What do you think?
Rate this book
Ring of Fire: A New History of the World at War: 1914
The dramatic story of 1914—the start of World War I—presenting a comprehensive, dynamic history of the start of this truly global conflict.
Most people did not know what the world was getting itself into in 1914. Everyone thought they knew the sort of war they were going to get—a short conflict that would settle old scores in a matter of weeks—but it was soon clear that was not going to be the case.
From the Balkans to East Prussia, France, and Belgium, nineteenth-century warfare came face to face with twentieth-century technology and the ensuing, brutal clash of empires resulted in deadlock. And it was a truly global war, stretching from Europe to Oceania, from the Middle East to North America. It affected civilians as well as soldiers and governments, and for the first time, the world was faced with the fact that neutrality was practically impossible.
Understanding such a complex conflict is difficult, and over the last hundred years, it has been made even more so by a repeatedly blinkered approach to the history of it, with a focus almost entirely on English-language sources and a narrow view of the conflict through two main prisms—the Eastern Front and the Western Front. But what about the rest of the world? Countries like Australia and Canada willingly sent their young men to Europe. Danes were conscripted into the German army, North Africans immediately traveled to fight and die for France; and in colonies as remote as Samoa, men ran for ports and a chance to fight.
Ring of Fire will set out to rebalance our conceptions of a war that truly reshaped the world. Using access to an enormous quantity of primary material, largely untouched by general historians, the authors will tell the story of 1914 with a firm eye on presenting a truly comprehensive, inclusive popular history, a people's narrative that draws on source material from over twenty languages.
Most people did not know what the world was getting itself into in 1914. Everyone thought they knew the sort of war they were going to get—a short conflict that would settle old scores in a matter of weeks—but it was soon clear that was not going to be the case.
From the Balkans to East Prussia, France, and Belgium, nineteenth-century warfare came face to face with twentieth-century technology and the ensuing, brutal clash of empires resulted in deadlock. And it was a truly global war, stretching from Europe to Oceania, from the Middle East to North America. It affected civilians as well as soldiers and governments, and for the first time, the world was faced with the fact that neutrality was practically impossible.
Understanding such a complex conflict is difficult, and over the last hundred years, it has been made even more so by a repeatedly blinkered approach to the history of it, with a focus almost entirely on English-language sources and a narrow view of the conflict through two main prisms—the Eastern Front and the Western Front. But what about the rest of the world? Countries like Australia and Canada willingly sent their young men to Europe. Danes were conscripted into the German army, North Africans immediately traveled to fight and die for France; and in colonies as remote as Samoa, men ran for ports and a chance to fight.
Ring of Fire will set out to rebalance our conceptions of a war that truly reshaped the world. Using access to an enormous quantity of primary material, largely untouched by general historians, the authors will tell the story of 1914 with a firm eye on presenting a truly comprehensive, inclusive popular history, a people's narrative that draws on source material from over twenty languages.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published August 12, 2025
31 people are currently reading
429 people want to read
About the author
Alexandra Churchill
18 books42 followersBritish historian Alexandra Churchill has been researching the air war for a number of years in addition to compiling a detailed roll of honor for Eton College. She has a book due out next year, telling the story of the war through the eyes of the school’s old boys and will feature the Harvey brothers who appear in episode one of The Big Dig in more detail. Other projects in the pipeline include a biography of a pilot and something that will incorporate a personal passion of hers and tell the story of football in the Great War.
Alex has previously worked with John Hayes-Fisher on an episode of Timewatch about the air war in 1918, and on "Fighting the Red Baron" and "Titanic with Len Goodman" as a researcher / contributor.
Alex has previously worked with John Hayes-Fisher on an episode of Timewatch about the air war in 1918, and on "Fighting the Red Baron" and "Titanic with Len Goodman" as a researcher / contributor.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
June 29, 2025
I hate trying to score a book like Ring of Fire: A New History of the World at War 1914 by Alexandra Churchill and Nicolai Eberholst. To quote one of the title chapters, it is the type of book which is "stuck in the middle." It is neither a detailed military history nor a narrative history which focuses on specific characters to highlight the larger fight during World War I. It is caught in between.
There is certainly some excellent scholarship done by the authors. The facts are from a clearly diverse array of primary sources across the world. It is well-written in the way that each page flows and the prose is easy to read. I wouldn't call any singular aspect of the book bad by any means. In fact, much of it is superb.
However, as a story, it is trying to do too much. The prologue starts off and sets the reader up to think this will be a book about the actual people who are called to war and their families. Later, other chapters dive into some of the minutiae of battle. All the while, chapters jump from one area to another and characters are name checked and then disappear entirely. It made the overall narrative seem disjointed even, as I said, a single chapter could be quite riveting.
There is certainly an audience for this book, but not military historians looking for laser-focused insight and not people who know nothing about World War I. Somewhere in between are people who would enjoy this immensely, and I wouldn't argue with them. I'm just not one of them.
(This book was provided as an advance reader copy by the publisher.)
There is certainly some excellent scholarship done by the authors. The facts are from a clearly diverse array of primary sources across the world. It is well-written in the way that each page flows and the prose is easy to read. I wouldn't call any singular aspect of the book bad by any means. In fact, much of it is superb.
However, as a story, it is trying to do too much. The prologue starts off and sets the reader up to think this will be a book about the actual people who are called to war and their families. Later, other chapters dive into some of the minutiae of battle. All the while, chapters jump from one area to another and characters are name checked and then disappear entirely. It made the overall narrative seem disjointed even, as I said, a single chapter could be quite riveting.
There is certainly an audience for this book, but not military historians looking for laser-focused insight and not people who know nothing about World War I. Somewhere in between are people who would enjoy this immensely, and I wouldn't argue with them. I'm just not one of them.
(This book was provided as an advance reader copy by the publisher.)
July 3, 2025
This book intricately pieces together the first few weeks of World War One. How quickly the summer of 1914 descended into hell. Whilst very dense in content and detail, it is eminently readable and its concern with the global perspective is particularly refreshing. I found the combination of military and civilian perspectives interesting- often books focus on one or the other, but in reality these experiences were not independent.
I learnt a lot from this book; it challenges popular discourses and the use of personal testimony brings the narrative to life.
I learnt a lot from this book; it challenges popular discourses and the use of personal testimony brings the narrative to life.
June 18, 2025
Un buen libro, cumple con el propósito de describir varios aspectos de las primeras semanas de la gran guerra, mencionado varios lugares y detalles, para personas interesadas en el ámbito militar les será grato leerlo, lo único es que es muy descriptivo y con mucha información, última con muy buenas fuentes.
Al inicio de la gran guerra, se busca personal para reclutar, donde no solo se incluían a hombres sino que habían mujeres que se enlistan como enfermeras y algunas llegaron a estar en el frente de batalla, se buscaba hombres inclusive fuera del continente europeo, para ello fue importante los ferrocarriles para empezar a transportar a las personas hacia el frente de batalla, muchas personas apoyaban a los militares que iban hacia la guerra, los ingleses llegaban hacia Francia a través del canal de la Mancha, un viaje que no era nada fácil, una de las grandes dificultades es que cuando estalló la guerra muchas personas estaban en territorio enemigo por lo que se sentían inseguras, otra problemática fue el estar emparejado o relacionado con personas del bando rival, lo que llevó a señalamientos y rupturas familiares.
