I've just finished it, and it's by far and away the best WW1 book I've ever read. Anyone else read it?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I didn't, but I am interested in WW1 topics at the moment. Can you explain what makes it the best in your view?
It's all about the sequence of events (going as far back as the last 1800s) which led to the war. Covers the Moroccan crises, Fashoda, Bosnia, naval race, Balkan wars, etc. Focuses mainly on diplomacy but doesn't ignore social and political context. I couldn't find fault with it.
According to the Guardian review of the book:
"MacMillan deals very well with the July Crisis and distributes the responsibility widely. It was created by Serbian irresponsibility (although she stops short of calling Serbia a rogue state, as Christopher Clark has done), Austrian vengefulness and the "blank cheque" the Kaiser issued to Vienna (before changing his mind as conflict approached). But she recognises how British, French and especially Russian actions exacerbated the crisis, and rejects the view that this was a German pre-emptive strike, a "flight forward" from domestic strife into war, while arguing that German policies recklessly and knowingly risked war. I think she is right on both counts."
In other words, Serbia, Austria-Hungary and Germany were most to blame, while other countries made things worse. Germany in particular was reckless and "knowingly risked war", but she rejects the Fischer thesis that Germany actually planned the war and started it deliberately.
Or in short, "Most countries must share the blame, but Germany takes rather more of it".
Assuming the review sums up her theories correctly, I'd say I agree with her.
My reading of it is that she saw Germany as reckless in the immediate run-up to war, but given the context of the previous few decades, she is not entirely unsympathetic to their fear of being encircled. A recurring theme is how one countries defensive actions do not look defensive at all to their neighbours.
Had Germany not mobilized and maintained peace WW1 would have been impossible. Clearly because of this Germany bears more responsibility than other, but there were so many events that lead to wat that Germany alone could have not caused it.
I'll keep my eyes open for it. German position as you state it brings to mind the United States Department of War. The Department of War rarely, if ever, was at war. Ever since the marketing people changed the name to the Department of Defense, the country has been at war far more than it has been at peace. Just because you say you are defending something doesn't mean you aren't covering up an offensive design.
Maybe it's the other way around? By putting yourself in a defense mentality, you become pre-disposed to expect others to be offensive, resulting in an overall increase in Hawkish behavior?
Had Russia not mobilized and maintained peace WW1 would have been impossible.
All involved parties exept Serbia had at one time or another the option to either avoid war entirely (Russia, Germany, Austria Hungary, possibly France) or prevent it from becoming a world wide conflict (Russia, Germany, France, and the UK) but neither was willing to go that one step back and actually deescalate.
As did Germany. (They were taking measures to call up troops, put fortresses on alert, and concentrate their fleet at least a week before they formally announced the Kriegsgefahrzustand.)
Also, saying "We agree entirely to nine of your ten points, and agree in principle to the tenth as well as long as it does not require us to compromise our sovereignty" is not exactly the same thing as a rejection...
Isn't it possible to read history without the first and only question being "Who's to blame?" I've certainly waded into these arguments and it's not like I think it's a question devoid of interest or relevance but surely there are ways to evaluate a history book someone is recommending?
Yes, how dare Russia mobilize when an external power threatens to violate and annex a nation they openly advertised as their protectorate.
The thing is, the book is about the causes of WWI so it seems rather relevant to bring up the question which the book essentially aims to answer.
The problem is that I'm not sure if anyone in the thread except RRW has actually read the book in question, so a specific discussion about its arguments isn't really possible...