Professor Stone's book on the fighting on the Eastern Front in World War One is one of the classic studies of the conflict.
However I believe, as does Professor Stone judging from his new introduction, that despite it's authority, the book has a weakness. Stone describes this as the absence of the private soldier.
Military history writing has moved on since this book was written and the absence of "character" from the descriptions can make the book a little dry. Sometimes I found myself re-reading sentences because of the skilful use of metaphor, but, also, I had to keep going back to try and work out which army was which. I have noted this in other works concerned with Russia (or invading Russia) from other periods, Napoleon, World War Two. It is like the distances are so vast that matters become inevitably confused. (They certainly do for the invaders.)
The fumbling on both sides is well captured here and the lack of any meaningful "objective" which leads generals to squabble amongst themselves and, more often than not, "trick" their superiors into committing reserves to their section of the front. The result of this method of doing war can be seen in the vast casualty figures.
Reservations aside, I would recommend this book to anyone seeking an overview of what is a neglected area (in comparison to the Western Front.)