Alemania avanzó rápidamente en Luxemburgo, esto se apropiaron de las posiciones de este pequeño país y no respetó la neutralidad de este, En Luxemburgo había personas pro alemanes y otras que si rechazaban la invasión, lo que caracterizó a esta invasión es la poca resistencia ya que los alemanes no tuvieron un odio hacia este país. Bélgica era otro país que Alemania debía cruzar si quería invadir Francia, el problema es que este país si resistiría pese a la inferioridad numérica y armamentística que tenía ante Alemania, la misión de Alemania era tomar rápidamente París para luego centrarse en el frente oriental, el problema es que estamos hablando de una operación tan grande que habían problemas de suministros por lo que era necesario el uso del ferrocarril, por ello Alemania requería la gran red férrea de Bélgica para ser usado en contra de los franceses, ante ello los belgas destruyeron sus vías de comunicación y ferrocarriles para detener el avance alemán, Bélgica evitaba guerras campales, al saber de su inferioridad, ambos bandos para los autores tenían problemas en sus conquistas.
Las posiciones coloniales de las diferentes potencias europeas también fueron usadas para la guerra, muchas colonias británicas apoyaron a la metrópolis mandando hombres, los indios fueron muy importantes para Gran Bretaña, pero todo este apoyo tenía entre medio ideas racistas por parte de los europeos. Alemania no tenía tantos soldados en sus colonias y era muy mal visto sus soldados africanos, sin embargo, en el contexto de la guerra, las potencias europeas debían proteger a sus súbditos coloniales ante el miedo de un levantamiento o que se unieran al bando rival, en algunas partes se desconfiaba de personas de otras etnias o religiones, algunos países como Francia usaban sus tropas coloniales como carne de cañón en la guerra, muchos habitantes nativos veían esta guerra como algo entre europeos y no les interesaba mucho.
Con lo anterior presente se traslada el campo de batalla en África donde los alemanes luchaban contra los aliados, el problema es que el territorio africano era muy grande y complejo, y las primeras intenciones eran sabotearlas líneas de comunicación del enemigo, pero la campaña británica en África oriental estaba estancada.
Ambos países beligerantes como Alemania y Gran Bretaña eran potencias navales, pero los primeros sabían que los ingleses eran muy superiores en el mar, por ello Gran Bretaña se sentó en el mar del norte europeo y Francia en el Mediterráneo, con la guerra taller inició la restricción de libertades leyes más restrictivas ante la paranoia del bando enemigo.
En el frente de austro Hungría en los Balcanes, estos todavía no avanzaban y solo atacaban Belgrado, la cuestión de este frente es que Austria debía tener en cuenta a Serbia y Rusia como dos enemigos, al principio el Ejército invasor tenía la ventaja numérica pero luego Serbia obtuvo el apoyo de Montenegro y otros países por lo que aumentó su Ejército, los serbios también contaban con la ventaja de la experiencia en la guerra de los Balcanes y tenían mejores líderes militares, empieza así el avance De Austria en serbia, un avance marcado por la lentitud y las dificultades del terreno, donde también no ayuda mucho las pésimas líneas de suministros.
Como se había mencionado anteriormente Bélgica se caracterizó por una gran resistencia, por lo que fue necesario el uso de artillería alemana para superar los diferentes fuertes que tenía Bélgica defendiendo sus principales ciudades, con ello finalmente los alemanes toman Bruselas, su conquista se logró al atacar sistemáticamente dichos fuertes.
Volviendo al territorio de los Balcanes los serbios no contaban con mucho apoyo exterior, pero tenían a su favor el terreno y los problemas logísticos que estaban sufriendo el Ejército invasor, al final fue un total fracaso la conquista de austro Hungría en Serbia donde los serbios también sufrieron grandes pérdidas.
Hay un capítulo dedicado solo a la neutralidad de algunos países, países principalmente como América Latina no tenía ninguna alianza con las potencias beligerantes, algunos países europeos no tenían los suficientes recursos para meterse en la guerra, algunos países como Irán barca perdió en la guerra como una forma de obtener beneficios. Dentro de los propios países neutrales había opiniones divididas sobre qué bando apoyar, No obstante, las potencias generaban presiones para que se unieran alguno de los bandos o apoyarán en ciertas medidas, ejemplo de lo anterior son los otomanos, que se vieron en la necesidad de apoyar a los alemanes debido a la ayuda que estos habían hecho anteriormente, países antes de haberse declarado la guerra ya habían iniciado conflictos en África como es el caso de Portugal.
Desde que Prusia había invadido Francia, los franceses ya se habían preparado para una posible invasión alemana, lo importante era esperar el avance ruso hacia Alemania para que, si se desviaran muchas tropas, dentro de la mentalidad francesa había un deseo de venganza contra los alemanes, el problema es que el primer ataque de Francia hacia el territorio alemán fracasó, lo que vieron de retirarse de allí y estar a la defensiva en Luxemburgo y Bélgica ante los alemanes.
Alemania oriental era importante puesto que debía soportar el ataque ruso mientras el grueso del Ejército avanzaba en el frente occidental, el problema es que los alemanes tomaron la decisión temeraria de avanzar hacia Rusia, fue tal el avance que ya no había ninguna otra opción que no sea la de seguir avanzando, las primeras batallas fueron ganadas por el bando invasor ante la inoperancia de los rusos, pero con el tiempo los rusos fueron a la ofensiva y la situación en este territorio se salió del control ante la posible pérdida de territorios alemanes por los rusos.
Los alemanes también atacaron infraestructura civil y a la población por lo que muchos civiles debieron soportar las atrocidades de la guerra, es en los Balcanes donde los civiles llevaron la peor parte de la guerra. Se efectúa por parte del bando francés el primer ataque hacia el territorio belga controlado por alemán, el problema es que los ataques en los bosques los franceses sufrieron grandes bajas, ante el aumento del avance alemán se necesitó cada vez más del apoyo británico para detener la ofensiva alemana, pero los ingleses también estaban sufriendo duras bajas en esta guerra, resultando así en la batalla de las fronteras.
Mucho del comercio empezó a ser controlado por los europeos de la guerra al incautar algunos barcos, la gran ventaja que tenía Gran Bretaña para hacer esto era obviamente su poderío naval, pero todo esto afectó la economía por lo que muchas importaciones y exportaciones empezaron a reducirse y una gran escasez de comida en Europa por lo que fue necesario el control de los alimentos y la incautación.
el avance alemán prosigue hacia Francia y había un gran temor por parte de los derrotados a ser mutilados o abandonados, Por otra parte en Rusia los alemanes seguían retrocediendo frente a Rusia, cosa que no ayuda mucho al agotamiento que estaban sufriendo los franceses e ingleses, por lo que cada vez era más posible la llegada de los alemanes hacia París, al menos en el frente oriental los rusos empezaban a tener mayores éxitos pero todo cambiaría con la llegada de nuevos generales alemanes hacia oriente, donde los alemanes cosecharon una gran victoria frente a los rusos que ya tenían una gran escasez de alimentos y municiones.
la guerra y Austria ahora sería contra Rusia, los primeros estaban esperando el apoyo de los alemanes, pero estaban más centrados en su frente con Franco, el lugar de enfrentamiento de estos dos países era muy lejano por lo que llegaba a los soldados muy agotados y con mucha sed, empiezan así los primeros avances rusos, pero al final serían los austriacos los que tendrían algunos éxitos.
