1914 The Year The World Ended

by Paul Ham

In August 1914, the European powers plunged the world into a war that would kill or wound 37 million people, tear down the fabric of society, uproot ancient political systems and set the world on course for the bloodiest century in human history.





On the eve of the 100th anniversary of that terrible year, Ham takes the reader on a journey into the labyrinth, to reveal the complexity, the layered motives, the flawed and disturbed minds that drove the world to war. What emerges is a clear sense of what happened and why. 'To understand the past,' Ham concludes, 'and share that understanding, is the chief role of the historian. To understand the past is to liberate ourselves from its awful shadow and steel ourselves against it happening again.'

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World War I, Audiobook, War, Military History, World History

Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2013

About the author

PAUL HAM is a historian specialising in 20th century conflict, war and politics. Born and raised in Sydney, Paul has spent his working life in London, Sydney and Paris. He teaches narrative non-fiction at SciencesPo in Reims and English at l'École de guerre in Paris. His books have been published to critical acclaim in Australia, Britain and the United States, and include: 'Hiroshima Nagasaki', a controversial new history of the atomic bombings (HarperCollins Australia 2010, Penguin Random House UK 2011, & Pan Macmillan USA 2014-15); '1914: The Year The World Ended' (Penguin Random House 2013); 'Sandakan' (Penguin Random House 2011); 'Vietnam: The Australian War' and 'Kokoda' (both published by HarperCollins, 2007 and 2004). Paul has co-written two ABC documentaries based on his work: 'Kokoda' (2010), a 2-part series on the defeat of the Japanese army in Papua in 1942 (shortlisted for the New York Documentary prize); and 'All the Way' (2012), about Australia's difficult alliance with America during the Vietnam War, which he also narrated and presented (it won the UN's Media Peace prize). Paul is the founding director of Hampress, an independent ebook publisher, and a regular contributor to Kindle Single, Amazon's new 'short book' publishing platform, for which he has written '1913: The Eve of War' and 'Young Hitler', co-written 'Honey, We Forgot the Kids', and published several titles by other authors. Hampress welcomes your ideas! A former Australia correspondent for The Sunday Times (1998-2012), Paul has a Masters degree in Economic History from London School of Economics. He lives in Sydney and Paris, and takes time off now and then to organise the Big Fat Poetry Pig-Out, an annual poetry recital, for charity.

Some relevant links:

http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Ham/e/B001...

https://www.hampress.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ham

http://us.macmillan.com/hiroshimanaga...

http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/hir...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18...

http://www.amazon.com/Sandakan-Paul-H...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42...

http://www.randomhouse.com.au/authors...

http://www.harpercollins.com.au/97807...

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

A few years ago, recognizing the upcoming centenary of World War I, I decided that I was going to start reading everything written about this seminal conflict. (Of course, literally reading everything would require me to change certain habits. Like doing anything else, ever). I had avoided the topic for years, thinking it too complex and – frankly – too dreary. It was a bloody mess of a war that didn't solve anything. I focused instead on World War II, where there were clear black hats and white hats and an ending that made people feel good, even if it ushered in an odd atomic détente that lasted for decades.

Once I started on WWI, I became obsessed. I read with the zeal of a convert. I divided the first part of the war into manageable sections: the lead-up; the July Crisis; the opening battles. In this manner, I thought I had completed all the necessary reading covering the years from 1870 to 1914. I was just about ready to move onto 1915.

And then the evil-genius robots at Amazon sent me this book recommendation.

I had never heard of Paul Ham’s 1914: The Year the World Ended. Frankly, I hadn’t heard of Paul Ham. Or the publisher. When I ordered 1914, it didn't arrive for several months. When I pulled it out of the box, I noticed a conspicuous absence of blurbs (I never read the blurbs for content, but I do like to know that authors I respect have also read the book I’m opening. It adds some legitimacy). For a fleeting moment, I wondered if I had accidentally purchased someone’s self-published opus. It would not be the first time, unfortunately.

(For the record, Paul Ham is an Australian journalist and historian, not some unlettered hack churning out work product from his grandma’s basement. No offense to basement-dwelling hacks, to whom I feel great affinity. But when I read history, it's comforting to know it's coming from a reliable source).

Having said this, by the time I cracked the cover, I had fairly low hopes for 1914. (I was also experiencing a bit of WWI fatigue, which I've since overcome). Thus, I might not be saying too much by asserting that my expectations were exceeded. This is, however, a commendable effort.

1914 is essentially three books in one. At almost exactly 600 pages in length, each of these sections is roughly 200 pages long. The first section covers the years from 1870 (the Franco-Prussian War) to 1914. This allows Ham to (rather superficially) survey the various entangling alliances, diplomatic crises, and near-wars that made Europe such a potentially volatile place when Gavrilo Princip finally pulled the trigger in Sarajevo. For me, this was the weakest part of 1914. It tries to cover too much in too little space, and it does so in a rather jumpy manner. Besides, this is ground that has already been well-tilled in recent years by Margaret MacMillan (The War that Ended Peace) and Christopher Clark (The Sleepwalkers).

Ham devotes the next third of the book to the diplomatic maneuvering of 1914 – more precisely speaking, the July Crisis. Again, previous books have been written about this month. Many, many, many books. What Ham does well is to strike the balance between complexity and understandability. He digs down to at least the second level with his details, he remains unbiased (finding fault in all the participants), and he avoids getting hopelessly bogged in the minutiae. There is nothing novel or earthshaking in Ham’s interpretation – though he is commendably unbiased in his presentation – but the story itself is so inherently compelling that sometimes the best thing a storyteller can do is get out of the way of his material.

The final third of 1914 is spent on the battlefields. The invasion of Belgium. The Battle of the Frontiers. The Battle of the Marne. The Race to the Sea. The war on the Eastern Front. I know what you’re thinking – this is too much for approximately 200 pages. And you are exactly right. I appreciate Ham’s intent to provide a one-volume integration of all the things that happened in 1914 (the pre-1914 context, the diplomatic failures, and the resort to military intervention). However, in attempting to cram this all in between two covers, he loses qualitative consistency. For instance, he does a pretty good job covering the Marne, the famous battle that ended Germany’s lighting strike through Belgium and France, crumbled the Schlieffen Plan, and ultimately led to the formation of the Western Front. But when it comes to the East, where Hindenburg and Ludendorff were thrashing the Russians at Tannenberg, Ham frequently resorts to stating “this is beyond the scope of this book.” No, it’s really not. It’s actually well within the scope of your project. If you’re exhausted from writing, just say it.

Many well-known and extremely capable authors have written about World War I. I mentioned MacMillan and Clark above. Barbara Tuchman wrote the classic about this period, in The Guns of August. Recently, the historian Max Hastings stepped away from World War II to write Catastrophe 1914.

The comparison I just set up is extremely and self-evidently unfair to Paul Ham. I don’t mean it to be. It’s just a way of communicating the obvious: Paul Ham is none of those other authors. He is a competent writer, but there’s nothing in 1914 to compare to MacMillan’s pithy biographical sketches or Tuchman’s epic opening paragraph in The Guns of August.

I also mention these authors because Ham relies heavily on them. This is not a scholarly or academic work. Nothing within it jumped out at me as new. I’m sure Ham looked at primary sources, but his book also relies heavily on secondary sources. Frankly, I’m just fine with this. If you can’t say something as well as MacMillan or Tuchman or John Keegan, then just quote them. There’s no shame. Furthermore, it gives your audience excellent ideas for further reading.

I feel like the tenor of this review has been damning with faint praise. The reality is, 1914 is not vital. There is always going to be something more to be said about the beginning of World War I. However, even more important than what is being said, is how it’s told. The story of 1914 has been told in timeless masterpieces. This is not a timeless masterpiece. It is thoroughly enjoyable. I don’t regret buying it. I actually quite liked the combination of the political, diplomatic, and military aspects under one roof. It's telling to see all the pieces working together. As a synthesis and secondary source guide, it might even be valuable to World War I newbies who are looking for a place to start. But if you are going to choose a single book about 1914 – I do not advise this – I would not recommend this one. Not because it is bad, but because others are better.

[Travis Starnes · Rating 2 out of 5]

There is no denying that Paul Ham is a skilled historian. His research for this book is thorough and meticulous. He has a very firm grasp of all the events that built up and eventually lead to the war and the players involved. This book is very detailed and gives a very complete explanation of the causes of World War I.

While as a history text it does succeed, in every other way this book fails. It is billed as a narrative account and it is anything but that. The book is packed full of references and quotes. This is great if you need to as a reference source for a college paper, but not so great if you just want to read it. Although there is no doubt that Mr. Ham is a skilled writer that skill is purely academic focused and not made for entertainment. The book is incredibly dense and slow to read. Not that it isn’t interesting. For hard core history fans there is good information here. The big issue is that there are more enjoyable ways to get the information.

The subjects covered in this book are far from unique. Other writers have covered the same ground and done so in a much more enjoyable fashion. When put up next to something like The Guns of August which makes many of the same points, 1914 just doesn’t hold up. Barbara Tuchman managed to give us the same information but in a truly narrative way that is significantly more readable. I didn’t find any of Ham’s conclusions unique, and many of the “myths” about the war I would never consider myths. Anyone who has enough interest in history to read this kind of book already knows that the “myths” he describes aren’t correct. People that believe in these “myths” would never read this book and if they did would never finish it.

The other big issue is that the way he tells the story comes off as pretentious. There were times when it felt like Ham went out of his way to quote French poets and Italian artists. I get that he was trying to give a feel to the way people saw the world just before the war, but it felt more like the author saying “look how smart I am.” I am sure that isn’t what he was actually doing, at least not consciously, but it came off that way all the same.

homeofreading.com/1914-the-year-the-world-ended/

[Michael Flanagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Ham keeps pumping out great book after great book. His talent in bringing history alive on the page is evident in 1914 again. With the 100 year anniversary of the start of the Great War upon us this book gives us an insight into the people and the world in which they lived.

1914 does not try to shed new light onto the start of the war but what it does is to give us a look into a world on the cusp of change and its masters that thirsted for war. We see that the Great War was not triggered by the assignation of Franz Ferdinand as popularly believed, but instead it was a combination of numerous factors. Much of this book is taken up with giving the reader a great sense of the people and politics of the time, as well as the key events leading up to the outbreak of war.

What I liked about this book is that it tries to view the road to war through the eyes of the people and doctrine of the time. This book for me is a must read for anyone wanting to understand the causes and opening months of the war to end all wars.

[Graham Catt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant examination of the lead up to World War One and the early months of the war.

It is clear to see that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was not the cause of war, but more of an excuse, as the major powers had been nurturing grievances and/or ambitions for years.

This paragraph best sums up Ham’s findings:

“The Great War, in short, was an avoidable, unnecessary exercise in collective stupidity and callousness, launched by profoundly flawed and (if we may be permitted the phrase) emotionally unintelligent men, most of whom were neither fit nor trained but bred to rule, and saw the world as a Darwinian jungle in which Teuton, Slav (and their Latin and Anglo-Saxon allies) were somehow predestined to bash each other’s brains out until the ‘fittest’ won.”

Essential reading for anyone interested in 20th Century history.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read many books on the start of WWI but this is, hands down, the best. The book is well-researched, well-written, and extremely thoughtful. Researching and writing about an event as important as WWI is a complicated undertaking. There are so many characters, events, and developments in a topic this big that deciding where to give background information without bogging down and leaving readers wondering why. Ham and his editors seemed to know exactly what to spend words on and what to elude.
Although most of this has been covered before, Ham does a more thorough job and explains it all more clearly while being humble enough to credit other historians for work they have done.
If you are going to read one book on 1914, this should be it.

[Helen King · Rating 5 out of 5]

After yet another ANZAC Day in which I was not really sure why WW1 started in the first place (other than some hazy notion that it involved someone called Franz Ferdinand, somehow), I was determined to read 1914: The year the world ended. It is not a short book, and requires a fair degree of concentration to keep track of the various personalities, regions, countries involved in the half century lead up to the War, but it is well worth the effort.

This book helped me to start to understand the degree of tension that had been an undercurrent throughout Europe for so many years. The issues of territorial ‘acquisitions’, as the opportunities for colonising other countries started to run out; the ‘trading’ of land or whole countries (regions of France, whole Slavic nations, etc, with little regard for the people or land that was involved); ‘minor’ wars that were being fought through this time; the interrelationships between nations and leaders (with the Russian, German and British kings first cousins); the conflicts between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in the late 1800s and early 1900s all colliding with the increased power available through advances in machinery (the importance of the rail system, particularly), cities and communication channels and, of course, weaponry. And also, despite surprisingly numerous ‘treaties’ and ‘agreements’ in place (including Belgium unilaterally being recognised as neutral – although that was ignored), the devastating effects of ambitions of individuals or groups, and extremely poor communications / misinterpretations (for instance, what was meant by ‘mobilisation’ to different nations, and assumptions that no action was required, meaning key leaders were on holidays and not contactable at key times).

Saddest extract from the book for me was reading, in the couple of days prior to August 2-4 (the war was declared over a few days depending on the country):

‘...all four monarchs – the Kaiser, the Tsar, the King and the Austro-Hungarian Emperor – shrank from war. Wilheim’s bluster disguised an essentially frightened man who panicked now that hostilities were upon him and the survival of his regime was at stake. The Tsar, appalled at his complicity in the coming slaughter, endured nerve-wracking regret. King George issued antique sentiments of dismay, and mild hopes of preserving the peace, even as events sped far beyond his influence and understanding. Old Franz Joseph in Vienna bustled about his palace, out of sight and mind.

‘ The civilian ministers responsible – Bethmann-Hollweg, Grey, Poincaré , Jacow and even the wavering Berchtold – more or less hoped that war could be avoided yet were at a loss to know how, now the world was on the brink. France had never wanted war. Only Sazonov and Conrad openly urged general mobilisation (and both wavered once the decision had been taken).

‘If so many leaders claimed to be working against war, why could it not be stopped? Why were governments and kings helpless to stall the machinery of mobilisation?’


Yes indeed - but they couldn't stop it. The book then goes on to detail so many of the atrocities, false and poorly executed decisions that impacted so many, the wasted lives of those killed and maimed - 'Nineteen - fourteen destroyed minds, as well as bodies. If a soldier wasn't dead or wounded by the end of it, his mind was probably undone', the destruction of communities and scars that remain for generations. It was also the beginning of the end of regimes and monarchies, ushering a new world framework. And an openness from many - as one wrote 'We are not ashamed of being afraid, as we often are ... just afraid of being afraid... In warfare only cowards are the really brave men, for they have to force themselves to do things that brave men do instinctively', as well as a recognition of great strength 'men facing death from bullet, shell and gas but staying the same cheery, lively animal, wondering when it will all cease'.

A really powerful book, covering such a massive topic in an engaging way (and all the more devastating as a result) - highly recommended.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Remember The old lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori!

[Daniel Greear · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Nineteen-fourteen was the year the world ended, for millions of men, women and families. It was the end of dreams. It was the end of certainty. It was the end of many soldiers’ faith in the propaganda, of the holy triumvirate of God, King and Country, of lyrical paeans to heroism and self-sacrifice, and all the shibboleths of tired old regimes … which they and their families would soon tear down as monstrous lies. Many families were with Kipling, who wrote, on the death of his son in 1916: ‘If any question why we died, / Tell them, because our fathers lied.’”

This book will haunt me for a while. I’ve been studying and interested in WWI for years. In America, it’s a forgotten war and largely looked over. I feel like a soldier in the trenches, I’ve been stuck for years and can’t seem to get out. I took a class on WWI in college and since then I’ve been regularly consuming as much information as possible on the conflict.

1914: The Year The World Ended has a lot of truth to its name. 1914 was the last year of innocence, it was the last year before millions of young men went off to be slaughtered in the fields of Flanders and so on. A whole generation was extinguished by a hail of machinery and death.

The world was ripe with ideas before then, Europe dominated the globe and had been at peace for over forty years. The powers, even Russia were industrializing, and Germany was even trying to make peace with its adversaries. Sadly, militarism, social Darwinism, and poor diplomacy led the world into chaos in that dreadful year.

It astounds me that in history class in high school, we were taught that Franz Ferdinand’s assassination was the key cause of the war. This of course was a watered down lie. This book debunks that myth and explains why the war really happened and why that assassination was just an excuse to commence slaughter.

Ham details the events extraordinarily well, drawing on many secondary sources such and Keenan and Tuchman. The July Crisis was probably the weakest part of the book, but his description of events in late 1914 (i.e. the Miracle on the Marne) were superb.

[Adrian Dormer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite a revelation. Shows that the European Governments learnt nothing from this War and repeated the overall scenario all over again in 1939/40.
There is a idea presented that there weren't two World Wars just one with a party (the 1920s) in the middle.
A worthwhile (if long 703 pages with appendices, references and index) read.

[Christopher Wise · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime." - Sir Edward Grey, British foreign secretary, 3 August 1914

1914, the blueprints for Armageddon; the year the world ended. Historians reiterate time and time again the cataclysmic events that led to the First World War and how the actions of the world's Superpowers at the time set an unstoppable wheel in motion that could never be halted. Many believe the events of 1914 changed the world to such a degree that humanity would never be the same again, it would never fully recover or adjust to the atrocities. Governments and policies that followed couldn't contain or put out the fire in the world and as a result lead to the bloodiest century in human history.

I truly believe that life as we know it now is just a continuation from the fallout of The Great War. From the Bolshevik Revolution, the severe punishments and economic sanctions of the Treaty of Versailles, the Great Depression, the Rise of the Nazis - World War II, Hiroshima - To Stalin - The Cold War - Vietnam, Soviet-Afghan War to the continuous problems in the Balkans to the Gulf War, Iraq War and modern day War on Terrorism and government foreign policy. To the economic decisions which created globalisation and the problems we face this very day. It created the ugly creed of fascism with its amalgam of racism and nationalism. It's all linked, it's all a knock on effect. Many claimed at the time that the War would devastate generations to come in a variety of ways and it did. It has; to the general consensus of creating so much pain and so much misery for absolutely nothing.

Paul Ham, like the back of the book reads, 'brings new tools to the job' and he does just that. This is an excellent summary of the causes of the First World War stretching all the way back to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Off the bat he tackles 19th Century Europe, delves into the societies, the cultures - the mindsets of both the ordinary man and the aristocracy from the Belle Époque to the artistic movements to industry, economies and the imperialistic race in Africa. Paul uses a lot of quotes throughout the book but they are always appropriate and incredibly interesting. There's not a great deal new here that hasn't been covered before but Paul's account feels very human and passionate, less mechanical - hence 'new tools to the job' and is continuously able to keep the reader hooked with small pieces of new information that may seem small on the surface but have huge long term consequences. So many things that I had previously learned had just been slightly distorted pieces of truth or just flat out lies; so it's really refreshing to finally hear the real truth of events.

It's fair to say I've been massively sucked in at the moment to studying the causes of The Great War; it's a beyond fascinating sequence of events. There's so many avenues to explore from the monarchies to the politicians to the military leaders. Greed, power, revenge and chauvinism all rear their heads here but unlike wars of the past, 20th century advancements in technology, weapons of mass destruction, the mindset of Social Darwinism at its most prominent, the ability to call up a nation's entire male population meant a war that could no longer be fought over a few months or a year but a war that no nation dare to yield in fear of complete collapse of the establishment and the result - a long drawn out stalemate that killed millions, wiping out entire demographics of 16-25 year olds.

Paul Ham uses a lot of written texts such as letters and memoirs to really bring home the personal tragedies faced by the soldiers. The graphic descriptions of The Rape of Belgium and the conditions of trench warfare from first hand accounts leave you genuinely teary; i'm not afraid to admit I genuinely wept reading a passage of text which described the spirit of the young French army and their will to carry on, having fought the full frontal force of the German 1st-5th Armies. Written by Alexander von Kluck himself:

"The reason for Germany's defeat 'that transcends all others' was the extraordinary and peculiar aptitude of the French soldier to recover quickly', with decent magnanimity. That men who have retreated for ten days, sleeping on the ground and half dead with fatigue, should be able to take up their rifles and attack when the bugle sounds, is a thing upon which we never counted. It was a possibility not studied in our academy."

Major-General Edward Spears writes:
"The battle proved the genius of the French race for instantaneous comprehension and adaptability. No people but the French, having started so badly, could in so short a time have learned so much."

It's just a few examples to the testament of the people to protect what they loved, to literally fight for their lives, for their families lives and for their nation's future - whose lives had been ripped apart by powers above them. The heartbreaking letters from bewildered parents and distraught wives and girlfriends make for tearful reading but give a sense of the hardships that they faced.

As the book focuses strictly on and leading up to the year 1914, Ham doesn't delve too much into the technicalities of the battles from August to December, 1914 - the book is more a summary of the causes of the conflict, however, he does give a nice assessment of the first major battles to take place such as the Miracle of the Marne, Battle of Le Cateau and First Battle of the Aisne on the Western Front as well as tactical positioning of troops - the German advance and the failure of the Schlieffen plan; The devastating loss of troops in the first months both on the Eastern and Western Front and the humiliation of the Austro-Hungarian army at the Battle of Galacia. The politics and military policies and tactics between officers are discussed heavily too and make for incredibly interesting reading.

The most controversial question that still lingers and is the source of debate still to this day from the world's top historians is: who started the war? It's a question that although a general consensus has been reached, will always lead to fierce debate because there really is no set answer. Paul does his best to give the reader as balanced argument as possible. The reality is that Europe had been on the brink of war for decades and was a balloon waiting to burst. The Balkan conflicts may have been the catalyst but every major nation had its reasons. Serbia after years of oppression wanted an end to Ottoman interference and Austro-Hungarian rule and wanted a united Slavic nation. Russia saw themselves as the protector of the Slavic people, who in return had an alliance with France. France were desperate for revenge from the Franco-Prussian war, which had taken the precious province of Alsace-Lorraine into German hands. Austria-Hungary wanted to obliterate the Serbs from existence to end an ancient feud and extend their empire. Germany, in alliance with Austria-Hungary was fast becoming Europe's biggest economy, who wanted to dine on the world's top table with the likes of Britain and France, it wanted to expand, it wanted a global empire and along with frustration at being spurned the opportunity time and time over, it became isolated, angry, paranoid and being geographically squeezed between Russia and France, it felt choked and claustrophobic. Britain dithered, would not commit to an open alliance and had eyes on only protecting its own interests; as a result it created uncertainty and unease amongst diplomatic relations. Britain did offer efforts of mediation right up till the eve of war, but by then the wheels were in full motion. Germany knew that if war was inevitable then it had to be now, before Russia were too powerful two years down the line. Yes, you can argue that Russia officially started the war by being the first to mobilise but the real aggression came from the Austro-Hungarians with Germany's approval and the declaration of war on the Serbs - offering an ultimatum they knew they would not be able to agree to, knowing full well would spark a domino affect. Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf and Helmuth von Moltke, key military personnel in conjuring this war plan. Had Gavrilo Princip not pulled the gun on Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, it's most likely another Moroccan crisis or small dispute in the Balkans would have popped the balloon. Either way, the half-hearted governing of the politicians not to push for peace, the reckless war minded military officials and the madness of the monarchs all contributed to atrocities never seen on European soil before, wiping out a generation of innocent young men and leaving repercussive ripples a whole century later.

The next book i'm moving to is a combat history on the whole war, written by Peter Hart, it covers the Western Front, the Eastern Front, the sea battles, Gallipoli, Solonika, Italy and Palestine. It'll give more of an idea of the incomprehensible loss of life, particularly the battles of Ypres and of the Somme where the British lost lives at an astonishing rate. Then of course, USA's entrance.

Really highly recommended, not as comprehensive as Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August or Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers but an excellent introduction for anyone looking for more of an in-depth study on the causes of the war, with lots of new info. Be prepared to shed some tears though.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over the past four years I have read many books on World War One. This year (2014) marks the 100th anniversary of the start of WWI and many books are coming out about WWI. I have read quite a few of them already. This book, “1914: The Year the World Ended”, is by the Australian Historian Paul Ham. The book is mostly about how the world went to war and very little about the battles. Recently a number of books by other writers have covered the same ground and done so in a much more enjoyable fashion. Ham tells the story leading up to the war from Austria-Hungarian, Russian, German, Serbian, British, French and Ottoman perspectives. The author follows the ebb and flow of diplomacy in Europe in the years leading up to The Great War. He highlights the feeling of inevitability of war going back a decade that served to cloud everyone’s judgment. He points out that 1914 was a pivotal year in human history. It led to the Russian Revolution, the cold war and was the seed that allowed Nazism and World War II to grow. It changed societies and countries around the globe. It was the beginning of the end of empires and monarchies as the world had known them. At the end of the book Ham relates briefly some of the battles but only covered one “the miracle on the Marne” in any detail. Despite some flaws the author performs an important role in attempting to distill historical work for the broader audiences. As there is a number of books out on this subject I wish Ham would have covered the role the Australians played in World War One, I think that would have make a more unique book. I read this as an audio book downloaded from Audible. Robert Meldrum did a good job narrating this 23 hour book.

[Joseph Spuckler · Rating 5 out of 5]

1914: The Year the World Ended by Paul Ham is a a lead up to the start of WWI. Ham earned his master's in economics from the London School of Economics. He worked as business and investment journalist in London and later as the Australian correspondent to The London Sunday Times. Ham has since became a historian specializing in 20th century war, politics, and diplomacy. His other books have received critical acclaim in Australia and Britain. In 2014, his book Hiroshima Nagasaki will be published in the United States. 1914 will be released in Australia this year for the 100th year anniversary of World War I.

I am extremely happy to receive an advanced copy of this book. Australian publications for review are hard to come by in the United States and I am grateful for this one. World War I has always been a favorite historical topic of mine. It setup the world I grew up in. I am also thankful for the Australians who served and for the country that, unlike the US, still considers WWI an important event in its history.

1914 a very detailed history of the events leading to war. In every history I read, I pick up a few new pieces of information or see ideas expanded upon. A few of the many points brought out are will be covered in this review. Mobilization of troops was, in the past, considered nor necessarily a prelude to war but more so saber rattling. The years leading up to the war, that changed. By 1914 mobilization was considered an act of war. The change that made this happen was railroads. Railroads allowed for the rapid deployment of troops to neighboring counties' borders. Mobilization now became an immediate threat. There was now no lag time from mobilization to invasion.

Alliances and neutrality played a major role in the war, as everyone who has taken a world history class already knows. It is not so much the alliances that caused the problem but the players. Germany takes the lion's share of the blame for the war. The Kaiser did agree to support Austria-Hungary in the event of attack from Russia, but never thought Austria-Hungary would drag Germany into war. The Kaiser thought Serbia was humiliated in their reply to Austria-Hungary and thought the matter was settled with honor. He promptly went on vacation. Franz Josef reaction to the assassination is not what was expected. He did not allow his son to be buried in the family vault or invite foreign heads of state to the funeral. He was not interested in going to war, but others forced his hand.

The Ottoman Empire was called the Sick Old Man of Europe during the war, but Austria-Hungary was not far behind. Ham describes the Hapsburgs not as Emperors, but landlords. There was no real unity in the country: several languages, several nationalities with the only common thread being lines drawn on a map putting them all in the same country. There was nothing to rally behind. Evidence of this becomes clear in Austria-Hungary failed miserably in its attempt to subdue Serbia. In fact most of the war history concerns German aggression and the Western Front. The entire premise for the war, the retaliation for the assassination, all gets pushed aside in history.

1914 is an excellent political and diplomatic history of the events leading up the the war. Ham highlights some lesser known points and downplays others like the German naval build up. I received what I was looking for in this book a view of the lead up to the war from a source other than the American perspective. The book is well written and easy to follow. The documentation is outstanding taking up nearly a quarter of the book. This is an remarkable history and recommended to anyone who can get a copy.

[Samuel Moncur · Rating 4 out of 5]

1914: The Year the World Ended is a hard book to review. This book had been sitting on my to-read pile for a couple of years, and I finally got a chance to read it during the lockdown this year.

Where this book succeeds is in presenting an incredibly readable account of the lead-up to the First World War, demonstrating the factors that lead to the July Crisis, an absolute boiling point which resulted in other interrelated tensions spilling out. Ham is masterful in tracking the roles of political figures and how their actions (and often lack thereof) contributed to millions of men being slaughtered. I would argue that the strongest part of this book is the middle third, which examines the shorter term causes of the war. I think that the short chapters here are a strength of the book, as it allows Ham to show the reader the contributions that individual factors had in the road to war, especially in the Balkans, which aren't part of the more well-known narrative of the war.

However, this book is popular history, and at times Ham does use a lot of terminologies and overly complicated phrases that have (as demonstrated in other reviews) the potential to alienate readers. Similarly, the final chapters of the book, the ones dedicated to the war itself, are the weakness of the book. These chapters subvert the 10 page per chapter format that had been so successful. Instead the final few chapters present 30-page summaries of the opening battles of the war that are overly long. I definitely preferred the first two-thirds to the last third, although the epilogue is excellent.

The common critique of this book is around Ham's use of hyperbole, which I can understand. There is no way to prove or disprove whether the trenches were able to be seen from space in 1915. This does not take away from the fact that 1914 is a very good introduction to the topic, if not a little hard to read sometimes.

4/5 stars.

[John Wickline · Rating 4 out of 5]

The lead up to the outbreak of the Great War is full of blunt political maneuvering, miscommunication, and feigned ignorance. The lack of power in civilian governments and the growing power of the banners of militarism are deeply investigated and dissected by the author to paint a clear picture if how the world devolved into hell. This book focuses on the whole of the year of 1914, discussing both thw lead up to war and the opening maneuvers of the European nations. This is not a summary of World War I, this book explains why the war happened, not what happened during the war. Fortunately it focuses on more than military history and touches on the social and political aspects of the European Continent before the declaration of war. It should be noted that this book only focuses on the relations between the European powers. Had this book discussed more than the year 1914 and the tensions that led to the outbreak of war, that would have been unacceptable, but given the scope of the book and the intentions of the author the exclusion of other continents, while disappointing, make sense. This book gives a deep and thoughtful explanation of the political and social culture of each of the great nations, while trying to present not only their own perspectives but the perspectives of how they were viewed by the other nations. Overall this book will give the reader a expansive amount of information to digest and consider. The breadth of knowledge shown by the author and the inclusion of opinions and thoughts from important figures of the time make this book an enjoyable and engaging read.

[Gopal · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant book. Inspired in some parts by a need to dramatize, where the narrator contradicts himself. Nevertheless a brilliant attempt at characterizing the important actors that led to World War I. The book is a non-fiction, yet the attempt to weave a story from the events, and the attempt to capture the general feeling among the masses, their emotional and mental make up in the years leading up to the war is an important addition to this analysis. Paul Ham has gone far and wide to collect material to bolster his conclusions - World War I wasn't a result of some archduke heir's assassination in a far-off country - it was only a realization of the animosity and the reckless nervous energy that the world had been harboring for last three decades. While two or three players played a significant role, the fact that there was no sane voice in the lead up, calls into question the role played by the countries that didn't directly promote aggression. In some way, perhaps if Germany hadn't had such huge power, this war might not have lasted this long. But Paul Ham's skill lies in keeping a taut and scathingly humanizing narrative for even the most despicable character, and the most tender and detail-oriented description for the most pivotal events of the war. He has set it up in the bigger macro-economic perspective, raising very pertinent questions. All in all, a very necessary reading.

[Lars K Jensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has succeeded where many documentaries, articles etc. have failed: It made me understand the road up to the outbreak of World War 1. How the killing of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo may have been the spark that lit it all up, but was in no way the cause behind the war.

Paul Ham takes you on a grand tour around the people in power (in Germany's case, that also involves the army commanders) and he gradually takes you further down the rabbit hole which ends with Europe plunging into a war, which may have been unnecessary, but where we still live with the consequences of it today.

The book is full of great quotes and perspectives - and I personally like Ham's way of writing; you are never really in doubt as to what he thinks of a person or a certain deed (or something that wasn't done) and this works for me.

The last part of the book is about the war but even though I am no in way good with war books, it turned out to be a page-turning event for me. Maybe because I now had the war put in its proper context - and maybe because I knew that the book would only take me through the most decisive battles (many of whom resulted in trench warfare...) in the year 1914.

If you are interested in the events leading up to WW1 and/or Europe from the late 1800s up to 1914, this is a book you want to take a look at.

[Brett Davison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ham leaves no stone unturned in this impressive book about the lead up to The Great War. As someone with virtually no real knowledge of History I found this book to be of invaluable help when trying got get a grip on how it all started. Yes its Big. Yes its comprehensive. Yes at times it can be challenging. But Ham vividly describes how much simpler and naïve - but no less savage - the World was back then. before it all ended...
And the thing is, I visited Europe a short time after completing this book and when I walked the streets it now felt so different than I had imagined it would. Things made a little more sense, and it left me both amazed at Western society's evolution yet deeply sad at the ferocious tragedy it took to get us here. And isn't that the gift of a great book? Giving you the map for the journey but letting you discover your own byways on the way to your destination? And for mine that's what 1914 did. This is a great book.

[Sarah loves books 😻😻😻 · Rating 3 out of 5]

⭐️⭐️⭐️ Very long and very complex (especially the political events leading up to WW1 were often too complicated for me to fully follow). Nevertheless I felt like I learnt some key facts and most importantly it drove home the message again of the unbelievably cruelty of war (which we tend to forget in our present day safe and peaceful lives). Ham also quoted my favourite book “All quiet on the western front” when he spoke about the experiences of the soldiers in the trenches. Overall a solid three stars.

[Cel Jel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, what did I know of the machinations between nations leading up to the War? Not as much as I am aware of now. How much was the assassination the trigger for the war, or had the fuse been burning slowly? A very complex read, with some information repeated ina few chapters, but necessarily so due to relevance. If you want to add to your knowledge of 1914 and the events of it, and the people who were moving their countries towards war, this is the book for you.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can't say that this book is bad, it just isn't very good. It tries to do to much - explains the background to WWI going back to the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, the events of July 1914 and the opening events of the war up to the battle of the Marne. It covers them adequately but provides nothing that challenges or interests. There are a lot of books on the origins of WWI out or coming out and I can not recommend this one.

[Richard Notaro · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’re interested in the lead up to the Great War this book does an excellent job of detailing it. For a history book it isn’t a dry read. Well worth picking up if you happen to find it in a used book store.

[Bill Porter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very topical and immensely depressing. Hopefully Paul Ham won't need to write a 2019 version

[Wardyyo · Rating 4 out of 5]

So much detail and analysis of the key people whose arrogance and callous indifference doomed a generation to slaughter and in the process destroyed their own countries

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite the read yet informative.

More so now as Russia flexes its arrogance in the year 2022.

[George · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lengthy over-view of the events leading up to the beginning of WWI and its first year. As you may expect from such a book it reads try and a bit stuffy.

[Peter Leigh · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book

This book provided a good understanding of the situation in Europe leading to the First World War and an insight into some of the battles

[patrick Lorelli · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is hard to believe that in August it will be 100 years since the beginning of the First World War. This book 1914 takes a look at all of the causes or so called causes of the war. The author starts back 100 years and works forward with all of the different wars that had taken place. But I did notice he always came back to a treaty after a war in 1870-1871, where some prime land was taken from Germany and made French. Over the course of years this became just one of the items that upset German leadership. They also felt that they were always being pushed aside when other countries got together for a conference or would sign a treaty. In 1900 France and Russia signed a treaty and they both bordered Germany. Feeling pressure at this time Bismarck started to build up his army and his Navy. Surprisingly none of the other countries were paying any attention. From that moment things just got worse because he died and a younger Bismarck came into power and Russia had a change in power. Now France made an agreement with Britain about territory in North Africa and once again Germany was left out. Though the Queen of England was the Grandmother to the new leader in Germany she had no say over what the country did the Parliament along with the Prime Minister really controlled the political landscape and no one was really listen to what Germany had to say. There was in 1908 some talk between two diplomats, Count Alois Lexa Von Aehrenthal the Austrian foreign minister and his Russian counterpart Alexander Izvoisky. They were getting together because of an agreement was to expire on what to do with Bosnia. These talks went on for years with no solution other than the Austrians’ and Germans, feeling like they were being taken advantage of and no agreement was done in the end. During this time there was one time when the Russians sank a German vessel which actually could have led to war but was worked out. By the time Prince and his wife were assassinated there was no more time for talk. France and Russia had increased the railroads along the borders of Germany and with everything happening Germany attacked France. One thing I will say is that medical science from back then was that. The men who were in the trenches with sustained artillery attack. (Mostly affects the brain and central nervous system). Men who broke down were sent back to the front lines this was sane thinking. Today this we know is post-traumatic stress disorder. To abnormal events and shelling, mass slaughter is not normal but was deemed normal then. Many men after the war who spent a lot of time in the trenches had headaches, nightmares, and bouts of depression. This also does not include the men who served from mustard gas. The author also points out that that really he thinks both wars are really together for nothing was learned from the first. I would have say I agreed since my father fought on some of the very same land as the first war when he fought in WWII. This is a very in depth look into the begging’s of the first war. Not any battles but the history and politics and not just saying that the death of a Prince and his wife can start everything into motion. He takes you back into all of the changes of Europe leading up to that event and how each time when they could have talked they did not. I thought this was a very through book and was well written about an important part of history. I got this book from net galley.

[Angela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having just immigrated to New Zealand, I've become much more conscious of WWI history and impact. I began listening to this book a couple of weeks before Anzac Day, which now commemorates all military veterans and servicepeople but particularly draws attention to the lives lost or otherwise affected by the battle at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915, and the rest of the war. I actually wrote a blog post about this after attending an Anzac Day service in Dunedin: http://pnwgirltonz.wordpress.com/2014....

Published just before centennial commemorations of the Great War began across the globe, the book begins by mentioning how our contemporary impressions of the lead-up to 1914 have been shaped by cinema, television (specific shout-out to Downton Abbey), and other popular media. But Ham is very clear on multiple occasions that the simple cause-and-effect portrayed in much of these forums hides the complex web of people, egos, nations, ideas, and naivete that resulted in WWI. He also bluntly lists the points at which many people could have averted the conflict, at least on the scale to which it grew. It was far from inevitable.

I think listening to such an accounting is particularly poignant and essential at this point in history. The last time I learned much about WWI was back in high school, yet as I listened to Ham's words I realized just how much we seem to have forgotten the lessons (we should have) learned 100 years ago. One of my favourite blogs, www.stonekettlestation.com, written by a Navy veteran, recently included a post about the renewed military actions by the U.S. in Iraq; one commenter argued that the main purpose of continuing such a ridiculous war effort was that those in power, or in fear of losing their power, are desperately trying to maintain "CONTROL" [sic]. And continue to reap big profits, of course. Thus, when I heard Ham's line toward the end of this book, "The war Europe's autocracies waged to preserve their regimes, in the end, destroyed them all," I could only think -- well, s***, here we are again.

Similarly, when I say "those in power", I can't help but see analogies between Ham's descriptions of the Kaiser or Czar's inability to actually make real decisions regarding military mobilization in the face of their generals' power in the early 20th century, and the current purse string-holders in the U.S. today. Until we can return to some semblance of leadership from our political leaders, and the true meaning of "of the people, by the people, for the people", I don't know that we can make reasonable progress toward forgoing the arrogance of thinking one nation must be in CONTROL and start to work together on issues that really matter for the world's survival. And also to think, as we move through the centennial commemoration years of "the war to end all wars" -- why has war not ended? On the surface it may seem an impossibly naive ideal, but in point of fact, how many utterly pointless wars must we fight before we realize how utterly we are failing to honour the sacrifice and learn from the horrors of the first World War?

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Książka nie idealna, posiadająca niestety sporo wad. Skupiona głównie na polityce raczej omijająca sam konflikt zbrojny. Na prawie 40 rozdziałów tylko 5 poświęcone samemu konfliktowi. Zresztą sam autor opisując daną bitwę odsyła do innych źródeł, pisząc że nie to jest celem tej książki.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a sharp history of 1914 by an Australian journalist/historian. In its scope, it covers diplomatic, social, and military history and of the many recent WWI books out, it is closest to those of Max Hastings and Margaret McMillan. The intent of the author is to tell the basic story of this fateful year while emphasizing material that conveys the best judgments of historians and reflects the lived sense of the times. Mr. Ham also includes some valuable appendices listing some of the key documents of the escalation to war in July and August of 1914. What is perhaps most distinctive of the book is that author's avowedly critical perspective towards to key actors of the year. WWI is rightly seen to be perhaps the most disruptive chain of events of the past century and Mr. Ham argues that the key actors involved bear responsibility for what happened. This is not to brand any single actor as a villain but more to make plain that the war did not have to happen and that the actors involved had discretion and choice that they could have used -- these people were not the pawns of broad streams of history or dark inhuman forces. Many of these actors, if they had chosen to do so, could have changed history. There were many who made mistakes and all of the major actors are examined and found wanting.

I enjoyed the book and found the author's perspective refreshing. Policy makers sometimes pay attention to history and historians and so a sharp line on this incredible year is needed. The downside of this is that a critical perspective is easy to adopt concerning the leaders, foreign officers, and generals on display here. While "what if" history is very readable, it is not always persuasive and I am at points unclear how the author's line here really differs from what other historians have said. This is a minor concern, however, given the value of the book.