Warwick’s review of The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 > Likes and Comments

Difficult thing, sorting out one of the most incomprehensible triangulation clusterfaux of the 2oth cent. My personal pet hate is when an author sacrifices strict clarity for the sake of varying the verbiage... As in, across a couple pages the very same entity is referred to by its regional name, country name, PM, King, capital, its entente-partnership, or its occupational authority. There is a point, especially in the Balkans, at which you have to go with 'simple'..

Warwick wrote: "When, after 400 pages, you finally reach the assassinations in Sarajevo, the effect is like watching a boxed set of Open University lectures and finding Iron Man 3 on the last disc."

Ha!

I liked it a great deal more than you did. I agree the prose is not always silk smooth. I am currently reading Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World and her writing is much more flowing. I am still at the beginning but Munro's theory of how things happened seems to me however a bit more sophisticated. But too early to tell still..

Thanks for your very informative review, Warwick.

I think I'll stick with "The Guns of August" and "Vertigo". Both books are already lying on my desk.

You should take a look at the Fritz Fischer controversy. Things were not so "innocent" as this author seems to suggest. Also, look at my WWI shelf. Joll's little monograph is esp. good, as is MacGregor Knox

AC wrote: "You should take a look at the Fritz Fischer controversy. Things were not so "innocent" as this author seems to suggest. Also, look at my WWI shelf. Joll's little monograph is esp. good, as is MacG..."

Thank you, AC.

@ AC: But how do I look at your WWI shelf? Your GR profile is set to private.

J. I know exactly what you mean, and yes – extremely annoying.

Kall, I really liked it at the beginning and the end, but the middle just wore me down. I think you're right, his theory is quite sophisticated, but for me he never explained directly enough what his theory actually was. My problem is I haven't read much other stuff about the causes of WWI, so I don't know to what extent his ideas are new, but it seems to me he was simply arguing that the causes are many and complex. Well…no shit!

I look forward to your reviews on them, Lilo!

AC, Clark does examine the Fritz Fischer thesis but ultimately rejects it in favour of something rather more nebulous and diffuse. Actually, Germany overall comes off better than most countries in this book. Thanks for the other recommendations – I'll have a look at your shelves…

Warwick wrote: "J. I know exactly what you mean, and yes – extremely annoying.

Kall, I really liked it at the beginning and the end, but the middle just wore me down. I think you're right, his theory is quite sop..."

Warwick wrote: "J. I know exactly what you mean, and yes – extremely annoying.

Kall, I really liked it at the beginning and the end, but the middle just wore me down. I think you're right, his theory is quite sop..."

There is often a political dimension, as you understand, to this debate... And (?) to Clark's own Germanophilia, perhaps...

It'll be a while before I get to the Great War. (The Anniversary is only in August.) I am still into WWII while struggling to get my 3 books to market and switching from my old XP to my new Mac. (I think my cats will be mastering the new system before I do.)

As of now, I know very little of the Great War, that is, only what my husband told me. His history teachers had taught the basics, whereas mine had started with the old Greeks 3-times and stopped at around 1900 so not to get too close to the Third Reich, which they avoided like the plague.

Oh, I had planned on this one - any better lead-up books? (vertigo years is proving to be not so political a history)

Riku, give it a try – most people seem to have liked it a lot more than I did!

Warwick wrote: "Riku, give it a try – most people seem to have liked it a lot more than I did!"

I must say that the title had put me off at first. It seems to be implicitly allowing that it was all unplanned and hence no one was really to blame - the only blame is for lack of foresight? I don't think I can accept that.

Warwick wrote: "J. I know exactly what you mean, and yes – extremely annoying.

Kall, I really liked it at the beginning and the end, but the middle just wore me down. I think you're right, his theory is quite sop..."

I am the same, Warwick. I am very ignorant of WW1 (that is why I wanted to set up the WW1 group) and this book overwhelmed me... but then I took it as a sign of my first proper read on the causes... And there is definitely a long and established discourse on WW1 writing in which he is placing himself, and which I ignore. But what I liked was that he was less Anglocentric than other approaches, and also the emphasis he gave to the kind of dynamics in human behavior that I recognized in smaller but also complex units, such as big corporations, as well as the attention he gives to the force of the various nationalities stupidly fighting with each other.

But I should tackle my review.

I also want to look at AC's recommendations and will check whether they are in the WW1Group shelves.

AC wrote: "There is often a political dimension, as you understand, to this debate..."

But then that is also true of the Fischer thesis which comes out of the ferment of the era of '68. His interpretation wasn't neutral or value free.

Although by stressing German war guilt implicitly Fischer removes agency from the other powers and thus returns Germany to position of European superiority -ie it alone decides whether there was to be peace or war in Europe.

Jan-Maat wrote: "AC wrote: "There is often a political dimension, as you understand, to this debate..."

But then that is also true of the Fischer thesis which comes out of the ferment of the era of '68. His inter..."


Haha.. I will fish one quote from my reading of The War That Ended Peace: The Road To 1914

Wilhelm to Lord Lansdowne, British Foreign Minister: "I am the balance of power in Europe since the German constitution leaves decisions about foreign policy to me".

Jan-Maat wrote: "AC wrote: "There is often a political dimension, as you understand, to this debate..."

But then that is also true of the Fischer thesis which comes out of the ferment of the era of '68. His inter..."

Deft!

Kalliope wrote: "Haha.. I will fish one quote from my reading of The War That Ended Peace: The Road To 1914

Wilhelm to Lord Lansdowne, British Foreign Minister: "I am the balance of power in Europe since the German constitution leaves decisions about foreign policy to me". "

Yes, I remember seeing that update. Wilhelm was the original "man of destiny" and always good for a quote, but constitutionally the same was true of the Russian Tsar. It's a nice bit of bluster, but hardly born out by European diplomacy prior to WWI.

Jan-Maat wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "Haha.. I will fish one quote from my reading of The War That Ended Peace: The Road To 1914

Wilhelm to Lord Lansdowne, British Foreign Minister: "I am the balance of power in Europ..."

I know, I know... I agree with you...

The quote is really a proof that the man was quite a character (for not saying other things), and his behavior together with the fact that German lost the war made him a candidate to become the culprit by later judges.

I just thought his quote was funny.... :)

Riku wrote: "Warwick wrote: "Riku, give it a try – most people seem to have liked it a lot more than I did!"

I must say that the title had put me off at first. It seems to be implicitly allowing that it was al..."

Give it a try, Riku.

Thanks for your review on this one. I've been teetering on the fence. I've been leaning to The War That Ended Peace: The Road To 1914 by Margaret MacMillan and will most likely fall off the fence onto MacMillan's tome.

you should tackle both, Mike

Ha! A challenge to Mike from Kalliope! Bet he can't resist it.

I'm almost half way through the MacMillan book and, while there is certainly enough cause/blame to go around in her presentation, there are some specific aspects of German culture and the German military that seemed to push them more easily toward war in a Europe where so much was out of balance.

Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding her here but I don't have the quotes at my fingertips. I'll try to put some in my review.

Kalliope wrote: "I just thought his quote was funny.... :) "

He was a character, and Queen Victoria's favourite grandchild apparently. But then famously she was not amused so that's probably not much of a recommendation.

Jan-Maat wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "I just thought his quote was funny.... :) "

He was a character, and Queen Victoria's favourite grandchild apparently. But then famously she was not amused so that's probably not ..."

It seems she died almost in his arms.

Sue wrote: "I'm almost half way through the MacMillan book and, while there is certainly enough cause/blame to go around in her presentation, there are some specific aspects of German culture and the German mi..."

But then when it comes to specific aspects of culture that push them towards war wasn't that generally true in pre-war Europe - look at Britain, they had this organisation called the Boy Scouts formed after a war to crush an independence movement in one of their colonies caused a soldier to acknowledge the poor quality of the recruits. This organisation aimed to train boys - literally children - giving them military skills, preparing them for war, physically and psychologically. Teaching them that dulce et decorum est pro patria mori etc.

But since Britain was on the winning side and time has weathered the Boy Scouts we don't see them as indicative of a mind set that was preparing future generations purely for war...

Kalliope wrote: "It seems she died almost in his arms. "

I hadn't heard that. It would have been very awkward as one of his arms was much shorter than the other.

AC wrote: "You should take a look at the Fritz Fischer controversy. Things were not so "innocent" as this author seems to suggest. Also, look at my WWI shelf. Joll's little monograph is esp. good, as is MacG..."

Thanks for friending me, AC. Now I can get to your profile but I still don't know how to find your WWI shelf. You must know that I am a computer-idiot.

Kalliope wrote: "This is why I wanted to set up the WWI Group ..."

Instead of going through the trouble of setting up and managing a group, you might want to join the "World War Two Readers" group, which have just recently set up an extra site for the Great War (= WWI).

("History Club" group might also have a WWI-section. I am a member of this group, but I lie in coma there. The moderators there are too patronizing for my liking. They must have some German ancestors. :-))

"World War II Readers", is one of the nicest, if not the nicest, group on Goodreads. It is a very casual group, and the moderators and active members are very well behaved and friendly (which cannot be said for all groups on GR). I am very active in this group. Here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

I like your description of the states being tied together like mountaineers. It explains the cause of the war as well as any I've come upon, and far more succinctly. The detail Clark offers is great to have around, but for most of us, it's not compelling. Like you say, the book has a staccato feel. I was also pained by the run-on sentences. The writing has felt stiff and not too elegant to me. -- Also I love your excerpt from Blackadder.

Thanks, Kathryn. I still haven't read The Guns of August but it seems from reviews in my feed that it may still be the best overview on causes, despite its age.

I found that The Guns of August so tightly focused on the events of the the summer of 1914 that there wasn't enough context for my taste. But her later book, The Proud Tower, which granted also had its problems, was marvelous for setting the scene, giving a big picture of the lead up..

Interesting, thanks for the heads-up.

I love your reference to the conversation from Blackadder. Pretty much says it all.

Yes there are few things that can't be improved with some added Blackadder.

I just stumbled across this great review again and reread it.

Re the conversation of the 3 British soldiers: I could imagine some Trump supporters having a similar discussion if Trump should manage to get us into a WWIII.

great review, for which I am only 5 1/2 years late.

105 years, some might say.

Lilo, now we have another dementia addled President so here we go again.

Glenn wrote: "Lilo, now we have another dementia addled President so here we go again."

Make that a dementia-addled former President! Our current President is quite on the ball.

Glenn wrote: "Lilo, now we have another dementia addled President so here we go again."

I agree with Kathryn that our current President is quite on the ball. And even if he developed a bit of dementia at some time, he is of good character, has intelligence and knowledge to start out with, and also listens to advisors, whereas the yellow-haired Hitler has had a shitty character from early childhood on, is as uneducated as most of his followers, has less brain than a soda biscuit, and won't listen to anybody who has a bit more brain than he has.

You are not comparing apples with pears; you are comparing apples with garbage.

Correction:

I just wrote this comment in a hurry. Glancing over the above review and the above comments again, I now assume that you compared our current president not to the yellow-heaired Hitler but to Kaiser Wilhelm. This may not be exactly comparing apples with garbage but not too far off either. I think it is an insult to our current President to compare him with either of these addle-brained men. He doesn't deserve it.

Yes, our current President may be a bit too old for the job, but as I said, he listens to advisors. And this is important, as no single person can have all the wisdom and the knowledge it takes to do the job of the leader of a country like the U.S. right. Besides, anyone who thinks that he is so smart and knowledgeable not to need advisors is megalomaniac and unfit for the office to start out with.

Really helpful review which I kind of skimmed thru as it is rather dense. It did give me the understanding that this book is perhaps not for me right now. I want something between a light and very informal history and a dense, purely academic history. It doesn’t have to be WW1 (a period I happen to love reading about in novel form) but I prefer Europe. Any suggestions would be great! I wish goodreads search allowed more filters.

An interesting review thank you and like Blackadder said it was all bollocks

So often the voice of reason!

Thanks for this review! No wonder I still don't get it I should have read this before listening to that audiobook.

10 years passed but review’s still excellent!

Thanks man