David Stevenson (1) (1954–)

This was my first time reading, what I personally considered for me, one of those 'dense history books'. Overall I mostly enjoyed it and learnt a fair bit on not just World War One but war, politics and geopolitics more generally. The book is quite detailed and at least with my edition, of the 600 pages, the last 100 are all citations. A boon for those wanting to dig deeper and a relief for those such as myself writing off one sixth of the book as already finished - "we're half-way there!"

From Sheikh Yasir Qadhi's lecture on the history of the modern Middle East, he drives the point that WW1 is essential to understanding the present day condition of the region, more so than even WW2. This is chiefly in regards to the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire - one of the Central Powers belligerents. However of all the nations involved, the book focuses the least on it. And by a fair margin too. I'm unsure whether it was a fault of the book or indeed, of all the belligerents involved, it played a more periphery role within the war.

The second disappointment for me was how in the first third of the book it felt like a major slog to push through all the stream of events on the battlefield. My knowledge of European geography is quite poor to be fair and adding a second bookmark to the initial maps to flick back and forth did help somewhat. But it was still frustrating and caused me to procrastinate plenty with the reading. The good news is, once that's done, Stevenson indulges you with plenty of economical, political, geopolitical and social analyses. He even discusses the legacy and historical conceptions of the war towards the end, especially in relation to WW2. But still, a part of me wonders if I'd have had a better time initially if the first third wasn't simply an avalanche of battleground details and strategizing. Perhaps he could've laid it out in a more balanced fashion.

Still, the book was definitely a rewarding experience. I feel more confident in reading more of the genre and post WW1 history due to gaining a wide ranging impression of how the major European and world powers worked then, the context of how such a war could have unfolded and its continuing legacy.

After spending almost three months on this, I'd now like a more personal account, from the actual soldiers at the trenches (something missing from Stevenson) as well as the in depth account of the formation of the modern Middle East I was looking for earlier.

I have All Quiet on the Western Front for the former and A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and The Creation of the Modern Middle East for the latter. I'd appreciate any additional recommendations.
… (altro)

Stevenson's "With Our Backs to the Wall" had impressed me as much as any book on the Great War has, so I approached this volume with a great deal of anticipation. In the end though I'm not quite as impressed; possibly due to Stevenson taking on a harder problem. As opposed to examining how World War I ground to a halt when it did, the question here is why did the war grind on when it was clear that the damage being done to the respective societies did not merit any possible gains. Stevenson has several suggestions here. One, just as the pre-1914 treaty system drew all the major players into the conflict, the alliance system of 1917 was a structure that kept all participants inline, at least until collapse did come. Two, in 1917, the respective powers could imagine other options for themselves, with the big choice being Germany making the bet that unrestricted submarine warfare would lead to success before an American contribution could make a difference. Three, even in depths of the greatest war the world had yet seen, many of the participants could imagine yet another round of great power struggle, and wanted to put themselves in a position to win the future conflict; Berlin's version of a just outcome remains breathtaking in its lack of realism.… (altro)