Reddit reviews The Guns of August: The Pulitzer Prize-Winning Classic About the Outbreak of World War I
We found 25 Reddit comments about The Guns of August: The Pulitzer Prize-Winning Classic About the Outbreak of World War I. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Guns of August and Ghosts of the Ostfront both agree that the lead up to Franz's murder was the straw that broke the camels back, meaning there was an entire bail of hay that had been building up for time.
I know we all like to speculate when the next world war will occur, and I firmly believe another will eventually happen, just not any time soon.
Because the reality is that even if rich people did not want to make money, a military-industrial complex would still exist. Security is the desire of every state, every institution, every person. It is necessary and fundamental to every other interest. Without security, you are assured nothing.
The need for security exists before wealth, because what good is wealth without the ability to secure it? Dollars alone do not equate to security either. Saudi Arabia spends more on its military than Russia. I doubt anyone believes Saudi Arabia could go toe to toe with Russia, and the Saudi track record shows that despite the money, their military is in shambles.
Rich people are attracted to defense industries because it is something that will never decrease in demand. No country can ever be secure completely. You may have superiority on the battlefield, but you may not have superiority in cyberwar. You may have superiority in conventional strength, but not unconventional strength. The ancient Greeks were able to reliably defeat the Achaemenid Persians on the battlefield, but because the Persians were superior in every other capacity, Greece eventually became a tributary region of the Persian Empire. The United States was superior to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in funds and conventional strength, but its enemy had the upper hand in unconventional strength and in its ability to use time to its advantage.
Security will never be something that is not intensely desired. Weaker states submit to larger ones in exchange for security. This has been the way of the world since time immemorial.
I also want to address your claim in a comment below this.
> Wars are created to profit off of them.
This patently false. Wars form out of an inability of states to make credible commitments. Security is the goal of every state and individual. Because of this, states are heavily incentivized to be murky in how they communicate with others. You want to exaggerate your strengths sufficiently, but not to the point that they lose credibility. You want to downplay your weaknesses as much as possible. The reason for this is that there is an inherent need to never show all your cards. If your enemy wields a stronger hand, it is stupid to tell them you have a weaker one.
Another thing to consider is that states have interests. These interests may be wholly monetary or wholly power based. This is where wealthy individuals find a place to insert themselves into state political security. But is important to remember that most wars are the result of states being unable to rectify their necessity for security with the need of their rivals to be secure as well. Oftentimes, wars begin because there is an asset that two states both require to increase their security. Clearly both can not possess a mountaintop, and you surely cannot trust the other state to operate in good faith, vice versa.
A great real world example of how wars begin via the credible commitment problem is the First World War. There literally a thousand things credited for starting the war, but almost all can be reduced to the credible commitment problem. If the Austrians were able to make credible commitments to the Serbs, then Serb nationalism would likely have been more readily contained. If Russia could have made a credible commitment to Germany that their mobilization efforts were not intended for Germany, but rather solely as a deterrent for excessive Austrian punishment of Serbia, then Germany would have a much easier time deciding to not mobilize its war plans against France and Russia. If Britain and Germany could have made credible commitments regarding their naval buildup, then Anglo-German relations would have been better. If Germany could have made credible commitments to the rest of Europe that it was not seeking to disrupt the other powers in an attempt to attain hegemony, the animosity and distrust would have been lessened.
The point is that regardless of what the rich want, their needs and wants are always secondary to the security of the state. The state is far and away the most important actor in international politics. Even the Iraq War in 2003 had far more geopolitical motives than financial ones. Removing Saddam would enable the US to install a pro-US and anti-Iran regime in a key geopolitical region, the Persian Gulf is incredible important for the global economy, a pro-US Iraq would help contain Iran, isolate Syria, add an ally in the war on terror, and establishing a democracy would potentially help ease tensions among the major Iraqi groups: Sunnis, Shiites, and the ethnic Kurds. Now, the war was a complete failure in all those respects, but the war was never simply a ploy for Cheney to make some money. I am having a hard time sourcing the quote, so I will paraphrase what a British general in WWI said about money and war:
> A country will never let money get in the way of fighting a war.
