Product Description

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. Even the victorious countries were scarred for a generation, and we still today remain within the conflict's shadow. In this major new analysis, published some ninety years after the First World War began, David Stevenson re-examines the causes, course and impact of this 'war to end war', placing it in the context of its era and exposing its underlying dynamics. His book provides a wide-ranging international history, drawing on insights from the latest research. It offers compelling answers to the key questions about how this terrible struggle unfolded: questions that remain disturbingly relevant for our own time.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #22695 in Books
• Published on: 2005-09-01
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 784 pages

Sunday Times, September 2004
' the most thorough account of the war human hand has yet assembled'

Independent, 3rd September, 2004
'this history of the 1914-1918 conflict surpasses all others. It is tough, erudit and comprehensive'

Telegraph, 4th September, 2003
'Stevenson is as sane and sure a guide as the discriminating reader will find'

Customer Reviews

An essential read ...
I thought this a magnificent book. Its 600 pages are written in crystal clear English, covering the political, economic and military aspects of the War. The major campaigns of this global conflict are all well described, as is life on the home fronts of the Allies and the Central Powers. The origins are well described, while the chapters on the aftermath are particularly helpful. I recommend it strongly to those wishing to read a comprehensive history of the conflict for the first time, while those who have read other works on the War will find many new perspectives here. This book is superb value.

A very good place to start in comprehending the incomprehensible
This was the first serious book on WWI that I read. It should be made clear, as I think another reviewer bemoans, that this is not a chronological military history, but rather a 'meta'-historical account that examines the war from various perspectives running orthogonal to the timeline. So we come to understand the social, economic, industrial and political dimensions of the war.

I give it five stars because it exploded so many of the pre-conceptions I had held about the war. In the 60s & 70s when I was doing my O-level history at school the wisdom imparted was that WWI was a misery inflicted upon the masses by an uncaring ruling class. I now understand that none of the belligerent populations (with the complex exception of Russia) would have tolerated capitulation by their governments. I learned how Lloyd George as minister of munitions transformed Britain's munitions industry (that was making more duds than effectives) from a haphazard and rather ineffectual club of gentleman industrialists into a unified system of mass production that put Britain back into the fight. We learn about decisive technological and strategic failures and the decisive strategic and technological successes.

One of the most interesting chapters is the final one that deals with the history of Germany's war guilt. Once more the wisdom taught in my schooldays was that Germany was the unequivocal villain in the whole tragedy. But we find in this chapter that there was a long and complex story that lead up to Germany accepting this mantle that was actually encouraged by its more straightforward culpability for WWII. And that the story might yet take another twist as modern Germany starts to examine the origins afresh.

One thing I must say is that I now have read several detailed accounts of the beginnings of the war and how it escalated from the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand, and there are as many interpretations of what happened and where the blame lies, as there are accounts. Counterfactual aguments abound - if Russia had not mobilised so early against Austro-Hungary, and so on, and most controversially perhaps, would it truly have just been a replay of the Franco-Prussion war and over by Christmas if Lord Grey had not committed Britain to the fray. So, caveat emptor, take no single account of the origins of the war as definitive. I think it was Hugh Trevor-Roper that said that the final cause of WWI was that an intricate system of checks and balances that had given general peace in Europe for a hundred years, just suddenly went off the rails, as it was sooner or later bound to do. In the end it was everybody's fault and nobody's.

The best book about the First World War at present :o)
Readers should notice that 1914-1918: the History of the First World War (Penguin Press, 2004) is also published by Basic Books (New York) as Cataclysm: the First World War as Political Tragedy.

This book is very good, and gives an analytical and balanced view of the First World War. It must be the best book about the First World War at present. Mr Stevenson has made an interesting divison of the period in his book by focusing on cross-cutting issues in the middle of the war.

It is striking how close Germany was to winning the war if they themselves have not brought the UK and especially the USA in by violating Belgiums territory and with the unrestricted submarine war/Zimmermann telegram respectively. Just when Germany had defeated Russia due to the revolution, she brought the USA into the war. The only which was even more mad was that Hitler repeated the mistake in the Second World War by declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbor. I think that without the USA in the equation Germany would with all likelihood have prevailed in both world wars.

I can recommend to supplement this reading with Annika Monbauers Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War, which shows how the General staff operated in Germany without the same political control as in France for instance, where the chief of the General Staff Joffre had to let go of the idea of a strike through neutral Belgium due to political considerations. I can also very much recommend Nial Fergusons original analysis in The Pity of War, although I do not agree with him that France or Britain would have attacked Belgium without a German attack!