April 13, 2001

John Mosier's new book re-examines history with new evidence

By Margaret M. Wenzel, A'01 Intern in the Offices of Public Affairs and Publications

John Mosier, professor of English literature at Loyola, began writing his fifth and most recent book, The Myth of the Great War, as a guide to visitors to Europe who wanted to know about modern history. Ten years later, Mosier has now written one of the most controversial books about World War I, arguing that America's involvement on the Allied Side has been far more influential than previously thought before. The primary mystery of the conflict, Mosier contends, is that the Allies continued fighting in French trenches under the delusion that German casualties far outweighed those of the French and Belgian. Although the Germans suffered tremendous losses, they did not compare to the unsupportable levels on the French and British sides. The Kirkus Review, the newswire service that reviews books that have reached the potential to become bestsellers, has praised Mosier's book as "a compelling and novel reassessment of WWI military history." The review hails The Myth of the Great War as "a necessary addition to any serious collection of military or WWI history."

How did Mosier, an English professor, come to the field of military history? Well, his experiences as an author are as exciting as theories his new book proposes. Adventurous and humble, Mosier will tell you, "I do not think of myself as a historian."

Standing in a French graveyard over a decade ago, Mosier recalled how his search for the truth began: "I was standing in this place and I noticed hundreds of graves of soldiers who had died in Verdun in 1917. I had always understood that the battle was fought between February and December of 1916. There was clearly something wrong with the way history was being told. 'What was going on here?' I thought." Mosier got more interested, and as he began to uncover the truth, "it never became any easier."

"It was dangerous out there," Mosier relates. "People don't realize that most allied shells did not explode. They penetrated into the ground and the percussion fuses, TNT, never were impacted hard enough to go off," the author explains of his field research while in Verdun. The largest battlefield in the world, the site of incalculable horrors, was the place Mosier began his investigation. "As I have always understood military history, it was as if there were more German casualties than anything elseand why not?," he continues. "No one is really sure how many Belgians were lost in the war. Thousands of unmarked graves will muddle the facts up pretty well if you're not careful."

The greatest living British historian, Niall Ferguson, has praised The Myth of the Great War as a fresh new perspective on the subject. "He [Mosier] rightly argues that the crucial factor was their [Germans] superior understanding of the new artillery technology of the period, as well as their better infantry tactics. . . His really deep knowledge of the French military history of 1914-16, backed up by an impressive knowledge of the terrain, results in some truly convincing revisionism." Though Ferguson has stated that he fundamentally disagrees with Mosier's assessment of the American contribution to the war, "there is much else in the book I really admire."

Both Mosier and Ferguson used many of the same sources, but Myth improves on, in many respects, the Brit's respected figures. Ferguson has said, "Perhaps the thing I like best is the way he shows how allied propaganda tended to snatch victories from the jaws of defeat, by reporting short-term gains of territory, but not reporting subsequent and often successful German counterattacks. Mosier's point is that the historical narrative of the war has continued to be dominated by the narratives constructed at the same time as the Entente Powers. . . he sets about trying to deconstruct some of these 'victories.'" Mosier's final claim in Myth is the most controversial: he contends that the final allied victory was due to America's participation in the final stages. As the Kirkus Review stated, Mosier's theory is so well supported that, "Historians. . .will be compelled at the very least to come to terms with his argument."

What's next for Mosier? "A book about World War II." Using the same methods as in The Myth of the Great War, Mosier's next work should be completed around December of this year. HarperCollins has published the book here in the U.S., and the rights have to been sold to British publishers, Pilot Press.