People do get filthy rich off of war. That is undeniable and it is often times awful. But wars begin largely because people have a really hard time trusting other people over issues of security when they have competing interests regarding their security.
Here is some additional reading:
The Security Dilemma highlights the paradox that as we increase our security, others will be compelled to increase theirs, so we will respond in kind and so on.
Credible commitment regarding Iran this examines the difficulties each nation has with making honest agreements with the other.
The Causes of War by Geoffrey Blainey is a really thorough discussion of why other theories that explain the causes of war fall short and why credible commitment is a common thread in the vast, vast majority of conflicts. He also says that the information problem is also another reason, but the information problem is really a kind of commitment problem in and of itself.
The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman is an examination of the early stages of the First World War.
"The Reasons for War" [PDF warning btw] by Matthew Jackson and Massimo Morelli breaks down the different kinds of commitment problems that states run into, and a lot of their talk revolves around a model of bargaining failure that was brought to the fore by a hella smart dude named James Fearon in 1995
Hötzendorf was the Chief of general staff of the Austro-Hungarian army. When Ferdinand was murdered by an anarchist teenager in 1914, reasonable people didn't want war. He was a strong proponent of invading Serbia even before the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand and urged the cabinet to go to war.
When A-H decided to invade Serbia (against the recommendations of Germany), it was a disaster. They gained no territory and lost over 200 000 men within a couple of months. The network of alliances was put into place and soon Russia was at war with A-H and Germany. A-H army was incredibly poorly ran due to outdated leadership that relied on outdated tactics so vast numbers of German reinforcements were redirected from the Western front to help out A-H with their failed campaigns. Even so, Germany held its own and finally lost a war of attrition. It's hard to predict what could have been if A-H had competent military leadership instead of Hötzendorf but certainly Germany could have used a decent ally instead of that retard of a little brother that constantly needs helping out until you both meet your inevitable demise. WW1 ended with a humiliating peace treaty for Germany. Sane people knew already then that the peace treay was too harsh and would only incite vengeful thoughts in Germany. Fast forward to a couple of decades and to nobodys surprise, these people were right as Hitler rose to power.
Russia was a monarchist state at the start of WW1. The rulers of England, Germany and Russia all shared a grandmother, Queen Victoria (Kaiser Wilhelm and Nikolai II even called eachother Willy and Nicky) so even if there was squabbling over territories and prestige, nobody wanted millions of people murdering each other. That said, when millions were being killed, nobody wanted to stop. Russia's bad economical situation coupled with a largely unsuccessful war campaign made way for the bolsheviks, led by Lenin to overthrow the monarchy and form a communist state. If there had been no war, the bolsheviks would have been crushed internally (with help of foreign aid as well). Had A-H held its own again Russia, the bolsheviks would have been crushed by the Germans (although it's likely that Germany initially funded the bolsheviks to destabilise Russia- how well did that turn out, huh).
In summary, Hötzendorf urged Austria-Hungary to go to war, then was hopelessly beaten at said war and caused the destruction of its allies as well. The war was blamed on Germany which gave way to the rise of nationalism in Germany and allowed Russia to turn into a terrorist state. By extension, Russia still has never had a chance at real democracy and is still a dictatorship in all but name.
Please note that I am oversimplifying everything and I urge everyone to read up on international relations leading up to WW1 and the war itself. There are so many incredible "what if" moments like the tragic shitshow that was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand for example.
I recommend Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman and youtube channels Epic History channel for a decent 1hr summary of the war to start with and of course the amazing week-by-week summary by Indy Neidell The Great War if you need something to binge on.
Three that come to mind almost immediately are...
The Guns of August, which is in my opinion, the best book written about the opening days of the war and how the war got so complicated so fast by the web of alliances in Europe at the time.
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-August-Barbara-W-Tuchman/dp/0345476093/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301071079&sr=1-1
The Last Days of Innocence, which is focused on the American perspective of the war. It does a great job of showing you the logistical and bureaucratic nightmare faced by the US at the eve of their entry into the war. Also shows the cultural and social impacts the war had on America. Highly recommended if you're an American because much of this era is glossed over by many other books as they are Euro-centric and most American historians tend to focus more on the post war era, at least culturally.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-Innocence-America-1917-1918/dp/0679743766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301071051&sr=8-1
Finally, John Keegans The First World War is a good military history of the war, but isn't as good at covering the social and diplomatic aspects as the two previous books I've mentioned.
Hope this helps!
Any particular theatre/focus? I've got at least 30 on the shelf next to me, though a lot are Ballantine's Histories, so that's kind of cheating. The classic intro narrative has to be Tuchman's Guns of August
Some of the other ones I refer to a lot are
Liddell Hart: The Real War 1914-1918
Richard Holmes: First World War in Photographs
Malcolm Brown: The Imperial War Museum Book of the Western Front
Martin Gilbert: Atlas of World War One
Philip Haythornthwaite: Photohistory of World War One
Rod Paschall: The Defeat of Imperial Germany
I particularly like books that collect diary excerpts/memoirs from all theatres/nationalities.
The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson
The Great War by Peter Hart
The First World War by John Keegan
The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman
The Guns of August - By Barbara Tuchman (won the Pultizer Prize for the work). It's a bit dry in my opinion, but she outlines the whole war remarkably well.
Also, Storm of Steel - by Ernst Junger - full book. It is a memoir of his time as a front-line soldier. While it is not all encompassing, it gives a remarkably gruesome account of what the typical front line soldier had to go through in WWI.
just throwing this out there (i havent read the book), but the guns of august might be a place to start as it outlines the conditions leading to WWI.
The Guns of August is a sometimes boring and tedious read, but answers your question rather well. The popular opinion back then was that The Great War would be this little scuffle for a couple of weeks or months and then everybody would go home. They had a really romanticized notion about the honor and glory of the war, combined with a lot of nationalism and social pressure to not "shirk" and volunteer for combat. Additionally, a lot of the tech and strategy used in the war had never been seen or contemplated before. Machine guns existed, and I believe they were used on some level during the Balkan Wars a few years earlier, but they were nowhere near as ubiquitous. Plus, the amount of artillery shelling, use of mustard gas and chemical warfare, innovations like tanks and airplanes, had never been used in the past and were probably inconceivable to most.
I suppose you could avoid the draft by heading to a neutral country, but most of these men were conscripted whether they wanted to be or not. But, when every boy of fighting age in your neighborhood is either conscripted or volunteering while everyone is cheering them on, it's pretty easy to see how a young man looking for glory would get swept up in the excitement.
All 3 of these recommendations are good overviews. The classic about the start of the war is Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August"
Amazon
It won the Pulitzer prize for a reason. She was a journalist with a love of history and writes in a clear, flowing style that makes you want to grab the generals and statesmen by the lapels and shake the $hit out of them.
I highly recommend Don Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. I'm finishing Part V of the "Blueprint for Armageddon" which covers the war. A great overview that you can flesh out with additional reading.
It might also be worth reading or watching The Guns of August to learn more about the opening stages of the first world war.
While we're sharing WWI histories, it'd be remiss not to mention The Guns of August, which covers the buildup to and first months of the war, and focuses on the personalities involved in the key moments and is therefore very easy to read. It also is fantastically entertaining, with equal amounts of cynical humor and earnest drama; see this list for example. One example:
> “German soldiers, posted as informers, were found dressed as peasants, even as peasant women. The latter were discovered, presumably in the course of non-military action, by their government issued underwear; but many were probably never caught, it being impossible, General Gourko regretfully admitted, to lift the skirts of every female in East Prussia.”
Barbra Tuchman's The Guns of August is a personal favorite of mine. Her A Distant Mirror is also supposed to be very good, though I haven't managed to get to it yet.
Carl Sagan is also a great choice if you are interested in space.
Barbara Tuchman would like to have a word with you...
The Proud Tower or The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman for politics and Military History before and in the beginning of the First World War.
Guns of August, in an indirect way, is one reason the cold war didn't get hot over the Cuban Missile crisis (source)
To say that World War I and World War II are merely continuation of the same conflict is an extremely simplistic view of the events. Also, you are leaving out a major global conflict, the Spanish Civil War, which has far more to do with World War II than World War I does.
To answer your questions, you need to examine who fought in the wars and why. Why did each country go to war? Was it due to a system of alliances or hope for territorial and colonial gain? Was it to avenge the death of a leader? Could it have been for political reasons (for example, fascist vs. communist)? Could it have been in order to fight a proxy war against an enemy in order to drain them of resources in the hopes of conquering them later?
To say that each war is just a continuation of a previous one because one leader mentions losing the last war as a rallying cry leaves out the vast majority of reason why the wars even took place. Would you say that the War of 1812 and the American Revolution are the same war with "halftime" in between? Do you consider the second game in a 7 games series to be a continuation of the first?
To look further into the matter, I would read The Guns of August at minimum. That book is a very good look at the causes and outbreaks of World War I. You can also check out the AskHistorians book list for more reading material.
Barbara Tuchman https://www.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-Outbreak/dp/0345476093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482216946&sr=8-1&keywords=the+guns+of+august
This one is a bit old, but it's considered a classic: http://www.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-Outbreak/dp/0345476093/
Here's something more recent: http://www.amazon.com/The-Pity-Of-War-Explaining/dp/0465057128
11-9-18 4 hour...
The Great War and Modern Memory, Paul Fusselll
​
The Impossible HL Mencken, HL Mencken
​
The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman
>So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens - four dowager and three regnant - and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history's clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.
-Barbara Tuchman
Opening passage from Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August. One of the best works of popular history ever written.
> So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens—four dowager and three regnant—and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortège left the palace, but on history’s clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.
Some things I've gotten from Paperbackswap in recent months:
...and a hell of a lot of other things. Many of these are things that had been on my wish list, so I got first crack at them when someone listed them. The service is useful beyond what's available at a given moment.
Haha damn, I haven't listened to Sabaton in forever! Remembering my high-school days. Thanks for reminding me of this.
But yes, it's a really extraordinary event/time in history, that thankfully is now getting more and more exposure. (e.g. BF1 is probably going to launch a never-ending storm of WWI themed games which I am psyched for! Even if they're not 100% accurate, but what games are?).
Funny you mention Austria-Hungary. They actually were probably the LEAST effective force in the war, despite being one of the primary actors leading up to the outbreak, and got their asses handed to them repeatedly. They lost to the Russians in 1914, which arguably killed off a good chunk of Austria-Hungary's semi-competent officers/soldiers (~400,000 casualtes), and in 1918 lost to the Italians at Vittorio Vento in a crushing defeat which ostensibly helped lead to the end of the war.
One of my favorite quotes comes from General Paul von Hindenburg, who said that Germany's alliance to Austria-Hungary was like "being fettered to a corpse."
If you wanna learn more about WWI, definitely check out Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon podcast series which you've probably seen bandied about on here. Definitely one of my favorite podcasts, and if you get past his "sports-caster" voice which some people don't like, it's one of the more enlightening and eye opening series online.
The book A World Undone, by GJ Meyer is my favorite overarching histories of the war. In addition, The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman and 1914: The Year the World Ended by Paul Ham, are also excellent books on the conflict.
Edit: Also you mentioning Paradox remind me that HoI4 is out today! Woo!
Edit2: Forgot to also mention that in 1918 there was the largest influenza outbreak (same strain as our modern H1N1 I believe) the world has ever seen, that killed approximately 50-100 million people globally. Total casualty figure of the entire war is something like 17 million soldiers, for the entirety of the 4 years of fighting...
Edit3: As /u/soldaks pointed out, there's actually a fantastic WWI game called Verdun on Steam. The developers constantly work on it and it's just about as close as you can get to trench warfare from any game on the market right now.
Tuchman's The Guns of August is always a great place to start.
No, they really didn't.
No one, not even the Belgians, expected for Germany to lose outright in Belgium...but everyone expected Belgium to either roll over or get curbstomped by the German army, neither of which happened.
Not only did Belgian resistance help polarize the world against the central powers, but the delay caused by Belgian resistance gave the allies sufficient time to prepare for the Marne counteroffensive.
You really should read the Guns of August