The History Book Club discussion
THE FIRST WORLD WAR
>
ORIGIN AND CAUSES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR
Mod
The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860-1914
Paul M. KennedySynopsis
Since its first publication in 1980, Professor Kennedy's masterly account of the rivalry between Great Britain and Germany in the period leading to the First World War has established itself as the definitive work on the subject.
Over ten years of research in more than sixty archives in Britain and Germany culminated in this full-scale, meticulous analysis. The result reaches far beyond a diplomatic narrative of relations between the two countries. It concerns itself with a thorough comparison of the two societies, their political cultures, economies, party politics, courts, the role of the press and pressure groups, and other factors. The work therefore contributes to the larger debate on the nature of foreign policy, as well as to the specific controversies over the British-German antagonisms that eventually led to war.
It was a political and economic rivalry
Bryan wrote: "The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860-1914
Paul M. KennedyDid the book go into any detail about the jealousy that Kaiser Wilhelm had for the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VI) which seemed to border on psychopathy? I read King, Kaiser, Tsar and it was permeated with the Kaiser's constant attempts to "one-up" the Prince/King. I realize that it was not the only reason for rivalry between the two countries but the Kaiser seemed to feed it at every opportunity.
by Catrine Clay
It was a very interesting relationship since the Kaiser was his nephew and saw is uncle as a major rival, both personally and in the national sense. I could never figure out if the Kaiser was mentally disturbed or just not very smart. I probably would choose the latter!! Intermarriage is not a good thing for the gene pool!!
I am reading this book and I find the research impressive. The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914
Jill wrote: "It was a very interesting relationship since the Kaiser was his nephew and saw is uncle as a major rival, both personally and in the national sense. I could never figure out if the Kaiser was menta..."I think he had a host of issues. There is a multi-volume history of the Kaiser that I want to read one day. I don't know if it provides answers:
Lamar Cecil
Bryan wrote: "Jill wrote: "It was a very interesting relationship since the Kaiser was his nephew and saw is uncle as a major rival, both personally and in the national sense. I could never figure out if the Kai..."Right.....he had a myriad of issues from his disability to his love/hate relationship with his British mother......pretty screwed-up fellow.
I will have to hunt down that book.
Christopher wrote: "A new book on the world before the war...looks very good:1913: In Search of the World Before the Great War
by [authorimage:..."That looks like something I would really like.... it is on my radar.
The Zimmermann Telegram: Intelligence, Diplomacy, and America's Entry into World War I
by Thomas Boghardt (no photo)Synopsis
In January 1917, British naval intelligence intercepted a secret telegram from Germany's foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, offering his country's support to Mexico for regaining lost territory in the U.S. in exchange for a Mexican attack on the United States. Five weeks later, America entered World War I. This remarkable study taps fresh sources to provide a definitive account of the origins, cryptanalysis, and impact of the German alliance scheme. Challenging many widely accepted views of what happened, the author contends that the telegram was a spontaneous initiative, not the result of a long-term German plan. He further argues that the telegram did not rally Americans for war, but instead proved divisive, alienating isolationist and pacifist groups and lawmakers. He also corrects mistakes made previously about how the telegram was sent and coded. The book s new findings, as well as a firsthand account of how the telegram was conceived, published here for the first time, are certain to attract attention.
Mod
Mod
Prince Rudolf of Austria-Hungary could have been the man killed at Sarajevo instead of Franz Ferdinand.....but he had committed suicide with his mistress at Mayerling, putting Franz Ferdinand in line for the throne. His mental stability is questioned in this book and one wonders what would have happened if he had not killed himself.Royal Rebel
by John T. SalvendySynopsis:
This is the first fully documented psycho-biography of the last Crown Prince of the Habsburg monarchy. Drawing mostly from first hand reports, Salvendy follows Crown Prince Rudolf from infancy to his suicide at the age of thirty. Exploring his childhood, adolescence, family and social relationships, his military, political, scholarly and journalistic career, his physical and emotional illnesses, along with the reasons leading to his self-destruction, the author sheds considerable new light on the personality of this unfortunate Habsburg.
___________________________________________________
A lot of things surely led to the First World War. As I'm reading here, everyone is posting about the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand as the main cause of the war. This event was sure the fuse to start the Great War.But we have to take a look at an older period to understand the other causes. I'm going to list the 4 main reasons that caused the First World War were, according to my point of vision.
