Brian Bond writes with blinders on. His revised edition has corrected errors in numbers of casualties, in the Vietnam War, for instance. He is adept at taking snippet quotes of, say, historian John Keegan, and turning it into a whitewashed revisionist position. Keegan, for instance, did not say that the best military leaders occurred during the Great War, as Bond implies. Bond is, after all, one of the new revisionist historians, who, despite showing some merit in examining some of the television and movie interpretations of the Great War, whines on consistently about the high moral leadership of the inept and self-righteous Alexander Haig, whilst undercutting more serious research/historians who have gathered the facts and presented them in a methodical way. Bond's 101 page diatribe (I omit his 5 page self-congratulation in being part of the Lees Knowles Lectures, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the main thesis of his book) of glossed-over facts, and poor research, is quickly read and poorly researched. Don't waste your time or money. He is the archetype of revisionist history.