the best book out there when it comes to learning about the United States' role in WWI. The battles sort of went over my head (not my thing), but the sheer enormity of what had to happen for the Americans to make a difference (and they did) and the details concerning life as a dough boy were fascinating. Sadly, politics came into play after the war and the role of the Americans has been down played. Coffman proves that while the AEF (American Expeditionary Force) may not have been the best military in the world, the European map would probably look much different today if it had not been for the U.S.

[Andy M · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a military history that never strays far from the conventions of the genre, for it mainly concerns the decisions made by generals and the circumstances and consequences of those choices. Occasionally, it does offer the common soldier, sailor, or airman's point of view. It's not dry throughout, but the myriad details about the movements of divisions might be fatiguing to some readers. The most valuable part of the book to me was reading about the early days of the first combat pilots.

[William Shep · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very well researched and written account, that stands up well over time. The essay on sources is magnificent.

[Stephen Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

As one would expect from Coffman, a good, solid narrative history of the US involvement in World War One.

[Edward Weiner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the most exciting history book, but I did learn some things.

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

"After all, many did believe that it was the war to end all wars."

[Kester · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short summary: "World War I sucked."