Los aliados Por su parte perdían la esperanza de que Rusia pudiera ayudarles en el frente oriental solo que hay mucha gente empezó a huir De París y a empezar a construir fortificaciones para defender la ciudad, los alemanes no la tenían nada fácil ya que se estaban alejando cada vez más de sus líneas de suministros principales, se empezaron a usar aviones de reconocimiento, aunque el uso de estos primeros aviones fue algo muy débil.
Ante la debilidad alemana en los mares ante el poderío británico empezaron a usar minas para atacar a otras embarcaciones, por lo que los ingleses empezaron a llevar procesos de limpieza de minas, la gran innovación alemana fue el uso de submarinos para atacar embarcaciones, algo muy importante ya que no había contramedidas para atacar a estos submarinos.
Los austriacos tenían victorias contra los rusos al final fracasaría y serían derrotados, en otros territorios como en Sudáfrica se estaban llevando a cabo ataques contra las colonias alemanas, y las posesiones coloniales alemanas en el Pacífico empezaron a ser atacadas y con el deseo de ser anexados por Nueva Zelanda y Australia. Un actor importante en el inicio de la guerra fueron los japoneses los cuales tenían deseos de crear su propio imperio, aunque ello le causaba temor a los ingleses, los japoneses desde un principio estaban preparados para luchar contra Alemania y para ellos el escenario esta lucha fue muy importante, lo que llevó al ataque de la colonia alemana En China la cual lograron conquistar con el rápido aprendizaje japonés del nuevo tipo de guerra moderna.
Pese a que parecía un hecho la toma alemana de París al final los franceses y sus aliados lograron una gran victoria y empezaron a obtener más apoyo de las ciudades en el frente mientras que los austrohúngaros perdían ganancias territoriales frente a Rusia, el resultado de estas primeras semanas de guerra fue el tan aclamado milagro de la batalla de Marne, en el que los franceses lograron una gran victoria frente a Alemania.
En el epílogo se menciona que se usaba todavía la caballería puesto que se confiaba en a 1 en los equinos, pero con el tiempo la guerra empezó a ser más defensiva y a evitar enfrentamientos, puesto que la modernización de la guerra iba a tomar su tiempo. La nueva guerra se caracterizó por un alto nivel de mortandad y que los ejércitos, aunque numerosos, no contaban con la experiencia necesaria para los enfrentamientos.
Al inicio de la gran guerra, se busca personal para reclutar, donde no solo se incluían a hombres sino que habían mujeres que se enlistan como enfermeras y algunas llegaron a estar en el frente de batalla, se buscaba hombres inclusive fuera del continente europeo, para ello fue importante los ferrocarriles para empezar a transportar a las personas hacia el frente de batalla, muchas personas apoyaban a los militares que iban hacia la guerra, los ingleses llegaban hacia Francia a través del canal de la Mancha, un viaje que no era nada fácil, una de las grandes dificultades es que cuando estalló la guerra muchas personas estaban en territorio enemigo por lo que se sentían inseguras, otra problemática fue el estar emparejado o relacionado con personas del bando rival, lo que llevó a señalamientos y rupturas familiares.
Alemania avanzó rápidamente en Luxemburgo, esto se apropiaron de las posiciones de este pequeño país y no respetó la neutralidad de este, En Luxemburgo había personas pro alemanes y otras que si rechazaban la invasión, lo que caracterizó a esta invasión es la poca resistencia ya que los alemanes no tuvieron un odio hacia este país. Bélgica era otro país que Alemania debía cruzar si quería invadir Francia, el problema es que este país si resistiría pese a la inferioridad numérica y armamentística que tenía ante Alemania, la misión de Alemania era tomar rápidamente París para luego centrarse en el frente oriental, el problema es que estamos hablando de una operación tan grande que habían problemas de suministros por lo que era necesario el uso del ferrocarril, por ello Alemania requería la gran red férrea de Bélgica para ser usado en contra de los franceses, ante ello los belgas destruyeron sus vías de comunicación y ferrocarriles para detener el avance alemán, Bélgica evitaba guerras campales, al saber de su inferioridad, ambos bandos para los autores tenían problemas en sus conquistas.
Las posiciones coloniales de las diferentes potencias europeas también fueron usadas para la guerra, muchas colonias británicas apoyaron a la metrópolis mandando hombres, los indios fueron muy importantes para Gran Bretaña, pero todo este apoyo tenía entre medio ideas racistas por parte de los europeos. Alemania no tenía tantos soldados en sus colonias y era muy mal visto sus soldados africanos, sin embargo, en el contexto de la guerra, las potencias europeas debían proteger a sus súbditos coloniales ante el miedo de un levantamiento o que se unieran al bando rival, en algunas partes se desconfiaba de personas de otras etnias o religiones, algunos países como Francia usaban sus tropas coloniales como carne de cañón en la guerra, muchos habitantes nativos veían esta guerra como algo entre europeos y no les interesaba mucho.
Con lo anterior presente se traslada el campo de batalla en África donde los alemanes luchaban contra los aliados, el problema es que el territorio africano era muy grande y complejo, y las primeras intenciones eran sabotearlas líneas de comunicación del enemigo, pero la campaña británica en África oriental estaba estancada.
Ambos países beligerantes como Alemania y Gran Bretaña eran potencias navales, pero los primeros sabían que los ingleses eran muy superiores en el mar, por ello Gran Bretaña se sentó en el mar del norte europeo y Francia en el Mediterráneo, con la guerra taller inició la restricción de libertades leyes más restrictivas ante la paranoia del bando enemigo.
En el frente de austro Hungría en los Balcanes, estos todavía no avanzaban y solo atacaban Belgrado, la cuestión de este frente es que Austria debía tener en cuenta a Serbia y Rusia como dos enemigos, al principio el Ejército invasor tenía la ventaja numérica pero luego Serbia obtuvo el apoyo de Montenegro y otros países por lo que aumentó su Ejército, los serbios también contaban con la ventaja de la experiencia en la guerra de los Balcanes y tenían mejores líderes militares, empieza así el avance De Austria en serbia, un avance marcado por la lentitud y las dificultades del terreno, donde también no ayuda mucho las pésimas líneas de suministros.
Como se había mencionado anteriormente Bélgica se caracterizó por una gran resistencia, por lo que fue necesario el uso de artillería alemana para superar los diferentes fuertes que tenía Bélgica defendiendo sus principales ciudades, con ello finalmente los alemanes toman Bruselas, su conquista se logró al atacar sistemáticamente dichos fuertes.
Volviendo al territorio de los Balcanes los serbios no contaban con mucho apoyo exterior, pero tenían a su favor el terreno y los problemas logísticos que estaban sufriendo el Ejército invasor, al final fue un total fracaso la conquista de austro Hungría en Serbia donde los serbios también sufrieron grandes pérdidas.
Hay un capítulo dedicado solo a la neutralidad de algunos países, países principalmente como América Latina no tenía ninguna alianza con las potencias beligerantes, algunos países europeos no tenían los suficientes recursos para meterse en la guerra, algunos países como Irán barca perdió en la guerra como una forma de obtener beneficios. Dentro de los propios países neutrales había opiniones divididas sobre qué bando apoyar, No obstante, las potencias generaban presiones para que se unieran alguno de los bandos o apoyarán en ciertas medidas, ejemplo de lo anterior son los otomanos, que se vieron en la necesidad de apoyar a los alemanes debido a la ayuda que estos habían hecho anteriormente, países antes de haberse declarado la guerra ya habían iniciado conflictos en África como es el caso de Portugal.
Desde que Prusia había invadido Francia, los franceses ya se habían preparado para una posible invasión alemana, lo importante era esperar el avance ruso hacia Alemania para que, si se desviaran muchas tropas, dentro de la mentalidad francesa había un deseo de venganza contra los alemanes, el problema es que el primer ataque de Francia hacia el territorio alemán fracasó, lo que vieron de retirarse de allí y estar a la defensiva en Luxemburgo y Bélgica ante los alemanes.
Alemania oriental era importante puesto que debía soportar el ataque ruso mientras el grueso del Ejército avanzaba en el frente occidental, el problema es que los alemanes tomaron la decisión temeraria de avanzar hacia Rusia, fue tal el avance que ya no había ninguna otra opción que no sea la de seguir avanzando, las primeras batallas fueron ganadas por el bando invasor ante la inoperancia de los rusos, pero con el tiempo los rusos fueron a la ofensiva y la situación en este territorio se salió del control ante la posible pérdida de territorios alemanes por los rusos.
Los alemanes también atacaron infraestructura civil y a la población por lo que muchos civiles debieron soportar las atrocidades de la guerra, es en los Balcanes donde los civiles llevaron la peor parte de la guerra. Se efectúa por parte del bando francés el primer ataque hacia el territorio belga controlado por alemán, el problema es que los ataques en los bosques los franceses sufrieron grandes bajas, ante el aumento del avance alemán se necesitó cada vez más del apoyo británico para detener la ofensiva alemana, pero los ingleses también estaban sufriendo duras bajas en esta guerra, resultando así en la batalla de las fronteras.
Mucho del comercio empezó a ser controlado por los europeos de la guerra al incautar algunos barcos, la gran ventaja que tenía Gran Bretaña para hacer esto era obviamente su poderío naval, pero todo esto afectó la economía por lo que muchas importaciones y exportaciones empezaron a reducirse y una gran escasez de comida en Europa por lo que fue necesario el control de los alimentos y la incautación.
el avance alemán prosigue hacia Francia y había un gran temor por parte de los derrotados a ser mutilados o abandonados, Por otra parte en Rusia los alemanes seguían retrocediendo frente a Rusia, cosa que no ayuda mucho al agotamiento que estaban sufriendo los franceses e ingleses, por lo que cada vez era más posible la llegada de los alemanes hacia París, al menos en el frente oriental los rusos empezaban a tener mayores éxitos pero todo cambiaría con la llegada de nuevos generales alemanes hacia oriente, donde los alemanes cosecharon una gran victoria frente a los rusos que ya tenían una gran escasez de alimentos y municiones.
la guerra y Austria ahora sería contra Rusia, los primeros estaban esperando el apoyo de los alemanes, pero estaban más centrados en su frente con Franco, el lugar de enfrentamiento de estos dos países era muy lejano por lo que llegaba a los soldados muy agotados y con mucha sed, empiezan así los primeros avances rusos, pero al final serían los austriacos los que tendrían algunos éxitos.
Los aliados Por su parte perdían la esperanza de que Rusia pudiera ayudarles en el frente oriental solo que hay mucha gente empezó a huir De París y a empezar a construir fortificaciones para defender la ciudad, los alemanes no la tenían nada fácil ya que se estaban alejando cada vez más de sus líneas de suministros principales, se empezaron a usar aviones de reconocimiento, aunque el uso de estos primeros aviones fue algo muy débil.
Ante la debilidad alemana en los mares ante el poderío británico empezaron a usar minas para atacar a otras embarcaciones, por lo que los ingleses empezaron a llevar procesos de limpieza de minas, la gran innovación alemana fue el uso de submarinos para atacar embarcaciones, algo muy importante ya que no había contramedidas para atacar a estos submarinos.
Los austriacos tenían victorias contra los rusos al final fracasaría y serían derrotados, en otros territorios como en Sudáfrica se estaban llevando a cabo ataques contra las colonias alemanas, y las posesiones coloniales alemanas en el Pacífico empezaron a ser atacadas y con el deseo de ser anexados por Nueva Zelanda y Australia. Un actor importante en el inicio de la guerra fueron los japoneses los cuales tenían deseos de crear su propio imperio, aunque ello le causaba temor a los ingleses, los japoneses desde un principio estaban preparados para luchar contra Alemania y para ellos el escenario esta lucha fue muy importante, lo que llevó al ataque de la colonia alemana En China la cual lograron conquistar con el rápido aprendizaje japonés del nuevo tipo de guerra moderna.
Pese a que parecía un hecho la toma alemana de París al final los franceses y sus aliados lograron una gran victoria y empezaron a obtener más apoyo de las ciudades en el frente mientras que los austrohúngaros perdían ganancias territoriales frente a Rusia, el resultado de estas primeras semanas de guerra fue el tan aclamado milagro de la batalla de Marne, en el que los franceses lograron una gran victoria frente a Alemania.
En el epílogo se menciona que se usaba todavía la caballería puesto que se confiaba en a 1 en los equinos, pero con el tiempo la guerra empezó a ser más defensiva y a evitar enfrentamientos, puesto que la modernización de la guerra iba a tomar su tiempo. La nueva guerra se caracterizó por un alto nivel de mortandad y que los ejércitos, aunque numerosos, no contaban con la experiencia necesaria para los enfrentamientos.
October 10, 2025
I saw this at my library and I had decided to read this, mainly because I wanted to learn about World War I. This book has seemed just the thing. I have read quite a few books about World War II but nothing about World War I (the Great War).
But...
I very quickly realized there is a problem with this book...and it's one I hadn't expected either. The book starts out with the population of various countries all excited about the war. People are waving flags and stuff. This book very much focuses on the common person. None of it is from the viewpoint of leaders (world leaders, etc). And I am ok with that. There are countless personal accounts in here from those common people: soldiers in the field, civilians, etc. Just everyday people. It tells you what they thought. Some even were worried that the war would go by super fast. There was a rush to enlist. Others ran and hid. There are very many different viewpoints of different people. And it's views from around the whole world including places like Africa, India, South America...
So what is my problem with this book?? No where in here does the book actually stare what the war was about!! It doesn't say WHY there was a war!
And that is why I marked this as DNF at page 229. The book itself has 432 pages but if you exclude the Index and other stuff like that then it has 389 pages. I was reading the hard cover version from my library. So I was more than halfway through the book. But as I was reading this stuff in here I realized I had absolutely NO IDEA what these countries were fighting about!! Because the authors had left that part out!! How can you write a book about the war and leave that out?? You cannot presume that people know what the war was about. I chose to read this to find out WHY there has been the Great War, what had started it?? But that is not in here. Instead it's only pages and pages of bloody slaughter. But without understanding why they were fighting - and I am sure there was a great reason - the battles become somewhat meaningless. Because you can't understand it at all.
What were they fighting for?? Why isn't that included in here?? Who started it? Why??
The other reason I chose to not finish this is because the entries in here from the first person accounts was just too graphic... A soldier begging someone to cut his arm off because it was only attached by a thin bit of skin. It's just... Too much. It's too horrible. But people who want to GO to war should read this. Or people who want to START a war should read this. But it became too much for me. It was too graphic and I couldn't stand it.
But this book fails in a major way. You cannot understand the War if you don't know why it started or what they were fighting about. Reading about individual battles, destroying bridges and laying flat bellies behind bushes to be told to run forward at a certain time, the calvary losing all their horses, and what was that about cycle troops?? Yeah, another thing not explained at all!! The book mentioned these "cycle troops" but doesn't explain what that even is. Am.I supposed to presume that people were riding bicycles over bumpy fields?? That doesn't even make any sense. I am pretty sure they didn't have dirt bikes back then?? How would you even fight someone from a bicycle??? You hit a bump and go flying off the bike to land face first in the dirt?? And a bike versus calvary? Horse is going to win every time!
If you already know all the details about World War I and you have a very strong stomach this might be worth reading. But if you want to find out what this War was about you won't learn it here.
A big disappointment.
But...
I very quickly realized there is a problem with this book...and it's one I hadn't expected either. The book starts out with the population of various countries all excited about the war. People are waving flags and stuff. This book very much focuses on the common person. None of it is from the viewpoint of leaders (world leaders, etc). And I am ok with that. There are countless personal accounts in here from those common people: soldiers in the field, civilians, etc. Just everyday people. It tells you what they thought. Some even were worried that the war would go by super fast. There was a rush to enlist. Others ran and hid. There are very many different viewpoints of different people. And it's views from around the whole world including places like Africa, India, South America...
So what is my problem with this book?? No where in here does the book actually stare what the war was about!! It doesn't say WHY there was a war!
And that is why I marked this as DNF at page 229. The book itself has 432 pages but if you exclude the Index and other stuff like that then it has 389 pages. I was reading the hard cover version from my library. So I was more than halfway through the book. But as I was reading this stuff in here I realized I had absolutely NO IDEA what these countries were fighting about!! Because the authors had left that part out!! How can you write a book about the war and leave that out?? You cannot presume that people know what the war was about. I chose to read this to find out WHY there has been the Great War, what had started it?? But that is not in here. Instead it's only pages and pages of bloody slaughter. But without understanding why they were fighting - and I am sure there was a great reason - the battles become somewhat meaningless. Because you can't understand it at all.
What were they fighting for?? Why isn't that included in here?? Who started it? Why??
The other reason I chose to not finish this is because the entries in here from the first person accounts was just too graphic... A soldier begging someone to cut his arm off because it was only attached by a thin bit of skin. It's just... Too much. It's too horrible. But people who want to GO to war should read this. Or people who want to START a war should read this. But it became too much for me. It was too graphic and I couldn't stand it.
But this book fails in a major way. You cannot understand the War if you don't know why it started or what they were fighting about. Reading about individual battles, destroying bridges and laying flat bellies behind bushes to be told to run forward at a certain time, the calvary losing all their horses, and what was that about cycle troops?? Yeah, another thing not explained at all!! The book mentioned these "cycle troops" but doesn't explain what that even is. Am.I supposed to presume that people were riding bicycles over bumpy fields?? That doesn't even make any sense. I am pretty sure they didn't have dirt bikes back then?? How would you even fight someone from a bicycle??? You hit a bump and go flying off the bike to land face first in the dirt?? And a bike versus calvary? Horse is going to win every time!
If you already know all the details about World War I and you have a very strong stomach this might be worth reading. But if you want to find out what this War was about you won't learn it here.
A big disappointment.
September 8, 2025
I found this book very inconsistent. There were 2* chapters and 4* chapters. Overall I gave this book a 2-1/2, rounded to a 3. I did appreciate the numerous reflections of those involved in the battles. Anyone who thinks war is glorious should reflect on the remembrances of these veterans.
May 2, 2025
This book seamlessly combines contemporary first hand accounts with the historical context of the wider goings on. It gives a great understanding of the confusion, anguish, and bravery of when mankind first met industry in warfare.
It doesn't shy away from the atrocities committed, nor does it glorify the actions of one nation over the other, but simply gives all accounts in an clear and understandable medium.
It gives an excellent grounding to anyone's interest in the First World War. I personally have read various books on the subject, but this is the first one that has given an understanding of the scale of the war (not just the Western Front) and the people involved in a global sense.
Best of all, it does this without being page after page of blocks of text detailing regiment number, quantity of troop, and after action reports, but simply sets up the what and the where, and lets the contemporary account tell you the story. It truly shows the startings of a global war, and gives a great jumping off point for further reading on the subject.
It doesn't shy away from the atrocities committed, nor does it glorify the actions of one nation over the other, but simply gives all accounts in an clear and understandable medium.
It gives an excellent grounding to anyone's interest in the First World War. I personally have read various books on the subject, but this is the first one that has given an understanding of the scale of the war (not just the Western Front) and the people involved in a global sense.
Best of all, it does this without being page after page of blocks of text detailing regiment number, quantity of troop, and after action reports, but simply sets up the what and the where, and lets the contemporary account tell you the story. It truly shows the startings of a global war, and gives a great jumping off point for further reading on the subject.
November 12, 2025
Who is the audience of this book? Why was it written? This isn't necessarily the type of history book that needs a thesis, but it at least needs answers to those two questions, per major issues that pop up in the book, and none are forthcoming. First, the authors should have done a better job at the start at telling if their book was for WWI rookies, or intermediates, or deep WWI buffs.
I had originally considered a rating of 2.5 stars rounded down, to give a 2-star review separating me from Soy Boy the History Nerd's 3-star one, which, as is typical with him, doesn't spot actual historical errors in books that have them.
Errors? Two big ones, one of omission, the other of commission. That latter one, combined with other "framing" problems, would be more accurately labeled as "propaganda" or "flat lie." With that, and the question of an unidentified audience, such as springing "k.u.k." out of nowhere, gets this dreck 1.5 stars rounded down and a crushing review, one of the crushing type reviews that I LIKE writing.
Error of omission? On Belgium, they fail to note that “plucky little Belgium” (not their words, a WWI stereotype) had been getting money from Britain starting pre-1910 with the Campbell-Bannerman government to pay for rearming.
Error of commission? Claiming Germany did indeed invade the southern tip of the Netherlands, Limberg area. I’d NEVER heard this before AND authors cite no sources. Wikipedia, in its article on the Netherlands in WWI notes that the Belgian-Dutch border was highly demarcated, the Germans did not violate it, and that British-Belgian propaganda claimed otherwise.
I quote, because it deserves quoting to show that the authors' claim is "propaganda" or a "flat lie":
Coincidence? I doubt it. It comes off as wanting to promote propaganda, just as the original claims did 110 years ago. In other words? It’s a lie.
Worse? Churchill is a Fellow of Britain’s Royal Historical Society. That said, 6,500 members is a fairly broad net; that would be equivalent to nearly 40,000 in the US.
I could tell, by the amount of knowledge it assumes, such as not spelling out with KuK (or k.u.k. in their version) means for Austro-Hungarian forces, that this is for intermediates or above. I still think things like that should have been explained.
Related? One of the biggest failures of this book, other than the lie about Germany marching through the Netherlands is Churchill and Eberholst not explaining the post-1867, post-Ausgleich, governing structure of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, which lies behind that issue above. Worse yet is the use of terms like k.u.k., and only as abbreviations to make it worse yet, and without relating military organization to general governance, which they can't because they don't explain it.
Here's the military structure basics of the Dual Monarchy.
Also related to the above? This book won’t relate the imperial army to the Austrian Landwehr and the Hungarian Honved. (It’s not alone on that; even better books on the Eastern Front often don’t go beyond introductory explainers.)
This also relates to other in medias res issues. The authors talk about the Dual Monarchy’s troops being outgunned by Russia, and even a bit by Serbia. They never explain why.
Dropping people in the war "in medias res"? Especially if they are rookies, not good. The one two-star reviewer was confused. I don’t blame him.
Niggling issues? Who decided “Howitzer” should always be capitalized?
“Serjeant” was official British English, for the British Army, until 1953, but we're not in 1953, and besides, its usage isn't explained. File this with capitalizing "Howitzer" as a grating annoyance.
The “Miracle on the Marne”? The Germans might have had a slight edge in artillery, but Franco-British combined numbers of troops were a whole 50 percent more than German. And, the chapter on it illustrates how “wanting” this book is at times. No, Foch was not “destined” to become the final French C-in-C. And, I suspect the authors overrate him anyway.
Throwing the Ottomans under the bus, especially AFTER noting Churchill’s nationalization of two cruisers?
Good?
Various issues on neutrals. I did not know extent of Swedish neutrality being “German-benevolent” before.
That said, even parts that were better? They were spotty.
The Italians in US, Argentina, etc. or French since it was already in the war? More on each country's conscription laws would have been nice.
British dominions and the declaration of war? Contra the authors, they didn't have "a little" wiggle room. Before the 1931 Statute of Westminster, or at least the 1926 Imperial Conference that first broached the idea, they had NONE. The Commons in London, or rather, officially, King George V declared war for the entire empire in 1914, both the UK "metropolitan area," to riff on French political science, the dominions, and non-dominion possessions and colonies. (And the author has written a bio on George V to boot!)
The Australian and New Zealand assault on German wireless towers in the Pacific? That’s nice, but of very minor relevance to the war as a whole; that’s why most histories don’t talk about them.
War crimes? Beyond the Allies following the German lead on poison gases, the French first used tear gas and the British had war crimes against German sub crews. No, really. The authors will mention Russian war crimes to make it look like they’re not picking only on the Central Powers. I don’t buy it.
British war crimes against civilians of course include the use of food as a blockade weapon, forbidden under international law. (I've read the terms of the London naval conference on blockade by extension, and older international law on food as a blockade weapon, and written about this issue.) The authors do mention this once in passing, but only in passing, and it’s not clear if they’re talking about blockade by extension, food as blockade weapon or both.
War crimes, etc? When not outright bias, there seems to be an undercurrent of sneering anti-Germanness. (If the authors have anything on their Substacks, they're probably ardent believers in the German war guilt theory of what caused the war.)
As for newcomers to WWI history who might gush over all the diary citations? Any good war history, whether focused on military issues more or civilian, that’s from a period recent enough in history that had people writing diaries, cites them.
Finally, I found the self-blurbing on the inner front dust cover to be off-putting.
Stuff like:
“Viewed through specific prisms — the Eastern Front and the more popular Western Front — we lose half the story.
“Ring of Fire kicks down these barriers. …. Using an enormous quantity of accounts largely untouched by previous histories, it tells the story of 1914 with verve, empathy and an eye on presenting a truly comprehensive and inclusive popular history of the war.”
Bullshit, starting with the “in medias res” angle not including Sarajevo itself and the July Crisis.
Also, I smell an assumption at work by claiming the Western Front is more popular. If you’re British, French, or American history buffs, sure. German? Perhaps. Polish, Serbian, Austrian, Russian, etc., probably not.
(The "hypocrisy and petards" shelf is over the British Imperial constitutional issues vis-a-vis the Dominions and me knowing that better than Churchill. Note to Eberholst: Find a better travel partner next time.)
And reviewed, crushingly, to fall on Veterans Day aka Armistice Day. (The non-"destined" Foch was responsible for more than 11,000 casualties by delaying the actual armistice cease fire to that 11th hour and 11th minute.)
I had originally considered a rating of 2.5 stars rounded down, to give a 2-star review separating me from Soy Boy the History Nerd's 3-star one, which, as is typical with him, doesn't spot actual historical errors in books that have them.
Errors? Two big ones, one of omission, the other of commission. That latter one, combined with other "framing" problems, would be more accurately labeled as "propaganda" or "flat lie." With that, and the question of an unidentified audience, such as springing "k.u.k." out of nowhere, gets this dreck 1.5 stars rounded down and a crushing review, one of the crushing type reviews that I LIKE writing.
Error of omission? On Belgium, they fail to note that “plucky little Belgium” (not their words, a WWI stereotype) had been getting money from Britain starting pre-1910 with the Campbell-Bannerman government to pay for rearming.
Error of commission? Claiming Germany did indeed invade the southern tip of the Netherlands, Limberg area. I’d NEVER heard this before AND authors cite no sources. Wikipedia, in its article on the Netherlands in WWI notes that the Belgian-Dutch border was highly demarcated, the Germans did not violate it, and that British-Belgian propaganda claimed otherwise.
I quote, because it deserves quoting to show that the authors' claim is "propaganda" or a "flat lie":
At the beginning of the war, the German Army marched near the Dutch–Belgian border in the province of Limburg. For a stretch of 500 metres (550 yd) between border markers 42 and 43, the road was half Belgian and half Dutch territory. Dutch border guards made clear which part of the road was Dutch territory, and as a consequence, the German Army avoided it on its westward march. However, the Dutch were falsely accused by Belgian and French newspapers at the time of supporting the German invasion of Belgium.
Both Allied and German military aircraft violated Dutch airspace. On several occasions, Allied and German pilots mistakenly dropped bombs on Dutch towns. The deadliest incident occurred on 30 April 1917, when a Royal Naval Air Service pilot mistakenly dropped eight bombs on the town of Zierikzee, damaged several houses and killed a family of three. After initially denying the incident, the British government apologized and agreed to compensate the Dutch for damage and loss of life.
Coincidence? I doubt it. It comes off as wanting to promote propaganda, just as the original claims did 110 years ago. In other words? It’s a lie.
Worse? Churchill is a Fellow of Britain’s Royal Historical Society. That said, 6,500 members is a fairly broad net; that would be equivalent to nearly 40,000 in the US.
I could tell, by the amount of knowledge it assumes, such as not spelling out with KuK (or k.u.k. in their version) means for Austro-Hungarian forces, that this is for intermediates or above. I still think things like that should have been explained.
Related? One of the biggest failures of this book, other than the lie about Germany marching through the Netherlands is Churchill and Eberholst not explaining the post-1867, post-Ausgleich, governing structure of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, which lies behind that issue above. Worse yet is the use of terms like k.u.k., and only as abbreviations to make it worse yet, and without relating military organization to general governance, which they can't because they don't explain it.
Here's the military structure basics of the Dual Monarchy.
Also related to the above? This book won’t relate the imperial army to the Austrian Landwehr and the Hungarian Honved. (It’s not alone on that; even better books on the Eastern Front often don’t go beyond introductory explainers.)
This also relates to other in medias res issues. The authors talk about the Dual Monarchy’s troops being outgunned by Russia, and even a bit by Serbia. They never explain why.
Dropping people in the war "in medias res"? Especially if they are rookies, not good. The one two-star reviewer was confused. I don’t blame him.
Niggling issues? Who decided “Howitzer” should always be capitalized?
“Serjeant” was official British English, for the British Army, until 1953, but we're not in 1953, and besides, its usage isn't explained. File this with capitalizing "Howitzer" as a grating annoyance.
The “Miracle on the Marne”? The Germans might have had a slight edge in artillery, but Franco-British combined numbers of troops were a whole 50 percent more than German. And, the chapter on it illustrates how “wanting” this book is at times. No, Foch was not “destined” to become the final French C-in-C. And, I suspect the authors overrate him anyway.
Throwing the Ottomans under the bus, especially AFTER noting Churchill’s nationalization of two cruisers?
Good?
Various issues on neutrals. I did not know extent of Swedish neutrality being “German-benevolent” before.
That said, even parts that were better? They were spotty.
The Italians in US, Argentina, etc. or French since it was already in the war? More on each country's conscription laws would have been nice.
British dominions and the declaration of war? Contra the authors, they didn't have "a little" wiggle room. Before the 1931 Statute of Westminster, or at least the 1926 Imperial Conference that first broached the idea, they had NONE. The Commons in London, or rather, officially, King George V declared war for the entire empire in 1914, both the UK "metropolitan area," to riff on French political science, the dominions, and non-dominion possessions and colonies. (And the author has written a bio on George V to boot!)
The Australian and New Zealand assault on German wireless towers in the Pacific? That’s nice, but of very minor relevance to the war as a whole; that’s why most histories don’t talk about them.
War crimes? Beyond the Allies following the German lead on poison gases, the French first used tear gas and the British had war crimes against German sub crews. No, really. The authors will mention Russian war crimes to make it look like they’re not picking only on the Central Powers. I don’t buy it.
British war crimes against civilians of course include the use of food as a blockade weapon, forbidden under international law. (I've read the terms of the London naval conference on blockade by extension, and older international law on food as a blockade weapon, and written about this issue.) The authors do mention this once in passing, but only in passing, and it’s not clear if they’re talking about blockade by extension, food as blockade weapon or both.
War crimes, etc? When not outright bias, there seems to be an undercurrent of sneering anti-Germanness. (If the authors have anything on their Substacks, they're probably ardent believers in the German war guilt theory of what caused the war.)
As for newcomers to WWI history who might gush over all the diary citations? Any good war history, whether focused on military issues more or civilian, that’s from a period recent enough in history that had people writing diaries, cites them.
Finally, I found the self-blurbing on the inner front dust cover to be off-putting.
Stuff like:
“Viewed through specific prisms — the Eastern Front and the more popular Western Front — we lose half the story.
“Ring of Fire kicks down these barriers. …. Using an enormous quantity of accounts largely untouched by previous histories, it tells the story of 1914 with verve, empathy and an eye on presenting a truly comprehensive and inclusive popular history of the war.”
Bullshit, starting with the “in medias res” angle not including Sarajevo itself and the July Crisis.
Also, I smell an assumption at work by claiming the Western Front is more popular. If you’re British, French, or American history buffs, sure. German? Perhaps. Polish, Serbian, Austrian, Russian, etc., probably not.
(The "hypocrisy and petards" shelf is over the British Imperial constitutional issues vis-a-vis the Dominions and me knowing that better than Churchill. Note to Eberholst: Find a better travel partner next time.)
And reviewed, crushingly, to fall on Veterans Day aka Armistice Day. (The non-"destined" Foch was responsible for more than 11,000 casualties by delaying the actual armistice cease fire to that 11th hour and 11th minute.)
October 26, 2025
This book breaks free of the Western Front (with a bit of Gallipoli!) to expose how the 'Great War' was a truly worldwide conflict from the very start. There's no slow burn articulated here, no gradual drawing in of other countries as a war between the Western powers escalated beyond familiar borders. Rather, the authors land the point that from the 'get go' war raged overtly (or more subtly) across every continent. The scope is very ambitious, setting the British and Commonwealth contribution in a holistic context and amplifying awareness of the huge battles being fought in the East and the jockeying for geo-political advantage by less invested countries.
The coverage is appropriate, and there is a good blend of context and information about specific theatres of operation. The text is littered with verbatim quotes from combatants. On the latter point, the means by which war is conducted and the ground over which battles are fought might vary, but the horrors and depravations experienced by those doing the fighting has a commonality. This theme provides a narrative thread through chapters which are effectively 'stand-alone'.
All in all, I found the book an easy read, and it did serve to remind me that the First World War was a truly worldwide conflict from the time that the first shots were fired. The conclusion that by the end of 1914 strategies and plans were in disarray and that the number of deaths was almost beyond human comprehension does beg the question of 'what now?'. As the authors say 'The war that everyone had planned had already drawn to a close. What lay ahead now, and how to extricate themselves from it, not a soul knew'.
The coverage is appropriate, and there is a good blend of context and information about specific theatres of operation. The text is littered with verbatim quotes from combatants. On the latter point, the means by which war is conducted and the ground over which battles are fought might vary, but the horrors and depravations experienced by those doing the fighting has a commonality. This theme provides a narrative thread through chapters which are effectively 'stand-alone'.
All in all, I found the book an easy read, and it did serve to remind me that the First World War was a truly worldwide conflict from the time that the first shots were fired. The conclusion that by the end of 1914 strategies and plans were in disarray and that the number of deaths was almost beyond human comprehension does beg the question of 'what now?'. As the authors say 'The war that everyone had planned had already drawn to a close. What lay ahead now, and how to extricate themselves from it, not a soul knew'.
November 27, 2025
Most Americans don't know the Great War was fought by Africans and in west, north, east and south Africa, fought by Indians and in India, fought by Turks and Arabs and in lands they now inhabit, fought by Japanese and Chinese and in China. This book covers it all, for a single year. And it covers it using contemporary sources. Among the marvels for me: Atlanta used as a staging area for deporting German nationals, Jews who supported Germany (against Russia), one of the first soldier-poets of the war being an Algerian from Oran, using taxis to transport troops in France and banning headline-shouters in Paris. It was a time when submarines had early torpedoes, but ships had no depth charges. War strategy had not really kept up with the fast-moving technology of weaponry - French soldiers still wore red trousers, officers wore feathers that identified them easily to snipers. Villages could be entirely obliterated, entire populations could be moved. The tales are gripping with soldiers escaping by plunging into a lake or a fast moving river, being shot in the stomach, being unable to stay dry, carrying wounded without the protection of a red cross armband, the sorrow of the siege of Tsingtao (Qingdao). In this early year, there was the absurdity of the color bar as colonials were drafted or volunteered (only Britain had colonies with whites who could be allowed to fight in Europe). Good photos, maddening footnote arrangement, closes with a chilling, fascinating epilogue; the narrative ends in September 1914.
Want to read
August 16, 2025WSJ review: https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/book...
(Paywalled. As always, I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers)
Excerpt:
"A young man watches a fellow soldier beat a dog with the butt of a rifle and another soldier shoot the dog’s owner—a pregnant woman—in cold blood, and simply calls the scene “war in all its horror.” Another sets fire to a stranger’s home in a town far from his own and admits “the desire to destroy took over,” adding, “if war is like this, then it’s very ugly.” A third writes with equal detachment of the killings he has taken part in as “living in a perpetual nightmare.” ...
We hear the terrorized voices of the civilians and candid admissions of the soldiers who killed and pillaged, most after being fed dehumanizing propaganda about “the enemy.” The authors don’t expand to editorialize. They let the horror of war carry its own weight. ...
The authors find no belligerents with clean hands, and they turn the tragedy of world war into its own indictment of the global grip of empires."
(Paywalled. As always, I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers)
Excerpt:
"A young man watches a fellow soldier beat a dog with the butt of a rifle and another soldier shoot the dog’s owner—a pregnant woman—in cold blood, and simply calls the scene “war in all its horror.” Another sets fire to a stranger’s home in a town far from his own and admits “the desire to destroy took over,” adding, “if war is like this, then it’s very ugly.” A third writes with equal detachment of the killings he has taken part in as “living in a perpetual nightmare.” ...
We hear the terrorized voices of the civilians and candid admissions of the soldiers who killed and pillaged, most after being fed dehumanizing propaganda about “the enemy.” The authors don’t expand to editorialize. They let the horror of war carry its own weight. ...
The authors find no belligerents with clean hands, and they turn the tragedy of world war into its own indictment of the global grip of empires."
July 13, 2025
The eyes of a whole world at war
—
In this fresh take on military history, the authors open the narrative beyond the battlefields to look at how the opening months of the war also affected a wide range of people around the world. From civilians to manufacturers, children and families, even countries that were not allied to either side of the war: the authors show why this was a world war and not just a European one. In taking a global approach, the book gives us details from one or two perspectives and the context at the time, but loses the flow of story as the perspective shifts to look at the next individual, the next place and time. By the end, we are given a brilliant reconstruction of the world as it was, when nations and peoples were forced to show their allegiances; and the immediate consequences at every level and in every place were only the precursors to what the First World War would leave behind.
—
In this fresh take on military history, the authors open the narrative beyond the battlefields to look at how the opening months of the war also affected a wide range of people around the world. From civilians to manufacturers, children and families, even countries that were not allied to either side of the war: the authors show why this was a world war and not just a European one. In taking a global approach, the book gives us details from one or two perspectives and the context at the time, but loses the flow of story as the perspective shifts to look at the next individual, the next place and time. By the end, we are given a brilliant reconstruction of the world as it was, when nations and peoples were forced to show their allegiances; and the immediate consequences at every level and in every place were only the precursors to what the First World War would leave behind.
November 15, 2025
A solid read that adds to the literature about World War I, particularly the first few months of the war. What makes this one different is that it doesn’t seek to just reexamine the well-trodden path of the start of the war and the first few months of engagements in Europe. Instead of emulating The Guns of August, this one looks to offer a wider swath of international perspectives about the start of the war, from more personalized experiences in Europe that counter some of the accepted narratives about the start of the war, to personal insights into the engagement from a truly international perspective. Sure, you can’t help but review the conflict from the Schlieffen Plan to the Miracle on the Marne, the Russian disaster at Tannenburg, etc, but this one offers some interesting amplification. I would not start with this work as the introduction to WWI, as you will need some insight into the basics of 1914 before you can really appreciate this book. Still, worth the library read.
December 15, 2025
Three and half rounded up to four. There were some things this book did very well, such as its excellent coverage of the outbreak of the War in Africa, but overall, I felt the book bounced around too much at the tactical level without fully clarifying what was going on in the strategic level which meant you'd have to already know a good deal about the First World War to make sense of it. Unfortunately, I think if you already know a good deal about the First World War, you probably already know a lot of what's in here.
Overall, though, I'm glad I read it, even if I was familiar with most of it and I'm not quite sure which book the audience was trying to serve.
(Also, I was surprised, given the scope of the book focused on the outbreak of the War not to see any citations or references to the excellent The Guns of August which is an attempt to do a lot of what this book does!)
Overall, though, I'm glad I read it, even if I was familiar with most of it and I'm not quite sure which book the audience was trying to serve.
(Also, I was surprised, given the scope of the book focused on the outbreak of the War not to see any citations or references to the excellent The Guns of August which is an attempt to do a lot of what this book does!)
September 26, 2025
I have always been interested in WWI which was avoidable I think and was a devastating event for Westernd Europe. This book details the devastating and world wide impact in Africa, China, Japan, Australia, India. The horrendous casualties on the Western Front are mind boggling, 350,000 French killed from August to the end of 2014. What a tragedy. This book is a must read for those with an interest in WWI . Also for historian with and interest in failed decision making and the consequences of flawed decision making by those in government positions.
August 10, 2025
I appreciate the author’s approach to describing the early part of World War I because it has confirmed for me that I don’t like military history. This is page after page of battles and the reactions of those involved directly (soldiers and leaders), civilians, and people observing from more afar.
The why of the war seemed completely irrelevant for the vast majority of the book.
The why of the war seemed completely irrelevant for the vast majority of the book.
July 12, 2025
Churchill and Eberholst have achieved that very rare thing, a genuinely fresh take on the First World War. This book is packed with voices and experiences never before heard, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
August 25, 2025
Very comprehensive overview of the first two months WW1 from the perspective of the soldiers participating. Most interesting aspect compared to similar books is the coverage given to events in Africa and the Far East. Definitely worth a read if you have more than a passing a interest in WW1.
October 3, 2025
4.5*. Impressively researched and relatable history of the first 6 weeks of WWI. I found myself completely unfamiliar with any of the fighting history of the Serbs, Hungarians and African conscripts of Imperial nations.
December 3, 2025
Well-written but doesn’t add a whole lot new to the canon of 1914 histories. The chapters about the colonial periphery were novel and interesting, but the European stuff gets bogged down in dull military details and largely retreads other, more interesting works.
December 25, 2025
At first I was really enjoying the details about people on the home fronts and in lesser studied theaters of the war like Africa, but then I got totally bogged down in all the information about the various battles. Very thorough, but to me, also very dry.
September 3, 2025
Excellent history of the war’s beginning, with innumerable entries from eyewitness accounts. I was left wanting more. I hope the authors follow this up with additional volumes.
Read
September 10, 2025An eye opening account of 1914 that moves beyond the trenches to reveal the overlooked global dimensions of World War I. Richly researched and powerfully told.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews