What do you think?
Rate this book
A Higher Form of Killing: Six Weeks in World War I That Forever Changed the Nature of Warfare
Between April 22 and May 30, 1915, Western civilization was shocked. World War I was already appalling in its brutality, but it had until then been fought on the battlefield and by rules long agreed by convention. Suddenly those rules were abandoned when Germany forever altered the way war would be fought. On April 22, at Ypres, German canisters spewed poison gas at French and Canadian soldiers in their trenches; on May 7, the German submarine, U-20, without warning, torpedoed the passenger liner Lusitania , killing 1,198 civilians; and on May 31, a German zeppelin began the first aerial bombardment of London and its inhabitants. Each of these actions violated rules of war carefully agreed to at the Hague Conventions of 1898 and 1907 and were deliberately breached by Germany in an attempt to spread terror and force the Allies to surrender. While that failed, the psychological damage caused by these attacks far outweighed the casualties. The era of weapons of mass destruction had dawned.
While each of these momentous events has been chronicled in histories of the war, celebrated historian Diana Preston links them for the first time, revealing the dramatic stories and the personalities behind them through the eyes of those who were there--whether making the decisions to use the weapons or experiencing their horrifying effect in the trenches, on board the Lusitania or on the streets of London. Placing the attacks in the context of the centuries-old debate over what constitutes "just war," Preston shows how, in their aftermath, the other combatants felt the necessity to develop extreme weapons of their own. In our current time of terror, when weapons of mass destruction are once again implemented and threatened and wartime atrocities abound in a very different kind of conflict, the vivid story of their birth is of great relevance.
While each of these momentous events has been chronicled in histories of the war, celebrated historian Diana Preston links them for the first time, revealing the dramatic stories and the personalities behind them through the eyes of those who were there--whether making the decisions to use the weapons or experiencing their horrifying effect in the trenches, on board the Lusitania or on the streets of London. Placing the attacks in the context of the centuries-old debate over what constitutes "just war," Preston shows how, in their aftermath, the other combatants felt the necessity to develop extreme weapons of their own. In our current time of terror, when weapons of mass destruction are once again implemented and threatened and wartime atrocities abound in a very different kind of conflict, the vivid story of their birth is of great relevance.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published February 24, 2015
20 people are currently reading
886 people want to read
About the author
Diana Preston
42 books116 followersBorn and raised in London, Diana Preston studied Modern History at Oxford University, where she first became involved in journalism. After earning her degree, she became a freelance writer of feature and travel articles for national UK newspapers and magazines and has subsequently reviewed books for a number of publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times. She has also been a broadcaster for the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and has been featured in various television documentaries.
Eight years ago, her decision to write "popular" history led her to The Road to Culloden Moor: Bonnie Prince Charlie and the '45 Rebellion (Constable UK, 1995). It was followed by A First Rate Tragedy: Robert Falcon Scott and the Race to the South Pole (Houghton Mifflin, 1998), The Boxer Rebellion (Walker & Company, 2000), Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy (Walker & Company, 2002) and now, Before The Fallout: From Marie Curie to Hiroshima.
In choosing her topics, Preston looks for stories and events which are both compelling in their own right and also help readers gain a wider understanding of the past. She is fascinated by the human experience-what motivates people to think and act as they do‹and the individual stories that comprise the larger historical picture. Preston spent over two years researching Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy. She did a remarkable amount of original research for the book, and is the first author to make full use of the German archives and newly discovered papers that illuminate both the human tragedy and subsequent plots to cover up what really happened. Preston traveled to all the key locations of the tragedy, experiencing firsthand how cold the water off the Irish coast near Cobh would have been in early May when the Lusitania sank, and how eerie it was to stand inside what remains of the U-20 (now at the Strandingsmuseum in West Jutland, Denmark) where the U-boat captain watched the Lusitania through his periscope and gave the order to fire. Of the many artifacts she reviewed, it was her extensive reading of the diaries and memoirs of survivors that had the biggest impact on her. The experience of looking at photographs and touching the scraps of clothing of both survivors and those who died when the Lusitania sank provided her with chilling pictures: The heartbreaking image of a young girl whose sister's hand slipped away from her was one that kept Preston up at night.
When not writing, Preston is an avid traveler with her husband, Michael. Together, they have sojourned throughout India, Asia, Africa, and Antarctica, and have climbed Mount Kinabalu in Borneo, Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, and Mount Roraima in Venezuela. Their adventures have also included gorilla-tracking in Zaire and camping their way across the Namibian desert.
Diana and Michael Preston live in London, England.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
February 7, 2021
“Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings responsible to one another, and to God.”
- Francis Lieber, author of General Order No. 100, known as the Lieber Code, dictating the conduct of Union Soldiers in the American Civil War (1863)
“Parents searched frantically for their children, peering into baby carriages, some empty, others not, that were rolling wildly around. Major Pearl could only find one of his four children. Unknown to him, nursemaid Alice Lines, who had been below when the torpedo hit [the Lusitania], had managed to get the two Pearl children in her care – baby Audrey, whom she had tied in a shawl around her neck, and five-year-old Stuart – out on deck. Some mothers tried to give their children to strangers in the hopes they could save them. Florence Padley was on deck when ‘one lady asked me to take her baby in arms…I told her I did not have a lifejacket, she could look after it better…’ Nora Bretherton, a baby in her arms, pleaded with a man to go to her cabin and fetch her little boy but he ignored her. Managing to reach her son herself, she struggled out on deck with him, appalled that ‘not one of them who rushed by offered to help me…It was every man for himself…’”
- Diana Preston, A Higher Form of Killing
Diana Preston’s A Higher Form of Killing covers six eventful weeks of World War I, between April 22 and May 31, 1915. First, the Germans unleashed chlorine gas against French and Canadian soldiers in their trenches at Ypres, adding a new layer of horror to the horrendous slaughter of the Western Front. Just over a fortnight later, the German submarine U-20 drove a torpedo into the side of the unarmed steamship Lusitania, killing 1,198 passengers and crew. Finally, at the end of May, the Germans began nighttime zeppelin raids on London, ushering in an age of indiscriminate terror bombings against civilian population centers.
Despite this book’s subtitle, these six weeks did not really change the nature of warfare. As Preston herself notes in the first chapter, humans had long dabbled at the edges of acceptable practices in warfare. From the times of antiquity, towns were razed, women and children were taken as slaves, and crude forms of biological and chemical warfare were attempted. There is even a chapter in the Book of Deuteronomy that attempts to codify some “laws” of armed conflict.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, there were several attempts to create a system of international rules to outlaw various weapons and ensure humane treatment of prisoners and noncombatants. Some of these conventions resulted in basic agreements, especially regarding POWs. But in the main, these codes were doomed to fail, because all the major powers were wary of weakening themselves by foreclosing military options. Thus, when the Germans (and no, the Germans don’t come out looking very good here) tripled down on mass destruction, it should not have been a tremendous surprise. To the contrary, it seems more like the inevitable intersection of war and technology. That is, the only thing that seems to have held back the human race's willingness to engage in wholesale annihilation was the proper tools in which to bring about death on an industrial scale.
To her credit, Preston does not really push the notion that the thirty-nine days between the gas at Ypres and the zeppelins over London forever altered the ways wars were fought. She also does not spend a great deal of time trying to link these disparate events in any but a chronological fashion. Gas did not lead inevitably to the Lusitania, thereby causing the zeppelin raids. Rather, their timing was coincidental.
Instead, what Preston does – and does well – is give us three detailed and well-written vignettes of three momentous events of the First World War (making this an instance where the sum of the parts is probably greater than the whole).
The first ninety-three pages are devoted mostly to setting the context. Preston covers the efforts of peace advocates (the founding of the Red Cross, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention) alongside the progress of military technology (the submarine, the torpedo, the airship, and Fritz Haber’s work on poison gas). After that, she takes each event in turn, devoting multiple chapters to the gassing at Ypres, the sinking of the Lusitania, and the air raids over England.
In my opinion, the sections covering the Lusitania are the strongest. Preston is an expert on the sinking, having published Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy back in 2002. (At the time, she went so far as to commission an expert to look into the infamous secondary explosion that helped destroy the ship in less than twenty minutes). It has been awhile since I read Preston’s Lusitania book, so I can’t really tell how much her presentation has changed. Regardless, her handling of the material is extremely strong.
The loss of the Lusitania, unlike the sinking of her spiritual cousin, the Titanic, was a murderously brief affair. When the torpedo struck, it almost immediately knocked out steering and electricity. Instead of stopping, the Lusitania kept plunging ahead, while simultaneously taking on a severe list that swung the starboard lifeboats away from the deck, while putting the portside boats almost flush to the hull. The Titanic took two hours and forty minutes to disappear, in what amounted to an Edwardian passion play. The Lusitania was gone in eighteen minutes. In writing about the sinking of the ferry Estonia, William Langewiesche noted how a “pitiless clock was running,” as social organization “crumpled apart.” “Love,” he wrote, “only slowed people down.” And I thought about that as Preston narrates the confused, panicked attempts to escape a moving, listing, rapidly sinking vessel. There was no “Birkenhead Drill,” no women and children first. Several witnesses saw millionaire Alfred Vanderbilt handing out lifejackets, but despite such efforts, ninety-four out of one-hundred-and-twenty-four children died. Even a century later, it is hard to read the notices that were placed around Queenstown (now Cobh) as families looked for kids who had disappeared:
Having read several books on the Lusitania, I have realized that I have to work hard to keep my imagination in check. Once I start thinking about a small child on the decks of the stricken liner, with the ship plunging forward, heeling over, and sinking, all at once, it becomes hard to un-think it.
Part of the problem with having the Lusitania in the center of the book is that the emotional pitch is extremely high, making it hard to continue to the next subject. There is, admittedly, a bit of a lull after the sinking is over. However, Preston does a commendable job with the bombing of London. The fear and revulsion felt by the people on the ground, getting randomly bombed by some lumbering blimp, will not come as a surprise. Preston, though, also evokes the unique dangers faced by the crews of these airships:
A Higher Form of Killing concludes with a chapter providing an overview of the use of poison gas, torpedoes, and aerial bombing following World War I. In a relatively short book (two-hundred-and-eighty-seven pages of text, if you include the appendix), this is necessarily brief. Preston’s conclusion is that international law and public opinion is all well and good, but that humanity will always be faced with the belief that the best way to shorten a war is to make it too awful to bear for the other side. This despite the fact that humanity has shown the ability to bear quite a lot.
Major General Berthold von Deimling was the officer tasked with superintending the release of gas at Ypres. He later claimed to be shocked by the order, though he carried it out without hesitation. “War is self-defense and knows no law,” he wrote. “That will always be so as long as war exists.”
And that’s the truth of it, really. As long as we accept war, then we should also accept that its path of destruction will be wide, its fury unbridled. War is cruelty, William Sherman said. You cannot refine it. The only way to wage war with humanity is not to wage war at all. Unfortunately, that is the view that is commonly held by the wild-eyed dreamers who don’t have any power; meanwhile, the realists and the pragmatists making the decisions are busy conjuring up the weapons of the future, which will undoubtedly be designed to kill in a socially-condoned manner.
- Francis Lieber, author of General Order No. 100, known as the Lieber Code, dictating the conduct of Union Soldiers in the American Civil War (1863)
“Parents searched frantically for their children, peering into baby carriages, some empty, others not, that were rolling wildly around. Major Pearl could only find one of his four children. Unknown to him, nursemaid Alice Lines, who had been below when the torpedo hit [the Lusitania], had managed to get the two Pearl children in her care – baby Audrey, whom she had tied in a shawl around her neck, and five-year-old Stuart – out on deck. Some mothers tried to give their children to strangers in the hopes they could save them. Florence Padley was on deck when ‘one lady asked me to take her baby in arms…I told her I did not have a lifejacket, she could look after it better…’ Nora Bretherton, a baby in her arms, pleaded with a man to go to her cabin and fetch her little boy but he ignored her. Managing to reach her son herself, she struggled out on deck with him, appalled that ‘not one of them who rushed by offered to help me…It was every man for himself…’”
- Diana Preston, A Higher Form of Killing
Diana Preston’s A Higher Form of Killing covers six eventful weeks of World War I, between April 22 and May 31, 1915. First, the Germans unleashed chlorine gas against French and Canadian soldiers in their trenches at Ypres, adding a new layer of horror to the horrendous slaughter of the Western Front. Just over a fortnight later, the German submarine U-20 drove a torpedo into the side of the unarmed steamship Lusitania, killing 1,198 passengers and crew. Finally, at the end of May, the Germans began nighttime zeppelin raids on London, ushering in an age of indiscriminate terror bombings against civilian population centers.
Despite this book’s subtitle, these six weeks did not really change the nature of warfare. As Preston herself notes in the first chapter, humans had long dabbled at the edges of acceptable practices in warfare. From the times of antiquity, towns were razed, women and children were taken as slaves, and crude forms of biological and chemical warfare were attempted. There is even a chapter in the Book of Deuteronomy that attempts to codify some “laws” of armed conflict.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, there were several attempts to create a system of international rules to outlaw various weapons and ensure humane treatment of prisoners and noncombatants. Some of these conventions resulted in basic agreements, especially regarding POWs. But in the main, these codes were doomed to fail, because all the major powers were wary of weakening themselves by foreclosing military options. Thus, when the Germans (and no, the Germans don’t come out looking very good here) tripled down on mass destruction, it should not have been a tremendous surprise. To the contrary, it seems more like the inevitable intersection of war and technology. That is, the only thing that seems to have held back the human race's willingness to engage in wholesale annihilation was the proper tools in which to bring about death on an industrial scale.
To her credit, Preston does not really push the notion that the thirty-nine days between the gas at Ypres and the zeppelins over London forever altered the ways wars were fought. She also does not spend a great deal of time trying to link these disparate events in any but a chronological fashion. Gas did not lead inevitably to the Lusitania, thereby causing the zeppelin raids. Rather, their timing was coincidental.
Instead, what Preston does – and does well – is give us three detailed and well-written vignettes of three momentous events of the First World War (making this an instance where the sum of the parts is probably greater than the whole).
The first ninety-three pages are devoted mostly to setting the context. Preston covers the efforts of peace advocates (the founding of the Red Cross, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention) alongside the progress of military technology (the submarine, the torpedo, the airship, and Fritz Haber’s work on poison gas). After that, she takes each event in turn, devoting multiple chapters to the gassing at Ypres, the sinking of the Lusitania, and the air raids over England.
In my opinion, the sections covering the Lusitania are the strongest. Preston is an expert on the sinking, having published Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy back in 2002. (At the time, she went so far as to commission an expert to look into the infamous secondary explosion that helped destroy the ship in less than twenty minutes). It has been awhile since I read Preston’s Lusitania book, so I can’t really tell how much her presentation has changed. Regardless, her handling of the material is extremely strong.
The loss of the Lusitania, unlike the sinking of her spiritual cousin, the Titanic, was a murderously brief affair. When the torpedo struck, it almost immediately knocked out steering and electricity. Instead of stopping, the Lusitania kept plunging ahead, while simultaneously taking on a severe list that swung the starboard lifeboats away from the deck, while putting the portside boats almost flush to the hull. The Titanic took two hours and forty minutes to disappear, in what amounted to an Edwardian passion play. The Lusitania was gone in eighteen minutes. In writing about the sinking of the ferry Estonia, William Langewiesche noted how a “pitiless clock was running,” as social organization “crumpled apart.” “Love,” he wrote, “only slowed people down.” And I thought about that as Preston narrates the confused, panicked attempts to escape a moving, listing, rapidly sinking vessel. There was no “Birkenhead Drill,” no women and children first. Several witnesses saw millionaire Alfred Vanderbilt handing out lifejackets, but despite such efforts, ninety-four out of one-hundred-and-twenty-four children died. Even a century later, it is hard to read the notices that were placed around Queenstown (now Cobh) as families looked for kids who had disappeared:
Missing a baby girl, fifteen months old. Very fair curly hair and rosy complexion. In white woolen jersey and white woolen leggings. Tries to walk and talk…
Having read several books on the Lusitania, I have realized that I have to work hard to keep my imagination in check. Once I start thinking about a small child on the decks of the stricken liner, with the ship plunging forward, heeling over, and sinking, all at once, it becomes hard to un-think it.
Part of the problem with having the Lusitania in the center of the book is that the emotional pitch is extremely high, making it hard to continue to the next subject. There is, admittedly, a bit of a lull after the sinking is over. However, Preston does a commendable job with the bombing of London. The fear and revulsion felt by the people on the ground, getting randomly bombed by some lumbering blimp, will not come as a surprise. Preston, though, also evokes the unique dangers faced by the crews of these airships:
Like submariners, [Hauptmann Erich] Linnarz and his men had to cope with a cramped and isolated environment. Along the length of the airship’s triangular keel – ran a narrow…catwalk connecting the various sections of the airship. From it ladders descended into the open air to the gondolas suspended beneath the keel. Climbing these ladders at altitude occasionally brought on vertigo, causing men to black out and tumble thousands of feet to their deaths…
A Higher Form of Killing concludes with a chapter providing an overview of the use of poison gas, torpedoes, and aerial bombing following World War I. In a relatively short book (two-hundred-and-eighty-seven pages of text, if you include the appendix), this is necessarily brief. Preston’s conclusion is that international law and public opinion is all well and good, but that humanity will always be faced with the belief that the best way to shorten a war is to make it too awful to bear for the other side. This despite the fact that humanity has shown the ability to bear quite a lot.
Major General Berthold von Deimling was the officer tasked with superintending the release of gas at Ypres. He later claimed to be shocked by the order, though he carried it out without hesitation. “War is self-defense and knows no law,” he wrote. “That will always be so as long as war exists.”
And that’s the truth of it, really. As long as we accept war, then we should also accept that its path of destruction will be wide, its fury unbridled. War is cruelty, William Sherman said. You cannot refine it. The only way to wage war with humanity is not to wage war at all. Unfortunately, that is the view that is commonly held by the wild-eyed dreamers who don’t have any power; meanwhile, the realists and the pragmatists making the decisions are busy conjuring up the weapons of the future, which will undoubtedly be designed to kill in a socially-condoned manner.
June 10, 2019
This book deeply moved me and raised questions as to what is allowable in war and what is not.....it was a conundrum raised by the Geneva Convention and that body put forth certain rules which were bound to be ignored......and they were. "War" and "rules" are an oxymoron.
This book spotlights three events that happened within a six weeks time period of WWI (April 16 to May 30, 1915).....events, as the sub-title says "that forever changed the nature of warfare". They are as follows:
*The first use of poisonous gas on a large scale. French and Canadians troops at Ypres were the victims. The author provides an in-depth description of the process and the results on those who suffered and died
* The sinking, without warning, of the passenger liner Lusitania by a German U-boat off the coast of Ireland. The loss of life was horrendous and totaled 1,198 including Americans of the then neutral United States.
* The bombing of London from the air, something that is often overshadowed by the Blitz of WWII. The Zeppelin was the deliverer of the bombs and much damage was done even though the airships didn't have the necessary equipment to identify their targets except by sight. The Zeppelins had total freedom of the air since aircraft of the UK were not capable of reaching the altitudes at which the Zeppelins traveled.
Frankly, I was mesmerized by this book and the author's research/source material was impeccable. I also learned a few new facts that added to my WWI memory bank. I highly recommend this excellent history of WWI which defines the initial use of "weapons of mass destruction".
This book spotlights three events that happened within a six weeks time period of WWI (April 16 to May 30, 1915).....events, as the sub-title says "that forever changed the nature of warfare". They are as follows:
*The first use of poisonous gas on a large scale. French and Canadians troops at Ypres were the victims. The author provides an in-depth description of the process and the results on those who suffered and died
* The sinking, without warning, of the passenger liner Lusitania by a German U-boat off the coast of Ireland. The loss of life was horrendous and totaled 1,198 including Americans of the then neutral United States.
* The bombing of London from the air, something that is often overshadowed by the Blitz of WWII. The Zeppelin was the deliverer of the bombs and much damage was done even though the airships didn't have the necessary equipment to identify their targets except by sight. The Zeppelins had total freedom of the air since aircraft of the UK were not capable of reaching the altitudes at which the Zeppelins traveled.
Frankly, I was mesmerized by this book and the author's research/source material was impeccable. I also learned a few new facts that added to my WWI memory bank. I highly recommend this excellent history of WWI which defines the initial use of "weapons of mass destruction".
December 18, 2023
Crossing the Rubicon.
As the world dove into madness in August 1914 and the troops did not return before the leaves had fallen off the trees, as the Kaiser had believed, both sides became desperate. The British and its dominions would launch an assault on The Ottoman Empire at the Dardanelles, the disastrous Gallipoli campaign. They would also look to invade Baghdad, another adventure ending in misery. The French and British also looked to seduce the Italians, to pull them away from the Triple Alliance with promises of land from the Austrians. Germany, facing the illegal blockage of their ports looked a different way. From 22/04/1915-30/05/1915 it launched three new tactics which would shock and turn the world against it. It was here that it made its worst decisions and probably lost the war. It would attack
London with its Zeppelins, launch unrestricted warfare, thus sinking the Lusitania and attack the Western Front, which The Hague Convention had declared illegal.
British historian Diana Preston believes that these three ways of waging new war, are far from the old belief that the war was a stalemate without any new thinking. In fact, she believes this changed history and warfare and was a precursor to the bombing war of WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even the chemical warfare of Saddam Hussein in Kuwait and the Syrian Civil War. But why did the Germans drop bombs on London, poisoned Canadian and French at Ypres and sink any vessel that came within the waters of the British shore? Preston, like others before her believes this was due to Germany’s gambling nature. They were all or nothing at this point and had to win the war quickly. Even if national reputation went down the drain. They knew they would run out of resources and their population would slowly starve to death. Erik von Falkenhayn justified it as he argued more lives would be saved if the war was ended earlier. The end justified the means. The kaiser was not as easy to convince.
Preston explains that the ‘higher forms’ were supposed to be more humane than the brutality of bullets and shells. Which literary tore bodies and flesh apart. Science was supposed to humanise it, avoiding the gore of the 19th century battlefield. This of course failed, as a watery grave was just as hallow, choking to death on mustard gas, horrific. Children being obliterated in their beds unimaginable. What is clear, the focus turned on Germany to be the bad guys. Even if Woodrow Wilson had already leant towards the Entente whilst still neutral, this drove him into their open arms. America would have come into the war against Germany whether it did these things or not, it was only a matter of time. For me Preston’s book is good and to point, but lacks in parts. She failed to mention, for example the influence of Lord Northcliffe and his press machine on public opinion, the Germans and the Kaiser which was so effective. We still believe a lot of his propaganda today. This was equally effective as the huge battles fought. She also does not seem to tread on any new ground, just over the worn paths. As a result, I found this book neither groundbreaking nor exciting. It is safe, not offensive or bad. Just has little new information to share.
As the world dove into madness in August 1914 and the troops did not return before the leaves had fallen off the trees, as the Kaiser had believed, both sides became desperate. The British and its dominions would launch an assault on The Ottoman Empire at the Dardanelles, the disastrous Gallipoli campaign. They would also look to invade Baghdad, another adventure ending in misery. The French and British also looked to seduce the Italians, to pull them away from the Triple Alliance with promises of land from the Austrians. Germany, facing the illegal blockage of their ports looked a different way. From 22/04/1915-30/05/1915 it launched three new tactics which would shock and turn the world against it. It was here that it made its worst decisions and probably lost the war. It would attack
London with its Zeppelins, launch unrestricted warfare, thus sinking the Lusitania and attack the Western Front, which The Hague Convention had declared illegal.
British historian Diana Preston believes that these three ways of waging new war, are far from the old belief that the war was a stalemate without any new thinking. In fact, she believes this changed history and warfare and was a precursor to the bombing war of WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even the chemical warfare of Saddam Hussein in Kuwait and the Syrian Civil War. But why did the Germans drop bombs on London, poisoned Canadian and French at Ypres and sink any vessel that came within the waters of the British shore? Preston, like others before her believes this was due to Germany’s gambling nature. They were all or nothing at this point and had to win the war quickly. Even if national reputation went down the drain. They knew they would run out of resources and their population would slowly starve to death. Erik von Falkenhayn justified it as he argued more lives would be saved if the war was ended earlier. The end justified the means. The kaiser was not as easy to convince.
Preston explains that the ‘higher forms’ were supposed to be more humane than the brutality of bullets and shells. Which literary tore bodies and flesh apart. Science was supposed to humanise it, avoiding the gore of the 19th century battlefield. This of course failed, as a watery grave was just as hallow, choking to death on mustard gas, horrific. Children being obliterated in their beds unimaginable. What is clear, the focus turned on Germany to be the bad guys. Even if Woodrow Wilson had already leant towards the Entente whilst still neutral, this drove him into their open arms. America would have come into the war against Germany whether it did these things or not, it was only a matter of time. For me Preston’s book is good and to point, but lacks in parts. She failed to mention, for example the influence of Lord Northcliffe and his press machine on public opinion, the Germans and the Kaiser which was so effective. We still believe a lot of his propaganda today. This was equally effective as the huge battles fought. She also does not seem to tread on any new ground, just over the worn paths. As a result, I found this book neither groundbreaking nor exciting. It is safe, not offensive or bad. Just has little new information to share.
April 20, 2020
A Higher Form of Killing examines three crucial events that occurred in a single six-week period during the first year of WWI and radically changed the nature of warfare. Those events are the German gas attack against French and Canadian troops at Ypres, the torpedoing of the British Cunard liner Lusitania, and the first aerial bomb raid on London by a German zeppelin.
Viewed together, the three attacks have a great significance; they represented an outright infringement of the conduct of warfare laid down in The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, according to which they were illegal.
Diana Preston examines all the three events with an in-depth depiction of all the major participants, a careful analysis of all the sides of the argument, and a tinge of wit, which makes her writing highly engaging and enjoyable. She shows the difficulty of imposing a universal war law in a time when sentiments like British admiral “Jacky” Fisher’s – “The humanizing of war? You might as well talk about humanizing Hell! The essence of war is violence! Moderation in war is imbecility!” – were supported by many and the scientists weren’t very scrupulous about aiding their countries by fair means or foul.
I find that Preston’s account of the German chlorine gas attack on April 22,1915, especially well conveys the changing notions of humane warfare; the author has included the reminiscences of Canadian and French soldiers, as well as a brief story of Nobel-prize-winning German chemist Fritz Haber, the developer of poison gas as a weapon. “During peacetime a scientist belongs to the world,” comments Haber,” but during wartime he belong to his country.” This quote pretty much comprises the scientists’ opinion of – as Haber called the gas – “the higher form of killing”.
Of course, Diana Preston examines the opposing views too. Like those of Fritz Haber’s wife, who committed suicide after she found out her husband’s creation is used to kill soldiers on the front.
Another curious phenomenon is the coexistence between Allied condemnation of German new-fangled killing methods and the authorities’ utter disinclination to actually execute the threats they showered Germany with.
A Higher Form of Killing is a very well-written, engaging and detailed narrative worth the attention of any WWI enthusiast. The books shows the transition to a wholly different kind of warfare, a transition that has to be examined for the sake of understanding what WWI actually was.
Viewed together, the three attacks have a great significance; they represented an outright infringement of the conduct of warfare laid down in The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, according to which they were illegal.
Diana Preston examines all the three events with an in-depth depiction of all the major participants, a careful analysis of all the sides of the argument, and a tinge of wit, which makes her writing highly engaging and enjoyable. She shows the difficulty of imposing a universal war law in a time when sentiments like British admiral “Jacky” Fisher’s – “The humanizing of war? You might as well talk about humanizing Hell! The essence of war is violence! Moderation in war is imbecility!” – were supported by many and the scientists weren’t very scrupulous about aiding their countries by fair means or foul.
I find that Preston’s account of the German chlorine gas attack on April 22,1915, especially well conveys the changing notions of humane warfare; the author has included the reminiscences of Canadian and French soldiers, as well as a brief story of Nobel-prize-winning German chemist Fritz Haber, the developer of poison gas as a weapon. “During peacetime a scientist belongs to the world,” comments Haber,” but during wartime he belong to his country.” This quote pretty much comprises the scientists’ opinion of – as Haber called the gas – “the higher form of killing”.
Of course, Diana Preston examines the opposing views too. Like those of Fritz Haber’s wife, who committed suicide after she found out her husband’s creation is used to kill soldiers on the front.
Another curious phenomenon is the coexistence between Allied condemnation of German new-fangled killing methods and the authorities’ utter disinclination to actually execute the threats they showered Germany with.
A Higher Form of Killing is a very well-written, engaging and detailed narrative worth the attention of any WWI enthusiast. The books shows the transition to a wholly different kind of warfare, a transition that has to be examined for the sake of understanding what WWI actually was.
September 27, 2019
In this readable, detailed and well-researched volume, Preston covers the three major events of April-May 1915 that were mostly unrelated except in the sense that they heralded the advancement of weaponry up to that point: poison gas at Ypres, the sinking of the Lusitania, and the first zeppelin raid on London, which achieved relatively little physically but had a huge psychological impact.
The narrative is vivid and well-written, and Preston describes how these events changed views on the conduct of war, the implementation of the “rules of war,” and an escalation in “scientific warfare.” Preston describes each episode within the war’s context as well as in relation to each other. She also describes how Germany’s employment of these methods failed to force Britain to sue for peace but succeeded in turning world opinion against her. Some more coverage of the German blockade might have helped, though.
A concise, informative and interesting work.
The narrative is vivid and well-written, and Preston describes how these events changed views on the conduct of war, the implementation of the “rules of war,” and an escalation in “scientific warfare.” Preston describes each episode within the war’s context as well as in relation to each other. She also describes how Germany’s employment of these methods failed to force Britain to sue for peace but succeeded in turning world opinion against her. Some more coverage of the German blockade might have helped, though.
A concise, informative and interesting work.
June 14, 2019
Early in World War One between April and May in 1915 there were three major events using weapons never used before in the history of warfare.
First, at Ypres, was the use by Germany of poison gas on Canadian and French troops. The description in the book of Germans transporting the gas canisters to the front line trenches and digging the holes to plant them while waiting for the wind to blow in the right direction and the results is horrifying.
Second, was the submarine U-20 sinking the Lusitania on May 7th killing 1,198. This proved the submarine to be an effective machine of war.
Thirdly, on May 31, 1915 London was bombed by a German Zeppelin. Although the damage done was insignificant compared to the use of gas and submarines the Zeppelin attacks had a great psychological impact on the British civilian population. This was the first time that civilians were targeted in war time.
First, at Ypres, was the use by Germany of poison gas on Canadian and French troops. The description in the book of Germans transporting the gas canisters to the front line trenches and digging the holes to plant them while waiting for the wind to blow in the right direction and the results is horrifying.
Second, was the submarine U-20 sinking the Lusitania on May 7th killing 1,198. This proved the submarine to be an effective machine of war.
Thirdly, on May 31, 1915 London was bombed by a German Zeppelin. Although the damage done was insignificant compared to the use of gas and submarines the Zeppelin attacks had a great psychological impact on the British civilian population. This was the first time that civilians were targeted in war time.
April 10, 2015
The book is... ok. The research on the three events (German use of gas at Ypres, U-boat sinking of the Lusitania, and Zeppelin bombing of London) is fairly strong, but I'm not sure what her thesis is. The claim that these events fundamentally changed warfare fails to land. Technology is constantly changing warfare, but few would describe it as "fundamental". Napoleon's popular conscription policy, or the effect of industrialization, or even T.E. Lawrence's ideas on guerrilla campaigns, could perhaps be said to have fundamentally changed the way wars are fought. The decision by Germany to utilize their technological advantage in order to make up for other shortcomings does not fall into that category.
January 15, 2015
The attention to detail - especially in such a close focus on very specific aspects of World War One - is really very impressive. That's a bit of the issue, as well, though; sometimes there are just so many quotations and references to minute detail that it's hard not to get bogged down while reading. Nonetheless, if this is a subject you're interested in, this would be a great book to read.
March 26, 2015
Diana Preston takes three seemingly unrelated events of 1915 to weave a tale that is a thrilling, informative, and interesting history. Generally the first use of poison gas, the sinking of the Lusitania, and the bombing of London by Zeppelins are examined as singular events, but Preston demonstrates how these events were catalysts in overturning long-held views on the conduct of war, a flouting of the Hague Conventions rules of war, and an escalation of scientific warfare that continues to resonate today.
In A Higher Form of Killing, each episode is examined in the context of the war and in relation to the other two episodes. The main characters are introduced, the science behind the weapons is examined and then a recounting of the event using first person perspectives when and where available. Finally, the author looks at the lasting effects each event had on the rest of the war and on future wars and conflicts.
Preston manages to balance her look at the three separate events by combining these acts of German aggression into an examination of how the world thinks of weapon systems before, during, and after the First World War. Read A Higher Form of Killing and make up your mind regarding her thesis.
In A Higher Form of Killing, each episode is examined in the context of the war and in relation to the other two episodes. The main characters are introduced, the science behind the weapons is examined and then a recounting of the event using first person perspectives when and where available. Finally, the author looks at the lasting effects each event had on the rest of the war and on future wars and conflicts.
Preston manages to balance her look at the three separate events by combining these acts of German aggression into an examination of how the world thinks of weapon systems before, during, and after the First World War. Read A Higher Form of Killing and make up your mind regarding her thesis.
August 28, 2018
Thoroughly researched and well written. I’m not a history buff by any means, but this author’s writing style really turned this into a page turner.
February 22, 2015
When I first heard of the passenger liner Lusitania, it was the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question. In A Higher Form of Killing: Six Weeks in World War I That Forever Changed the Nature of Warfare, Diana Preston vividly paints a detailed picture of European countries grappling with changing rules of warfare and the reaction of the world at large to that terrible tragedy. Although Preston provides context for the rules of war that existed from centuries before up to her timeframe of interest, she spends the majority of her book focused on the events surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania, the first use of chlorine gas in warfare, and the bombing of London by Zeppelins. Last Christmas we were reminded that, 100 years ago, the troops on the Western Front held an unofficial “Christmas Truce,” where troops from opposing sides met and exchanged greetings. If that anniversary marks the end of Nineteenth Century Warfare, it is possible that the events 100 years ago this spring set the stage for the Twentieth Century. Preston tells the details of these three attacks using first-hand accounts from survivors, and settling long-controversial issues such as how many torpedoes were used on the Lusitania. As with any book on World War I or II, the focus of the narrative must be a specific time and place, with enough details to draw the reader in and bring the events to life. Preston achieves this goal in spite of the time elapsed, bringing the book to a close by pointing out how events up to the present day were shaped by decisions made during and immediately after WWI.
May 5, 2022
Writing during this period the Dutch jurist and diplomat Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) published a series of works that make him usually considered “the father of international law.”
On his return to Geneva Dunant wrote A Memory of Solferino and paid for the book’s publication.
The conference met in Geneva’s town hall in August 1864. Within a fortnight the members had agreed to a convention requiring the care of all wounded irrespective of nationality, and neutrality for medical staff, hospitals, and ambulances. To ensure that humanitarian helpers and facilities were recognized, the delegates agreed on the use of a red cross on a white background (the Swiss flag’s symbol with its colors reversed) to distinguish them. Quickly thereafter the national and international organizations became known as the Red Cross.
Britain signed the convention in 1865. Clara Barton, who had performed a similar role to Florence Nightingale and emerged with equal heroine status from the Union side in the American Civil War, was an avid supporter and her advocacy was a major factor leading to the United States’ ratification of the convention though not until March 1882
Moynier did his best to rewrite the history of the Red Cross, expunging Dunant’s name and contribution wherever he could and warning any who would listen against further involvement with him.
Ivan Bloch was a Russian railway magnate who believed that any future wars would be “suicide” and who was author of a newly published peace-promoting treatise in six volumes. Said to have influenced the czar, it prophesied the stalemate of trench warfare leading to a prolonged conflict whose intolerable human and economic costs would exhaust the belligerents or plunge them into social revolution.
However, in doing so he wrote in the margin of one of the relevant documents, “I consented to all this nonsense only in order that the Tsar should not lose face before Europe, in practice however I shall rely on God and my sharp sword! And I shit on all their decisions.”
Although the intention of the camps was only to isolate the Boer guerrilla fighters from the support of their families, conditions were poor and disease was rampant so that twenty-five thousand internees died.
When the kaiser addressed his own troops leaving for China he departed from his prepared text: “My men, you are about to meet a crafty, well-armed foe! Meet him and beat him! Give him no quarter! Take no prisoners! Kill him when he falls into your hands! Even as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made such a name for themselves as still resounds in terror through legend and fable, so may the name of Germany resound through Chinese history . . . that never again will a Chinese dare to so much as look askance at a German.” As a consequence, his future opponents would frequently dub German troops “Huns.”
The first ship to steam continuously across the Atlantic was the British Sirius in 1838.
J. P. Morgan and Company was soon playing a pivotal and highly profitable role in keeping Britain and its allies supplied with American munitions. In 1915, Britain’s imports of £ 238 million from America were 68 percent greater by volume and 75 percent greater by value than in 1913. French imports rose similarly.
A naval officer invited his Kiel audience to “imagine a war with England, which from time immemorial has had an unwarlike population. If we could only succeed in throwing some bombs on their docks, they would speak with us in quite different terms. With airships we have . . . the means of carrying the war into Britain.” British planes—unlike zeppelins—could not fly at night and thus could “afford no protection against airships.” The Naval Airship Division
Though “not in favour of ‘frightfulness’ ” and considering indiscriminate bombing “repulsive” when it “killed an old woman,” he saw the potential that “if one could set fire to London in thirty places then the repulsiveness would be lost sight of,” later adding that “all that flies . . . should be concentrated on that city.”
One is overcome by a peculiar sour, heavy and penetrating smell of corpses. Rising over a plank bridge you find that its middle is supported only by the body of a long-dead horse. Men that were killed last October lie half in swamp and half in the yellow-sprouting beet-fields. The legs of an Englishman, still encased in puttees, stick out into a trench, the corpse being built into the parapet; a soldier hangs his rifle on them. A little brook runs through the trench and everyone uses the water for drinking and washing; it is the only water they have. Nobody minds the pale Englishman who is rotting away a few steps farther up . . . At one point I saw twenty-two dead horses still harnessed, accompanied by a few dead drivers. Cattle and pigs lie about half-rotten; broken trees . . . crater upon crater in the roads and in the fields. Such is a six month’s old battlefield.
In making this statement the German authorities were arguing that because the Hague Convention on asphyxiating gases was worded as if to ban only projectiles containing them and the chlorine had been released from canisters, their poison gas attack was technically, if not morally, outside the convention’s scope. However, in so doing they were ignoring Article 23 of the Hague Convention on land warfare that explicitly supplemented that on asphyxiating gases by banning all “poison or poisoned weapons.”
The ship was going down fast. When the sea reached them, they were washed away. I never saw Vanderbilt after that. All I saw in the water was children—children everywhere.” A Canadian passenger had heard Vanderbilt say to his valet, Ronald Denyer: “Find all the kiddies you can, boy.” As Denyer brought them to Vanderbilt, he “dashed to the boats with two little ones in his arms at a time.”
One recalled how just before “a mighty green cliff of water came rushing up, bearing its tide of dead and debris” and washed them into the sea, he paraphrased a line from Peter Pan, the play he had been responsible for bringing to the London and New York stages: “Why fear death? It is the most beautiful adventure life gives us.”
The crowd was muttering and growling and the shop was dark but there were people upstairs. So I just picked up a brick and heaved it through the window . . . Then everyone took to shying them, and in a few minutes the place was a wreck . . . Soon all the furniture, carpets and everything else were thrown out of the windows into the street. There were policemen at the corner . . . and they only grinned. The crowd then went on down the street and wrecked four German pork shops . . . I saw one young fellow going off with half a hog and an old woman was dancing in the middle of the street with strings of sausages all over her and flying in the wind.”
On May 13 Prime Minister Asquith announced the internment of all male enemy aliens of military age (seventeen to forty-five years old). The following day the kaiser’s banner was unceremoniously hauled down from the Chapel Royal at Windsor Castle to mark his expulsion from the British Order of the Garter, bestowed on him thirty-eight years earlier by his adored grandmother, Queen Victoria.
Fisher saw an opportunity and on May 19 wrote to Asquith graciously agreeing to return and “guarantee the successful termination of the War and the total abolition of the submarine menace” on strict conditions, including that “Mr. Winston Churchill is not in the Cabinet to be always circumventing me,” that he himself should have “absolutely untrammelled sole command of all the sea forces whatsoever” and an equally free hand in all appointments. This “extraordinary ultimatum” angered Asquith who told the king that it “indicated signs of mental aberration.” Fisher’s resignation was accepted.
Twenty-four-year-old Second Lieutenant Wilfred Owen’s iconic poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” described the sensation: Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling. And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . . Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light. As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.*
Until the invention of the depth charge in 1916, attacks on fully submerged submarines had in any case been virtually impossible. Depth charges looked like metal dustbins and were rolled off the stern of a destroyer when the vessel’s crew believed it to be above a submarine. They contained three hundred pounds of TNT with a pressure fuse set to the depth the submarine was thought to be at. They achieved their first kill in December 1916.
Public reaction to the raid and in particular the “murders of the innocents” was immediate and bitter. Again people with German-sounding names were attacked and their houses and businesses looted. Member of Parliament William Joynson-Hicks once more demanded immediate reprisals, suggesting that for every raid on London British bombers should “blot out” a German town. The Daily Mail produced a “Reprisal Map” identifying suitable targets. Lord Derby, who had replaced Lord Kitchener as minister for war after the latter had drowned in 1916 on a mission to Russia when HMS Hampshire struck a free-floating German mine, argued that “it would be better to be defeated, retaining honour, chivalry and humanity, rather than obtain a victory by methods which have brought upon Germany universal execration.” His views found little support among a public incensed by the “Hun baby-killers.”
Albert Einstein was pessimistic, later commenting, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” We can only hope that he was wrong.
On his return to Geneva Dunant wrote A Memory of Solferino and paid for the book’s publication.
The conference met in Geneva’s town hall in August 1864. Within a fortnight the members had agreed to a convention requiring the care of all wounded irrespective of nationality, and neutrality for medical staff, hospitals, and ambulances. To ensure that humanitarian helpers and facilities were recognized, the delegates agreed on the use of a red cross on a white background (the Swiss flag’s symbol with its colors reversed) to distinguish them. Quickly thereafter the national and international organizations became known as the Red Cross.
Britain signed the convention in 1865. Clara Barton, who had performed a similar role to Florence Nightingale and emerged with equal heroine status from the Union side in the American Civil War, was an avid supporter and her advocacy was a major factor leading to the United States’ ratification of the convention though not until March 1882
Moynier did his best to rewrite the history of the Red Cross, expunging Dunant’s name and contribution wherever he could and warning any who would listen against further involvement with him.
Ivan Bloch was a Russian railway magnate who believed that any future wars would be “suicide” and who was author of a newly published peace-promoting treatise in six volumes. Said to have influenced the czar, it prophesied the stalemate of trench warfare leading to a prolonged conflict whose intolerable human and economic costs would exhaust the belligerents or plunge them into social revolution.
However, in doing so he wrote in the margin of one of the relevant documents, “I consented to all this nonsense only in order that the Tsar should not lose face before Europe, in practice however I shall rely on God and my sharp sword! And I shit on all their decisions.”
Although the intention of the camps was only to isolate the Boer guerrilla fighters from the support of their families, conditions were poor and disease was rampant so that twenty-five thousand internees died.
When the kaiser addressed his own troops leaving for China he departed from his prepared text: “My men, you are about to meet a crafty, well-armed foe! Meet him and beat him! Give him no quarter! Take no prisoners! Kill him when he falls into your hands! Even as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made such a name for themselves as still resounds in terror through legend and fable, so may the name of Germany resound through Chinese history . . . that never again will a Chinese dare to so much as look askance at a German.” As a consequence, his future opponents would frequently dub German troops “Huns.”
The first ship to steam continuously across the Atlantic was the British Sirius in 1838.
J. P. Morgan and Company was soon playing a pivotal and highly profitable role in keeping Britain and its allies supplied with American munitions. In 1915, Britain’s imports of £ 238 million from America were 68 percent greater by volume and 75 percent greater by value than in 1913. French imports rose similarly.
A naval officer invited his Kiel audience to “imagine a war with England, which from time immemorial has had an unwarlike population. If we could only succeed in throwing some bombs on their docks, they would speak with us in quite different terms. With airships we have . . . the means of carrying the war into Britain.” British planes—unlike zeppelins—could not fly at night and thus could “afford no protection against airships.” The Naval Airship Division
Though “not in favour of ‘frightfulness’ ” and considering indiscriminate bombing “repulsive” when it “killed an old woman,” he saw the potential that “if one could set fire to London in thirty places then the repulsiveness would be lost sight of,” later adding that “all that flies . . . should be concentrated on that city.”
One is overcome by a peculiar sour, heavy and penetrating smell of corpses. Rising over a plank bridge you find that its middle is supported only by the body of a long-dead horse. Men that were killed last October lie half in swamp and half in the yellow-sprouting beet-fields. The legs of an Englishman, still encased in puttees, stick out into a trench, the corpse being built into the parapet; a soldier hangs his rifle on them. A little brook runs through the trench and everyone uses the water for drinking and washing; it is the only water they have. Nobody minds the pale Englishman who is rotting away a few steps farther up . . . At one point I saw twenty-two dead horses still harnessed, accompanied by a few dead drivers. Cattle and pigs lie about half-rotten; broken trees . . . crater upon crater in the roads and in the fields. Such is a six month’s old battlefield.
In making this statement the German authorities were arguing that because the Hague Convention on asphyxiating gases was worded as if to ban only projectiles containing them and the chlorine had been released from canisters, their poison gas attack was technically, if not morally, outside the convention’s scope. However, in so doing they were ignoring Article 23 of the Hague Convention on land warfare that explicitly supplemented that on asphyxiating gases by banning all “poison or poisoned weapons.”
The ship was going down fast. When the sea reached them, they were washed away. I never saw Vanderbilt after that. All I saw in the water was children—children everywhere.” A Canadian passenger had heard Vanderbilt say to his valet, Ronald Denyer: “Find all the kiddies you can, boy.” As Denyer brought them to Vanderbilt, he “dashed to the boats with two little ones in his arms at a time.”
One recalled how just before “a mighty green cliff of water came rushing up, bearing its tide of dead and debris” and washed them into the sea, he paraphrased a line from Peter Pan, the play he had been responsible for bringing to the London and New York stages: “Why fear death? It is the most beautiful adventure life gives us.”
The crowd was muttering and growling and the shop was dark but there were people upstairs. So I just picked up a brick and heaved it through the window . . . Then everyone took to shying them, and in a few minutes the place was a wreck . . . Soon all the furniture, carpets and everything else were thrown out of the windows into the street. There were policemen at the corner . . . and they only grinned. The crowd then went on down the street and wrecked four German pork shops . . . I saw one young fellow going off with half a hog and an old woman was dancing in the middle of the street with strings of sausages all over her and flying in the wind.”
On May 13 Prime Minister Asquith announced the internment of all male enemy aliens of military age (seventeen to forty-five years old). The following day the kaiser’s banner was unceremoniously hauled down from the Chapel Royal at Windsor Castle to mark his expulsion from the British Order of the Garter, bestowed on him thirty-eight years earlier by his adored grandmother, Queen Victoria.
Fisher saw an opportunity and on May 19 wrote to Asquith graciously agreeing to return and “guarantee the successful termination of the War and the total abolition of the submarine menace” on strict conditions, including that “Mr. Winston Churchill is not in the Cabinet to be always circumventing me,” that he himself should have “absolutely untrammelled sole command of all the sea forces whatsoever” and an equally free hand in all appointments. This “extraordinary ultimatum” angered Asquith who told the king that it “indicated signs of mental aberration.” Fisher’s resignation was accepted.
Twenty-four-year-old Second Lieutenant Wilfred Owen’s iconic poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” described the sensation: Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling. And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . . Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light. As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.*
Until the invention of the depth charge in 1916, attacks on fully submerged submarines had in any case been virtually impossible. Depth charges looked like metal dustbins and were rolled off the stern of a destroyer when the vessel’s crew believed it to be above a submarine. They contained three hundred pounds of TNT with a pressure fuse set to the depth the submarine was thought to be at. They achieved their first kill in December 1916.
Public reaction to the raid and in particular the “murders of the innocents” was immediate and bitter. Again people with German-sounding names were attacked and their houses and businesses looted. Member of Parliament William Joynson-Hicks once more demanded immediate reprisals, suggesting that for every raid on London British bombers should “blot out” a German town. The Daily Mail produced a “Reprisal Map” identifying suitable targets. Lord Derby, who had replaced Lord Kitchener as minister for war after the latter had drowned in 1916 on a mission to Russia when HMS Hampshire struck a free-floating German mine, argued that “it would be better to be defeated, retaining honour, chivalry and humanity, rather than obtain a victory by methods which have brought upon Germany universal execration.” His views found little support among a public incensed by the “Hun baby-killers.”
Albert Einstein was pessimistic, later commenting, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” We can only hope that he was wrong.
September 15, 2016
The emphasis in this book is on three major ways in which warfare changed in the year 1915. While these three new methods of fighting a war had already been examined in science fiction and other literature and some had already been used to a small extent, the world was still stunned by the extent of the death and destruction. All of this was due to the fact that the war was being fought by modern, efficient industrial states and they brought those resources into play in order to weaken their opponents and kill their citizens. Soldiers first, but non-combatants as well.
The first of the three major changes in warfare was the use of the submarine. While a submarine was first used in warfare in 1776, what was different about World War I was that now passenger liners were considered fair prey. The Germans adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, so any ship entering the waters around England were fair game. The most famous case was that of the sinking of the “Lusitania,” a passenger liner with an easily recognized profile. The laws of war allowed for ships containing war material to be sunk after being given a suitable warning and time for the passengers to take to the lifeboats, but the Germans generally adhered to a policy of attacking without warning.
As always seems to be the case in warfare, the other side is in no way blameless. As is mentioned, the British showed little hesitation in “bending” the rules in order to suit themselves. They played the propaganda game well and even used honeypot ships that gave the appearance of unarmed freighters but were in fact designed as decoys to lure submarines to the surface. The idea was that if the German sub followed the rules of war and surfaced to give warning, the British ship could then destroy it.
The second of the major changes was in the aerial bombardment of cities with no real regard for the striking of military targets. In fact, it was the stated goal of the Germans in their Zeppelin raids on British cities to terrorize the citizenry and cause massive fires. There was not even the pretense of searching out military targets. As usual, each side blamed the other for doing it first.
The third and final major change was the widespread use of poison gas. The Germans clearly started this one, Nobel Prize winning chemist Fritz Haber was the leader of the team that introduced the world to the weapon of chlorine gas along with even more deadlier agents. It is ironic that with only a few small exceptions, most against more “primitive” cultures, the principle of deterrence kept gas from being used in the major wars that have taken place since the Great War.
In many ways, the lesson from this book is that no lessons are really learned. As a few of the leaders in the Great War were honest enough to point out, in such a war, the goal is to win and you do that by killing the people on the other side and destroying their infrastructure. Therefore, all people and buildings are considered legitimate targets. When the guns of August starting popping, most thought that the war would be over in a few months with their side achieving a great victory. That naive approach was heard once again when American forces invaded Iraq.
Science and engineering was applied to war on an industrial scale in the years 1914-1918. Many understood that that was what would happen, yet few really understood that millions of men would die and that all citizens would be considered targets of the new and more powerful weapons. This is a very good book, as it demonstrates how societies had “evolved” to the point where war was now total and it was now acceptable to kill children that were not even able to walk and talk. As long as they were on the other side of course.
The first of the three major changes in warfare was the use of the submarine. While a submarine was first used in warfare in 1776, what was different about World War I was that now passenger liners were considered fair prey. The Germans adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, so any ship entering the waters around England were fair game. The most famous case was that of the sinking of the “Lusitania,” a passenger liner with an easily recognized profile. The laws of war allowed for ships containing war material to be sunk after being given a suitable warning and time for the passengers to take to the lifeboats, but the Germans generally adhered to a policy of attacking without warning.
As always seems to be the case in warfare, the other side is in no way blameless. As is mentioned, the British showed little hesitation in “bending” the rules in order to suit themselves. They played the propaganda game well and even used honeypot ships that gave the appearance of unarmed freighters but were in fact designed as decoys to lure submarines to the surface. The idea was that if the German sub followed the rules of war and surfaced to give warning, the British ship could then destroy it.
The second of the major changes was in the aerial bombardment of cities with no real regard for the striking of military targets. In fact, it was the stated goal of the Germans in their Zeppelin raids on British cities to terrorize the citizenry and cause massive fires. There was not even the pretense of searching out military targets. As usual, each side blamed the other for doing it first.
The third and final major change was the widespread use of poison gas. The Germans clearly started this one, Nobel Prize winning chemist Fritz Haber was the leader of the team that introduced the world to the weapon of chlorine gas along with even more deadlier agents. It is ironic that with only a few small exceptions, most against more “primitive” cultures, the principle of deterrence kept gas from being used in the major wars that have taken place since the Great War.
In many ways, the lesson from this book is that no lessons are really learned. As a few of the leaders in the Great War were honest enough to point out, in such a war, the goal is to win and you do that by killing the people on the other side and destroying their infrastructure. Therefore, all people and buildings are considered legitimate targets. When the guns of August starting popping, most thought that the war would be over in a few months with their side achieving a great victory. That naive approach was heard once again when American forces invaded Iraq.
Science and engineering was applied to war on an industrial scale in the years 1914-1918. Many understood that that was what would happen, yet few really understood that millions of men would die and that all citizens would be considered targets of the new and more powerful weapons. This is a very good book, as it demonstrates how societies had “evolved” to the point where war was now total and it was now acceptable to kill children that were not even able to walk and talk. As long as they were on the other side of course.
April 15, 2015
Early in World War One between April 22nd and May 30th, 1915 only 8 months after the start of the war there were three major events using weapons never used before in the history of warfare. Dianna Preston’s new book is the story of these three told with exceptional detail and interesting research. No doubt the Germans are the villains here but Preston does not hold anyone blameless for how they adopted and further developed even more horrific forms of mass killing.
First at Ypres was the use by Germany of poison gas on Canadian and French troops. I found this section of the book the most interesting and horrifying. Just the description of the Germans transporting the gas canisters to the front line trenches and digging the holes to plant them while waiting for the wind to blow in the right direction before mounting their attack is worth the price of the book. Preston also discusses the future use and stockpiling of gas by major powers after the war.
Second, was the submarine U-20 sinking the Lusitania on May 7th killing 1,198. This section of the book is well done but Dianna Preston’s earlier book about just the Lusitania sinking is a much better read and more detailed. I still consider her Lusitania book her best book (and I have read all of her books). I also just read Erik Larson’s book DEAD WAKE which also is about the sinking of the Lusitania.
Thirdly, on May 31, 1915 London was bombed by a German Zeppelin. Although the damage done was insignificant compared to the use of gas and submarines the Zeppelin attacks had a great psychological impact on the British civilian population. The stories told here about the development of the Zeppelins and the inability of the British to develop planes that could shoot them down is most interesting. And serves as a prologue to the Second World War’s Battle of Britain.
Preston’s choosing of these three weapons leaves out many other terrible higher forms of killing introduced in World War One. The use of machine guns and tanks for example. But her choices are interesting, educational and sound. The irony being that these awful weapons were used to fight a war that was totally unnecessary and pointless. A war that devastated European civilization and economic growth. A war that never ended until the very end of World War II and in the Middle East is still being fought today.
The book’s publication is obviously timed to coincide with the 100th anniversary of these events.
First at Ypres was the use by Germany of poison gas on Canadian and French troops. I found this section of the book the most interesting and horrifying. Just the description of the Germans transporting the gas canisters to the front line trenches and digging the holes to plant them while waiting for the wind to blow in the right direction before mounting their attack is worth the price of the book. Preston also discusses the future use and stockpiling of gas by major powers after the war.
Second, was the submarine U-20 sinking the Lusitania on May 7th killing 1,198. This section of the book is well done but Dianna Preston’s earlier book about just the Lusitania sinking is a much better read and more detailed. I still consider her Lusitania book her best book (and I have read all of her books). I also just read Erik Larson’s book DEAD WAKE which also is about the sinking of the Lusitania.
Thirdly, on May 31, 1915 London was bombed by a German Zeppelin. Although the damage done was insignificant compared to the use of gas and submarines the Zeppelin attacks had a great psychological impact on the British civilian population. The stories told here about the development of the Zeppelins and the inability of the British to develop planes that could shoot them down is most interesting. And serves as a prologue to the Second World War’s Battle of Britain.
Preston’s choosing of these three weapons leaves out many other terrible higher forms of killing introduced in World War One. The use of machine guns and tanks for example. But her choices are interesting, educational and sound. The irony being that these awful weapons were used to fight a war that was totally unnecessary and pointless. A war that devastated European civilization and economic growth. A war that never ended until the very end of World War II and in the Middle East is still being fought today.
The book’s publication is obviously timed to coincide with the 100th anniversary of these events.
October 8, 2020
A Higher Form of Killing: Six Weeks in World War I that Forever Changed the Nature of Warfare by Diane Preston is an account of the changes in traditions of warfare that took place between April and May 1915. Preston is an Oxford educated historian whose career was in print journalism in the UK and the US. She also was a broadcaster for the BBC and CBC. Nearly a decade ago Preston began writing popular history, covering subjects that are compelling, but also relate to the human experience. Her topics include The Lusitania, the Taj Mahal, Britain in Afghanistan, and pirates.
If I were asked to name three things that changed warfare in World War I, I would come up with three different answers. My choices would be: the machine gun which killed more men than any other weapon in the war; the tank which helped break the stalemate of trench warfare; and the airplane, which brought a whole new dimension to warfare. My opinions are of someone that served in the military and looks at World War I from a practical warfighting point of view. Preston takes a different look at the war and bases her choices of a civilian perspective.
On April 22, 1915, near Ypres, Belgium, Germany released chlorine gas from near their trenches and allowed the wind to move it the mostly French defended Allied trenches. The heavy gas settled quickly in the trenches forcing soldiers to either asphyxiate in the trench or climb out into heavy German fire. The Canadian Expeditionary Force (13th Battalion) held the line with improvised masks. It was a day of heavy loss for both the Axis and the Allies. Panic and unforeseen success combined as multipliers adding to the death toll. Preston looks at the history of gas warfare before Ypres and after. It did not take the allies long to develop their own chemical corps. Chemical weapons had a terror effect when used in World War I, however their effectiveness was minimal. The German first use of the weapons added fuel to the propaganda machine vilifying the Germans. It did not take long for the British to counter with Livens Projector. The Livens projector, rather than relying on the wind, lobbed canister of gas at the enemy trenches. The use of canister was a loophole in the treaty that banned poison gas artillery shells. Although it had a shocking effect, and certainly the ability to make headlines, chemical warfare turned out to be more of a hindrance than a vital weapon. It was marginally effective until the troops were protected, then it became only a hindrance. Stockpiles of chemical weapon were available in WWII and never used.
On May 7, 1915 the Lusitania was sunk by the German submarine U-20. The sinking was carried out without warning as the ship approached the Irish coast. The loss of life is listed at nearly 1,200 people. The sinking was of great use to the allies in bringing the US into the war as one hundred twenty-eight of the dead were Americans. The sinking of the Lusitania is surrounded by stories, claims, and counterclaims. The Germans did provide warning to travelers, it was a British flagged ship, traveling in waters patrolled by a country Britain was at war with. Britain had used tricks like raising an American flag on one of its ships as it entered British waters (a tribute to the American passengers was the official claim). Britain also instructed ship’s captains to turn to and ram submarines if stopped. There was also the Q-Boat program where the British deployed cargo ships to draw out submarines. These ships however were armed and when a submarine attempted to stop and board the ship searching for contraband, the submarine was fired upon. There was a definite escalation to the violence. The Germany attempted to blockade England with submarines in the same way England had blockaded Germany with surface ships.
There is also the British investigation of the sinking of the Lusitania. The German submarine fired only one torpedo, but there were two explosions. The British government in the process of their investigation said the German sub fired two torpedoes. Any surviving passenger that said only one torpedo was fired was left out of the investigation. The cause of the second explosion has remained a topic for discussion ever since. In the tragedy of the sinking the German government made made the following truthful claims: The sinking occurred in a declared war zone; the Lusitania carried 4.2 million rounds of rifle ammunition, empty artillery shells, and fuses (all listed in her manifest); the Lusitania was officially listed by the British government as an auxiliary cruiser. Germany claimed it was in it’s right to sink the Lusitania without warning. Allied media and propaganda said otherwise.
The third event was the bombing of London from the air. Germany tried unsuccessfully to bomb England from zeppelins several times in the spring of 1915. Germans attempted to hit military targets, but conditions, gun sites, and practical matters made precision bombing impossible. The raids caused damage and killed 557 people in England in the course of fifty-one missions and 5,000 bombs. The raids, more than anything else, created a feeling of terror. London and other cities blacked-out at night. The British planes were nearly useless against the zeppelins, either they were incapable of reaching the altitude or by the time they did the zeppelins were gone. Fear helped the recruitment effort and caused violence for some unfortunate immigrants with “German sounding” accents. What the bombing raids did accomplish was opening military targets in cities to attack. In World War II bombing of cities became common place.
Preston does not limit herself the six weeks in 1915 for her information. She goes back and covers the arms limitation treaties before the war and puts each of her three events into historical context. While perhaps not the three biggest military events or innovations of World War I, her choices fit well with public concerns during the war. Chemical warfare is still something the modern military prepares for as evidenced in the two Gulf Wars. It is now relegated as a hinderance to a modern army rather than a source of massive casualties. Bombing of cities and military targets in and around them is now commonplace. One has to look no farther than the “Shock and Awe” of the Gulf War. Guidance systems and technology make the bombing much more accurate, but there are still civilian casualties. The submarine perhaps has changed the most. It is primarily used as a weapons platform for ICBMs rather than an anti-shipping weapon. In the second half of the twentieth century, only one ship has been sunk by a submarine -- HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano in the 1982 Falkland Island War. These choices made a change in how warfare is fought from the eyes of those watching. These three events probably had the biggest effect on the civilian populations during the course of the war. Machine guns and tanks had little effect on the general population of England, while the thought of a zeppelin dropping poison gas on London not only created fear, it was now a possibility. Preston gives World War I a look from a different perspective. Instead of the battlefield view many historians write, Preston seems to capture on what civilians would have read and learned of the war through the media. A very interesting perspective and well worth the read.
If I were asked to name three things that changed warfare in World War I, I would come up with three different answers. My choices would be: the machine gun which killed more men than any other weapon in the war; the tank which helped break the stalemate of trench warfare; and the airplane, which brought a whole new dimension to warfare. My opinions are of someone that served in the military and looks at World War I from a practical warfighting point of view. Preston takes a different look at the war and bases her choices of a civilian perspective.
On April 22, 1915, near Ypres, Belgium, Germany released chlorine gas from near their trenches and allowed the wind to move it the mostly French defended Allied trenches. The heavy gas settled quickly in the trenches forcing soldiers to either asphyxiate in the trench or climb out into heavy German fire. The Canadian Expeditionary Force (13th Battalion) held the line with improvised masks. It was a day of heavy loss for both the Axis and the Allies. Panic and unforeseen success combined as multipliers adding to the death toll. Preston looks at the history of gas warfare before Ypres and after. It did not take the allies long to develop their own chemical corps. Chemical weapons had a terror effect when used in World War I, however their effectiveness was minimal. The German first use of the weapons added fuel to the propaganda machine vilifying the Germans. It did not take long for the British to counter with Livens Projector. The Livens projector, rather than relying on the wind, lobbed canister of gas at the enemy trenches. The use of canister was a loophole in the treaty that banned poison gas artillery shells. Although it had a shocking effect, and certainly the ability to make headlines, chemical warfare turned out to be more of a hindrance than a vital weapon. It was marginally effective until the troops were protected, then it became only a hindrance. Stockpiles of chemical weapon were available in WWII and never used.
On May 7, 1915 the Lusitania was sunk by the German submarine U-20. The sinking was carried out without warning as the ship approached the Irish coast. The loss of life is listed at nearly 1,200 people. The sinking was of great use to the allies in bringing the US into the war as one hundred twenty-eight of the dead were Americans. The sinking of the Lusitania is surrounded by stories, claims, and counterclaims. The Germans did provide warning to travelers, it was a British flagged ship, traveling in waters patrolled by a country Britain was at war with. Britain had used tricks like raising an American flag on one of its ships as it entered British waters (a tribute to the American passengers was the official claim). Britain also instructed ship’s captains to turn to and ram submarines if stopped. There was also the Q-Boat program where the British deployed cargo ships to draw out submarines. These ships however were armed and when a submarine attempted to stop and board the ship searching for contraband, the submarine was fired upon. There was a definite escalation to the violence. The Germany attempted to blockade England with submarines in the same way England had blockaded Germany with surface ships.
There is also the British investigation of the sinking of the Lusitania. The German submarine fired only one torpedo, but there were two explosions. The British government in the process of their investigation said the German sub fired two torpedoes. Any surviving passenger that said only one torpedo was fired was left out of the investigation. The cause of the second explosion has remained a topic for discussion ever since. In the tragedy of the sinking the German government made made the following truthful claims: The sinking occurred in a declared war zone; the Lusitania carried 4.2 million rounds of rifle ammunition, empty artillery shells, and fuses (all listed in her manifest); the Lusitania was officially listed by the British government as an auxiliary cruiser. Germany claimed it was in it’s right to sink the Lusitania without warning. Allied media and propaganda said otherwise.
The third event was the bombing of London from the air. Germany tried unsuccessfully to bomb England from zeppelins several times in the spring of 1915. Germans attempted to hit military targets, but conditions, gun sites, and practical matters made precision bombing impossible. The raids caused damage and killed 557 people in England in the course of fifty-one missions and 5,000 bombs. The raids, more than anything else, created a feeling of terror. London and other cities blacked-out at night. The British planes were nearly useless against the zeppelins, either they were incapable of reaching the altitude or by the time they did the zeppelins were gone. Fear helped the recruitment effort and caused violence for some unfortunate immigrants with “German sounding” accents. What the bombing raids did accomplish was opening military targets in cities to attack. In World War II bombing of cities became common place.
Preston does not limit herself the six weeks in 1915 for her information. She goes back and covers the arms limitation treaties before the war and puts each of her three events into historical context. While perhaps not the three biggest military events or innovations of World War I, her choices fit well with public concerns during the war. Chemical warfare is still something the modern military prepares for as evidenced in the two Gulf Wars. It is now relegated as a hinderance to a modern army rather than a source of massive casualties. Bombing of cities and military targets in and around them is now commonplace. One has to look no farther than the “Shock and Awe” of the Gulf War. Guidance systems and technology make the bombing much more accurate, but there are still civilian casualties. The submarine perhaps has changed the most. It is primarily used as a weapons platform for ICBMs rather than an anti-shipping weapon. In the second half of the twentieth century, only one ship has been sunk by a submarine -- HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano in the 1982 Falkland Island War. These choices made a change in how warfare is fought from the eyes of those watching. These three events probably had the biggest effect on the civilian populations during the course of the war. Machine guns and tanks had little effect on the general population of England, while the thought of a zeppelin dropping poison gas on London not only created fear, it was now a possibility. Preston gives World War I a look from a different perspective. Instead of the battlefield view many historians write, Preston seems to capture on what civilians would have read and learned of the war through the media. A very interesting perspective and well worth the read.
January 13, 2018
A very good summary history of WWI military tech
With the ground war in stalemate by the end of 1914, Germany, faced with a naval blockade and time not on their side, tried to break Allied will with three technologies that would change war forever. Submarines, aerial bombardment, and poison gas came to be used at an increasing scale through the war's middle period of 1915-1917. While other developments were equally destructive, these three brought the concept of mass destruction into the calculus of war for the first time. The book examines the first use of gas at Ypres and the sinking of the Lusitania, each of which has been examined at length elsewhere. But it's in the vivid accounts of the Zeppelin raids over London, more frequent and destructive than I'd expected, that the book really hits it out of the park.
The book does a very good job taking apart the development and deployment of these weapons, as well as deconstructing the often fruitless and (might as well say it) cynical attempts to bring their uses under control. Though Germany's first use of these weapons certainly deserves condemnation, Preston does not spare the Allies; for example, when the munitions illegally carried aboard Lusitania exploded, the British claimed that it was a second torpedo.
This is an excellent short read on the six weeks in 1915 when industrialized slaughter became commonplace.
With the ground war in stalemate by the end of 1914, Germany, faced with a naval blockade and time not on their side, tried to break Allied will with three technologies that would change war forever. Submarines, aerial bombardment, and poison gas came to be used at an increasing scale through the war's middle period of 1915-1917. While other developments were equally destructive, these three brought the concept of mass destruction into the calculus of war for the first time. The book examines the first use of gas at Ypres and the sinking of the Lusitania, each of which has been examined at length elsewhere. But it's in the vivid accounts of the Zeppelin raids over London, more frequent and destructive than I'd expected, that the book really hits it out of the park.
The book does a very good job taking apart the development and deployment of these weapons, as well as deconstructing the often fruitless and (might as well say it) cynical attempts to bring their uses under control. Though Germany's first use of these weapons certainly deserves condemnation, Preston does not spare the Allies; for example, when the munitions illegally carried aboard Lusitania exploded, the British claimed that it was a second torpedo.
This is an excellent short read on the six weeks in 1915 when industrialized slaughter became commonplace.
April 30, 2016
In " A Higher Form of Killing" , Ms. Preston chooses three new developments in military killing that marked WWI. They were the submarine, use by Germany to attack any shipping which would support Great Britian's war effort; the Zeppelin, used to bring home the horror of war to the British homeland which had not been attacked( if I remember my history correctly) since the days of Napoleon; and poison gas, used first by the Germans and then by all combatants to kill and to paralyze with fear enemy soldiers.
These newly developed weapons were rapidly improved in killing power in a war which was horrific enough without them.
MS Preston writes in an extremely readable flow of information for the armchair historian. She presents the facts and figures but it is not the intention of the book to be the last authority on these weapons and their consequences; there are other sources for that. Her history is filled out with personal stories both of soldiers and civilian who suffered the effects of the weapons, and of the men who delivered the horrors.
I found the book interesting and readable.
Note: I got this book used. It was an Avanced Reader's copy and therefore it had no maps, photographs, maps or an index. That cost it a star in rating, but the book could only be better with their inclusion.
These newly developed weapons were rapidly improved in killing power in a war which was horrific enough without them.
MS Preston writes in an extremely readable flow of information for the armchair historian. She presents the facts and figures but it is not the intention of the book to be the last authority on these weapons and their consequences; there are other sources for that. Her history is filled out with personal stories both of soldiers and civilian who suffered the effects of the weapons, and of the men who delivered the horrors.
I found the book interesting and readable.
Note: I got this book used. It was an Avanced Reader's copy and therefore it had no maps, photographs, maps or an index. That cost it a star in rating, but the book could only be better with their inclusion.
July 29, 2015
Very good read. Superbly researched, well paced, with a clear thesis and support for that thesis. But it reads as more than simple history, though Diane Preston proves again that she's a superlative historian. She also has a fine understanding of storytelling. The individuals she expands on gave the narrative just the right touch, elevating this work from that simple history to a story with human personality. The diary excerpts and personal correspondence the author includes made a nice counterpoint to the newspaper accounts to gauge public reaction to the events taking place. My only quibble was that there were so many of them clumped together in some places, and felt a little like page filler. That aside, this was no snore-inducing history class assigned piece you have to force yourself to push through. The author has identified a fascinating coincidence of history, a 6 week span in which war changed. And in that change was born some of humanity's modern understanding of relevant topics in the news today (terrorism, morals of warfare, et al). I enjoyed every page and gained a new understanding of the evolution of the concepts touched upon.
(I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.)
(I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.)
January 4, 2015
I won this book through GoodReads First Reads giveaways. A Higher Form of Killing - Six Weeks in World War I That Forever Changed The Nature of Warefare by Diana Preston is an excellent book. During a six week period in 1915, the Germany's usage of poison gas, the U-boat torpedo and the zeppelins forever changed warefare and how wars would be fought in the future. On April 22 at Ypres, the Germans used poison gas on the French and Canadian soldiers; on May 7th, the German submarine U20 sunk the passenger liner Lusitiania killing 1,198 civilians; and on May 31st a German zeppelin for the first time aerial bombed London and its civilians. Now with the 100th anniversary of these events to occur in 2015, Diana Preston has written a book detailing the dramatic stories behind each event and how the birth of the era of weapons of mass destruction began.
Diana Preston is a an acclaimed historian and her previous books include Lusitiania: An Epic Tragedy, The Boxer Rebellion, Before the Fallout: From Maria Curie to Hiroshima and The Dark Defile: Britain's Catastrophic Invasion of Afghanistan 1838-1842, among others.
Diana Preston is a an acclaimed historian and her previous books include Lusitiania: An Epic Tragedy, The Boxer Rebellion, Before the Fallout: From Maria Curie to Hiroshima and The Dark Defile: Britain's Catastrophic Invasion of Afghanistan 1838-1842, among others.
Read
August 14, 2016Inside six weeks of 1915 three benchmarks of warfare were passed when Germany used poison gas in France, sank the Lusitania, and bombed London from airships. Preston also mentions in passing that it was during this period when the Turks genocide of Armenians began. The author investigates all three of Germany's war actions carefully. I think she is particularly good on the Lusitania but while this is interesting enough history her larger aim was to show how these actions changed warfare in the future and this analysis is left to one chapter at the end of the book. Only poison gas has remained outside the bounds of proper war-making and this is due to the threat of the same being done to you. Mutual deterrence. The book finishes with an addendum on Lusitania scholarship and research and pretty conclusively puts to bed any idea of conspiracy.
April 4, 2015
Diana Preston's well researched history succeeds in showing how the use of 3 new scientific advancements/military techniques in World War I changed the face of modern war forever. Of course societies have always sought technical and strategic advantages over their enemies in war, but Preston shows how unprecedented scientific and technological advancement made man a more efficient killing machine. Her thesis is well founded in the specific context of World War I but also speaks to an inherent flaw in human nature. For mankind to progress we all must attempt to solve the crisis when, as Einstein is quoted as saying at the end of this wonderful book, "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."
April 22, 2015
An amazing book. It tells the tale of six weeks in World War I that would shape all wars to come. On April 22, 1915 the Germans employed a deadly new secret weapon to break the deadlock on the western front - poison gas. Two weeks later they sank the Lusitania and not long after that they dropped bombs on London. These were all in violation of agreements made at the Hague in 1898 about how war should be fought. The result was a much dirtier form of warfare for the rest of the war and for wars to come. The Germans called it Schrecklichkeit or frightfulness, tactics employed more for their ability to frighten than to achieve military goals. We would call it terror today.
Preston's writing style makes her books compelling and thought provoking, yet also easy to read.
Preston's writing style makes her books compelling and thought provoking, yet also easy to read.
February 1, 2015
I won this book through GoodReads First Reads giveaways.
A Higher Form of Killing - Six Weeks in World War I That Forever Changed The Nature of Warefare by Diana Preston is a fantastic non-fiction read released to coincide with the 100 year anniversary of Germany's use of new warfare tactics during WWI. The narrative-style use of embedded quotations from diaries, newspapers and other sources makes the book an easy read. The book provides a cogent discussion of the development and attempt to constrain warfare as technology changes. I recommend this book for anyone interested in military and warfare history.
A Higher Form of Killing - Six Weeks in World War I That Forever Changed The Nature of Warefare by Diana Preston is a fantastic non-fiction read released to coincide with the 100 year anniversary of Germany's use of new warfare tactics during WWI. The narrative-style use of embedded quotations from diaries, newspapers and other sources makes the book an easy read. The book provides a cogent discussion of the development and attempt to constrain warfare as technology changes. I recommend this book for anyone interested in military and warfare history.
December 6, 2017
If you read "Lusitania" by the author or Erik Larsen's Dead Wake much of what of what was written in this book is a rehash of those two book. The author didn't try very hard to change the slant of the Lusitania part of her book. I did appreciate her telling of the bombing of London which I knew happen but didn't know any of the gory details. Likewise with the use of poison gas. For me the bottom line is humanity was always try to make war as horrible as possible no matter what technology is available. Ulysses Grant did the same thing during the American Civil War with out the technology of the first World War. Until manklnd can find alternatives to war this will always be the case.
August 1, 2015
I confess to not knowing much about WWI. Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand (but went would this trigger such a big war?). Sinking of the Lusitania (Erik Larson's Dead Wake brought me up to speed on that). Use of gas (why?). Zeppelins (I knew what they were but not how they were used).
This book filled in a lot of holes for me.
If you're already well-versed on WWI, I don't know that this book will add much to your knowledge. If all you know are what remains of what you learned in high school, this book will be enlightening.
Pro-tip: Take breaks as you read this to read a book with a lighter theme. It's a lot of death and destruction to take in at once.
This book filled in a lot of holes for me.
If you're already well-versed on WWI, I don't know that this book will add much to your knowledge. If all you know are what remains of what you learned in high school, this book will be enlightening.
Pro-tip: Take breaks as you read this to read a book with a lighter theme. It's a lot of death and destruction to take in at once.
September 5, 2015
Depressing but informative. Wars start with beliefs somethings are beyond the pale but wars end with those things being accepted practice. The only thing that stopped gas being accepted during the second world war was the risk of retaliation in kind. Unrestricted submarine warfare and the bombing of civilian areas all became accepted means of conducting war. I think it was Richard Crossman who after seeing Dachau said that civilization was a crust on which covered the deeper evil passions of mankind. Perhaps he was too optimistic. Perhaps civilization is no more substantial than the skin on a cup of cocoa.
January 2, 2023
Not for the casual reader. If you are interested in history, particularly the history of war, then, this is a book you won't want to pass up reading. My husband is an amateur war history buff and grabbed this book before I could start reading. Even he learned things he had not known.
There are a number of reviews that tell you much more. You will want to take the time to read them.
For me, this book was a bit dry, and rather text booky, but it was also very informative. Hence, the 4* rating.
There are a number of reviews that tell you much more. You will want to take the time to read them.
For me, this book was a bit dry, and rather text booky, but it was also very informative. Hence, the 4* rating.
March 5, 2015
I received this book from a Goodreads giveaway. I give this book 3 out of 5 stars because some words were not printed all the way and some were not spaced out. Other than that I liked the book. In school you only ever learn about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand being the start of WWI but nothing else. It's always about WWII. I learned so much about WWI in this book. It's astonishing that it's been 100 years since the start of WWI. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in history, WWI, or weapons in general.
January 12, 2015
Full disclosure: I won an advance reader copy of this book through a Goodreads Firstreads Giveaway.
A Higher Form of Killing: Six Weeks in World War I That Forever Changed The Nature of warfare is historian Diana Preston's look at six weeks in 2015 in which the German's escalated WWI through the use of poison gas, submarine warfare against unarmed shipping without warning, and the use of dirigibles for civilian bombing.
A Higher Form of Killing: Six Weeks in World War I That Forever Changed The Nature of warfare is historian Diana Preston's look at six weeks in 2015 in which the German's escalated WWI through the use of poison gas, submarine warfare against unarmed shipping without warning, and the use of dirigibles for civilian bombing.
March 2, 2015
Preston's whistle-stop tour of three facets of warfare introduced by the Germans in the early months of 1915 - unrestricted submarine attacks, bombing by airship and the the use of gas on the Western Front - is entertaining enough. Unfortunately, it suffers in comparison to another, far superior, book of the same name by Jeremy Paxman and Robert Harris, which examines the history of chemical warfare in a deeper and more elegant way.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews