Splendid Examination of An Open Question: Was World War I Inevitable?
354060
Was World War I inevitable?  This splendid and readable book argues that it was not, focussing a series of specific policy choices made by individual national leaders in several different countries.  Taken together, these choices unleashed the maelstrom, but Clark suggests that different choices could have been made, and that a different and more peaceful outcome might have followed.

This brings us up against two key themes -- or more accurately points of disagreement -- in World War 1 historiography.  First, there's what another reviewer succinctly describes as  the powder keg vs. the match.  The "powder keg" view argues that political and economic tensions in Europe in 1914 were so intense that war was inevitable, making the Sarajevo assassination and subsequent events nothing more than a trigger: had they not happened, something else would have done.  The "match" view argues that a general European war was not inevitable, which makes Sarejevo very important indeed.

 Clark argues that the match mattered a great deal, more by detailing what actually did happen than by presenting counter-factuals.  For me, this was a compelling approach.  His detailed presentation of the Balkan situation and of Serbian internal politics is particularly enlightening, suggesting that Austria's response was not as irrational as is often assumed.  And his  discussion of the domestic pressures working on various political leaders taught me a great deal that I did not know.  As well as specific issues  -- he argues that much of the British military establishment saw a European war as something that could stop Home Rule in Ireland  -- he discusses the cultural and even personal pressures that worked on key actors.  Overall, he describes a policy environment in which internal communications were poor and lines of command blurred -- an environment in which mistakes were all too possible.

Second, there is question of national war guilt, which has been a central issue ever since the Treaty of Versailles put all of the guilt on Germany.  This was of course a major political issue in the interwar period, which tended to be pushed aside after World War II.  But Fritz Fischer reopened the argument with a bang in 1961;  in "Germany's Aims in the First World War", Fischer argued that Germany planned the war as a step towards European domination, making Hitler's policies a continuation rather than an aberration.  The debate that Fischer opened up is still wide open.  Some who disagree with him argue that another country (Russia, or France, or England) bore at least a large part of the responsibility, while others argue that war was triggered by a series of mistakes that left all participants (or no participants) responsible.  All involved have tended to move towards more nuanced points of view, but big differences persist.

Clark's title makes it clear where he stands in this debate: "Sleepwalkers" argues that the war resulted from mistakes rather than intention, though several national leaders were only too ready to move towards the brink.  The institutional issues are critical here, in that leaders did not have accurate information, and did not communicate clearly, on a national as well as an international level.  Moreover, he describes a situation in which all the major players had belief systems -- different and contradictory belief systems -- which allowed them to convince themselves that highly aggressive actions were in fact defensive.

Overall, this is an illuminating and very interesting book.  Any historian of course selects and arranges his evidence, and Clark does so quite brilliantly.  I am not entirely convinced that the war could in fact have been avoided.  But reading this book has certainly shown me how much individual misjudgements and random chance had to do with the war's outbreak,and how much Sarajevo really did matter.
220168
I enjoyed reading this.  While I would not consider it the definitive subject matter it does provide another perspective/case about the First World War that is not considered often.  Whether that is because it is false or just because it is un-explored by the general public is up to the individual reader to decide.  It definitely was a fresh take, reviewing well-worn events from a different perspective and viewing them through a different lens.  I enjoyed it for what it is.
3965127
SLA Marshall is an entertaining writer, and this book moves along at a good clip. As such, it offers a superb introduction (or re-introduction) to the study of the First World War. It is particularly noteworthy because Marshall was both a student of the war and a participant, allowing him to accentuate his account with some visceral elements that make the moments come to life.

Keep in mind, though, that despite the reverence paid him by many, in his later years he was accused of taking some historiographic shortcuts with some of his work that should warn a critical reader to take his conclusions with a shaker of salt. Further, Marshall published this work in 1971, and in the intervening years a considerable amount of scholarship has been done that call into question some of the conclusions that Marshall and others had reached about the war at the time.

For example, there is growing evidence that Imperial Germany's initial commander in the West, von Falkenhayn, did not actually intend to conduct a cynical battle of attrition at Verdun as he claimed in his memoirs and for which Marshall excoriated him. His claim appears to be an effort to cover the fact he grossly underestimated the bench depth of the French Army and its ability to feed fresh formations into the Verdun salient once the German attack began in earnest.

Readers are advised to start their study of WWI with Marshall solely for his readability, but to seek out other sources when looking to understand the war's causes and conduct in detail.
491911
It is a singularly interesting fact about this book that the author goes into great detail about the many countries and their preparations predating the outbreak of World War I, only to focus ultimately on one reason out of the multitude of reasons as to why the Great War was such a transformative experience for the world. The Schlieffen Plan did not break the world. It was only one set of war plans, and one failed attempt to win in one theater of combat, that contributed to the prolonged horrors that comprise that great blood letting that we know of as The First World War. The Great War destroyed the fabric of Western Civilization as it existed in the decades before its outbreak. The Great War relegated all of the Great Powers to virtually secondary power status, except for Great Britain, in the post-war era. It set the tone and created the material, political, and economic circumstances that would define the world after it was over. "If you want to understand the 20th Century, all roads lead to World War I." But the consequences of the Great War cannot realistically be attributed to a set of failed war plans that was only one part of setting the machine of slaughter that was the war into motion. The subject is just too big for that, and fixing the blame for all of it upon The Schlieffen Plan is ultimately simply too reductive and, to my mind, too simplistic to capture the enormity of the subject.
4258477
Jennifer Siegel details how international bond markets shaped global politics in the lead up to World War I.  Her approachable and engrossing account demonstrates the interconnected nature of the pre-War world and the outsize impact individual actions can exert upon geopolitics and state behavior.  Remarkably well-researched and clearly articulated, For Peace and Money is a strong addition to the literature surrounding the causes of the First World War, and an interesting read in its own right.
2727316
"Dreadnought" gives a thorough, indepth view of the causes of the Great War, from Victoria's arrogant, competitive eldest grandchild, to the machinations of Bismarck and German political leaders, and to the turn of the century arms race of capital ships.

Most interesting is Bismarck's vain attempt to use bombastic Prince William to counterbalance the Anglo-liberal  tendencies of Frederick and his strong-willed Empress, ending up with an irrepressible, uncontrollable "war lord".

The other major example of irrepression is in the form of Jackie Fisher -- Massie shows us how the will of an individual can change the decades-old traditions of a hoary organization into a modern day navy.

Overall, an excellent account of the prelude to the first major conflict of the 20th century
3126047
I have read several books dealing with the First World War before, but none except for Paul Fussell's THE GREAT WAR AND MODERN MEMORY can match this brilliant book for its scope and brilliance.  Other books deal with the nuts and bolts of history, but Eksteins is concerned with zeitgeist, both that which animated the birth of war and the way it was altered by that war.  More than anything, Eksteins is concerned with the metaphysics of the war, or the metaphysics of the world that it transformed.

The book is structured, like any good play, into three broad acts.  The first deals with the world on the eve of the war, examining attitudes, especially aesthetic attitudes, in France, Germany, and England, before the onset of the war.  The sections on the controversial debut of Diaghilev's production of Stravinsky's THE RITES OF SPRING (which obviously provides the book with its title), which deals in dance with a ritual blood sacrifice, are especially hypnotic.  Act Two focuses on the war itself, and even if one has read previous and equally nightmarish accounts of that insane and pointless conflict, Eksteins will bring the war alive for the reader.  One is especially impressed by the senselessness of the entire affair, so senseless that nonsense seemed to be at home there.  World War Two at least seemed to make sense for the participants.  Hitler and Tojo made the stakes all too clear, but the Great War was above all an affair of moral ambiguity, and Eksteins is brilliant at bringing this out, something that a purer historian like Martin Gilbert or John Keegan is ultimately unable to do, because he or she is limited by the task of the historian to deal with ethical and aesthetic categories.  The final act deals with the world remade by the events of 1914-18.  Eksteins focuses on three main aspects:  Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic, the publication of and response to Erich Maria Remarque's ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, and the rise of Nazism in post-war Germany.

It is an interesting question what genre RITES OF SPRING belongs to.  Eksteins offers too many insights that would normally exceed the job of the historian to label it simple history, though one could resort to calling it "intellectual history."  It is that, but he also becomes in his book a bit of a moral chronicler.  The book is more a work of art than a work of history.  Although it contains no obvious narrative, it feels as if it has a plot.

This is one of the more remarkable, haunting books I have read in recent years.  Absolutely no one interested in the meaning of the twentieth century, and especially no one interested in the Great War should skip it.  The only ones it will disappoint will be those primarily concerned with military strategy and body counts.
612113
This book convincingly challenges assumptions about war and violence by drawing upon a vast amount of anthropological evidence. The overall theme of the book is that Western culture has been and continues to be heavily influenced by an assumption that man is naturally warlike. However, a careful re-examination of the actual anthropological evidence leads to a different conclusion. Humans obviously have a capacity for violence and war, but they also have a huge potential for peacemaking, reconciliation, and avoiding violence in the first place.

Basically, anthropologist Douglas Fry argues that we have been sold on a bunch of assumptions and presumptions that do not match the actual facts. One chapter points out how a widely cited study on the Yanomam people of South America, that supposedly shows that "killers have more kids," is analytically flawed. Fry presents a re-analysis and poses the question: Why does this obviously flawed study continue to be widely cited? The answer seems to be that it matches preconceived notions about a violent human nature.

The book is extremely well documented. A listing of societies that do not engage in warfare is provided in support of the thesis that humans are not naturally warlike. Fry's writing style is fun to read. He takes the reader along on adventures in anthropology to discover some surprising findings. He also uses anecdotes very effectively as a literary device to keep the reader's interest. One of my favorite chapters is when he tells of his own fieldwork experiences in Mexico and is not afraid to point out his own follies in the field.

In sum, this is a very well documented re-evaluation of very commonly held assumptions about human nature and war. In is an important book. It also is interesting, and in places down right funny. I recommend it not only to all the people who "wished that they had majored in anthropology in college" but also to anyone who ponders why men continue to go to war. This book provides some insightful, "unconventional wisdom" on this timely topic.
3989240
This book is for anyone who loves history. It is an eloquent defence of our civilisation's values, and also an impassioned and compelling argument for why the study of history is so important and is a vital discipline. It is not a matter of agreeing with every point Professor Ferguson makes, although his arguments are very convincing and it is hard indeed to see how to disagree. This book raises a question, which is how the West has achieved predominance over the rest of the world, and, by extension, how it can possibly maintain that predominance if it loses the features which made it so successful and which are being adopted by its rivals. It is a cultural analysis backed by historical evidence, and it is deliberately provocative even in terms of the question posed, not to mention the answers provided. The main value of this book is not, however, its all-encompassing sweep of world history and rich collation of stories and anecdotes, although that is what makes it so much fun to read and saves it from being boring (which many good books are). Professor Ferguson's virtue is that he does not sacrifice intellectual rigour in order to engage the interest of a non-specialist. As an economist as well as an historian his analysis is underpinned by serious scholarship that is not easily accessible to the layman, yet he vigorously challenges the established conventions that are characterised by complacency, presumed even-handedness, and relativism. Professor Ferguson is magnificent at marshalling a wide range of knowledge to support his opinions. It is what history should be all about. This book is an incisive analysis of the past which aims to stimulate debate. It is a reassessment of our assumptions that have a profound impact on the present, and of course also on the future.
4646085
There are some excellent books dealing with the origins of WWI, but none comes close to Albertini in terms of its scope, mastery of the context and wide-ranging insights.  He makes a detailed case for Germany's heavy responsibility for the war, but also shows the complex set of factors that pushed Europe over the brink.  His account, for example, shows the critical role of the critical instability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and of the competing interests of Hungarians and Austrians in creating the conditions that led to war.  In the end, Germany's decision to try and maintain the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a Great Power is one of the tragic miscalculations of the 20th century, and I know of no other book that shows as much insight into the problems faced by the Austrians, Hungarians, Germans, Russians and the various players in the Balkans.  This is not an easy read, but it is well worth the investment
3293053
This book is an in depth and entertaining examination of World War I, its causes, the nations and personalities involved. The background of the nations and personalities really gave me an insight that I had not had before nor read in other books on the subject. I also felt that the author made an effort to be as unbiased as possible.

I had no idea that heirs to the Ottoman throne were kept imprisoned and terribly treated until crowned. Or that one of the greatest French socialists and great hope for peace was assassinated right before the hostilities started. Or that the English were more concerned about Ireland and the war came as almost a surprise to its citizens. and so on.

The reader of this audio cd was also superb. An audio book can be ruined by a poor reader, this book benefits from its reading.
1813363
Even a reasonably serious general reader of World War I histories is likely to be far better acquainted with the war on land than the war at sea.  After all, what else is there to know besides the Battle of Jutland, the sinking of the Lusitania, the German U-boat offensive and the reactive convoy system?  OK, some may have heard of Dogger Bank and recognize that Gallipoli was originally an entirely naval operation until practical difficulties turned it into the disastrous land offensive which has become synonymous with misadventures of the kind.  That's it, right?  Actually, no, not by a long shot.  And if you want to know the "rest" of the WWI story, and perhaps come to agree with the view shared by Author Massie and many other historians that British sea power was the war's ultimate determinant, then this is the book for you.
Another reviewer points out that the book appears to have been largely derived from secondary sources, and that may well be true.  But Massie's masterful amalgamation, if you will, nonetheless produces a stunning panorama that if not entirely original in its sources, is surely an example of the very finest scholarship of the kind and an "original" in both its sweep and its marvelous presentation in terms of language and story-telling.
I made the same "secondary source" comment about Winston Groom's 2002 book on the fighting in the Ypres salient, "A Storm in Flanders," but there is between the two works a distinction with a considerable difference.  The Ypres story has been written about with sufficient frequency over the last 90 years that any new telling runs the risk of being downright familiar to serious WWI readers, and so it is with "Storm"; I could have sworn that I had in hand only a slight variation of the several works on the subject I have read.  Thus, my conclusion that Groom's book amounted to little more than a nicely turned out rehash.  Not at all worthless, just of limited value to the serious WWI reader.
Such is not the case with "Castles".  The book undertakes nothing less than a thorough account of the entire war at sea and succeeds like nothing else I have ever encountered.  Secondary the sources might have been, but the result is indisputably first-rate.  Take our "five-star" word for it: you will not only enjoy the read, but will forever after be comfortable that you understand and appreciate the significance of the "forgotten" side of the war.
252651
An excerpt from the review on StrategyPage. Com:

"The able and prolific Prof. Black (Exeter),author of&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/War-and-the-World-Military-Power-and-the-Fate-of-Continents-1450-2000/dp/0300082851/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">War and the World: Military Power and the Fate of Continents, 1450-2000</a>,<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Age-of-Total-War-1860-1945-Studies-in-Military-History-and-International-Affairs/dp/1442207000/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Age of Total War, 1860-1945 (Studies in Military History and International Affairs)</a>, and numerous other works, gives us not so much a history of the 1914-1918 war as a thoughtful review of why it developed in the ways that it did, how different groups have come to - or chosen to - remember it, and how it has shaped everything that followed down to the present.

"Unlike most treatments of the war, there is less focus on the Western Front and the Great Powers, as Black not only tries to look at the war as a whole, but even discusses fighting in some of its oddest corners, such as the Sudan, Ethiopia, or Central Asia. Although it opens with a chapter on "Causes," which is followed by chapters that survey the events of each year of the war, Black's final chapters, "The Struggle Reviewed," "The Impact of War," and "The Making of the Modern World," are what's really important."

For the rest of the review, see StrategyPage. Com
3758735
The theme of this well-balanced, well-arranged book is not the German  military effort but political and social developments on the home front. In  the end, these were to prove almost as decisive as the greater military  strength of the Entente powers and the United States in bringing about  Germany's defeat.  As the author shows, Germany was a deeply divided  society going into the war, and the "civic peace" proclaimed in  August 1914 among the nation's bitterly opposed social classes and  political interests was not to last long. The attempt to sustain a war  effort against France, Great Britain and Russia - with only the hopelessly  incompetent Austro-Hungarian Empire as an ally - necessitated huge  sacrifices on the home front. Ultimately, the majority of the German  population was not willing to keep making those sacrifices, particularly on  behalf of a political system that had evolved by late 1916 from the  semi-authoritarianism of the pre-war Kaiserreich into a pure military  dictatorship.  Adolf Hitler later came to power exploiting the myth of  the "November criminals" - that is, those who led the German  revolution of November 1918 and  who, in his eyes, traitorously inflicted a  defeat on Germany that need never have taken place. However, as Chickering  shows in some detail, the truth is that Germany was certain by mid-1918 to  lose the war anyway.  This is a book for readers who are interested more  in the political than the military aspects of the First World War. It holds  no surprises but is authoritative and efficiently written.
2777033
The usual summary of the years before the first World War, that "War to end all wars," typically talks about a long golden summer of peace, punctuated by a few national rivalries, and exploded by an assassination in Sarajevo. But the peace was only on the surface; long-simmering discontentment from each nation involved had simply come to a boiling point, and Sarajevo was just that final, proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

MacMillan does an excellent job of chronicling the individual situations that became the trigger of World War I, beginning with a summary of Europe in 1900, and then examining, country by country, alliance by alliance, and finally event by event every step that led to the final declaration of war. Her narrative is highlighted by distinctive personalities: the Kaiser with his deformed arm and bombastic personality; avuncular Edward VII and later his son George V, the first of two kings in a row who had not expected the British monarchy to fall upon them; Nicholas of Russia, an autocrat with poor advisers whose personal life partially led to his undoing; the aristocratic Emperor Franz Joseph; the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who hated Hungarians and Serbians, yet his assassination killed a man whose opinion might have turned the tide against eventual war, as well as their advisors, ministers, and other military officials like Britain's Admiral Jacky Fisher and Otto Von Bismarck. Events outside of Europe--in Morocco, Libya, and South Africa among others--also contributed to the breakdown of relations.

This is not a difficult, obtusely scholarly book. Its prose is precise and understandable, but because of all the actions going on "behind the scenes," it is a dense book, and one that must be read with an attention to detail so that all of the actions and how they led to war can be grasped. If you are looking for a simple overview of the causes of WWI, this is not the volume for you; however, if you are interested in the period and can give your total attention to the text, it is illuminating and rewarding.
1624843
This is a series of articles that aim to reexamine the origins of World War I in light of the latest research (up to early 2000s). The success varies. Of the articles on the major participants those on Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, and Great Britain are all very good to excellent, succeeding in turning up valuable facts and insights over and above what is available in more general surveys. Only the article on Germany is truly disappointing, rehashing tired accounts and arguments. The articles on minor participants and latecomers are welcome additional perspectives. Overall, this is an essential book for anyone with a serious interest in the war's origins.
1475155
This is the first comprehensive study of the period leading to WWI that I have read, and it follows my having read two personal accounts of the devastation of trench warfare.  So while I can't provide scholarly/comparison thoughts on the tide of opinions and books that this war has generated, I can say that I have described this book to my friends as being most pervertedly hilarious.  Fromkin begins by setting the stage that was Europe (including the Balkans and the withering of the Ottoman Empire) in the years prior to the war and then steps through, day by day and country by country, the machinations that abounded during the period from June 28, 1914 - the assassination - through to Britain's ultimatum to Germany and Vienna's declaration of war against Russia some five weeks later.  Thankfully, he then rounds up all that has been laid out in presenting his argument as to 'who started the great war.'  Why pervertedly hilarious?  Because no one could have written a stage play to match the game-playing between the heads of state, the confusions, the misleading, the lies, etc., etc., that sought to provide a "justifiable" reason for "war now" vs any other time.  This book was fascinating from the first to the last and will require rereading for me to fully appreciate the players and the stage that was then.  Awesome.  And horrifying.