I: The nationalism spirit that was growing on europe during the XVIII century ( used as base for most of the revolutions and both Italian/German Unification).
II: The ongoing technology advance ( consequence of the Second Industrial Revolution) could give to the europen nations a more powerful military arsenal and a bigger bellic power ( We can see the airplane used during the war).
III: The Imperialism ( ooohh this surely was the greater of reasons ) that placed the Nations in a territorial race over Africa/ Asia. Also we have to take a look at the German project of building a railway that would link Berlin to Baghda ( The famous Berlin-Baghda Express) and this surely messed up with England's plans.
IV: The Revanchism Spirit that influenced the French, due to their defeat for Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War ( that also made Emperor Napoleon III to abandon his throne). The coronation of Emperor Wilhelm I on the French Capital - Paris- marking the ascension of German Empire, built on the French a revanchism spirit.
And for last, I would like to recommend a book that can give you a deep analysis of the causes of World War I. Hope I could help ;). Peace.
The Long Fuse: An Interpretation of the Origins of World War I
byLaurence Lafore(no photo)Synopsis:
In analyzing the causes of World War I without concern for the question of guilt, the author places emphasis on two central facts: first, that when statesmen and peoples took actions they knew might lead to war, they were not envisaging the catastrophe that the war became but rather a quick and limited war; and, second, that among the many conflicts that might have led to war, the one that did was the threat to the integrity of Austria-Hungary posed by Serbia and Serb nationalism.
Felipe: Very insightful comments on some of the reasons that WWI was inevitable. And you are absolutely correct that the killing of Franz Ferdinand was not the reason, only the fuse. Colonialism, which made Great Britain a world power, was something that Germany wanted badly.....to put their imprint on other countries and spread their influence around the world. The Ottoman Empire known as the "sick man of Europe" was open for conquest and the nationalism that was rampant in the Balkans was threatening thrones.
I think we could fill pages with some of the situations that led to that horrible war but we are lucky enough to have some good books which offer us the history of the time and the political environment. Thanks so much for your comments.
The War that Ended Peace: The Road to 1914
by Margaret MacMillan (no photo)Synopsis:
The century since the end of the Napoleonic wars had been the most peaceful era Europe had known since the fall of the Roman Empire. In the first years of the twentieth century, Europe believed it was marching to a golden, happy, and prosperous future. But instead, complex personalities and rivalries, colonialism and ethnic nationalisms, and shifting alliances helped to bring about the failure of the long peace and the outbreak of a war that transformed Europe and the world.
The War That Ended Peace brings vividly to life the military leaders, politicians, diplomats, bankers, and the extended, interrelated family of crowned heads across Europe who failed to stop the descent into war: in Germany, the mercurial Kaiser Wilhelm II and the chief of the German general staff, Von Moltke the Younger; in Austria-Hungary, Emperor Franz Joseph, a man who tried, through sheer hard work, to stave off the coming chaos in his empire; in Russia, Tsar Nicholas II and his wife; in Britain, King Edward VII, Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, and British admiral Jacky Fisher, the fierce advocate of naval reform who entered into the arms race with Germany that pushed the continent toward confrontation on land and sea.
There are the would-be peacemakers as well, among them prophets of the horrors of future wars whose warnings went unheeded: Alfred Nobel, who donated his fortune to the cause of international understanding, and Bertha von Suttner, a writer and activist who was the first woman awarded Nobel’s new Peace Prize. Here too we meet the urbane and cosmopolitan Count Harry Kessler, who noticed many of the early signs that something was stirring in Europe; the young Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and a rising figure in British politics; Madame Caillaux, who shot a man who might have been a force for peace; and more. With indelible portraits, MacMillan shows how the fateful decisions of a few powerful people changed the course of history.
There are several major lines of argument regarding the cause(s) of the FWW: German anxieties regarding Russia (and social democracy at home)/ambitions; Austro-Hungarian concerns regarding slavic nationalism; inept British attempts at offshore balancing; the unintended consequences of diplomacy and/or mobilization timetables; French and Russian duplicity and aggressiveness; man's fallen nature.Having read just about everything on the topic, I have to say I find Max Hastings' account the most compelling. Spoiler alert. His argument is that Germany's militarist leadership -- fearing both the rise of social democracy at home and the prospect of a worsening balance of power abroad (not to mention its aspiration to European hegemony and global empire -- did not fear war and so recklessly tested the limits of the European diplomatic system. The result was a war that the British certainly didn't want (though it's true that France and Russia were a bit more ambivalent).
The book is in desperate need of one more round of editing, but is a compelling and informative read nonetheless.
Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War
Max Hastings
Bryan wrote: "The War that Ended Peace: The Road to 1914 by Margaret MacMillan (no photo)Synopsis:
The century since the end of t..."
Ms McMillan is on CSPAN's BookTV this month along with Robert Massie talking about the origins of WW I
If it is ok here is the link to the to program
http://booktv.org/Program/15118/The+W...
I am anxiously awaiting the library getting this book :)
On Castrophe - I really liked it, IMO Sir Max is one of the two or three best military historians writing right now.
Dance of the Furies: Europe and the Outbreak of World War I
by Michael S. Neiberg (no photo)Synopsis:
The common explanation for the outbreak of World War I depicts Europe as a minefield of nationalism, needing only the slightest pressure to set off an explosion of passion that would rip the continent apart. But in a crucial reexamination of the outbreak of violence, Michael Neiberg shows that ordinary Europeans, unlike their political and military leaders, neither wanted nor expected war during the fateful summer of 1914. By training his eye on the ways that people outside the halls of power reacted to the rapid onset and escalation of the fighting, Neiberg dispels the notion that Europeans were rabid nationalists intent on mass slaughter. He reveals instead a complex set of allegiances that cut across national boundaries.
Neiberg marshals letters, diaries, and memoirs of ordinary citizens across Europe to show that the onset of war was experienced as a sudden, unexpected event. As they watched a minor diplomatic crisis erupt into a continental bloodbath, they expressed shock, revulsion, and fear. But when bargains between belligerent governments began to crumble under the weight of conflict, public disillusionment soon followed. Yet it was only after the fighting acquired its own horrible momentum that national hatreds emerged under the pressure of mutually escalating threats, wartime atrocities, and intense government propaganda.
Dance of the Furies gives voice to a generation who found themselves compelled to participate in a ghastly, protracted orgy of violence they never imagined would come to pass.
Alisa wrote: "This new book is set for publication in 2013.July 1914: Countdown to War
by Sean McMeekinSynopsis
When a Serbian-backed assassin..."
I recently finished this one. Very interesting take on the events and diplomacy between the assassination and the outbreak of war in August.
His conclusions are revisionistic. I really enjoyed it.
A revisionist take in the true historiographical sense of the word -- and, therefore, highly problematic. I, too, really enjoyed this book (indeed, elsewhere I've called it a must-read -- and I really mean that), but in the end I simply can't agree with the author's conclusions. Any argument regarding the outbreak of this war must be viewed in light of the politics out of which it emerges -- that's why the debate has persisted for a full century now. That being said though, on balance, the argument in favour of German guilt now seems beyond gainsaying. Germany supported Austria-Hungary's war against Serbia (the so-called blank cheque) hoping for a merely local war, but in the full knowledge that such a strategy risked a Europe-wide conflict. In a later post I'll add a bit more nuance, but the basic truth is that Germany was thus primarily (though not solely) responsible for the Great War. McMeekin's book does a very good job of trying to argue otherwise, but in the end it fails to make the case (IMHO). Anyway, read it for yourself. It's well worth the price of admission and I for one feel that it's one of the better revisionist pieces out there!
Thank you happy and Andrew. I know Jerome liked it, too. I added it to my shelf.So, does McMeekin try to spread the blame out to other European countries, thus less on Germany's feet?
by Sean McMeekin (no photo)
Mod
I just got it from the library yesterday and am anxious to get started.
Jerome wrote: "I recall that McMeekin's main argument in this work is that Russia and France were at least as guilty, if not more so, than any of the Central Powers."Thanks, Jerome. Interesting.
So here's the thing. After a century of debate -- and many twists and turns -- most (though not all) historians agree on the following:1. There were many blunders, miscalculations and miscommunications that contributed to the outbreak of the war.
