Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.16 AVERAGE
4.16 AVERAGE
Non-judgemental, clever, balanced, good for your vocabulary, and sometimes frightfully exciting. History at its finest.
The study of the Serbian and Balkan contribution to the beginning of World War I is very informative and the best I've ever read, as is the in-depth review of the actions and motivations of all the European players, although once he is done discussing the Serbian/Balkan section, he focuses on Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France and Britain. Although he professes to be looking at how, and only secondarily why, and not to be playing the "blame game" it is clear from the narrative that he has a soft spot for Austria-Hungary and that he thinks that France, Britain, and Russia have a lot to answer for. But this author is too canny to ever come out and say that, he just adduces the facts that leads the reader to see his point of view. And I have to say, post-9/11 the arguments that Austria-Hungary had strong interests in having Serbia come to terms with terrorists operating in its land takes on a whole different meaning. (The author, having a more Euro-centric viewpoint than this reader, notes that this has a very different resonance in the wake of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the modern Balkan war.)
The author also identified for me the tipping point that led to World War I -- if the Tsar's first choice for prime minister had accepted in early 2014, it could have been a localized Austrian/Serbian dispute, because his first choice was a forceful man who despised Balkan entanglements. Alas, that man thought he had better things to do, so instead Russia got a weak-minded man who was overrun by ministers who thought the Balkans were the key to them Straits and the bulwark against the Central European powers, and Russia mobilized to support Serbia after Austria-Hungary's ultimatum, leading to the chain reaction that started WWI, to grossly oversimplify. But why Russian mobilization led to this chain reaction is the fascinating story that this book tells.
A very good read (although the author does tend to favor words like "irredentist," "demarche," and "hypertropically," all of which I had to look up) and a useful corrective to the Entente good/Alliance bad narrative, though I am not wholly a convert.
The author also identified for me the tipping point that led to World War I -- if the Tsar's first choice for prime minister had accepted in early 2014, it could have been a localized Austrian/Serbian dispute, because his first choice was a forceful man who despised Balkan entanglements. Alas, that man thought he had better things to do, so instead Russia got a weak-minded man who was overrun by ministers who thought the Balkans were the key to them Straits and the bulwark against the Central European powers, and Russia mobilized to support Serbia after Austria-Hungary's ultimatum, leading to the chain reaction that started WWI, to grossly oversimplify. But why Russian mobilization led to this chain reaction is the fascinating story that this book tells.
A very good read (although the author does tend to favor words like "irredentist," "demarche," and "hypertropically," all of which I had to look up) and a useful corrective to the Entente good/Alliance bad narrative, though I am not wholly a convert.
"Η έκρηξη του πολέμου το 1914 δεν είναι ένα δράμα της Αγκάθα Κρίστι, όπου στο τέλος ανακαλύπτουμε τον ένοχο στην τζαμωτή βεράντα να στέκει πάνω από ένα πτώμα με ένα πιστόλι που ακόμα καπνίζει. Δεν υπάρχει πιστόλι που καπνίζει σε αυτήν την ιστορία· η μάλλον, υπάρχει ένα στα χέρια του κάθε βασικού χαρακτήρα. Ιδωμένη απ' αυτό το πρίσμα, η έκρηξη του πολέμου ήταν μια τραγωδία, όχι ένα έγκλημα."
Εκατό χρόνια μετά την 28η Ιουνίου 1914, όταν ο Γκαβρίλο Πρίντσιπ σκότωσε τον αρχιδούκα της Αυστροουγγαρίας και διάδοχο του θρόνου της αυτοκρατορίας, Φραγκίσκο Φερδινανδο, θέτοντας σε κίνηση τα γρανάζια μιας μηχανής που οδήγησε στον πόλεμο που ονομάστηκε "Μεγάλος", οι αιτίες που πραγματικά οδήγησαν την Ευρώπη σε αυτό το σημείο χωρίς επιστροφή παραμένουν αξεδιάλυτες. Σε αντίθεση με τον πόλεμο που τον ακολούθησε, δεν υπάρχει ένα απόλυτο κακό, ένας αδιαμφισβητητος εχθρός απέναντι στον οποίο ορθωθηκε το αντίπαλο στρατόπεδο για να αποτρέψει την καταστροφική μανία του. Πρόκειται για ένα φοβερά σύνθετο γεγονός με πολλές και λεπτές εκφάνσεις που έπαιξαν, καθεμία το ρόλο της και συνέβαλαν στη διάπλαση της Ευρώπης σε αυτό που είναι σήμερα.
Το βιβλίο του Clark καταπιάνεται με την ερμηνεία των γεγονότων που οδήγησαν στην έναρξη του πολέμου, μέσα από την ανάλυση των πράξεων, των πιθανών κινήτρων, την ερμηνεία της ψυχολογίας καθενός εκ των ιθυνόντων και των φόβων και φιλοδοξιών τους. Πλούσιες λεπτομέρειες από διπλωματικα έγγραφα (αδύνατον να συγκρατηθουν όλες με μια ανάγνωση) και αλληλογραφίες και σφαιρική (πιστεύω) ανάλυση και προσέγγιση των γεγονότων της περιόδου πριν και κατά τη διάρκεια της Ιουλιανής Κρίσης.
Το βιβλίο δομείται σε τρία μερη: Το πρώτο ασχολείται με την έριδα μεταξύ Αυστροουγγαρίας και Σερβίας, η κλιμάκωση της οποίας οδήγησε στους φόνους του Σαράγεβου στις 28 Ιουνίου 2014 και στη μετέπειτα φάση της Ιουλιανής Κρίσης. Το δεύτερο καταπιάνεται με την εξέλιξη της γενικότερης ευρωπαϊκής πόλωσης τα χρόνια πριν από τον πόλεμο (ήδη από τα τέλη του 19ου αιώνα) αλλά και του πώς από την ύφεση της πόλωσης τα τελευταία χρόνια πριν τον πόλεμο φτάσαμε στο αυστριακό τελεσίγραφο και την κήρυξη του πολέμου. Το τρίτο εστιάζει στην ίδια την Ιουλιανή Κρίση και τις αντιδράσεις των εμπλεκομένων μεγάλων δυνάμεων σε αυτήν.
Ήταν αναπόφευκτος ο Α Παγκόσμιος Πόλεμος; Ίσως ποτέ να μην υπάρξει ξεκάθαρη απάντηση σε αυτό το ερώτημα, αξίζει όμως όλοι να σκύψουμε πάνω από αυτό το πολυσύνθετο γεγονός που ενεπλεξε μια ολόκληρη ήπειρο σε έναν πόλεμο που ξεκίνησε από ένα περιφερειακό κέντρο των Βαλκανίων, διέλυσε τρεις αυτοκρατορίες και άλλαξε την Ευρώπη για πάντα.
Εκατό χρόνια μετά την 28η Ιουνίου 1914, όταν ο Γκαβρίλο Πρίντσιπ σκότωσε τον αρχιδούκα της Αυστροουγγαρίας και διάδοχο του θρόνου της αυτοκρατορίας, Φραγκίσκο Φερδινανδο, θέτοντας σε κίνηση τα γρανάζια μιας μηχανής που οδήγησε στον πόλεμο που ονομάστηκε "Μεγάλος", οι αιτίες που πραγματικά οδήγησαν την Ευρώπη σε αυτό το σημείο χωρίς επιστροφή παραμένουν αξεδιάλυτες. Σε αντίθεση με τον πόλεμο που τον ακολούθησε, δεν υπάρχει ένα απόλυτο κακό, ένας αδιαμφισβητητος εχθρός απέναντι στον οποίο ορθωθηκε το αντίπαλο στρατόπεδο για να αποτρέψει την καταστροφική μανία του. Πρόκειται για ένα φοβερά σύνθετο γεγονός με πολλές και λεπτές εκφάνσεις που έπαιξαν, καθεμία το ρόλο της και συνέβαλαν στη διάπλαση της Ευρώπης σε αυτό που είναι σήμερα.
Το βιβλίο του Clark καταπιάνεται με την ερμηνεία των γεγονότων που οδήγησαν στην έναρξη του πολέμου, μέσα από την ανάλυση των πράξεων, των πιθανών κινήτρων, την ερμηνεία της ψυχολογίας καθενός εκ των ιθυνόντων και των φόβων και φιλοδοξιών τους. Πλούσιες λεπτομέρειες από διπλωματικα έγγραφα (αδύνατον να συγκρατηθουν όλες με μια ανάγνωση) και αλληλογραφίες και σφαιρική (πιστεύω) ανάλυση και προσέγγιση των γεγονότων της περιόδου πριν και κατά τη διάρκεια της Ιουλιανής Κρίσης.
Το βιβλίο δομείται σε τρία μερη: Το πρώτο ασχολείται με την έριδα μεταξύ Αυστροουγγαρίας και Σερβίας, η κλιμάκωση της οποίας οδήγησε στους φόνους του Σαράγεβου στις 28 Ιουνίου 2014 και στη μετέπειτα φάση της Ιουλιανής Κρίσης. Το δεύτερο καταπιάνεται με την εξέλιξη της γενικότερης ευρωπαϊκής πόλωσης τα χρόνια πριν από τον πόλεμο (ήδη από τα τέλη του 19ου αιώνα) αλλά και του πώς από την ύφεση της πόλωσης τα τελευταία χρόνια πριν τον πόλεμο φτάσαμε στο αυστριακό τελεσίγραφο και την κήρυξη του πολέμου. Το τρίτο εστιάζει στην ίδια την Ιουλιανή Κρίση και τις αντιδράσεις των εμπλεκομένων μεγάλων δυνάμεων σε αυτήν.
Ήταν αναπόφευκτος ο Α Παγκόσμιος Πόλεμος; Ίσως ποτέ να μην υπάρξει ξεκάθαρη απάντηση σε αυτό το ερώτημα, αξίζει όμως όλοι να σκύψουμε πάνω από αυτό το πολυσύνθετο γεγονός που ενεπλεξε μια ολόκληρη ήπειρο σε έναν πόλεμο που ξεκίνησε από ένα περιφερειακό κέντρο των Βαλκανίων, διέλυσε τρεις αυτοκρατορίες και άλλαξε την Ευρώπη για πάντα.
A thorough and in-depth treatment of the actions and decisions leading up to World War I. Obviously the author has done his research and is very familiar with the time period and people.
The book itself is a bit dry and doesn't lend itself to skimming, but I did learn a number of new vocabulary words.
The book itself is a bit dry and doesn't lend itself to skimming, but I did learn a number of new vocabulary words.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
A hefty tome for a labyrinthine subject, Clark himself emphasises that the descent of Europe into WWI was distinguished by the messiness of it all, the miscommunications and the subterfuge, the upheavals in alliances and the outright unpredictability of many of the major figures.
The pre-war era is painted as a web of nationalism, imperialism and stubborn old aristocratic men dragging whole nations towards a bloody slaughter (which Clark interestingly points out was more obvious to some of those involved than is commonly portrayed) on tenuous, even pathetic reasons. No one comes out of it looking good, from the violent opportunism of the Serbs, the self-righteousness of the Brits, the greedy expansionism of the Russians and Germans, even the smaller states like Bulgaria and Romania take their share of the blame.
Clark covers a vast array of interactions and meetings, and if parts of the book can be a little samey (mostly x talks to y about z, then issues an ultimatum to z before y has a change of heart) then that's just because the time period was like that. The repetitive nature of the diplomacy and politics is well depicted and it's hard not to conclude that Clark was as exasperated as he was fascinated by these harrumphing men from another era.
The best bits for me were the looks at the social and political situation in Serbia, an area not commonly explored in general WWI history, but a very crucial one and an interesting one which still has parallels even today for those who can remember Yugoslavia's fifteen year collapse. Also standing out were the looks at the personalities behind the leaders - the scandalous Caillaux trial in France, the unstable Kaiser, the Tsar's ambition and how the British attempts to keep Russia way from its empire had an impact on everything, the way Britain found itself led by a man, Grey, who didn't seem to really want to be a politician but had to be one because of his background.
A long read, but worthwhile.
The pre-war era is painted as a web of nationalism, imperialism and stubborn old aristocratic men dragging whole nations towards a bloody slaughter (which Clark interestingly points out was more obvious to some of those involved than is commonly portrayed) on tenuous, even pathetic reasons. No one comes out of it looking good, from the violent opportunism of the Serbs, the self-righteousness of the Brits, the greedy expansionism of the Russians and Germans, even the smaller states like Bulgaria and Romania take their share of the blame.
Clark covers a vast array of interactions and meetings, and if parts of the book can be a little samey (mostly x talks to y about z, then issues an ultimatum to z before y has a change of heart) then that's just because the time period was like that. The repetitive nature of the diplomacy and politics is well depicted and it's hard not to conclude that Clark was as exasperated as he was fascinated by these harrumphing men from another era.
The best bits for me were the looks at the social and political situation in Serbia, an area not commonly explored in general WWI history, but a very crucial one and an interesting one which still has parallels even today for those who can remember Yugoslavia's fifteen year collapse. Also standing out were the looks at the personalities behind the leaders - the scandalous Caillaux trial in France, the unstable Kaiser, the Tsar's ambition and how the British attempts to keep Russia way from its empire had an impact on everything, the way Britain found itself led by a man, Grey, who didn't seem to really want to be a politician but had to be one because of his background.
A long read, but worthwhile.
informative
medium-paced
Trying to sum up this book in a succinct way is nearly impossible. Which is fitting, as there's no way to try to explain the start of World War I in any kind of concise fashion.
Christopher Clark makes a valiant effort of trying to make sense of something that, a century later, is still pretty much impenetrable. The climate of Europe at the time was such that war seemed both absolutely inevitable and completely inconceivable, and Clark does an excellent job of capturing that biploar mood. He's particularly skilled at illustrating the political climate of the era, and the deep, recurring tensions that existed throughout the continent and throughout the great powers' empires to show how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was but one of seemingly a million things that could have sparked all-out war, while also being something that was entirely resolvable. By digging into each power's ambitions and fears, and into the key politicians' and monarchs' arrogance and insecurity, he helps make it clearer how everyone sleepwalked into a war that was beyond cataclysmic and whose aftermath the world still suffers from.
That said, there are a lot of ways in which The Sleepwalkers is as convoluted, impenetrable and tedious as the world it chronicles. There are at times far too many people to track, particularly when Clark tries to show how particular events affected each of the five great powers. There are attempts at psychoanalysis that fall flat. There are deep divergences into ancillary events that, while helping illustrate the tone of the era, go into far more detail than is probably warranted for the theme and central thrust of the book.
It's a long, slow read. But despite that, it's a very illuminating read. Other histories of the war I've read have tended to focus simply on the sequence of events, without any attempt to place them into context or show how no one player was completely to blame, nor completely blameless. For that reason, despite some flaws, The Sleepwalkers is a solid attempt to explain the origins of one of the world's most momentous - and most inexplicable - cataclysms.
Christopher Clark makes a valiant effort of trying to make sense of something that, a century later, is still pretty much impenetrable. The climate of Europe at the time was such that war seemed both absolutely inevitable and completely inconceivable, and Clark does an excellent job of capturing that biploar mood. He's particularly skilled at illustrating the political climate of the era, and the deep, recurring tensions that existed throughout the continent and throughout the great powers' empires to show how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was but one of seemingly a million things that could have sparked all-out war, while also being something that was entirely resolvable. By digging into each power's ambitions and fears, and into the key politicians' and monarchs' arrogance and insecurity, he helps make it clearer how everyone sleepwalked into a war that was beyond cataclysmic and whose aftermath the world still suffers from.
That said, there are a lot of ways in which The Sleepwalkers is as convoluted, impenetrable and tedious as the world it chronicles. There are at times far too many people to track, particularly when Clark tries to show how particular events affected each of the five great powers. There are attempts at psychoanalysis that fall flat. There are deep divergences into ancillary events that, while helping illustrate the tone of the era, go into far more detail than is probably warranted for the theme and central thrust of the book.
It's a long, slow read. But despite that, it's a very illuminating read. Other histories of the war I've read have tended to focus simply on the sequence of events, without any attempt to place them into context or show how no one player was completely to blame, nor completely blameless. For that reason, despite some flaws, The Sleepwalkers is a solid attempt to explain the origins of one of the world's most momentous - and most inexplicable - cataclysms.
At times I found myself wishing this book was not so detailed; having finished it, I am glad for that detail.
A tip for readers - have a notepad and pen handy so that you can note, for easy reference, the names and roles of the various ambassadors and ministers that keep popping up.
A tip for readers - have a notepad and pen handy so that you can note, for easy reference, the names and roles of the various ambassadors and ministers that keep popping up.
A lot of detail, sometimes hard to keep track of, but also a very coherent theoretical framework for understanding how the various pieces of the European alliance system worked and pushed the continent into war. It's not the story I thought I knew, but it sounds very convincing. Clark emphasises both the remoteness of the world order of the time, and the similarity of many of the motivations to those we see in international relations at the present day.
Despite the title, it doesn't appear that everyone was sleepwalking. Some saw war as a positive development.
Despite the title, it doesn't appear that everyone was sleepwalking. Some saw war as a positive development.