What do you think?
Rate this book
1914-1918: The History of the First World War
In the summer of 1914 Europe exploded into a frenzy of mass violence. The war that followed had global repercussions, destroying four empires and costing millions of lives.
729 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
October 28, 2023
‘’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 1914-1918: The History of the First World War 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.
March 29, 2013
I have had an interest in the First World War for many years and have read a variety of books, attended academic discussions, spoken to veterans and visited the battlefields and cemeteries.
This then has provided me with an strong appreciation that the war wasn't just the simple view of: a royal gets shot; major European powers declare war; trenches are dug and men are thrown over the top in massed waves every day; machine guns, barbed wire and gas and tanks kill the men; it rains a lot and everyone dies in the mud and thousands have no known grave and on 11th November it all ends where it started in France and Belgium.
What this account does so very well is to provide the context of the war in the geopolitics of the day and how the various countries went headlong into the Great War (as it was known at the time).
Mr Stevenson ably sets the scene of the summer of 1914 and as we progress through the book he delves into the aims, plans (military and strategic), concerns and personalities of the major nations and their allies.
We are dealt great yet readable detail of munitions, formations, troops and numbers, morale and technologies as the great armies mobilise, deploy and confront each other. He then extends this to the home fronts including some fascinating writing on people engagement and government, military and civil pressure to fight and continue fighting even when peace overtures are made at various times by various parties. His treatment of what was happening and why in the financial markets, trading arrangements between powers, the diplomacy and industry and food stocks and supply is complex but so impressive in its reach and linkages to the story of the fighting on the fronts.
And fronts it is too, as although he is clear the Western (and the Italian) Front is the main theatre he does not skimp on the clashes and influence and outcomes that involve Turkey, the minor central powers and the stages for those fights: Mesopotamia, Sinai and Palestine, Salonika, the Balkans, Africa, Macedonia, Romania, and of course Gallipoli.
Of the Eastern Front I have not read a better overview that so comprehensively discusses not just the fighting but all the other aspects I mention above. The revolution in Russia is so well described and multi-layered that I read it twice, and his understanding and positioning of the treaties and the continuing tensions were a treasure.
The ending of the war - notably not detached but so well linked from the years of 1915-17 that were dominated by solid trench lines and the exhaustion of all parties as 1917 moved towards 1918 - includes again the mix of military, political, financial and social with personalities aplenty.
The USA's entry in 1917 is well covered including the impacts and influences on views and strategy. The fall of Austria-Hungary and its relationship with Germany is also explored throughout the book, and then its affect on the war as the old Hapsburg empire collapsed is so very well done. These chapters also cover the German operations in March and April 1918, that saw many serious political and military allied figures seriously consider peace terms, and the eventual turn to Allied gains with some of the finest all-arms military operations ever conducted (The British 100 days campaign to war's end).
The rapidity of the Axis decline from near victory just 8 months previous took almost all by surprise; many on both sides were actively planning campaigns of offense or defence for 1919, and in some case into 1920.
Where Mr Stevenson's book then progresses is of course the treaty of Versailles and the negotiations that led to the treaty conditions. But he does not stop there as he explores the interwar years and the eventual commencement of another, and greater, world conflict just 21 years later.
His final chapter then reviews the war and its passing into history and its treatment in arts, media and society and the act of remembrance itself.
This is a very considerable book being highly detailed and so broad in scope. But do not be put off even if it takes you 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years you will be rewarded.
Balanced and thoughtful,suggestive and critical it is the finest single volume history of the First World War I have had the pleasure to read.
This then has provided me with an strong appreciation that the war wasn't just the simple view of: a royal gets shot; major European powers declare war; trenches are dug and men are thrown over the top in massed waves every day; machine guns, barbed wire and gas and tanks kill the men; it rains a lot and everyone dies in the mud and thousands have no known grave and on 11th November it all ends where it started in France and Belgium.
What this account does so very well is to provide the context of the war in the geopolitics of the day and how the various countries went headlong into the Great War (as it was known at the time).
Mr Stevenson ably sets the scene of the summer of 1914 and as we progress through the book he delves into the aims, plans (military and strategic), concerns and personalities of the major nations and their allies.
We are dealt great yet readable detail of munitions, formations, troops and numbers, morale and technologies as the great armies mobilise, deploy and confront each other. He then extends this to the home fronts including some fascinating writing on people engagement and government, military and civil pressure to fight and continue fighting even when peace overtures are made at various times by various parties. His treatment of what was happening and why in the financial markets, trading arrangements between powers, the diplomacy and industry and food stocks and supply is complex but so impressive in its reach and linkages to the story of the fighting on the fronts.
And fronts it is too, as although he is clear the Western (and the Italian) Front is the main theatre he does not skimp on the clashes and influence and outcomes that involve Turkey, the minor central powers and the stages for those fights: Mesopotamia, Sinai and Palestine, Salonika, the Balkans, Africa, Macedonia, Romania, and of course Gallipoli.
Of the Eastern Front I have not read a better overview that so comprehensively discusses not just the fighting but all the other aspects I mention above. The revolution in Russia is so well described and multi-layered that I read it twice, and his understanding and positioning of the treaties and the continuing tensions were a treasure.
The ending of the war - notably not detached but so well linked from the years of 1915-17 that were dominated by solid trench lines and the exhaustion of all parties as 1917 moved towards 1918 - includes again the mix of military, political, financial and social with personalities aplenty.
The USA's entry in 1917 is well covered including the impacts and influences on views and strategy. The fall of Austria-Hungary and its relationship with Germany is also explored throughout the book, and then its affect on the war as the old Hapsburg empire collapsed is so very well done. These chapters also cover the German operations in March and April 1918, that saw many serious political and military allied figures seriously consider peace terms, and the eventual turn to Allied gains with some of the finest all-arms military operations ever conducted (The British 100 days campaign to war's end).
The rapidity of the Axis decline from near victory just 8 months previous took almost all by surprise; many on both sides were actively planning campaigns of offense or defence for 1919, and in some case into 1920.
Where Mr Stevenson's book then progresses is of course the treaty of Versailles and the negotiations that led to the treaty conditions. But he does not stop there as he explores the interwar years and the eventual commencement of another, and greater, world conflict just 21 years later.
His final chapter then reviews the war and its passing into history and its treatment in arts, media and society and the act of remembrance itself.
This is a very considerable book being highly detailed and so broad in scope. But do not be put off even if it takes you 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years you will be rewarded.
Balanced and thoughtful,suggestive and critical it is the finest single volume history of the First World War I have had the pleasure to read.
July 16, 2020
Jedan zvaničnik ruskog Ministarstva inostranih poslova u šali je rekao britanskom vojnom atašeu: ,,Trebalo bi da ste vi vojnici vrlo zadovoljni što smo vam spremili ovako lijep rat. Oficir je odgovorio: „Moraćemo da sačekamo i vidimo hoće li to zaista biti lijep rat.“
Nesumnjivo da je Prvi svjetski rat, strahota nad strahotama, koliko toliko zadovoljio pohlepe kolonijalnih sila, na prvom mjestu Velike Britanije i Francuske i nekih drugih zemalja poput Japana i nešto manje Italije, i potom ostavio otvoren zdenac apetita poslijeratnoj Njemačkoj kojoj je mnogo toga uzeto i pri čemu je izgubila status velike sile. Njemačka je nakon Prvog svjetskog rata znatno smanjila teritorije, izgubila kolonije i važne industrijske resurse. Tako da je Prvi svjetski rat naveliko otvorio dveri za mnoge monstruoznosti koje će kasnije nastupiti, a čiji odjeci se i danas primjećuju. Poljska koja izlazi kao nezavisna država sa Dancinškim koridorom i mnogim drugim dijelovima Bijelorusije i Rusije, poslije Velikog rata će biti samo jedna od prvih žrtava Njemačke pohlepe u onome što će nacisti zvati ,,životni prostor." Neosporno je to da je Prvi svjetski rat ostavio traga i danas u svim zemljama učesnicama, bilo posredno bilo neposredno. Pa čak i po cijeni njegovog ostatka u sjenci nakon Drugog svjetskog rata.
Dejvid Stivenson je u svojoj opsežnoj knjizi iscrpio ponašanja zaraćenih zemalja i utisnuo rat na papir sa revnošću da prikaže mnoge mahinacije koje su se odigravale tokom tih četiri godine. Uspio je da pokrije kopnene, vazdušne i pomorske bitke na raspršenim frontovima, te kao žaluzinu toga podrobno kopao po moralu ljudstva, unutrašnjim i spoljnim političkim pitanjima zaraćenih država, a zatim uzeo u obzir njihove ekonomije, tehnologije i naoružanja, kao i mjestimično njihove strategije i logistiku.
Jedino što može da manjka u ovoj knjizi jeste nedostatak mapa; samo je jedna velika mapa data na početku, pa je možda malo teže pratiti kretanje jedinica te sam ugođaj poznavanja teritorija na kome se bitke vode je time umanjen. Takođe Istočni front je prilično šturo i nekako na brzaka smandrljan, pisac se vadio da nema nešto puno informacija o njemu. Balkanskom frontu je takođe nešto manje pažnje posvetio. Veliki fokus je posvijećen Zapadnom frontu, koji jeste nosio najteže breme čitavog rata, što ne znači da su drugi frontovi manje doprinjeli samoj pobjedi bilo direktno ili indirektno. Krajem 1914. rat je ušao u pat-poziciju pa su se vodile rovovske borbe, čime je stvoren uzak prostor za manevar. Kod čitaoca takav vid rata do svoje eskalacije nešto kasnije - može stvoriti mučninu u čitanju, s obzirom da nema kretanja, surovi uslovi, na svako malo se spominju brojke leševa, smrad mrtvih konja koji nisu pokopavani (jer se nije imalo vremena i za njih pored ljudskih leševa), blato i vrvenje pacova, a sve sa tim usljedile su zarazne bolesti poput tifusa, dizenterije i kolere koje su pustošile čitave oblasti, dok se svaki ranjenik smatrao srećnim ako preživi gangrenu.
Kako god, zanimljiva je činjenica da je u Prvom svjetskom ratu bilo potrebno nekoliko mjeseci pa čak i do godinu dana da se zauzme neko mjestašce ili gradić, dok u Drugom svjetskom ratu čitava država je bila zauzeta za par dana, a u slučaju preventivne kapitulacije zemlje na kojoj je izvršena invazija, i do par sati; primjerice Danska, a nešto ranije i Čehoslovačka. Što samo pokazuje koliko se radilo na naoružanju i na razornoj moći poslije Prvog svjetskog rata, a koja je čekala svoj trenutak da se ispolji.
Read
August 4, 2011Have just finished this thoroughly exhaustive, gargantuan volume on the history of WWI. Firstly, this book clocks in at 600 pages but, with a font size at at least half of most standard books, you could easily double that number... and then some. Half way through reading, I lost the will to live, and only finished out of my sheer stubborness at giving up. Don't get me wrong, this is a great book, but it is aimed more at those who want to know every last detail on the subject, right down to the consistancy of the mud that covered no-man's land, which almost qualifies this as a textbook. And I f**king hated school!
I have read similar books on WWII, which is of major interest to me, and thought that, seeing as the Second has its roots in First, decided to learn more about it. It is well written, well put together, and deservedly earns its title as '1914-1918: The History Of The First World War'.
For those interested in knowing all there is to know on the subject, I would imagine that this is the definitive work. For those, like me, who possess a mild interest in the subject, something a little on the lighter side is more the go!
I have read similar books on WWII, which is of major interest to me, and thought that, seeing as the Second has its roots in First, decided to learn more about it. It is well written, well put together, and deservedly earns its title as '1914-1918: The History Of The First World War'.
For those interested in knowing all there is to know on the subject, I would imagine that this is the definitive work. For those, like me, who possess a mild interest in the subject, something a little on the lighter side is more the go!
July 22, 2009
After almost 7 months, I have finally finished reading what has proved to be a fascinating and excellent book. I was close to giving up on this book, because it is very dense reading; however it was a gift from my 11 year old daughter (responding to my comment last year that I would love to learn about World War I) and I was determined to stick with it. I am glad I did.
This book is a comprehensive and detailed look at World War I, providing a thorough history of almost every aspect of it. It is very well written and provides great insight and analysis into the causes of the war, its strategy, chances to stop it or escalate it, the unstable peace that followed, and its aftermath. In every aspect, it is scholarly, interesting and informative.
My only criticism, which is really more of a critique of the reader (me!) than of the book, is that I would not recommend this book to someone as their introduction to World War I. Unfortunately for the rest of my reading list, it was an introduction for me; consequently, I ended up not reading other books, as I slowly and meticulously waded through the intense depths of this book. Had I had a greater prior understanding of the war, its main actors and the key places, I am sure that it would not have taken me so long to read it and I would have found the book even more enriching than I did.