2. There were underlying social factors that established the “conditions of possibility” for a Europe-wide war.
3. Serbia, Austria-Hungary (A-H), Russia and France all had ambitions/anxieties that inclined them to want to fight (against Austria-Hungary, Serbia, A-H/Germany, and Germany respectively).
But, at the end of the day, the only reason why the regional war A-H wanted to fight escalated into a continent-wide conflagration is this: out of its own domestic and international political concerns, the German leadership recklessly encouraged Austria-Hungary to pursue an uncompromising line against Serbia in the full knowledge that doing so risked a world war. This was not the case in the earlier Balkan Wars or Balkan crises -- which is why they remained regional and did not become global.
To be clear, then, Germany did not (as Fischer claimed in the 1960s) have a full-blown plan to conquer Europe. But this does not exonerate the German leadership. The Kaiser, Bethmann-Holweg and the rest recklessly endangered Europe by promoting a regional conflict they knew full well might result in a general war. Ethically, this was roughly the equivalent of drunk driving or other acts of reckless endangerment that lead to death and/or grievous bodily harm.
So, contra McMeekin, it was not Russia’s mobilization that caused the war (the Russians knew that they would have to mobilize first because they were likely to mobilize the slowest), but Germany’s blank cheque and vigorous encouragement of A-H. There are nuances and qualifications of course, but the general consensus among historians now is that the preponderance of responsibility for (and guilt regarding) the war lies with the German government and its ambitions/anxieties. One hundred years of German apologetics and Anglo-Saxon angst-driven “we all ‘slithered’ into the war” self-delusion has not – and can not – alter the historical record in this respect.
Having said all this, does it matter anymore who caused the war? Nowhere near as much as it did in the inter-war years, in the early years of the Federal Republic, in the conservative years of the 1980s, or in the run-up to unification, but, yes, it still matters. I’ll leave that, though, to another post. For now, I’ll simply reiterate what I said last time: this is a serious work of scholarship that deserves a wide audience. If you want to see revisionism at its best, this book is a must-read!
Mod
Very insightful post, Andrew. Do you see any connection with the start of the war and the desire of Germany to establish more colonies of which the British were not in favor. The Kaiser harboured a strong jealousy of his uncle, the King of England, and of the strength and scope of the Empire. Although it certainly wouldn't be a major cause of WWI, I wonder if it played any part at all. I have seen that reason posited in one of the many books I have read on the Great War but can't remember which one.
Thanks, Jerome and Jill. I do see a connection between German anxieties (regarding growing Russian strength, for example) and aspirations (to be the dominant power in Europe and great imperial power beyond) on the one hand and the outbreak of the war. I think, these operated, however, in the background -- that is as factors that shaped the basic perceptions and ambitions of the relevant policy makers. I don't think they "caused" the war in 1914 -- If they had, we'd have to explain why they didn't cause similar regional conflicts from about 1905 onward to erupt into global conflagrations. If we ask instead, as Christopher Clark did in his recent book The Sleepwalkers, not "why" the war broke out (which leads us to discussions of "structural" forces/constraints) and ask instead "how" (which leads to a focus on "agency") then we get a better sense of the way in which these deep structural factors shaped the thinking of actual policy makers as they struggled both to make sense of the concrete political circumstances in which they found themselves and to advance/defend their national interests in these circumstances. Although I don't think I fully agree with Clark's conclusions, I think his methodology is spot on.More on Clark's book to come soon. It's a great read, but I have yet to fully digest his argument.
Mod
Bryan wrote: "The War that Ended Peace: The Road to 1914 by Margaret MacMillan (no photo)Synopsis:
The century since the end of t..."
I just finished this one - I highly recommend it. I found it a really good look at the roughly two decades leading up to WW I and how everyone knew by 1910 or so a general war was coming but nobody was able or more accurately willing to stop it.
Mod
Mod
by Philipp Blom (no photo)Synopsis:
Europe, 1900–1914: a world adrift, a pulsating era of creativity and contradictions. The major topics of the day: terrorism, globalization, immigration, consumerism, the collapse of moral values, and the rivalry of superpowers. The twentieth century was not born in the trenches of the Somme or Passchendaele—but rather in the fifteen vertiginous years preceding World War I.In this short span of time, a new world order was emerging in ultimately tragic contradiction to the old. These were the years in which the political and personal repercussions of the Industrial Revolution were felt worldwide: Cities grew like never before as people fled the countryside and their traditional identities; science created new possibilities as well as nightmares; education changed the outlook of millions of people; mass-produced items transformed daily life; industrial laborers demanded a share of political power; and women sought to change their place in society—as well as the very fabric of sexual relations.
From the tremendous hope for a new century embodied in the 1900 World’s Fair in Paris to the shattering assassination of a Habsburg archduke in Sarajevo in 1914, historian Philipp Blom chronicles this extraordinary epoch year by year. Prime Ministers and peasants, anarchists and actresses, scientists and psychopaths intermingle on the stage of a new century in this portrait of an opulent, unstable age on the brink of disaster.
Beautifully written and replete with deftly told anecdotes, The Vertigo Years brings the wonders, horrors, and fears of the early twentieth century vividly to life.
An extremely interesting look at the less than genius acumen of King Edward VII, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nicholas as they danced around the issues leading to the great war.King, Kaiser, Tsar: Three Royal
Cousins Who Led the World to War
by Catrine Clay (no photo)Synopsis:
During the last days of July 1914 telegrams flew between the King, the Kaiser and the Tsar. George V, Wilhelm II and Nicholas II, known in the family as Georgie, Willy and Nicky, were cousins. Between them they ruled over half the world. They had been friends since childhood. But by July 1914 the Trade Union of Kings was falling apart. Each was blaming the other for the impending disaster of the First World War. 'Have I gone mad?' Nicky asked his wife Alix in St Petersburg, showing her another telegram from Willy. 'What on earth does William mean pretending that it still depends on me whether war is averted or not!' Behind the friendliness of family gatherings lurked family quarrels, which were often played out in public. Drawing widely on previously unpublished documents, this is the extraordinary story of their overlapping lives, conducted in palaces of unimaginable opulence, surrounded by flattery and political intrigue. And through it runs the question: to what extent were the King, the Kaiser and the Tsar responsible for the outbreak of the war, and, as it turned out, for the end of autocratic monarchy?
Mod
I read this book a couple of years ago and thought it was excellent. I would recommend it.The Lions of July: Prelude to War, 1914
by William Jannen(no photo)Synopsis:
The Lions of July is a sweeping study of the series of events that begins with the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, and culminates in the slaughter of the First World War. Europe's leaders were trapped by their shared history: vivid memories of past aggressions, some going back centuries. From inside war rooms, secret council chambers and throne rooms around Europe, historian William Jannen vividly describes how a traditional, leisurely, and largely aristocratic diplomacy broke down as monarchs, ministers, and diplomats, overwhelmed by fear and tension and the sheer pace of events, gradually lost control and stumbled into war. The failure of the great men of Europe to preserve peace resulted in the death of empires, along with millions of their subjects, bringing the old world order crashing down and sending echoes through time that still reverberate today. This inspired, masterful work brings the tragic summer of 1914 to life. Herein, author Jannen demonstrates that no single action or decision ever stands by itself. Like Barbara Tuchman's classic book The Guns of August, William Jannen's The Lions of July is fundamental to the comprehension of the history of our time.
by
Barbara W. Tuchman
It was supposed to be a small, localized war with Serbia.......it got out of hand.A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire
by
Geoffrey WawroSynopsis:
The Austro-Hungarian army that marched eastward in the opening campaign of World War I was as disordered a force as the world had ever seen. Speaking a mystifying array of languages and carrying outdated weapons, the troops were hopelessly unprepared for the mechanized warfare that would soon consume the entire continent.
As prizewinning historian Geoffrey Wawro explains, the disorganization of these doomed conscripts perfectly mirrored Austra-Hungary itself. For years, the Dual Monarchy had been rotting from within, hollowed out by complacency and corruption at the highest levels. Germany goaded Austria into a longed-for fight with Russia and her allies before the monarchy collapsed completely, but the severity of the fighting was too much for the weakened Empire. By the time 1914 ended, the Habsburg army lay in ruins, and the course of the war seemed all but decided.
Reconstructing the climax of the Austrian campaign in gripping detail, Wawro offers a riveting account of how Austria-Hungary plunged the West into a tragic and unnecessary war.
Here is the quickest explanation of the reasons for the beginning of WWI that you will find. British historian Dan Snow does it all in two minutes and hits all the salient points. Enjoyable, even in spite of the topic.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5YRE...
(Source: BritishPathé)
A little different and more personal look at the assassination at Sarajevo.The Assassination of the Archduke: Sarajevo 1914 and the Romance that Changed the World
by Greg King (no photo)Synopsis:
In the summer of 1914, three great empires dominated Europe: Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. Four years later all had vanished in the chaos of World War I. One event precipitated the conflict, and at its heart was a tragic love story. When Austrian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand married for love against the wishes of the emperor, he and his wife Sophie were humiliated and shunned, yet they remained devoted to each other and to their children. The two bullets fired in Sarajevo not only ended their love story, but also led to war and a century of conflict.
Set against a backdrop of glittering privilege, The Assassination of the Archduke combines royal history, touching romance, and political murder in a moving portrait of the end of an era. One hundred years after the event, it offers the startling truth behind the Sarajevo assassinations, including Serbian complicity and examines rumors of conspiracy and official negligence. Events in Sarajevo also doomed the couple’s children to lives of loss, exile, and the horrors of Nazi concentration camps, their plight echoing the horrors unleashed by their parents’ deaths. Challenging a century of myth, The Assassination of the Archduke resonates as a very human story of love destroyed by murder, revolution, and war.
I appreciate the tragedy of what happened to Franz-Ferdinand and his wife, however, before them was the tragedy at Mayerling when Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria killed his lover and then committed suicide. That tragedy forced Franz-Ferdinand to be the heir, and started him on his road to Sarajevo.
A good point, Betsy. It is my understanding the Crown Prince Rudolf was pretty much a wastrel, although it wouldn't have made much difference to the A/H dynasty........but it surely made a difference to Franz-Ferdinand!
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Assassination of the Archduke: Sarajevo 1914 and the Romance that Changed the World (other topics)A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire (other topics)
The Guns of August (other topics)
The Lions of July: Prelude to War, 1914 (other topics)
King, Kaiser, Tsar: Three Royal Cousins Who Led the World to War (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Greg King (other topics)Paul M. Kennedy (other topics)
Geoffrey Wawro (other topics)
Barbara W. Tuchman (other topics)
Catrine Clay (other topics)
More...
Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War
Synopsis
From the best-selling author of All Hell Let Loose comes a magisterial chronicle of the calamity that befell Europe in 1914 as the continent shifted from the glamour of the Edwardian era to the tragedy of total war.
In 1914, Europe plunged into the 20th century’s first terrible act of self-immolation- what was then called The Great War. On the eve of its centenary, Max Hastings seeks to explain both how the conflict came about and what befell millions of men and women during the first months of strife.
He finds the evidence overwhelming, that Austria and Germany must accept principal blame for the outbreak. While what followed was a vast tragedy, he argues passionately against the ‘poets’ view’, that the war was not worth winning. It was vital to the freedom of Europe, he says, that the Kaiser’s Germany should be defeated.
His narrative of the early battles will astonish those whose images of the war are simply of mud, wire, trenches and steel helmets. Hastings describes how the French Army marched into action amid virgin rural landscapes, in uniforms of red and blue, led by mounted officers, with flags flying and bands playing. The bloodiest day of the entire Western war fell on 22 August 1914, when the French lost 27,000 dead. Four days later, at Le Cateau the British fought an extraordinary action against the oncoming Germans, one of the last of its kind in history. In October, at terrible cost they held the allied line against massive German assaults in the first battle of Ypres.
The author also describes the brutal struggles in Serbia, East Prussia and Galicia, where by Christmas the Germans, Austrians, Russians and Serbs had inflicted on each other three million casualties.
This book offers answers to the huge and fascinating question ‘what happened to Europe in 1914?’, through Max Hastings’s accustomed blend of top-down and bottom-up accounts from a multitude of statesmen and generals, peasants, housewives and private soldiers of seven nations. His narrative pricks myths and offers some striking and controversial judgements. For a host of readers gripped by the author’s last international best-seller All Hell Let Loose, this will seem a worthy successor.