Scan barcode
socraticgadfly's review
5.0
This is a great book that looks at how "The Great War" not only eventually became "World War I," but got framed by "World War II."
The author does this eclectically, with a mix of chronological and country-by-country analysis. And, he looks beyond World War II to discuss that long shadow.
For instance, the 50th anniversary of Easter Sunday jump-started Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland, and the various reactions on the Catholic side there, as well as some splashover into Ireland.
War memorials? Different in Britain and France in some ways. Germany didn't commemorate the war dead for a lost war, and losing World War II only made that worse. Russia became the USSR, and the Bolsheviks didn't want to commemorate anything about a so-called imperialist war.
Certainly in the arts; Reynolds discusses the ongoing grip of Owen, Brooke, et al, on British, or more precisely, English poetry. None of the other countries saw anything like it.
On the other hand, modernistic art, while it did get a small bit more grip on post-war than pre-war UK, nonetheless, still never took off like it did on the Continent.
The US is touched on, too. But, since WWI did not see the US at anywhere near the center of fighting activity, and it withdrew from most international affairs afterward, Reynolds doesn't draw too much to it.
I would have liked to have seen a small bit more about Russia, and a fair chunk more about Japan. The book is still 5-star, but, if I could half-star, I'd slot it at 4.5.
The author does this eclectically, with a mix of chronological and country-by-country analysis. And, he looks beyond World War II to discuss that long shadow.
For instance, the 50th anniversary of Easter Sunday jump-started Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland, and the various reactions on the Catholic side there, as well as some splashover into Ireland.
War memorials? Different in Britain and France in some ways. Germany didn't commemorate the war dead for a lost war, and losing World War II only made that worse. Russia became the USSR, and the Bolsheviks didn't want to commemorate anything about a so-called imperialist war.
Certainly in the arts; Reynolds discusses the ongoing grip of Owen, Brooke, et al, on British, or more precisely, English poetry. None of the other countries saw anything like it.
On the other hand, modernistic art, while it did get a small bit more grip on post-war than pre-war UK, nonetheless, still never took off like it did on the Continent.
The US is touched on, too. But, since WWI did not see the US at anywhere near the center of fighting activity, and it withdrew from most international affairs afterward, Reynolds doesn't draw too much to it.
I would have liked to have seen a small bit more about Russia, and a fair chunk more about Japan. The book is still 5-star, but, if I could half-star, I'd slot it at 4.5.
librarianonparade's review
5.0
In Britain especially the First World War is still referred to almost interchangeably as the Great War. Whilst many, both lay-readers and historians, think of WWII as the defining event of the 20th century, David Reynolds here argues the case for the First World War as the fulcrum on which the century pivoted, exploring the legacies, the 'long shadow' that the War cast over everything that came after.
In this book he explores not just the impact the War had on the years and generations that came after it - the political, economic, cultural and sociological effects, the positives and the negatives - but also the way we have come to view the War, particularly the difference in perspective afforded in the wake of WWII. We have grown so used to thinking of the Western Front in terms of sacrifice, waste, futility, that we have forgotten that those fighting at the time didn't necessary see it in those terms, even on into the 20s and 30s. It was only after the world erupted once again, and people came to realise that the 'War to End All Wars' had ended nothing at all, and had in fact only given rise to yet more death and conflict, that people's perceptions began to change. We view the War with the benefit of hindsight, rather than on its own merits.
The First World War changed the world, not just in that the manner of its ending laid the seeds for that even more destructive conflict nearly thirty years later. Repercussions that we are still dealing with today had their direct roots in the First World War. America began its rise as a superpower. The history of Ireland, both Republic and Northern, and the Troubles, stem from those years, both the Easter Rising and the decimation of the Ulster divisions at the Somme. The British Empire and its relationship to its Dominions was transformed, the Empire itself expanded, those Dominions established a new identity independent from the Mother Country, most notably in the case of Australia and Gallipoli. The Middle East was reshaped, new boundary lines drawn in the sand, particularly in Palestine and Iraq. The balance of power in Africa and East Asia was shifted. The massive Russian losses toppled the tsar from his throne, the Bolsheviks seizing power and giving birth to the Soviet Union. New countries were created in Europe, countries such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
When listed like this, and laid out so cogently by David Reynolds, it is hard to argue that the First World War deserves its designation as the Great War, that war that changed the world - and it is a shame that in Britain we have to come to remember it in such simplistic terms, defined only by a handful of war poets, red poppies and the Cenotaph. One only hopes that in this centenary year and in the years to come, we can come to a more nuanced and wider-ranging understanding of the war and its impact, its shadow, rather than our narrow British-centric view.
In this book he explores not just the impact the War had on the years and generations that came after it - the political, economic, cultural and sociological effects, the positives and the negatives - but also the way we have come to view the War, particularly the difference in perspective afforded in the wake of WWII. We have grown so used to thinking of the Western Front in terms of sacrifice, waste, futility, that we have forgotten that those fighting at the time didn't necessary see it in those terms, even on into the 20s and 30s. It was only after the world erupted once again, and people came to realise that the 'War to End All Wars' had ended nothing at all, and had in fact only given rise to yet more death and conflict, that people's perceptions began to change. We view the War with the benefit of hindsight, rather than on its own merits.
The First World War changed the world, not just in that the manner of its ending laid the seeds for that even more destructive conflict nearly thirty years later. Repercussions that we are still dealing with today had their direct roots in the First World War. America began its rise as a superpower. The history of Ireland, both Republic and Northern, and the Troubles, stem from those years, both the Easter Rising and the decimation of the Ulster divisions at the Somme. The British Empire and its relationship to its Dominions was transformed, the Empire itself expanded, those Dominions established a new identity independent from the Mother Country, most notably in the case of Australia and Gallipoli. The Middle East was reshaped, new boundary lines drawn in the sand, particularly in Palestine and Iraq. The balance of power in Africa and East Asia was shifted. The massive Russian losses toppled the tsar from his throne, the Bolsheviks seizing power and giving birth to the Soviet Union. New countries were created in Europe, countries such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
When listed like this, and laid out so cogently by David Reynolds, it is hard to argue that the First World War deserves its designation as the Great War, that war that changed the world - and it is a shame that in Britain we have to come to remember it in such simplistic terms, defined only by a handful of war poets, red poppies and the Cenotaph. One only hopes that in this centenary year and in the years to come, we can come to a more nuanced and wider-ranging understanding of the war and its impact, its shadow, rather than our narrow British-centric view.
librarianonparade's review against another edition
5.0
In Britain especially the First World War is still referred to almost interchangeably as the Great War. Whilst many, both lay-readers and historians, think of WWII as the defining event of the 20th century, David Reynolds here argues the case for the First World War as the fulcrum on which the century pivoted, exploring the legacies, the 'long shadow' that the War cast over everything that came after.
In this book he explores not just the impact the War had on the years and generations that came after it - the political, economic, cultural and sociological effects, the positives and the negatives - but also the way we have come to view the War, particularly the difference in perspective afforded in the wake of WWII. We have grown so used to thinking of the Western Front in terms of sacrifice, waste, futility, that we have forgotten that those fighting at the time didn't necessary see it in those terms, even on into the 20s and 30s. It was only after the world erupted once again, and people came to realise that the 'War to End All Wars' had ended nothing at all, and had in fact only given rise to yet more death and conflict, that people's perceptions began to change. We view the War with the benefit of hindsight, rather than on its own merits.
The First World War changed the world, not just in that the manner of its ending laid the seeds for that even more destructive conflict nearly thirty years later. Repercussions that we are still dealing with today had their direct roots in the First World War. America began its rise as a superpower. The history of Ireland, both Republic and Northern, and the Troubles, stem from those years, both the Easter Rising and the decimation of the Ulster divisions at the Somme. The British Empire and its relationship to its Dominions was transformed, the Empire itself expanded, those Dominions established a new identity independent from the Mother Country, most notably in the case of Australia and Gallipoli. The Middle East was reshaped, new boundary lines drawn in the sand, particularly in Palestine and Iraq. The balance of power in Africa and East Asia was shifted. The massive Russian losses toppled the tsar from his throne, the Bolsheviks seizing power and giving birth to the Soviet Union. New countries were created in Europe, countries such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
When listed like this, and laid out so cogently by David Reynolds, it is hard to argue that the First World War deserves its designation as the Great War, that war that changed the world - and it is a shame that in Britain we have to come to remember it in such simplistic terms, defined only by a handful of war poets, red poppies and the Cenotaph. One only hopes that in this centenary year and in the years to come, we can come to a more nuanced and wider-ranging understanding of the war and its impact, its shadow, rather than our narrow British-centric view.
In this book he explores not just the impact the War had on the years and generations that came after it - the political, economic, cultural and sociological effects, the positives and the negatives - but also the way we have come to view the War, particularly the difference in perspective afforded in the wake of WWII. We have grown so used to thinking of the Western Front in terms of sacrifice, waste, futility, that we have forgotten that those fighting at the time didn't necessary see it in those terms, even on into the 20s and 30s. It was only after the world erupted once again, and people came to realise that the 'War to End All Wars' had ended nothing at all, and had in fact only given rise to yet more death and conflict, that people's perceptions began to change. We view the War with the benefit of hindsight, rather than on its own merits.
The First World War changed the world, not just in that the manner of its ending laid the seeds for that even more destructive conflict nearly thirty years later. Repercussions that we are still dealing with today had their direct roots in the First World War. America began its rise as a superpower. The history of Ireland, both Republic and Northern, and the Troubles, stem from those years, both the Easter Rising and the decimation of the Ulster divisions at the Somme. The British Empire and its relationship to its Dominions was transformed, the Empire itself expanded, those Dominions established a new identity independent from the Mother Country, most notably in the case of Australia and Gallipoli. The Middle East was reshaped, new boundary lines drawn in the sand, particularly in Palestine and Iraq. The balance of power in Africa and East Asia was shifted. The massive Russian losses toppled the tsar from his throne, the Bolsheviks seizing power and giving birth to the Soviet Union. New countries were created in Europe, countries such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
When listed like this, and laid out so cogently by David Reynolds, it is hard to argue that the First World War deserves its designation as the Great War, that war that changed the world - and it is a shame that in Britain we have to come to remember it in such simplistic terms, defined only by a handful of war poets, red poppies and the Cenotaph. One only hopes that in this centenary year and in the years to come, we can come to a more nuanced and wider-ranging understanding of the war and its impact, its shadow, rather than our narrow British-centric view.
More...