If you enjoy deep histories of major events that have shaped the modern world, I highly recommend this book to you.
This book is a comprehensive and detailed look at World War I, providing a thorough history of almost every aspect of it. It is very well written and provides great insight and analysis into the causes of the war, its strategy, chances to stop it or escalate it, the unstable peace that followed, and its aftermath. In every aspect, it is scholarly, interesting and informative.
My only criticism, which is really more of a critique of the reader (me!) than of the book, is that I would not recommend this book to someone as their introduction to World War I. Unfortunately for the rest of my reading list, it was an introduction for me; consequently, I ended up not reading other books, as I slowly and meticulously waded through the intense depths of this book. Had I had a greater prior understanding of the war, its main actors and the key places, I am sure that it would not have taken me so long to read it and I would have found the book even more enriching than I did.
If you enjoy deep histories of major events that have shaped the modern world, I highly recommend this book to you.
July 18, 2014
-Sobre el marco general de la Gran Guerra, perspectivas socioeconómicas y sociopolíticas de la misma.-
Género. Historia.
Lo que nos cuenta. Aproximación a la Primera Guerra Mundial que trata de explicar las razones de su comienzo, las del aumento de las hostilidades y su recrudecimiento, las de su final y las consecuencias de la misma, haciendo hincapié en que no fue un conflicto de naturaleza “menor” que se fue escapando de las manos y sí un enfrentamiento de voluntades respaldado por razones conscientes y decisiones meditadas por más que fuesen equivocadas (y con mayoritario apoyo popular, al menos en su comienzo).
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Historia.
Lo que nos cuenta. Aproximación a la Primera Guerra Mundial que trata de explicar las razones de su comienzo, las del aumento de las hostilidades y su recrudecimiento, las de su final y las consecuencias de la misma, haciendo hincapié en que no fue un conflicto de naturaleza “menor” que se fue escapando de las manos y sí un enfrentamiento de voluntades respaldado por razones conscientes y decisiones meditadas por más que fuesen equivocadas (y con mayoritario apoyo popular, al menos en su comienzo).
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
June 25, 2019
A thorough history of the First World War, which, unusually for books of this type, finishes the narrative with the start of the Second World War.
The book’s scope is impressive, and it covers a huge amount of time while at the same time giving the right amount of coverage to all of the relevant issues. He highlights how fragile the peace in Europe was at the the turn of the century, but disputes the common view that the war began by accident; like other recent studies, Stevenson argues that all sides were willing to risk a continental war rather than back down when pressured by their foes. He describes the failures of German foreign policy and seems to pin most of the blame on Germany and Austria-Hungary, while not absolving any of the other powers.
Stevenson also details all of the political, diplomatic, and technological factors that contributed to the prolonging of the war, which Stevenson calls a “drama without a script.” Most of Stevenson’s narrative is fact-driven, and his analysis is somewhat wanting at times. Stevenson’s writing is rather plain, even monotonous. While he never fails to highlight all of the important parts, his tone can be a bit of demand on the reader’s attention, and a few parts of it are just plain boring.
A dense and exhaustive but rewarding history of the conflict.
The book’s scope is impressive, and it covers a huge amount of time while at the same time giving the right amount of coverage to all of the relevant issues. He highlights how fragile the peace in Europe was at the the turn of the century, but disputes the common view that the war began by accident; like other recent studies, Stevenson argues that all sides were willing to risk a continental war rather than back down when pressured by their foes. He describes the failures of German foreign policy and seems to pin most of the blame on Germany and Austria-Hungary, while not absolving any of the other powers.
Stevenson also details all of the political, diplomatic, and technological factors that contributed to the prolonging of the war, which Stevenson calls a “drama without a script.” Most of Stevenson’s narrative is fact-driven, and his analysis is somewhat wanting at times. Stevenson’s writing is rather plain, even monotonous. While he never fails to highlight all of the important parts, his tone can be a bit of demand on the reader’s attention, and a few parts of it are just plain boring.
A dense and exhaustive but rewarding history of the conflict.
February 22, 2013
perhaps because David Stevenson is a professor at the London School of Economics (LSE) or possibly because WWI has receded into history sufficiently to be about groups rather than personalities, 1914-1918 succeeds in being simultaneously a gripping work of historical evocation and a dry statistical analysis. escaping the flaws of assuming "Great Man Theory," wherein the adherent states 'personage Z ordered D and thus D occured," Stevenson accurately shows how vast apersonal statistical forces created inevitable, and horrifying outcomes. in battles where some 150000 individuals died in a matter of hours, the context of later wars such as Vietnam, wherein all of 60000 died on the Western side, become clear. WWI was gigantic. it was huge. it shook the world.
after reading the book, (as an American), I was chastised to understand how much greater the 19th century European powers were compared to our relatively pioneer / unsophisticated culture. obviously, it is difficult to assert that America is "superior" to Britain, France, and Germany, yet each of these three major European countries acceded to a violent conflict in which lives were thrown away all for principle. of all the reasons to fight and kill, to do so just because "we can" seems the height of absurdity. so are 1910/1920s era surrealists accurate because of the war, in spite of it, or contributory / oblique to it? how much longer can I maintain this dry academic style of review before devolving into my typical and personal absurdism?
after reading this account of the horrific meat-grinder that chewed up human lives at a rate of at times 3000/hour for weeks on end, (one 9/11, in other words, every hour for a month), the hollow absurdity of the post-ww2 universe becomes clear. there is no reason not to do hard drugs or to move into a bordello or to live out in wilderness for the rest of your days. any of these outcomes is superior to the trench warfare on the western front where human flesh stacked up ten or twenty meteres high and had to be cleared so that the machine guns could repeat their efforts.
who is a hero? what is war? what is the point of the American Republican Party or the Liberal Democratic sentiments of the post-world order? these are all hollow absurdities. i know where my next meal is coming from. i know what milky white morphine is like. that is all there is. i have no need for heroes.
i read this book to remind myself of days and ways. every hour, however agonizing, however drugged up, i am still in advance of the end and collapse of high western civilization. if you are a hero and you love war, then good onto you. i wish you well. the barking machine guns of the MG14, the Maxim Gun, these ended high western civilization. if you love war, you are not a true westerner. all true westerners understand that it is over. no more heroes. no more heroics. more drugs. more whores. i needed to pass out my days with tears flowing because 150,000 dead in one 24-hour cycle was more that i could ever endure. the stench of rotting human flesh rising up to the gods was never enough to satisfy the appetites of the darkest apersonal forces guiding the world in which we live. your repeated chatter about gods or marx could never salve anything. everything ended in 1914 are we are soon (hands trembling) going to enter the 100 year cycle again.
i'm barely keeping it together. i don't understand this jungle.
i can't understood heroes. why do you encourage violence? why do you call for ever greater firepower and more fighting? get out of here, man. you are a fraud. go grab those politicians and bankers who are calling for escalating war and tell them to stand down. who are those brokers of non-sense and civilizing missions? who are you man? i just need to hand over the keys to the war-lovers. i have nothing left. totally drained. you love war, go to the front.
after reading the book, (as an American), I was chastised to understand how much greater the 19th century European powers were compared to our relatively pioneer / unsophisticated culture. obviously, it is difficult to assert that America is "superior" to Britain, France, and Germany, yet each of these three major European countries acceded to a violent conflict in which lives were thrown away all for principle. of all the reasons to fight and kill, to do so just because "we can" seems the height of absurdity. so are 1910/1920s era surrealists accurate because of the war, in spite of it, or contributory / oblique to it? how much longer can I maintain this dry academic style of review before devolving into my typical and personal absurdism?
after reading this account of the horrific meat-grinder that chewed up human lives at a rate of at times 3000/hour for weeks on end, (one 9/11, in other words, every hour for a month), the hollow absurdity of the post-ww2 universe becomes clear. there is no reason not to do hard drugs or to move into a bordello or to live out in wilderness for the rest of your days. any of these outcomes is superior to the trench warfare on the western front where human flesh stacked up ten or twenty meteres high and had to be cleared so that the machine guns could repeat their efforts.
who is a hero? what is war? what is the point of the American Republican Party or the Liberal Democratic sentiments of the post-world order? these are all hollow absurdities. i know where my next meal is coming from. i know what milky white morphine is like. that is all there is. i have no need for heroes.
i read this book to remind myself of days and ways. every hour, however agonizing, however drugged up, i am still in advance of the end and collapse of high western civilization. if you are a hero and you love war, then good onto you. i wish you well. the barking machine guns of the MG14, the Maxim Gun, these ended high western civilization. if you love war, you are not a true westerner. all true westerners understand that it is over. no more heroes. no more heroics. more drugs. more whores. i needed to pass out my days with tears flowing because 150,000 dead in one 24-hour cycle was more that i could ever endure. the stench of rotting human flesh rising up to the gods was never enough to satisfy the appetites of the darkest apersonal forces guiding the world in which we live. your repeated chatter about gods or marx could never salve anything. everything ended in 1914 are we are soon (hands trembling) going to enter the 100 year cycle again.
i'm barely keeping it together. i don't understand this jungle.
i can't understood heroes. why do you encourage violence? why do you call for ever greater firepower and more fighting? get out of here, man. you are a fraud. go grab those politicians and bankers who are calling for escalating war and tell them to stand down. who are those brokers of non-sense and civilizing missions? who are you man? i just need to hand over the keys to the war-lovers. i have nothing left. totally drained. you love war, go to the front.
September 26, 2022
A massive tome of a book, which is very informative and found myself reading a chunk of pages at a time. Lots of info about conditions and social history as well as on battles and warfare.
August 16, 2019
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.
June 21, 2018
Me ha parecido un libro con un profundo trabajo de investigación además comparando siempre visiones de lo sucedido en ambos frentes, ya que cada bando (durante bastante tiempo) intentó adaptar la historia a su conveniencia. Lo que el mismo autor sabe y lo reconoce y deja muy en claro. Por lo que algunas parte solo coloca datos duros (como cifras de muertos, caídos y cautivos) esto sucede el la parte central del libro que se me hizo un poco dura de seguir ya que con tanto batalla ocurriendo y sin mayor dirección saltan de un ataque a otro solo con batallas de desgastes. El autor intenta explicar de una manera objetiva las decisiones que se toman en los diferentes frentes los frentes (sobre todo en el occidental) por los Altos Mando (Los errores que causaron tantas perdidas y pocas victorias)
Pero en todo lo demás, enfocándose en las decisiones de política interior y exterior el autor se explaya e incluso nos muestras señalas un par de veces que "hubiese paso si" Alemania no usara sus U-Boot de manera indiscriminada. Si Inglaterra y Francia no hubiesen tomado medidas proteccionistas al final de la guerra. Pero son contados casos y el autor se dedica a las acciones concretas de los gobiernos y a los hechos mas verídicos.
La parte de la revolución Rusa la dejo un poco coja, pero se entiende, ya que ese es un conflicto que tuvo su historia aparte y el autor la intentó enfocar solo en lo concerniente con la guerra. Sino el libro seria eterno.
Pero si quieren un libro para llorar o conmoverse con la guerra, este no es su libro. Trata de manera muy pedagógica (enfoca en la decisiones políticas de los lideres) los costes de la guerra para la población o las heridas psicológicas de los soldados. Que no esta mal. Es un libro Informativo y explicativo para quienes queremos conocer mas sobre un mundo que fue dejado atrás con todas sus posibilidades.
Pero en todo lo demás, enfocándose en las decisiones de política interior y exterior el autor se explaya e incluso nos muestras señalas un par de veces que "hubiese paso si" Alemania no usara sus U-Boot de manera indiscriminada. Si Inglaterra y Francia no hubiesen tomado medidas proteccionistas al final de la guerra. Pero son contados casos y el autor se dedica a las acciones concretas de los gobiernos y a los hechos mas verídicos.
La parte de la revolución Rusa la dejo un poco coja, pero se entiende, ya que ese es un conflicto que tuvo su historia aparte y el autor la intentó enfocar solo en lo concerniente con la guerra. Sino el libro seria eterno.
Pero si quieren un libro para llorar o conmoverse con la guerra, este no es su libro. Trata de manera muy pedagógica (enfoca en la decisiones políticas de los lideres) los costes de la guerra para la población o las heridas psicológicas de los soldados. Que no esta mal. Es un libro Informativo y explicativo para quienes queremos conocer mas sobre un mundo que fue dejado atrás con todas sus posibilidades.
March 22, 2014
Estudio muy completo de la Primera Guerra Mundial. Me ha interesado mucho el inicio, dedicado a explicar las causas de la confrontación, pero luego ya no tanto, quizá no por defecto del libro, sino porque yo busco otra cosa. No entiendo la historia si no es historia social, ni la historia política si no me explica los condicionamientos para que en determinados momentos determinadas personas manejen los resortes del poder. En este libro se hace un detallado repaso de las decisiones políticas y militares, pero a mi entender de una forma demasiado personal, epidérmica. Sí, las órdenes siempre las dan personas en un despacho; sus ambiciones, decepciones y estados de ánimo las pueden condicionar, pero hasta llegar ahí hay una serie de relaciones sociales, de clase, que favorecen estas circunstancias. Por ejemplo, es muy interesante cuando en el texto se habla de la reacción de las diferentes poblaciones y la posición de distintos partidos políticos ante la guerra, pero no se profundiza en ellas, sólo se comentan para pasar enseguida a relatar los diferentes movimientos de tropa, las órdenes militares, los medios disponibles y todo aquello relacionado con el desarrollo meramente militar y diplomático del asunto. Supongo que esto debe formar parte también de esa historia, pero a mí, y seguramente es una carencia, no me interesan tanto los sucesos como sus causas y efectos, no tanto lo que pasa, que por supuesto sí me interesa, como por qué ha pasado. La conclusión es que seguramente voy a dejar de leerlo porque sus 1100 páginas me restan demasiado tiempo para leer otros enfoques que hagan más hincapie en los procesos sociales y no en los hechos militares.
April 6, 2015
A well-researched, comprehensive overview of WWI covering nearly everything: politics, battles, cultural changes, and aftermath. Stevenson is a good writer, but each page is packed with information so it takes a while to read. I would compare it to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, only about WWI instead of WWII.
September 30, 2017
Excelente investigación histórica sobre los eventos relacionados con la Primera Guerra Mundial. No se puede comprender a cabalidad lo que desencadenó la Segunda Guerra Mundial si no se conocen los detalles del origen y del fin de la Primera. La Gran Guerra fue vista en su tiempo, como la guerra que pondría fin a todas las guerras. No solo que no fue así, sino que las consecuencias de la misma jugaron un rol fundamental para el inicio de la Segunda. El autor sostiene y sustenta la posición de que la Segunda no fue consecuencia ineludible de la Primera, y su origen está más relacionada con la política de apaciguamiento adoptada por las potencias vencedoras. Si solo quieren leer un libro sobre la Primera Guerra Mundial, el libro de Stevenson es el indicado.
Read
February 9, 2010Wow, I actually finished this one. It was heavy--literally and figuratively. The first bit was a drag to get through--a sum up of the events--but I particularily enjoyed the final chapters, which focussed on the cultural implications and creations of the war. But at 600 pages, I don't know if I'd go around recommending it. It's a good place to start, though, if you are wondering about the great war. Warning, however: there are NO COMMAS in this book. Okay, there are, but so few that you continually get lost in the sentance. British punctuation? Stevenson does have the occasionally beautiful turn of phrase.
October 26, 2015
I certainly learned a lot with this. It was a solid overview of the lead up to WWI, the war itself, and the aftermath. I wish it had more of the lead up and less of the aftermath, but that's just because I've read a great deal on WWII so the aftermath stuff was pretty familiar.
I appreciated the way Stevenson structured the book in particular. He divided the war into phases, and then approached each phase thematically rather than chronologically. Made it nice and easy to see how all the disparate pieces fit into the big picture.
All in all, a good primer for a WWI novice. Those who have studied the war already might not get much out of it.
I appreciated the way Stevenson structured the book in particular. He divided the war into phases, and then approached each phase thematically rather than chronologically. Made it nice and easy to see how all the disparate pieces fit into the big picture.
All in all, a good primer for a WWI novice. Those who have studied the war already might not get much out of it.
November 23, 2014
Not only a military but a political and economic history of the war. Absorbing.
Read
August 3, 2011Most most struck me about this book was the way that it didn't stop telling the story of the Great War in 1918 but continued on with the way that the First World War has influenced military strategy, diplomacy and great power alliances long long after the Armistice of 11th November 1918. And also how it has been viewed in memory and in written histories right up to 1989-2001 which the author sees as the end of the penumbra of this traumatic war.
June 5, 2008
Massive book. I mean really "thick" reading. Not recommended as summertime reading. Focuses on the geopolitics involved before and during the conflict. Interesting to understand the power struggle between the empires, how help how and why. Not very focused on the military aspect of the conflict.
December 15, 2015
uno de los libros mas largos que me he leido, pero tambien extremadamente completo acerca de la primera guerra mundial, abordandola desde diferentes y muy interesantes aspectos...
December 21, 2021
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.
August 6, 2019
David Stevenson's history of the First World War is exhaustive. Every sentence of the densely printed pages is packed with information, often cross-referring to other data within the same sentence. As a display of knowledge, and measured by factual coverage, the book is a huge success. The analysis is more sparing. Stevenson tends to drop a comment after a comma in a factual statement. His analytic therefore lacks thorough working. For example, he states, in contradiction to Keynes (The Economic Consequences of the Peace), that the strictures of the Versailles treaty were not the cause of the Second World War, but were its necessary precondition. Keynes was actually at Versailles. Stevenson needs to work these kinds of argument much more deeply against their competing alternatives. The same goes for his claim that the start of the First World War was a deliberate decision of aggression by Germany. Philosophically, Stevenson clearly believes in cognitive behavioural decision theory. Very many other academics would put far more weight on causal factors, even though they may not endorse any neo-Marxist `theory of history'.
The book is somewhat exhausting as a result of being exhaustive. You have to persevere. It's as though the trudge of the war itself is reflected in getting through the book. Stevenson may be a great recorder, a chronicler, but not such an effective communicator. We may well eschew the `sound bite', but readers need to be able to digest an author's writing. Stevenson's spaghetti writing style, whilst commendable for its nutrition, does make his book less digestible. He peppers numerical data throughout the text, whereas a summary data table, and other summary headline or timeline event tables would have eased his text and its digestibility greatly, and have made the book as communicative as it is informative.
The book is somewhat exhausting as a result of being exhaustive. You have to persevere. It's as though the trudge of the war itself is reflected in getting through the book. Stevenson may be a great recorder, a chronicler, but not such an effective communicator. We may well eschew the `sound bite', but readers need to be able to digest an author's writing. Stevenson's spaghetti writing style, whilst commendable for its nutrition, does make his book less digestible. He peppers numerical data throughout the text, whereas a summary data table, and other summary headline or timeline event tables would have eased his text and its digestibility greatly, and have made the book as communicative as it is informative.
