What do you think?
Rate this book
Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?: The Transformation of Modern Europe
A critical study of the tumultuous history of Europe during the twentieth century analyzes how the continent's rejection of violence in the wake of World War II has affected the region, led to a rejection of defense budgets in favor of social stability and economic growth, and caused a growing rift between the U.S. and Europe.
284 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
11 people are currently reading
340 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
May 12, 2024
Very engaging book about the evolution of warfare and its impact on society. It kept me entertained and taught me a lot about the links between war and everyday life and its role in shaping countries
January 18, 2009
This is a rather concise history of Europe's changing views on war over the years. What Sheehan attempts to do here is show that at one time Europe was particularly power hungry and would do whatever it took to become quite the world superpower, but now, after the First and Second World Wars and the end of the Cold War, they're just like, not that interested anymore. He brought up interesting points and his information is certainly fascinating. However, his arguments are rather flat. He attempts to show how European attitudes have changed over the years, but was only able to portray how much they learned from their wars and how, basically, they've changed their errant ways. I don't buy this argument; or, more specifically, I believe there is more to it than that - it's just not that simple.
What I did like is the amount of time Sheehan spent discussing European monuments to their dead from war. They are literally on every street corner in some places, and they have every reason to want to commemorate those who fought to defend their land. There's a long and rich history surrounding history and clearly is not something that should be ignored; don't they say that one should remember history lest one should be condemned to repeat it? America doesn't have that same reaction, primarily because we are so new and so fresh as far as that goes. That is one thing Sheehan got dead on - Europe, though mostly initially supportive of the U.S. after the September 11 attacks, did not agree with how the U.S. decided to deal with the aftermath. While we (that's a royal "we", not a personal "we") opted to fight terrorism as an international and global issue, Europe mostly felt it is a domestic issue. They're not new to the problem and have been combating terrorism on some level for many years. Again, for the U.S., it's pretty dang new, so of course we take the wrong path in fixing the problem.
Perhaps this book really is meant just to be an historical overview and meant to create more questions than it answers. In that case I believe Sheehan is probably rather successful here. It certainly is not a definitive work.
What I did like is the amount of time Sheehan spent discussing European monuments to their dead from war. They are literally on every street corner in some places, and they have every reason to want to commemorate those who fought to defend their land. There's a long and rich history surrounding history and clearly is not something that should be ignored; don't they say that one should remember history lest one should be condemned to repeat it? America doesn't have that same reaction, primarily because we are so new and so fresh as far as that goes. That is one thing Sheehan got dead on - Europe, though mostly initially supportive of the U.S. after the September 11 attacks, did not agree with how the U.S. decided to deal with the aftermath. While we (that's a royal "we", not a personal "we") opted to fight terrorism as an international and global issue, Europe mostly felt it is a domestic issue. They're not new to the problem and have been combating terrorism on some level for many years. Again, for the U.S., it's pretty dang new, so of course we take the wrong path in fixing the problem.
Perhaps this book really is meant just to be an historical overview and meant to create more questions than it answers. In that case I believe Sheehan is probably rather successful here. It certainly is not a definitive work.
February 4, 2021
Solid piece of scholarship on the transformation of Europe. Sheehan's theory about "garrison" and "citizen" states are well thought out. The best parts of this book however are the ones focusing on decolonization and Europe's response to it.
May 6, 2023
A very insightful and well written book, JJS’s “Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?” deals with a subject otherwise taken up in R Kagan’s “Of Paradise and Power”. JJS considers the period from about 1870 to the beginning of 21st century. The last third of the 19th century up to the first world war was a period during which the rational for wars in Europe eroded and peace reigned. But that peace was contingent on a highly complex series of diplomatic arrangements and turned out to be unstable.
The peace that took hold after the second world war was based on a simpler and harsher reality: the likelihood that a war in Europe would lead to nuclear obliteration. It was under this condition that Europeans finally felt secure in laying down arms. Once the threat of inter-Europe aggression receded, interstate trade carried little risk and Europe grew not only peaceful, but very prosperous. Perhaps the belligerent traits that had once dominated Europe were really only awkward sentiments aimed at numbing fear?)
Once the cold war ended, there were some worries that old patterns of international rivalry would return. But by then the rational for hostility really had disappeared. Hostilities would interfere with the then very extensive trade and threaten the affluence and personal wellbeing that Europeans had come to appreciate. More importantly perhaps, attitudes had undergone a transformation. Martial characteristics, such as admiration for self-sacrifice, and the will toward national glory no longer had relevance, and were replaced by comity and personal well-being.
“Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?” takes in the capacities and limitations of the political reality wrought in Europe. Europe’s soft power has exerted a magnetic influence upon troubled fringe states – Spain, Portugal and Greece and, later, the member states of the former Warsaw pact. The attraction and non-threatening nature of Europe contributed to the non-violent nature of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yet, Europe has not managed to organise itself to take responsibility for its own security, partly for practical reasons, but also because European lacks an identity from which self sacrifice could be called upon.
The peace that took hold after the second world war was based on a simpler and harsher reality: the likelihood that a war in Europe would lead to nuclear obliteration. It was under this condition that Europeans finally felt secure in laying down arms. Once the threat of inter-Europe aggression receded, interstate trade carried little risk and Europe grew not only peaceful, but very prosperous. Perhaps the belligerent traits that had once dominated Europe were really only awkward sentiments aimed at numbing fear?)
Once the cold war ended, there were some worries that old patterns of international rivalry would return. But by then the rational for hostility really had disappeared. Hostilities would interfere with the then very extensive trade and threaten the affluence and personal wellbeing that Europeans had come to appreciate. More importantly perhaps, attitudes had undergone a transformation. Martial characteristics, such as admiration for self-sacrifice, and the will toward national glory no longer had relevance, and were replaced by comity and personal well-being.
“Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?” takes in the capacities and limitations of the political reality wrought in Europe. Europe’s soft power has exerted a magnetic influence upon troubled fringe states – Spain, Portugal and Greece and, later, the member states of the former Warsaw pact. The attraction and non-threatening nature of Europe contributed to the non-violent nature of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yet, Europe has not managed to organise itself to take responsibility for its own security, partly for practical reasons, but also because European lacks an identity from which self sacrifice could be called upon.
April 19, 2024
here's a quote for you from social media
The Russian railroad magnate Ivan Bloch wrote a huge set, The Future of War, describing that the time they lived in was a time like no other.
He mentions the defensive power of high fire-rate weapons, like the machine gun but also the bolt-action rifle.
He predicted that logically, the stagnation of the offense would lead to defense, leading to stalemate. A stalemate would lead to a long protracted war in which more and more men were drafted and killed.
A protracted war would mean mobilization of a nation's entire industry and economy and people for the sole purpose of making war. This mobilization would lead to material shortages at home, civil instability and possibly revolution, and large debt and possibly high taxes.
Because the war became so costly, he predicted, neither power would want to make peace for anything less than total victory, which meant a harsh peace inflicted on the loser, which could mean the destruction of social and political order.
He basically predicted World War I to the letter. When H.G. Well's visited the front in 1916, he believed he was viewing "Bloch's War".
In a different vein, but wth the same amount of premonition, the British journalist Norman Angell wrote a book describing how the economies of the European nations had become so intertwined that war would cause much worse damage than any possible benefit.
He also warned, unheeded, that indemnities inflicted on the loser for the war would only further damage any post-war economic system by crippling a key part of the European economy. He was knighted and given a Nobel Peace Prize for his work and his resultant service in rallying pacificist sentiment in the United Kingdom after the war.
Source: Where have all the Soldiers Gone? - James Sheehan
October 14, 2018
Very enjoyable. I would like to come back to this book after my comprehensive exams for a closer reading! I would have liked more focus on post-1945 and the effects of cultural productions on attitudes towards war, however.
September 6, 2020
Read this for my theory reading group despite not being a real "theory" book. Sheehan does most of what his stated goals are for this text without going beyond. There are complications and moments missed, but overall a relevant text for the modern world.
December 22, 2025
"What good are the best social reforms if the Cossacks come?"
Good historical overview of how Europe's march towards (relative) pacifism has been Just and Sane and also a complete disaster for us all.
The book was published in 2008 and reads as even more correct in Big 2025.
Good historical overview of how Europe's march towards (relative) pacifism has been Just and Sane and also a complete disaster for us all.
The book was published in 2008 and reads as even more correct in Big 2025.
September 3, 2018
interesting retelling of why Europe (mostly) does not war anymore
March 28, 2019
Decent summary of how Europe overcame centuries of violence to become a peaceful bastion by the end of the 20th century.
August 1, 2021
An interesting and well crafted argument for why Europe is the way it is...
April 16, 2024
This book made me feel crazy
May 2, 2024
Very American perspective on the military of Europe.
October 12, 2025
A very good analytical survey of 20th century European conflict. He covers more in a chapter than some historians manage in a book.
It's a fascinating journey from the pre-WWI focus on on the hierarchical military culture and mass armies to the civilian/business-oriented culture of post WWII Europe.
Although Europe would rather be left alone and not be shepparded by the Cold War superpowers, that's only possible because, perhaps for the first time in modern history, Europe is peaceful.
Western Europe that is. Very ironically, in just the fifteen years since the book came out, the outlook for Europe is cloudy; and again, the danger is from its periphery.
There's little 'peace dividend' and not near as much optimism as in the late '80s-early '90s, which saw the swift and relatively peaceful end of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Although the ascension of liberal regimes in the former Warsaw Pact countries was welcome, and even a relief to Western Europe, there was certainly no guarantee that those regimes would prove stable.
By far the worst outcome has occurred in Russia. We now know what Russia would be like had Communism never taken root there--a strong-arm authoritarian government without rule of law, and in effect, a president-for-life in Putin.
Belarus and Ukraine are hardly bastions of civility either. The current Russia-Ukraine war points out that great power politics is back in and around Europe after less than a generation of civilian democratic control.
And the US is hardly blameless, allowing NATO expansion for no apparent reason. Putin didn't become dangerous until he had NATO on his border, and finally, by hinting, if not encouraging Ukraine's membership, provoked Russia by threatening encirclement.
It's as though we have the Central Powers v. The Triple Entente a century or so later. Just as the provocative alliance-making of the late-19th to early-20th century led to all of the Powers aligned in one of the alliance blocs, it hardly encourages stability by lining up as many allies as possible.
I can't just infer that the author was blithe in celebrating Europe turning a corner a few decades ago, as the rise of Putin's regime, not to mention several other nationalist governments in the former communist countries, certainly was possible, but wasn't forseen.
It's a fascinating journey from the pre-WWI focus on on the hierarchical military culture and mass armies to the civilian/business-oriented culture of post WWII Europe.
Although Europe would rather be left alone and not be shepparded by the Cold War superpowers, that's only possible because, perhaps for the first time in modern history, Europe is peaceful.
Western Europe that is. Very ironically, in just the fifteen years since the book came out, the outlook for Europe is cloudy; and again, the danger is from its periphery.
There's little 'peace dividend' and not near as much optimism as in the late '80s-early '90s, which saw the swift and relatively peaceful end of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Although the ascension of liberal regimes in the former Warsaw Pact countries was welcome, and even a relief to Western Europe, there was certainly no guarantee that those regimes would prove stable.
By far the worst outcome has occurred in Russia. We now know what Russia would be like had Communism never taken root there--a strong-arm authoritarian government without rule of law, and in effect, a president-for-life in Putin.
Belarus and Ukraine are hardly bastions of civility either. The current Russia-Ukraine war points out that great power politics is back in and around Europe after less than a generation of civilian democratic control.
And the US is hardly blameless, allowing NATO expansion for no apparent reason. Putin didn't become dangerous until he had NATO on his border, and finally, by hinting, if not encouraging Ukraine's membership, provoked Russia by threatening encirclement.
It's as though we have the Central Powers v. The Triple Entente a century or so later. Just as the provocative alliance-making of the late-19th to early-20th century led to all of the Powers aligned in one of the alliance blocs, it hardly encourages stability by lining up as many allies as possible.
I can't just infer that the author was blithe in celebrating Europe turning a corner a few decades ago, as the rise of Putin's regime, not to mention several other nationalist governments in the former communist countries, certainly was possible, but wasn't forseen.
June 15, 2009
Sheehan, a Modern Germanist, describes Europe's 20th century as a creation of a "civilian state," in which great social weight is placed on economic power and diminished prestige, power, and money are invested in military affairs. He traces the development of the civilian state through the usual road markers of the 20th century--WWI, WWII, Cold War, 1990s. The book that resulted from this investigation is a fairly brief monograph that might be used as an addition to a 300-level Euro course, serving to show how Europe's history is truly European (not German/French/Russian, etc.)
A few points of curiosity:
He compares Gorbachev to Lenin, saying Lenin feared releasing power (for his life) and therefore wouldn't, whereas Gorbachev knew (thanks to the civilian state) he would live, and so let matters take their course in 1991.
He suggests the mass popularity of WWI (as traditionally mentioned in texts) is a myth, and in fact a creation of a censored wartime press.
He suggests peace is a relatively modern idea, because it makes the life and death of individuals a matter of concern. (From a state wherein thousands would die namelessly--see the 30 Years' War--to a state for which the Unnamed Soldier would be enshrined, and all efforts made to make sure few went unnamed.) Peace as a concept is also born in response to mass-produced warfare, itself a product of the industrial age.
He points out the huge economic power of the EU (1/4 of the world's economy) and its almost invisible military presence.
Overall, the book is studded with interesting smaller points like this, and is an interesting argument for the development of concepts of peace.
A few points of curiosity:
He compares Gorbachev to Lenin, saying Lenin feared releasing power (for his life) and therefore wouldn't, whereas Gorbachev knew (thanks to the civilian state) he would live, and so let matters take their course in 1991.
He suggests the mass popularity of WWI (as traditionally mentioned in texts) is a myth, and in fact a creation of a censored wartime press.
He suggests peace is a relatively modern idea, because it makes the life and death of individuals a matter of concern. (From a state wherein thousands would die namelessly--see the 30 Years' War--to a state for which the Unnamed Soldier would be enshrined, and all efforts made to make sure few went unnamed.) Peace as a concept is also born in response to mass-produced warfare, itself a product of the industrial age.
He points out the huge economic power of the EU (1/4 of the world's economy) and its almost invisible military presence.
Overall, the book is studded with interesting smaller points like this, and is an interesting argument for the development of concepts of peace.
May 27, 2010
Where Have All the Soldiers Gone? deals with the change of militaristic imperial Europe to a peaceful economy driven post World War Europe. The book is relatively to the point, which makes for a painless read for those who are looking for general information on the topic.
I found the most fascinating aspects of the book to be the exploration of turn of the century militarism. Some of the sentiments of the time where quite shocking. It makes for an especially interesting contrast to the America-dependent post-war Europe. Sheenan's closing thoughts seem especially relevant to recent developments with the European Union and some of the recent failings of the market there.
Reading the book had me drawing some comparisons and contrasts with the American perspective on the topic. This book could be a good launching point into further scrutiny of the topic.
I found the most fascinating aspects of the book to be the exploration of turn of the century militarism. Some of the sentiments of the time where quite shocking. It makes for an especially interesting contrast to the America-dependent post-war Europe. Sheenan's closing thoughts seem especially relevant to recent developments with the European Union and some of the recent failings of the market there.
Reading the book had me drawing some comparisons and contrasts with the American perspective on the topic. This book could be a good launching point into further scrutiny of the topic.
April 3, 2008
This short (just over 200 pages) history of European warfare since the mid-19th century fascinated me. Sheehan points out the remarkably rapid evolution of states like Britain, France and Germany from militarized, mass conscript army nations to what he terms the civilian state, where the rational for statehood is the welfare of citizens and where armies are professional and small rather than large and conscripted. I don't agree with everything Sheehan says but this is the first popular book I have read that both highlights and explains what must surely be one of the twentieth century's most amazing developments, the turn away from total war as an extension of politics.
June 23, 2016
Accessible and imperative for understanding what currently roils Europe. Written well before the Syrian emigration crisis, a reader begins to understand the value of the European Union, given the experience of two wars and the threat of a third until the Soviet Union's demise. The author observes that Europe abandoned the notion of the warrior state prepared to defend its borders to embrace a civilian state that worked more collaboratively for collective security and prosperity, but also notes the union's failures in the Balkan Wars, which presage its frustrations with the Greek economy and now immigration from the Middle East.
January 17, 2011
This book chronicles the move Europe made over the last century from being an overwhelmingly militaristic place, to its current state of primarily civilian life and composition. Sheehan does an excellent job of chronicling the forces that have made this possible, as well as the complex, and often difficult, relationship the US has with its European partners. Fascinating, well-written, and highly informative.
November 20, 2014
About 6 years old now, so not completely up to date, but a good account of the trajectory of Western Europe in the 20th century. Sheehan describes how the major powers of the 19th and early 20th century based their sovereignty on military virtues and conscription, and the evolution of the modern European civilian state. His analysis of the post Communist period was especially interesting, I thought.
July 24, 2008
It might have deserved 3.5 stars... but I didn't think it deserved 4 stars. Some parts of the book were more engaging than others. I didn't think this book was an easy read... but it wasn't too difficult or a terrible bore either. It covered a wide range of time and issues and did a pretty good job of keeping the reader (me) engaged, I thought.
July 24, 2011
A little heavy for summer reading but this book was great. A fantastic overview of the transformation of Europe over the course of the 20th century. A broad understanding of Modern European history is a plus . . . otherwise this book will point you in many worthwhile directions.
Want to read
February 10, 2008Marked as to-read because of very promising reviews, for example in the NYT.
May 16, 2011
A succinct and compelling analysis of Europe before, during, and after WWII. So good.
August 17, 2008
Slow at times, but not a bad read if you enjoy the subject of post-war European politics.
Want to read
August 21, 2008This is my father-in-law's book adn it's a definite MUST READ:)
Want to read
February 10, 2008As mentioned in the Jan. 28 issue of the New Yorker.
August 24, 2014
really helpful! i enjoyed it!
April 25, 2017
A book not only reflecting the author's extensive knowledge of twentieth-century Europe, but also a wise one punctuated with noteworthy insights. In places I had the impression of reading the refined transcription of the lecture notes for Sheehan's course on Europe in the 20th Century organized around a tenable and convincing thesis. Published before the financial crisis, Brexit, and recent political developments, the last chapter could use revision and the epilogue expansion - this is a book worthy of an updated edition.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews