Scan barcode
brannigan's review against another edition
2.0
Made it 150 pages in and had to abandon.
After having my interest piqued by Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast series (Blueprint for Armageddon, highly recommended), I was caught between either this book or Barbara Tuchman’s “The Guns of August” as my in-depth intro to WW1. Clearly I chose wrong.
While “1914-1918” provides a deep and thorough military and geopolitical history of the war, Stevenson could not have presented it more boringly if he had tried. One of the most vicious, world-changing conflicts in human history, condensed into page after page of statistics, dates and names. I’m not after gore porn or anything, but come on - I’m into history for the human story, to bridge the gap between past and present. Stevenson ruthlessly sucks all the humanity out, leaving only the driest possible details. It’s not even presented chronologically.
I can’t quite rate it one star because I’ll probably keep it around for reference at some point, but honestly you couldn’t pay me to read the remaining 450 pages.
After having my interest piqued by Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast series (Blueprint for Armageddon, highly recommended), I was caught between either this book or Barbara Tuchman’s “The Guns of August” as my in-depth intro to WW1. Clearly I chose wrong.
While “1914-1918” provides a deep and thorough military and geopolitical history of the war, Stevenson could not have presented it more boringly if he had tried. One of the most vicious, world-changing conflicts in human history, condensed into page after page of statistics, dates and names. I’m not after gore porn or anything, but come on - I’m into history for the human story, to bridge the gap between past and present. Stevenson ruthlessly sucks all the humanity out, leaving only the driest possible details. It’s not even presented chronologically.
I can’t quite rate it one star because I’ll probably keep it around for reference at some point, but honestly you couldn’t pay me to read the remaining 450 pages.
abehab's review
5.0
‘’Nothing ever seen before compared with such massive concentrations of firepower and of human suffering in such confined spaces over such long periods, and with such meagre results too’’
Today, trenches are perhaps the lasting image of the great war. However, contrary to popular belief, the war does go beyond outflanking manoeuvres by the belligerents on the western front. In fact, trenches were in use on almost all fronts. On the Italian front, trenches were blasted out of the Carso gray limestones with explosives. The Austro-Hungarian’s built complex and overly elaborate trenches in The Carpathian Mountains on the Eastern front. It was not the first war to employ trenches either. So, is there much beyond trench warfare to the first world war? The answer is an emphatic yes, and this book can explain why that is the case.
Historian Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius describes total war as;
‘’Not merely a contest between professional armies on the battlefield, but rather represents something far more vast. A clash of societies mobilized for total victory, including their economies, their political establishments, the intellectual life of a society and all of the passions of an entire population.’’
The analysis method chosen by Stevenson in this book, focusing on themes within the war and treating it as a total war, as opposed to a chronological description of events, makes for a sublime read. The book is divided into four parts (Namely, Outbreak, Escalation, Outcome and Legacy). It starts with a chapter giving an ample introduction, including the events in the years that led up to the war and the major wars that preceded it (i.e. The Franco-Prussian war, The Russo-Japanese war, The first and second Balkan wars). It then goes on towards brief explanations of the major battles on both the Eastern and western fronts (i.e. Ypres, Somme, Tannenberg, Łódź...) and description of the armaments of the major powers. The final two parts of [b:1914-1918: The History of the First World War|1511444|1914-1918 The History of the First World War|David Stevenson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388527008l/1511444._SY75_.jpg|1503069] focuses on the conclusion and aftermath of the war. In the competitive world of WWI history books, David Stevenson differentiates his work by offering a first class analysis of logistical, technological, tactical, economic and diplomatic considerations in the chapters that follow the introduction.
Discussing the outbreak of the war, historian Margaret MacMillan, in her public lecture entitled ‘’Was World War One Inevitable?’’, commented;
‘’Did the German leadership, Kaiser Wilhelm II and The German high command, want a war to destroy France and Russia? Or was it the fault of France, who resented that they had to pay a large indemnity to Germany and who lost two provinces during the Franco-Prussian war? Was it the fault of the Russians who were arming fast and forging an alliance with France thus making Germany feel encircled? Was it the fault of Britain for not making itself clearer about what it would do if war broke out? Was it economic rivalry between different countries? Was it competition for colonies? Was it the fault of the glorification of militarism in society? Was it the fault of the arms race prior to the war? Or was it no one's fault and it’s just one of those things that just happened? My own explanation is, there is no one cause, one person or one country. What happened in the summer of 1914 was a perfect storm. A number of things happened, in a particular order, at a particular time, with particular people involved thinking war was going to clear the air’’
There is much more consensus about the reasons for the outbreak of the second world war than the first world war. The origins of the great war are controversial to this very day. By European history standards, the years prior to the first world war were peaceful. But it was a tenuous peace, to be sure. When war finally came, It would prove to be the ultimate buckling of the Concert of Europe instituted after Napoleon’s downfall. Even the increasing global economic interdependence couldn’t prevent the war. It was an era of not only economic development but of armament as well. Warships had long changed from sail to steam, gun powders changed to chemical explosives and muskets were replaced by breech-loading rifles. Heavy machine guns were a staple of every army (a full strength infantry division in most armies of the belligerents having 24 machine guns). It was no surprise though that the spark that lit the fire came from The Balkans. It had been one of the most volatile regions of Europe, surrounded by the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungary empire and under dominance by the Ottomans for some years. When war eventually came, Austro-Hungary's ally Germany, faced two of the strongest armies (France and Russia) and the biggest navy in the world (Britain). Thus, the activation of The Schlieffen Plan (Modified by Helmuth von Moltke the Younger) ensued.
“Bombardment, barrage, curtain-fire, mines, gas, tanks, machine-guns, hand-grenades - words, words, but they hold the horror of the world.”
All Quiet on the Western Front, Erich Maria Remarque
Krupp, Vickers, Schneider, and Škoda (acquired by Schneider after the war) being the major arms producers prior to the war, they were also responsible for the expansion of the military-industrial complex during the war. Innovations such as magazine rifles with smokeless powder, thick and lighter alloy armours for battleships and quick firing guns that utilize spring recoil energy were altering the nature of combat on land and the seas. Despite the technological advances, infantry training was focused on attacks with rifle and bayonet in close quarters combat (including hand-to-hand combat).
I am the enemy you killed, my friend
I knew you in the dark; for so you frowned
Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed
I parried; but my hands were loath and cold
Strange Meeting, Wilfred Owen, 1918
Concerning the legacy of the war, Stevenson more or less echoes the sentiment of most modern historians in that it dismantled major empires, caused misery of unseen scales, led to the Versailles treaty (whose aftershocks reverberate around the world to this day) and led to discussions over conflict resolution mechanisms. But as to its shadow over the second world war, it indeed was a necessary precondition but not a complete and sufficient cause. Most studies into Winemar Germany would confirm that assertion.
It’s important to put into perspective how events during the war (Such as the Russian Revolution and subsequent Bolshevism, The Allie’s naval blockade, unrestricted U-boat warfare by the Germans, The Zimmerman Telegrams and America’s entry into the war) has shaped the landscape of the world. This also goes for events that immediately followed the end of the war (The Nye Committee investigations, the German Revolution of 1918 and The disunity amongst the allies about the implementation of the Versailles treaty). To end the war, it eventually took four years of attrition warfare, a large scale naval blockade, Bulgaria’s capitulation, Ludendorff’s mental breakdown, discontent on the home front towards the war and the allies' increasing cooperation with America. Germany would make its last reparation payment in October 2010.
This book might not be the best book to start reading about the first world war. Stevenson assumes preliminary knowledge of the major battlefields, commanders and leaders, battle tactics and armaments in use by the powers involved at the turn of the century. There are of course, other excellent books written detailing every major engagement from Liège to Meuse–Argonne. However, this is a book more suited to the seasoned history reader or historian intending to dig deeper into the great war. Because of the information rich and detail laden nature of the book, the 750 pages read more like a research paper of about 1000 pages. But, books like these help one go beyond generalizations like ‘’The war began because of the Sarajevo killings’’ or ‘’America’s entry into the war ended it’’. While those things hold true, again history shows a number of factors had had to happen in a particular manner and at a particular time, for events to unfold in the way they did.
harrisnotinparis's review
4.0
This was my first time reading, what I personally considered for me, one of those 'dense history books'. Overall I mostly enjoyed it and learnt a fair bit on not just World War One but war, politics and geopolitics more generally. The book is quite detailed and at least with my edition, of the 600 pages, the last 100 are all citations. A boon for those wanting to dig deeper and a relief for those such as myself writing off one sixth of the book as already finished - "we're half-way there!"
From Sheikh Yasir Qadhi's lecture on the history of the modern Middle East, he drives the point that WW1 is essential to understanding the present day condition of the region, more so than even WW2. This is chiefly in regards to the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire - one of the Central Powers belligerents. However of all the nations involved, the book focuses the least on it. And by a fair margin too. I'm unsure whether it was a fault of the book or indeed, of all the belligerents involved, it played a more periphery role within the war.
The second disappointment for me was how in the first third of the book it felt like a major slog to push through all the stream of events on the battlefield. My knowledge of European geography is quite poor to be fair and adding a second bookmark to the initial maps to flick back and forth did help somewhat. But it was still frustrating and caused me to procrastinate plenty with the reading. The good news is, once that's done, Stevenson indulges you with plenty of economical, political, geopolitical and social analyses. He even discusses the legacy and historical conceptions of the war towards the end, especially in relation to WW2. But still, a part of me wonders if I'd have had a better time initially if the first third wasn't simply an avalanche of battleground details and strategizing. Perhaps he could've laid it out in a more balanced fashion.
Still, the book was definitely a rewarding experience. I feel more confident in reading more of the genre and post WW1 history due to gaining a wide ranging impression of how the major European and world powers worked then, the context of how such a war could have unfolded and its continuing legacy.
After spending almost three months on this, I'd now like a more personal account, from the actual soldiers at the trenches (something missing from Stevenson) as well as the in depth account of the formation of the modern Middle East I was looking for earlier.
I have All Quiet on the Western Front for the former and A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and The Creation of the Modern Middle East for the latter. I'd appreciate any additional recommendations.
From Sheikh Yasir Qadhi's lecture on the history of the modern Middle East, he drives the point that WW1 is essential to understanding the present day condition of the region, more so than even WW2. This is chiefly in regards to the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire - one of the Central Powers belligerents. However of all the nations involved, the book focuses the least on it. And by a fair margin too. I'm unsure whether it was a fault of the book or indeed, of all the belligerents involved, it played a more periphery role within the war.
The second disappointment for me was how in the first third of the book it felt like a major slog to push through all the stream of events on the battlefield. My knowledge of European geography is quite poor to be fair and adding a second bookmark to the initial maps to flick back and forth did help somewhat. But it was still frustrating and caused me to procrastinate plenty with the reading. The good news is, once that's done, Stevenson indulges you with plenty of economical, political, geopolitical and social analyses. He even discusses the legacy and historical conceptions of the war towards the end, especially in relation to WW2. But still, a part of me wonders if I'd have had a better time initially if the first third wasn't simply an avalanche of battleground details and strategizing. Perhaps he could've laid it out in a more balanced fashion.
Still, the book was definitely a rewarding experience. I feel more confident in reading more of the genre and post WW1 history due to gaining a wide ranging impression of how the major European and world powers worked then, the context of how such a war could have unfolded and its continuing legacy.
After spending almost three months on this, I'd now like a more personal account, from the actual soldiers at the trenches (something missing from Stevenson) as well as the in depth account of the formation of the modern Middle East I was looking for earlier.
I have All Quiet on the Western Front for the former and A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and The Creation of the Modern Middle East for the latter. I'd appreciate any additional recommendations.
More...