Reddit Reddit reviews Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War

We found 18 Reddit comments about Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Biographies
Books
Historical Biographies
Historical British Biographies
Historical European Biographies
Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War
Ballantine Books
Check price on Amazon

18 Reddit comments about Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War:

u/blackcatkarma · 10 pointsr/history

Larger population and more powerful industry (especially compared to Russia).

If you look at this pdf, you'll see (from p. 34 onwards) that Germany's industry was more powerful than that of France. Just as one example, according to that essay, Germany in 1913 mined 190 million tons (metric) of coal compared to France's 41 million tons.

As to the organisation, I remember from Barbara Tuchmans's The Guns of August - a very well written, fascinating read about the outbreak and first months of WW1 - that the Germans had everything planned down to the minute (time intervals for trains crossing the Rhine etc.), while the French were less meticulous in organising beforehand which train car would be where etc. (Tuchman mentions "Système D" for "se débrouiller", meaning to think up something or to muddle along; I guess that would have been the soldiers' joke name for a lack of organisation).

Apart from stereotypes about the German planning fetish and French disorganisation, I presume the differences also had to do with how the armies expected the confrontation to develop: sending parts of the French army into Alsace and leaving the rest in the homeland to defend against the enemy would have required a bit less organisation and planning than sending almost the entire German army through a neutral country and into enemy territory, winning that war and then sending everything back against Russia.

As for Germany being a "young country" at that time: as a state, yes, but the population was larger than that of France, by quite a bit (about 20 million IIRC?). I don't remember the proportions of fighting-age males but with a larger population in general, the Germans will have had a larger reserve of army recruits as well.

German/Prussian militarism should also be noted. While this doesn't have much to do with organisation per se, German culture was, in general, much more militaristic than the French or British cultures. Quoting from memory from Robert K. Massie's wonderful Dreadnought: "It illustrates the great difference between German and British political culture that the German chancellor [Caprivi in the 1890s] would, in uniform, lead a cavalry charge past the Emperor." - or something to that effect. Germany was itching, as the newcomer on the European political stage, to get what it thought was its due. The beginning of WW1 was what the general staff had spent their professional lives planning for.

If you're looking for books:

  • Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" was a bit dry for my taste but contains a lot of information on the situation in the Balkans, which sparked the whole thing, that I hadn't previously seen.

  • Massie's "Dreadnought" is more biographical, going deeply into the characters of everyone involved from about 1850. I'm not sure he counts as "academic enough", but he sure is a great writer; it's the kind of history book you can read on the beach while learning tons of stuff about the time, the major actors and the political crises which led up to the war.

  • Tuchman's "The Guns of August" is, on a literary level, simply a pleasure to read and basically a day-by-day account of the outbreak and first weeks of the war.

  • John Keegan's "The First World War" is more of a military history. Very detailed... a bit too detailed for me, but anyone interested in a one-volume military history of WW1 is going to get what they were looking for, I think.
u/jschooltiger · 7 pointsr/AskHistorians

I am glad that you referenced Roger's book. His related book, The Safeguard of the Sea, looks at Britain's (England's, Wessex's, etc.) navy from 660-1649 and is also an excellent read.

If you don't mind, I would expand on your comment to say this: One of the major arguments that both books make is that a major contributor to Britain's naval success was also the bureaucracy that grew up around the Navy. We tend to think of bureaucracy in negative terms today, but in having a regularized, systemic way of casting and distributing guns and ordnance; building and repairing ships; victualling ships; and manning ships, the British navy was far ahead of its competitors, even by the time of the Armada.

It's also worth pointing out that Britain's naval strength was helped by the establishment of dockyards, drydocks, and associated naval "bases" (although that's an anachronistic term) in various places, including the Thames and Portsmouth but also in other places along England's coast. Not to put too fine a point on it, but wooden ships rot, and regular maintenance was a major reason why Britain was able to keep up its naval strength.

This moves a bit past OP's timeframe, but allow me to recommend two other books by Robert K. Massie, that specifically look at the Anglo-German naval race in the run-up to World War I:

http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345375564

http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=la_B000AQ6XVE_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1370812631&sr=1-6


u/omaca · 6 pointsr/history

I'm going to be lazy and simply repost a post of mine from a year ago. :)

The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is a well deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize. A combination of history, science and biography and so very well written.

A few of my favourite biographies include the magisterial, and also Pulitzer Prize winning, Peter the Great by Robert Massie. He also wrote the wonderful Dreadnaught on the naval arms race between Britain and Germany just prior to WWI (a lot more interesting than it sounds!). Christopher Hibbert was one of the UK's much loved historians and biographers and amongst his many works his biography Queen Victoria - A Personal History is one of his best. Finally, perhaps my favourite biography of all is Everitt's Cicero - The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician. This man was at the centre of the Fall of the Roman Republic; and indeed fell along with it.

Speaking of which, Rubicon - The Last Years of the Roman Republic is a recent and deserved best-seller on this fascinating period. Holland writes well and gives a great overview of the events, men (and women!) and unavoidable wars that accompanied the fall of the Republic, or the rise of the Empire (depending upon your perspective). :) Holland's Persian Fire on the Greco-Persian Wars (think Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes! Think of the Movie 300, if you must) is equally gripping.

Perhaps my favourite history book, or series, of all is Shelby Foote's magisterial trilogy on the American Civil War The Civil War - A Narrative. Quite simply one of the best books I've ever read.

If, like me, you're interested in teh history of Africa, start at the very beginning with The Wisdom of the Bones by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman (both famous paleoanthropologists). Whilst not the very latest in recent studies (nothing on Homo floresiensis for example), it is still perhaps the best introduction to human evolution available. Certainly the best I've come across. Then check out Africa - Biography of a Continent. Finish with the two masterpieces The Scramble for Africa on how European colonialism planted the seeds of the "dark continents" woes ever since, and The Washing of the Spears, a gripping history of the Anglo-Zulu wars of the 1870's. If you ever saw the movie Rorke's Drift or Zulu!, you will love this book.

Hopkirk's The Great Game - The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia teaches us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I should imagine that's enough to keep you going for the moment. I have plenty more suggestions if you want. :)

u/derdody · 6 pointsr/history
u/KapitanKurt · 5 pointsr/WarshipPorn

Yes, there's a big distinction. Here's a link that scratches the surface of dreadnought background & development to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906)

If you get really curious, here's two books that round out the subject of how dreadnoughts fit into naval history...

http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345375564/ref=la_B000AQ6XVE_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406314026&sr=1-6

http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780

u/IlluminatiRex · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

During that period it was a balancing act of a few primary factors: speed, guns, and armor. The amount of armor and guns directly impacted both the size and the weight of the vessel, and this in turn effected the speed.

At the time, the pinnacle of tactics during Naval Battles was what is known as "Crossing the T". Essentially, one line of ships would cut-off the other, and in doing so were able to bring all their guns to bear on their opponent. Likewise, their opponent could not bring all of their guns to bear to retaliate. This diagram shows what it would have generally looked like.

For a tactic like that to succeed you needed, as a battleship, a good combination of guns, speed, and armor. A classic example of this would be Admiral Count Heihachiro Togo and his victory over the Russians at Tsuhima in 1904. Both sides had guns that could fire at about the same range (and the bigger the gun, the bigger the range and the more destructive power). William Pakenham, who was a Royal Navy observer on-board Admiral Togo's ship, stated "when 12 inch guns are fired, shots from 10 inch guns pass unnoticed, while, for all the respect they instill, 8 inch or 6 inch might as well be pea shooters". Basically, the goal was to have the biggest guns possible on-board. This provides maximum firepower and range.

Admiral Togo had one more advantage over the Russians: Speed. He had about six or seven knots advantage over the Russians. If you have greater speed and range, then you can determine where and when the fight actually happens - by engaging the enemy from a longer distance and even moving away to keep that advantage. So if you can control those factors you can control the battle.

"Armor is speed" is something Jacky Fisher (important British admiral, key in the conception and design of HMS Dreadnought) is reported as having once said. This is because the more steel you put on the boat, the slower it is going to go. Unless of course you have new and more powerful methods of propulsion/power, which would allow you to attain a higher speed with more weight. Armor of course is important, as your ships need to be able to withstand hits. HMS Warsprite at Jutland for example, sustained 11 hits. While she was severely damage (and ordered home to Roysoth) she survived those hits and lived to see another day (a lot of days to be precise, she was engaged in WWII as well).

As u/Vonadler notes as well, money is a key issue. HMS Dreadnought cost approximately £1,784,000 in 1905. As an upgrade over other ship designs, she only cost £181,000 more. However, you have to multiply that by the amount of ships you want to build and then the number only gets more astronomical. In August 1914, the Royal Navy had 22 Battleships in commission (with 40 Pre-Dreadnoughts which are the older battleship designs that came before the Dreadnought in 1905) with another 13 under construction. And the price had only gone up since 1905. The Germans for example only had 15 built with 5 under construction. However I disagree that Vanguard was about 10 million GBP more to construct. Vanguard was built in the 1940s, 40 years after Dreadnought. Using [this inflation calculator] (http://inflation.stephenmorley.org/) I compared £11,530,503 in 1941 (the year that Vanguard was laid down) to 1905 (the year Dreadnought was laid down). In 1905, Vanguard would have cost about £5,291,677.27 pounds. A substantial increase to be sure, but only of about 297% compared to 546%. The overall point stands however, that bigger Battleships with more armor and whatnot do cost significantly more than their smaller counterparts.

And with ships you do not just have the cost of building. maintenance, crew (in the case of the German Battleships 1000+ crew members), fuel, etc... Those costs add up quickly. u/thefourthmaninaboat is also correct that the infrastructure was also a factor in Battleship design. On the other hand, cruise ships didn't really have to contend with all of this. They had their own design challenges to be sure, but armor for example wasn't really a factor.

This is my first "real" reply on this sub, so I hope it's been helpful and informative!

----------------
Sources

u/Trexdacy · 3 pointsr/history

Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie. It starts well before the war (1900-ish) and is a bit of a dry read. I found it fascinating, however.

u/OrangePlus · 3 pointsr/scifi

You may wish to check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345375564

I highly recommend it.

u/cassander · 3 pointsr/history

Robert Massie is my favorite historian, and he has 3 amazing books on the period. Dreadnought, about the Anglo-German naval rivalry that led to WWI, Nicholas and Alexander, a biography of the last Czar and the fall of the Russian Empire, and the beautifully titled Castles of Steel, about the naval battles of WWI.

u/lordofheck · 2 pointsr/wwi

The hopelessness and the inevitability leading up to it fascinate me. I find WWI (more so than any other) to be a pointless, depressing affair; it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion, with a 2 mile lead up. If you are interested in the causes, Robert Massie's book Dreadnought is a phenomenal read, and its followup Castles of Steel regarding the navel battle is equally interesting.

u/orsodrwilybelieved · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians
u/malpingu · 2 pointsr/books

Barbara Tuchman was brilliant writer of history.

Albert Camus was a brilliant absurdist philosopher and novelist.

Jared Diamond has written some brilliant books at the intersection of anthropology and ecology. Another good book in this genre is Clive Ponting's A New Green History of the World.

Gwynne Dyer is an acclaimed military historian turned journalist on international affairs who has written a number of very engaging books on warfare and politics. His most recent book Climate Wars is the ONE book I would recommend to someone, if so limited, on the subject as it embodies both a wonderful synopsis of the science juxtaposed against the harsh realpolitiks and potential fates of humankind that may unfold unless we can manage to tackle the matter seriously, soon. Another great book on climate change is Bill McKibben's Deep Economy.

For social activists interested in ending world hunger and abject poverty, I can recommend: Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom; Nobel Prize winning micro-financier Muhammad Yunus' Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism; UN MDG famed economist Jeffrey Sach's End Of Poverty; and Greg Mortenson's Three Cups of Tea

For anyone of Scottish heritage, I heartily recommend Arthur Hermann's How The Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It

For naval history buffs: Robert K. Massie's Dreadnought.

Last, but not least: Robert Pirsig's classic Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Enjoy!

u/mistermoxy · 2 pointsr/books

Dreadnought. It's a history of the naval build-up prior to WWI. And it's sequel Castles of Steel about the naval history of WWI coincidentally.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/history

Ooh! Dreadnought! So good!

u/jorgecomacho · 1 pointr/WarshipPorn

This is absolutely right. I mentioned this briefly in my comment pitching Castles of Steel and Dreadnought. These are the two Massie books on the subject.

Dreadnought is the story of the naval arms race leading up to world war 1. It covers the development of the HMS dreadnought, and how this revolutionary ship immediately rendered the navies of the world obsolete. This effectively meant that Germany didn't need to build 500 ships to catch up to the British, they just needed to have comparable numbers of Dreadnought-calibre ships. This started a race on all sides, and caused Britain to end splendid isolation and build alliances to ensure naval supremacy, etc. Really great book on the naval aspect leading up to world war 1.

[Castles of steel] (http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=la_B000AQ6XVE_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420834394&sr=1-6) is the story of how the navies conducted themselves during world war 1. It is a very different book from dreadnought, but there's so much more to ww1 naval action than u-boats and Jutland.

Both are great books. Castles of steel more closely answers the question about actual naval combat in world war 1. But if you're going to read just one, go with Dreadnought.

u/diana_mn · 1 pointr/history

I see a lot of great books already listed. I'll offer a few lesser-known books that haven't been mentioned yet.

Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe series is brilliant for general readers of almost any age.

I see William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich has been mentioned, but I find his book on France - The Collapse of the Third Republic - equally compelling.

For those who love Barb Tuchmann's Guns of August,
Dreadnought by Robert Massie and The Lions of July by William Jannen are excellent additions in covering the lead up to WWI.

For Roman History, I'd recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus and Anthony Everitt's Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor

u/youarearobot · 1 pointr/history

I highly recommend Dreadnaught by Robert K Massie. It is a fascinatingly in depth, if a bit dense, history of the events leading to World War I starting from the foundation of Germany. To be honest, I started it 5 years ago and still have not finished it (it is huge!), but I do not think there is another book on the subject that comes close to the level of detail it contains. Read it if only to understand the complex personal relationships of the Royal families of that era that had such a great impact on the coming war.