January 18, 2021
Estaba buscando una historia de la Primera Guerra Mundial que fuera lo más completa y detallada posible. Me topé con este libro, que ha gozado de cierta popularidad desde que salió y sobre el que leí muy buenos comentarios a propósito del centenario.
Y sí, es un muy buen libro de historia. He aprendido muchísimo de él, y segundas lecturas no agotarán lo que tiene por aportar. Ofrece una visión muy completa y presenta la información de forma bien estructurada que permite al lector comprender sin dificultad las diversas vicisitudes de la guerra que acabaría con todas las guerras: cómo empezó, por qué escaló hacia un conflicto mundial, por qué se estancó, por qué ganó quien ganó y perdió quién perdió.
Obviamente el aspecto militar tiene preeminencia, pero Stevenson tiene el tino de ocuparse también de lo que ocurría tras bastidores. La política interna, los intentos de negociación, la economía de guerra, los desarrollos tecnológicos, las intrigas palaciegas... El objetivo del autor es proporcionar el panorama más completo posible. Incluso dedica unas páginas muy interesantes a tratar sobre el legado del conflicto y sus impactos en la sociedad, cultura, política y el arte en las décadas que siguieron de 1918 a nuestros días.
Sin embargo, debo decir que aunque es un libro interesante, no es apasionante. Quizá es que lo leí inmediatamente después del de Margaret McMillan, que es una obra maestra, pero el estilo narrativo y la prosa de Stevenson son más bien secos. El autor es muy bueno para exponer su información con claridad, y los acontecimientos que describe son fascinantes en sí mismos, pero por sus cualidades literarias está lejos de sobresalir.
Con todo, es un muy buen libro de historia, y quien quiera aproximarse al tema de la Primera Guerra Mundial, hará bien en recurrir a esta obra.
Y sí, es un muy buen libro de historia. He aprendido muchísimo de él, y segundas lecturas no agotarán lo que tiene por aportar. Ofrece una visión muy completa y presenta la información de forma bien estructurada que permite al lector comprender sin dificultad las diversas vicisitudes de la guerra que acabaría con todas las guerras: cómo empezó, por qué escaló hacia un conflicto mundial, por qué se estancó, por qué ganó quien ganó y perdió quién perdió.
Obviamente el aspecto militar tiene preeminencia, pero Stevenson tiene el tino de ocuparse también de lo que ocurría tras bastidores. La política interna, los intentos de negociación, la economía de guerra, los desarrollos tecnológicos, las intrigas palaciegas... El objetivo del autor es proporcionar el panorama más completo posible. Incluso dedica unas páginas muy interesantes a tratar sobre el legado del conflicto y sus impactos en la sociedad, cultura, política y el arte en las décadas que siguieron de 1918 a nuestros días.
Sin embargo, debo decir que aunque es un libro interesante, no es apasionante. Quizá es que lo leí inmediatamente después del de Margaret McMillan, que es una obra maestra, pero el estilo narrativo y la prosa de Stevenson son más bien secos. El autor es muy bueno para exponer su información con claridad, y los acontecimientos que describe son fascinantes en sí mismos, pero por sus cualidades literarias está lejos de sobresalir.
Con todo, es un muy buen libro de historia, y quien quiera aproximarse al tema de la Primera Guerra Mundial, hará bien en recurrir a esta obra.
July 29, 2016
We should all read this book at some point in our lives, really we should. One or two of us might already know all the astonishing detail and breadth of vision it provides of the Great War: but most would probably find their view of that conflict changed forever. It is a towering, stupendous piece of work and it changes you forever too. How could we, how could we, do that to ourselves?
The long opening chapter gives a good analysis of the complexity of European politics that led up to war. We all know some zealot knocked off Franz Joseph in Sarajevo. But how many could explain, convincingly, why that remote event in late June 1914 should lead directly to, amongst other things, New Zealand’s occupation of Samoa just 2 months later? Until I read this book I had simply no idea of the bubbling froth of instabilities and potential conflicts that gripped Europe in 1914: such that war would have happened whether the Archduke was killed or not.
And then, off it goes. 400 or so pages of detail and analysis of the most awful conflict ever.
At times I grew dizzy with the density of the detail. When one knows as much about the subject as David Stevenson clearly does, 400 pages isn’t enough to do justice to the subject. It is quite commonplace to find him gliding from one arena of battle to another, and even from one country to the next: in the space of a single paragraph. Even then one could almost feel him straining to restrict himself to those basic facts (because he knew so many more). He could obviously have written 1,000 pages on the subject without much difficulty.
To give an example of this kind of prose:
But he pulls it off, he really does. Often he counterbalances his densely-packed detail with a high-level summary of why he’s telling you all that. For example, Chapter 14 (from which that extract is taken) begins with a summary of how the facts will fit together:
The detail is not the kind of material one can read 100 pages at a time; but rarely have I read such an astute blend of the big picture, together with all the minutiae you could wish for to back it up. It’s quite hard work at times to absorb that detail – but it does all fit together to make a coherent picture.
As a modestly well-read pensioner, I’m utterly gobsmacked at my overall level of ignorance of this ghastly war. I had no idea Holland wasn’t involved, I was unaware that Sweden was ambivalently not on the ‘right side’ (not for the last time either); I didn’t know Japan fought in this war too (or on which side); and so on. But David Stevenson’s remorseless, erudite narration of the facts lays it all out.
I didn’t really know that the war could be divided conceptually into different phases, of initial, short-term gung-ho optimism that it would soon be over, two years of slogging attrition on an ever-grander scale; and the final phase of gentle implosion on both sides until the Russian Revolution and Allied superiority changed things. I didn’t really know why it was called a “world war”: but in fact it was fought almost as globally as the next one, with action across Asian Russia, and the involvement of the colonies worldwide.
One of those details will stay with me. I quote:
And finally, I didn’t really know that the outcome of the war was quite unclear until its very last few weeks. As late as the summer of 1918 the Germans had little idea they were losing; but six weeks later the armistice was declared. As explored in his excellent closing 100 pages – on the longer term impact after 1918 – the result was the Germans felt they had lost, but hadn’t been beaten. Through British eyes there’s an obvious footballing analogy: it was as if the game had gone into extra time, and the Allies had, improbably, won on penalties. It’s still fashionable to say that the Allies demanded too much by way of reparations and that this was the eventual cause of WWII. He shows really quite clearly that it was much more complicated than that.
Those were a few of my ‘bloody hell’ moments; other people’s will be different - but I bet they will happen all the same. Titanic piece of work.
The long opening chapter gives a good analysis of the complexity of European politics that led up to war. We all know some zealot knocked off Franz Joseph in Sarajevo. But how many could explain, convincingly, why that remote event in late June 1914 should lead directly to, amongst other things, New Zealand’s occupation of Samoa just 2 months later? Until I read this book I had simply no idea of the bubbling froth of instabilities and potential conflicts that gripped Europe in 1914: such that war would have happened whether the Archduke was killed or not.
And then, off it goes. 400 or so pages of detail and analysis of the most awful conflict ever.
At times I grew dizzy with the density of the detail. When one knows as much about the subject as David Stevenson clearly does, 400 pages isn’t enough to do justice to the subject. It is quite commonplace to find him gliding from one arena of battle to another, and even from one country to the next: in the space of a single paragraph. Even then one could almost feel him straining to restrict himself to those basic facts (because he knew so many more). He could obviously have written 1,000 pages on the subject without much difficulty.
To give an example of this kind of prose:
The Ypres salient was overlooked by the encircling Messines-Menin-Passchendaele ridges and pounded by German guns concealed on the reverse slopes. British casualties there ran to thousands each month. Five miles east of the ridges lay the junction of Roulers on the key trunk railway running laterally behind the Germans’ front. Haig therefore assumed that they would have to stand their ground. Moreover, Flanders was the base for the Gothas attacking London, and beyond Roulers beckoned the Belgian coast. The light submarines stationed near Bruges and putting to sea from Zeebrugge and Ostende formed about a third of the U-boat fleet; German destroyers harboured there raided the Dover Straits in the winter of 1916-17 and could threaten Channel troopships. Haig envisaged that once the ridges had fallen a second force would advance along the seaboard […] The concept was bold and imaginativeI picked this extract almost at random, and it’s not the most extreme example by any stretch; but I hope it conveys the relentless flow of data that DS unleashes. When you’ve read 30 pages of such detail, you feel entitled to go and have a cup of tea, I tell you.
But he pulls it off, he really does. Often he counterbalances his densely-packed detail with a high-level summary of why he’s telling you all that. For example, Chapter 14 (from which that extract is taken) begins with a summary of how the facts will fit together:
First, both sides faced strategic stalemate but neither side gave up hope of winning. Second, domestic political consensus was under strain across Europe but nowhere outside Russia did it collapse. Third, 1917 saw repeated efforts to negotiate peace, but none came near to success. Fourth – and essential to understanding the remaining pieces of the puzzle – American policy was set against a compromise”.Good stuff.
The detail is not the kind of material one can read 100 pages at a time; but rarely have I read such an astute blend of the big picture, together with all the minutiae you could wish for to back it up. It’s quite hard work at times to absorb that detail – but it does all fit together to make a coherent picture.
As a modestly well-read pensioner, I’m utterly gobsmacked at my overall level of ignorance of this ghastly war. I had no idea Holland wasn’t involved, I was unaware that Sweden was ambivalently not on the ‘right side’ (not for the last time either); I didn’t know Japan fought in this war too (or on which side); and so on. But David Stevenson’s remorseless, erudite narration of the facts lays it all out.
I didn’t really know that the war could be divided conceptually into different phases, of initial, short-term gung-ho optimism that it would soon be over, two years of slogging attrition on an ever-grander scale; and the final phase of gentle implosion on both sides until the Russian Revolution and Allied superiority changed things. I didn’t really know why it was called a “world war”: but in fact it was fought almost as globally as the next one, with action across Asian Russia, and the involvement of the colonies worldwide.
One of those details will stay with me. I quote:
..the British were aided by fog, as well as a bombardment that landed 126 field gun shells a minute for 8 hours on every 500 yards of the German positions”Imagine: a high-explosive shell landing every half a second, for eight long hours, in an area the size of half a football field. That’s more than one shell per square foot, of every square foot available. How could anything survive that? The carnage must have been simply indescribable (Quite separately, it puts into a kind of perspective the fashion current in Britain, of treating Tony Blair as some kind of satanic monster for being a little too willing to join in someone else’s war in Iraq. One mourns for their families; but the 172 British soldiers who died in the entire Iraq war were the equivalent of much less than two minutes’ worth of conflict in 1918).
And finally, I didn’t really know that the outcome of the war was quite unclear until its very last few weeks. As late as the summer of 1918 the Germans had little idea they were losing; but six weeks later the armistice was declared. As explored in his excellent closing 100 pages – on the longer term impact after 1918 – the result was the Germans felt they had lost, but hadn’t been beaten. Through British eyes there’s an obvious footballing analogy: it was as if the game had gone into extra time, and the Allies had, improbably, won on penalties. It’s still fashionable to say that the Allies demanded too much by way of reparations and that this was the eventual cause of WWII. He shows really quite clearly that it was much more complicated than that.
Those were a few of my ‘bloody hell’ moments; other people’s will be different - but I bet they will happen all the same. Titanic piece of work.
June 9, 2020
I picked up Stevenson's book because I wanted a solid introduction to a topic I've always felt I've been lacking above essential knowledge in. I expected, as the title would suggest, a year by year chronicle of The Great War. Instead I got a dense brick of detail that covers everything from the yearly gross shipping tonnage sunk by unrestricted submarine warfare to the interest rate levels of US Treasury loans to the British. It is without a doubt an impressive book but the sheer level of detail is exhausting at times.
I would only recommend this book if you already have a good understanding of the war and want to dig deeper into the underlying details behind its outbreak and everything that those events lead to, including, but far from limited to, the cultural impacts it had well into the present day. The book itself assumes you have this understanding so you cannot expect any help in keeping track of who's who or when what happened.
If you as I did expect a light introduction to the war with a fair bit of stories about trench life think again. Although one could argue that the experience you get from drudging through these 601 pages might rival that of spending four years in a trench in Flanders.
I would only recommend this book if you already have a good understanding of the war and want to dig deeper into the underlying details behind its outbreak and everything that those events lead to, including, but far from limited to, the cultural impacts it had well into the present day. The book itself assumes you have this understanding so you cannot expect any help in keeping track of who's who or when what happened.
If you as I did expect a light introduction to the war with a fair bit of stories about trench life think again. Although one could argue that the experience you get from drudging through these 601 pages might rival that of spending four years in a trench in Flanders.
February 6, 2019
Not for amateurs, that’s for sure. The author goes deep in all the details, so if you just want to learn more about the WW1, i wouldn’t recommend David Stevenson’s book.
The history of the first World War is exhausting, I honestly made a serious effort to finish it, and tbh I skipped a few paragraphs along the way.
In my opinion, maybe it deserves 5 stars just because the author made a titanic work to gather all this info accurately, but I just can’t.
The book is well structured and well written and most likely Stevenson enjoyed putting this amount of effort into it.
The only reason that I cannot give a 5 star rating is that it gets soooo boring at so point, I wanted to kill myself.
I know history is just about facts and it shouldn’t be an entertaining subject, especially a book about a freaking war, but the author didn’t struggle a bit to make it easier for the reader, it’s a 1000 pages book, for crying out loud!
Well, that’s just me, other people can contradict me.
Other than that, overall a massive and complete book about the world war one.
The history of the first World War is exhausting, I honestly made a serious effort to finish it, and tbh I skipped a few paragraphs along the way.
In my opinion, maybe it deserves 5 stars just because the author made a titanic work to gather all this info accurately, but I just can’t.
The book is well structured and well written and most likely Stevenson enjoyed putting this amount of effort into it.
The only reason that I cannot give a 5 star rating is that it gets soooo boring at so point, I wanted to kill myself.
I know history is just about facts and it shouldn’t be an entertaining subject, especially a book about a freaking war, but the author didn’t struggle a bit to make it easier for the reader, it’s a 1000 pages book, for crying out loud!
Well, that’s just me, other people can contradict me.
Other than that, overall a massive and complete book about the world war one.
May 28, 2023
En "1914-1918: La Primera Guerra Mundial", David Stevenson nos ofrece un análisis detallado de uno de los conflictos más importantes del siglo XX. Sin embargo, debo señalar que este libro puede resultar un tanto difícil de entender para aquellos que se adentran por primera vez en la historia de la época y los conflictos que la rodearon.
El autor aborda el tema con gran rigor y profundidad, presentando una amplia gama de aspectos relacionados con la guerra: desde las causas que la desencadenaron hasta las consecuencias que tuvo a nivel político, económico y social. Stevenson proporciona una gran cantidad de información, pero a veces puede resultar abrumadora y confusa para aquellos que no están familiarizados con el período.
El lenguaje utilizado en el libro es más académico y especializado, lo que puede dificultar su comprensión para los lectores principiantes. Los términos técnicos y los detalles históricos pueden ser complicados de seguir, lo que puede requerir un esfuerzo adicional por parte del lector.
El autor aborda el tema con gran rigor y profundidad, presentando una amplia gama de aspectos relacionados con la guerra: desde las causas que la desencadenaron hasta las consecuencias que tuvo a nivel político, económico y social. Stevenson proporciona una gran cantidad de información, pero a veces puede resultar abrumadora y confusa para aquellos que no están familiarizados con el período.
El lenguaje utilizado en el libro es más académico y especializado, lo que puede dificultar su comprensión para los lectores principiantes. Los términos técnicos y los detalles históricos pueden ser complicados de seguir, lo que puede requerir un esfuerzo adicional por parte del lector.
July 31, 2017
I really struggled with this book, because it wasn't really what I thought it would be. It's primarily a history of the politics going on during WW1; actual battles got fairly minimal attention. Also, it's not a chronological history, either; it's split up into different categories. For example, chapter 5 is called "War aims and peace negotiations", chapter 7 is "Technology, logistics and tactics", chapter 10 is "Naval warfare and blockade", etc. So the book an jump back and forwards in time a bit, depending on the chapter.
I'm not saying it's a bad book by any stretch of the imagination; if you're interested in the politics of the conflict then this is definitely the book for you, because it's extremely dense with all the politics you could want. But if you're like me and would have preferred to hear more about the actual battles and perhaps hear from the soldiers in the front line then this isn't the book for you.
I'm not saying it's a bad book by any stretch of the imagination; if you're interested in the politics of the conflict then this is definitely the book for you, because it's extremely dense with all the politics you could want. But if you're like me and would have preferred to hear more about the actual battles and perhaps hear from the soldiers in the front line then this isn't the book for you.
December 16, 2022
It is difficult to comprehend the degree to which the First World War has been overshadowed by its sequel. This was made vividly clear to me in the process of reading this book, simply in virtue of how much it taught me.
This is a very thorough account, not only of the military campaigns and strategies of WWI, but also of the political, social, and economic forces at play throughout the conflict. The amount of information contained in this single volume is truly impressive.
I found the style of the work to be a bit dry in places, particularly in the first half of the book. There are times where it seems like the author is delivering a list of facts and data, as opposed to writing a compelling narrative. Nevertheless, these criticisms are less applicable to the second half of the book and they do not prevent the volume from being an excellent work of history that is well worth your time.
This is a very thorough account, not only of the military campaigns and strategies of WWI, but also of the political, social, and economic forces at play throughout the conflict. The amount of information contained in this single volume is truly impressive.
I found the style of the work to be a bit dry in places, particularly in the first half of the book. There are times where it seems like the author is delivering a list of facts and data, as opposed to writing a compelling narrative. Nevertheless, these criticisms are less applicable to the second half of the book and they do not prevent the volume from being an excellent work of history that is well worth your time.
August 12, 2017
Despite the size of the book and the abundance of details that may be too much for the general reader, the book gives an excellent insight into the image of Europe and the World in the first half of the 20th century by dealing with the political and social situation of superpowers in that time and causes of war as well as war itself (military strategy and etc.). The book is trying to answer the eternal question of whether WW2 was inevitable and how much the WW1 influenced the emergence of World War II.
The book is divided into four parts: the end of peace, the beginning of the world conflict, the long-lasting war position, and finally the end of the war and its consequences. Such a schedule allows the reader to read those parts that interest him and to skip the rest without affecting the reading comprehension.
Anyone interested in history of 20th century, including both world wars, should read this book which deserves 5 stars!
The book is divided into four parts: the end of peace, the beginning of the world conflict, the long-lasting war position, and finally the end of the war and its consequences. Such a schedule allows the reader to read those parts that interest him and to skip the rest without affecting the reading comprehension.
Anyone interested in history of 20th century, including both world wars, should read this book which deserves 5 stars!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews