Scan barcode
amitbehura's review against another edition
4.0
The protagonists of 1914 were sleepwalkers, watchful but unseeing, haunted by dreams, yet blind to the reality of the horror they were about to bring into the world.
ninette's review against another edition
4.0
Anyone who knows me might find it bit unusual that I would be picking up a book about one of the World Wars, that it would take me over a month to read it, and that I would give it such a high rating. In fact, after I had finished school I was very much fed up with studying the two World Wars ad nauseam. This book, though, bares a mere passing resemblance to the narrative we were supposed to memorize in school. For one thing, Clark is not interested in producing another blame narrative. Instead he gives an account of how the events unfolded and the people that were involved. That might sound inconsequential, but it actually makes all the difference. Because nothing distorts a picture like the lining up of evidence against one side or the other. And conversely, few things will get you riled up about history like watching flawed people make ill advised decisions that lead to disastrous consequences you are still getting to experience today. I do agree with Clark that the events leading up to the Great War feel much more relevant today than they would have at any time since. That might have been one reason why I had to put the book down so much just to find my calm again.
fetterov's review against another edition
Need to do this one in print rather than audio
rgesme's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
Clark demonstrates the complexity involved in the First World War with a thematic focus narrative. Not for the faint hearted as it delves deep into specific historical actors, events, and moments in time.
josemoya's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
¿Cómo se llegó al Armagedón de 1914? Tradicionalmente se ha buscado culpables con la pistola humeante en la mano, pero este libro nos muestra que, como en las obras de Agatha Christie, todos los personajes tienen su parte de culpa. Conscientes del peligro de una guerra total, confiaban en que la amenaza de sus alianzas defensivas fuera suficiente para mantener la paz. La opacidad del sistema y la falta de un organismo realmente independiente donde dilucidar sus disputas hicieron el resto.
"Los protagonistas de 1914 eran como sonámbulos, vigilantes pero ciegos, angustiados por los sueños, pero inconscientes ante la realidad del horror que estaban a punto de traer al mundo."
El libro narra los sucesos aunando el vertiginoso ritmo de las novelas con el cuerpo crítico propio de una monografía científica.
"Los protagonistas de 1914 eran como sonámbulos, vigilantes pero ciegos, angustiados por los sueños, pero inconscientes ante la realidad del horror que estaban a punto de traer al mundo."
El libro narra los sucesos aunando el vertiginoso ritmo de las novelas con el cuerpo crítico propio de una monografía científica.
susanhecht's review against another edition
5.0
It look me months to get all the way through this book, because it wanted to read it carefully, and I found it very rewarding.
The overall thrust of the book is that the outbreak of WWI was not inevitable, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Josef was not merely a pretext for a war everybody (*cough* Germany) wanted to happen. Clark takes Serbian nationalism and irrendentism very seriously, and thinks that Austria-Hungary was probably right to want to punish the Serbs over the assassination. But the Great Powers of Europe, in an era of strengthening alliances (esp. the one between France and Russia), military buildup, and hawkish leadership (all of which were fairly recent occurrences and may well have waned over the next few years) decided it was worth going to war over.
The book goes deep into the weeds of the various people who were involved in decision making in the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Serbia, and Austria-Hungry, a cast of characters (monarchs, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, War Ministers, etc.) that changed over the last couple of decades before 1914. There are lots of arguments about colonies and borders within Europe (esp. in the Balkans) which contribute to the conditions of 1914, as well as power struggles inside each country. Laying out these struggles takes a lot of pages, and serves the overall argument that assigning blame for the war's outbreak to any one country or person doesn't make sense--there were a lot of moving parts that could have moved a different direction.
The overall thrust of the book is that the outbreak of WWI was not inevitable, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Josef was not merely a pretext for a war everybody (*cough* Germany) wanted to happen. Clark takes Serbian nationalism and irrendentism very seriously, and thinks that Austria-Hungary was probably right to want to punish the Serbs over the assassination. But the Great Powers of Europe, in an era of strengthening alliances (esp. the one between France and Russia), military buildup, and hawkish leadership (all of which were fairly recent occurrences and may well have waned over the next few years) decided it was worth going to war over.
The book goes deep into the weeds of the various people who were involved in decision making in the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Serbia, and Austria-Hungry, a cast of characters (monarchs, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, War Ministers, etc.) that changed over the last couple of decades before 1914. There are lots of arguments about colonies and borders within Europe (esp. in the Balkans) which contribute to the conditions of 1914, as well as power struggles inside each country. Laying out these struggles takes a lot of pages, and serves the overall argument that assigning blame for the war's outbreak to any one country or person doesn't make sense--there were a lot of moving parts that could have moved a different direction.