What do you think?
Rate this book
Die Büchse der Pandora: Geschichte des Ersten Weltkrieges
Der Erste Weltkrieg sprengte alles, was sich die Welt vor 1914 hatte vorstellen können. Er wirkte wie die Büchse der Pandora – jenes mythische Schreckensgefäß, aus dem alle Übel der Welt entwichen, als man gegen den Rat der Götter seinen Deckel hob. Jörn Leonhard erzählt die Geschichte des Krieges so vielschichtig wie nie zuvor. Er führt den Leser auf vergessene Schlachtfelder und versetzt ihn abwechselnd in die Hauptstädte aller beteiligten Staaten.
So entfaltet dieses Buch ein beeindruckendes Panorama. Es zeigt, wie die Welt in den Krieg hineinging und wie sie aus ihm als eine völlig andere wieder herauskam. Es nimmt nicht nur die Staaten und Nationen in den Blick, sondern auch die Imperien in Europa und weit darüber hinaus. Es beschreibt die dynamische Veränderung der Handlungsspielräume, die rasanten militärischen Entwicklungen und die immer rascheren Wandlungen der Kriegsgesellschaften. Und es lässt die Erfahrungen ganz unterschiedlicher Zeitgenossen wieder lebendig werden: von Militärs, Politikern und Schriftstellern, Männern und Frauen, Soldaten und Arbeitern. Jörn Leonhard ist eine zeitgemäße und moderne Geschichte des Ersten Weltkriegs gelungen, die es so bisher noch nicht gegeben hat: europäisch vergleichend, global in der Perspektive, souverän in der Darstellung.
So entfaltet dieses Buch ein beeindruckendes Panorama. Es zeigt, wie die Welt in den Krieg hineinging und wie sie aus ihm als eine völlig andere wieder herauskam. Es nimmt nicht nur die Staaten und Nationen in den Blick, sondern auch die Imperien in Europa und weit darüber hinaus. Es beschreibt die dynamische Veränderung der Handlungsspielräume, die rasanten militärischen Entwicklungen und die immer rascheren Wandlungen der Kriegsgesellschaften. Und es lässt die Erfahrungen ganz unterschiedlicher Zeitgenossen wieder lebendig werden: von Militärs, Politikern und Schriftstellern, Männern und Frauen, Soldaten und Arbeitern. Jörn Leonhard ist eine zeitgemäße und moderne Geschichte des Ersten Weltkriegs gelungen, die es so bisher noch nicht gegeben hat: europäisch vergleichend, global in der Perspektive, souverän in der Darstellung.
1157 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 27, 2014
120 people are currently reading
1002 people want to read
About the author
Jörn Leonhard
31 books12 followersJörn Leonhard is Professor of West European History at the University of Freiburg.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
November 5, 2018
Though I finished Pandora's Box a week ago, I'm in an unusually busy time and am just now sitting to set down some impressions. I'm aware that the end of this week will mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War. It's also occurred to me that perhaps it took that long for such an encyclopedic, all-inclusive one-volume history of the war to be published. Leonhard's study is amazing in its exhaustive analysis of all aspects of the war. I've read many books on the subject but was gobsmacked by the thoroughness of Leonhard's history and his incisive interpretation of events. There aren't enough stars in the Goodreads system for this book. If you're going to read a book about the war, it should be this one, probably already the definitive history of 1914-1918 and probably the only history of the war we need at this time in the 21st century, his assessment of the events, causes, effects, and aftermath of the war almost everything we need to know.
This isn't a military history. All the major military operations are touched on, even to describing conditions in the trenches, even a few details of individual experiences. However, for the most part military operations of the war are reported from a bird's-eye view. Politics, diplomacy, social pressures, economic instability, the rise and fall of national cohesions, the development of new technologies, and the rise of new ideologies are only some of the topics receiving wide-ranging focus in the book.
As I say, I've read a number of books on the war but was surprised time and again by new perspectives presented to me. Just considering the end of the war--and the end of the book--we've always read that America's entry into the war created the added military forces and brute industrial power allowing Britain and France to withstand the German 1918 offensives. I've never read a clearer, more thorough analysis of how and why than that Leonhard writes. Have you ever thought of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points as an ideology? The case is made for a Europe caught between the ideologies of Wilson and V. I. Lenin and that in the end Germany opted for the idealism of Wilson because they feared Bolshevism. The book told me many things I'd not considered or known before. One aspect Leonhard spends time on is his explanations for why the war ended in western Europe yet continued in the east until 1923 in some cases amid the turmoil of collapsing empires and the rearranging of ethnicities into new states. These are only a few of the fascinating analytical frames of reference brought into focus to describe how the war ended.
One thing that sets Pandora's Box apart from most other histories of the war, I think, is that he writes without moral agenda. Because Leonhard, as historian, is forced to think--and to make us think--of fatal landscape not only in terms of the desolated western front but also of the blasted politics unearthed in the period 1914-1918, his history seems a vast confessional leaning toward redemptive promise, though the historian knows transgression is repetitive. He knows where we've been and why we were there, and he offers no excuses for the relapse 20 years later, only reasons for it. Other histories of the war are left delinquent and profane in the majesty of his scholarship. After reading all the First World War histories of our past, we realize Leonhard's clear conclusions are our logical destination.
I'd say this is essential reading for anyone interested in the war. Though physically big at 907 pages of text, it's also enormous in its understanding of the many influences and pressure points determining events during the war. I highly recommend it.
This isn't a military history. All the major military operations are touched on, even to describing conditions in the trenches, even a few details of individual experiences. However, for the most part military operations of the war are reported from a bird's-eye view. Politics, diplomacy, social pressures, economic instability, the rise and fall of national cohesions, the development of new technologies, and the rise of new ideologies are only some of the topics receiving wide-ranging focus in the book.
As I say, I've read a number of books on the war but was surprised time and again by new perspectives presented to me. Just considering the end of the war--and the end of the book--we've always read that America's entry into the war created the added military forces and brute industrial power allowing Britain and France to withstand the German 1918 offensives. I've never read a clearer, more thorough analysis of how and why than that Leonhard writes. Have you ever thought of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points as an ideology? The case is made for a Europe caught between the ideologies of Wilson and V. I. Lenin and that in the end Germany opted for the idealism of Wilson because they feared Bolshevism. The book told me many things I'd not considered or known before. One aspect Leonhard spends time on is his explanations for why the war ended in western Europe yet continued in the east until 1923 in some cases amid the turmoil of collapsing empires and the rearranging of ethnicities into new states. These are only a few of the fascinating analytical frames of reference brought into focus to describe how the war ended.
One thing that sets Pandora's Box apart from most other histories of the war, I think, is that he writes without moral agenda. Because Leonhard, as historian, is forced to think--and to make us think--of fatal landscape not only in terms of the desolated western front but also of the blasted politics unearthed in the period 1914-1918, his history seems a vast confessional leaning toward redemptive promise, though the historian knows transgression is repetitive. He knows where we've been and why we were there, and he offers no excuses for the relapse 20 years later, only reasons for it. Other histories of the war are left delinquent and profane in the majesty of his scholarship. After reading all the First World War histories of our past, we realize Leonhard's clear conclusions are our logical destination.
I'd say this is essential reading for anyone interested in the war. Though physically big at 907 pages of text, it's also enormous in its understanding of the many influences and pressure points determining events during the war. I highly recommend it.
December 19, 2023
If you are to take up the challenge of reading Professor Jörn Leonhard’s Pandora’s Box: A History of the First World War know that this is not a book about the battlefield. In over 900 well documented pages the professor will talk about what was behind the scene in the years leading into and during WWI. He speaks in detail on a number of themes and hypothesis much of it about the conflicting needs and goals of peoples, races and religions from around the world. He is Eurocentric, but will regularly speak to the aspirations and feelings of Indian nationalists, the Muslim Middle East, colonial Africa and even the nascent nationalism of the Japanese. One term used on the book cover is magisterial, I think encyclopedic is as well chosen.
In rating this book, I am going with 5 stars, but I could be easy persuaded to go as low as 3. This is an ambitious, highly academic book which delves deeply and sometimes exhaustively into corners and aspects of the societies, politics and conflicting goals that evolved under the pleasures of a new concept, mechanical warfare. In short, this is not for the casual armchair strategist. Its academic style serves as a barrier to many readers. The translator, Patrick Camiller has chosen to be true to the structure and vocabulary of the original German. The result is very long sentences, vast numbers of dependent clauses and more than a few cases where the end of a sentence is not clearly derived from its beginning. If you can sufficiently immerse yourself into this unaccustomed rhythm and Proustian construction, there is a vast amount to learn .
I had sought out the Professor’s book, in large part to get a German point of view on World War One. I am not sure I got that. I have long wanted some idea about why the war was fought. Professor Leonhard says , more than once, there was no cause behind WWI. More about that shortly.
I was rather frustrated with this book at the end of Chapter I. The Professor is quite coy about the causes of WWI. In fact to read the book Kaiser William is a mostly missing player and German diplomacy was a part and not much of one. The chapter reads as protective of Germany rather than honest reporting. In retrospect, I may be right, but I had not grasped what the book was doing. Prior to WWI there existed in the Balkans, and Eastern Europe a number of conflicting claims, cross boundary influencers and causes for, especially crowned heads of countries to feel insecure. There had been a series of challenges to the peace and to the professor it was never more than a matter of time before the one challenge that was to be converted into war.
Of this I can make some pointed counter observations. The Kaiser demanded a Navy to impress England. It threatened England. Germany was on the verge of dominating Europe in way that other powers had no reason to promote. Germany saw neutral Belgium as a nothing but the necessary path to victory. Other nations had been clear that a neutral Belgium was not a topic to be negotiated. Austria was ready to be satisfied with the response to its ultimatum after the assignation of its Grande Duke. Germany was not satisfied and pressured Austria to refuse that which it was inclined to accept. I see a pattern, Leonhard losses that pattern is a larger scheme of conflicting events. He even has time to blame an American Civil War General with introducing the concept of total war to a previously innocent German Imperial Planning Staff.
So much for chapter I.
In the following chapters, we are introduced to the problem of Slavs, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Indians, Muslims and many (dozens?) of peoples in any of several countries. Some of the same ethic, religious and national groups would volunteer to fight for their host nation. Often for the deliberate purpose of proving that they were loyal first to their county and after to their blood line. These same people could find themselves distrusted by their host nation, often violently, treated as traitors to the contending peoples, often violently and sometimes mis-treated by third parties for reason not related to the original problems.
Americans, for example coming late to the party tended to treat people by race, unaware of the complexities of nationalism. Beyond American racism, colonial nations heavily recruited from their multi-racial empires, only to have problems over race. Colonial soldiers of color came off the line, and into civilian populations unused to so many hues of skin, languages and religious practices. Then these same soldiers would return to their European occupied homelands with new ideas about what they had earned as individuals and members of empire nations.
Returning to problems of a war that has no cause. Political leadership of many kinds, national and party, could not state and hold to exact reasons for the war . Over time they had to temporize and revise what their public was told to expect as the outcome of war. Depending on the exigencies and expectations of victory there were a spate of essays, some from learned sources about what a post war, Germany, France, Italy and etcetra should be. Creating a multitude of expectations that would become parts of many post war feelings of betrayal and dissatisfaction with the peace.
What does war look like from the food basket? How does a leader talk to a bereaved, patriotic or stunned public. What were the variation in the relative power of civilian leadership and military leadership during the fighting of an “all in war”? These and more topics are interwoven into Pandora’s Box. Mostly Leonhard is a reporter of facts. This is how France, German, England, Austria, Russia, later Soviet Russia, incidentally America, answered the questions and how those answers varied over time and why and who, especially who as personalities drove the changes.
Why did the war last so long? As quoted, the victor is the one who thinks they can win, 1/2 hour longer than the other. In the case of WWI, each side continued to believe that the war was winnable and needed to be in a position to dictate terms. Bad as the Treaty of Versailles was there is no reason to believe a German dictated peace would have been better. Defeated Germany expected a peace based on Wilson, but there was never a chance that the other powers would so dictate. With or without a Wilsonain framework the too many competing claims by those same peoples who had loyally fought for, against or between their host nations, there was no way that all, and no will that many would be appeased.
The tragedy of the returning veteran is discussed. Home came the hero to victorious countries, only to have the battle damaged quickly reclassified as mental cases and other language less than that of deserving veteran. In defeated countries, the returning soldier could be meet with cheers and degrees of bewilderment. The war ended so abruptly, with so little preparation that existing claims of betrayal and rumors of seditious internal enemies gained credence. Worse was a third class of nations, often forgotten in the joy of peace. In these countries, notably, but not exclusively Russia, Poland, Turkey,and Greece ; the 11th day of the 11 month marked no end to the war.
Professor Leonhard is certain that beginning a world war opens up a lot of topics not related to which divisions where shipped were. This much of his case is proved by the shear length of his book. If all you know about World War I are its too many battlefields and emerging technologies, your education has only started.
In rating this book, I am going with 5 stars, but I could be easy persuaded to go as low as 3. This is an ambitious, highly academic book which delves deeply and sometimes exhaustively into corners and aspects of the societies, politics and conflicting goals that evolved under the pleasures of a new concept, mechanical warfare. In short, this is not for the casual armchair strategist. Its academic style serves as a barrier to many readers. The translator, Patrick Camiller has chosen to be true to the structure and vocabulary of the original German. The result is very long sentences, vast numbers of dependent clauses and more than a few cases where the end of a sentence is not clearly derived from its beginning. If you can sufficiently immerse yourself into this unaccustomed rhythm and Proustian construction, there is a vast amount to learn .
I had sought out the Professor’s book, in large part to get a German point of view on World War One. I am not sure I got that. I have long wanted some idea about why the war was fought. Professor Leonhard says , more than once, there was no cause behind WWI. More about that shortly.
I was rather frustrated with this book at the end of Chapter I. The Professor is quite coy about the causes of WWI. In fact to read the book Kaiser William is a mostly missing player and German diplomacy was a part and not much of one. The chapter reads as protective of Germany rather than honest reporting. In retrospect, I may be right, but I had not grasped what the book was doing. Prior to WWI there existed in the Balkans, and Eastern Europe a number of conflicting claims, cross boundary influencers and causes for, especially crowned heads of countries to feel insecure. There had been a series of challenges to the peace and to the professor it was never more than a matter of time before the one challenge that was to be converted into war.
Of this I can make some pointed counter observations. The Kaiser demanded a Navy to impress England. It threatened England. Germany was on the verge of dominating Europe in way that other powers had no reason to promote. Germany saw neutral Belgium as a nothing but the necessary path to victory. Other nations had been clear that a neutral Belgium was not a topic to be negotiated. Austria was ready to be satisfied with the response to its ultimatum after the assignation of its Grande Duke. Germany was not satisfied and pressured Austria to refuse that which it was inclined to accept. I see a pattern, Leonhard losses that pattern is a larger scheme of conflicting events. He even has time to blame an American Civil War General with introducing the concept of total war to a previously innocent German Imperial Planning Staff.
So much for chapter I.
In the following chapters, we are introduced to the problem of Slavs, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Indians, Muslims and many (dozens?) of peoples in any of several countries. Some of the same ethic, religious and national groups would volunteer to fight for their host nation. Often for the deliberate purpose of proving that they were loyal first to their county and after to their blood line. These same people could find themselves distrusted by their host nation, often violently, treated as traitors to the contending peoples, often violently and sometimes mis-treated by third parties for reason not related to the original problems.
Americans, for example coming late to the party tended to treat people by race, unaware of the complexities of nationalism. Beyond American racism, colonial nations heavily recruited from their multi-racial empires, only to have problems over race. Colonial soldiers of color came off the line, and into civilian populations unused to so many hues of skin, languages and religious practices. Then these same soldiers would return to their European occupied homelands with new ideas about what they had earned as individuals and members of empire nations.
Returning to problems of a war that has no cause. Political leadership of many kinds, national and party, could not state and hold to exact reasons for the war . Over time they had to temporize and revise what their public was told to expect as the outcome of war. Depending on the exigencies and expectations of victory there were a spate of essays, some from learned sources about what a post war, Germany, France, Italy and etcetra should be. Creating a multitude of expectations that would become parts of many post war feelings of betrayal and dissatisfaction with the peace.
What does war look like from the food basket? How does a leader talk to a bereaved, patriotic or stunned public. What were the variation in the relative power of civilian leadership and military leadership during the fighting of an “all in war”? These and more topics are interwoven into Pandora’s Box. Mostly Leonhard is a reporter of facts. This is how France, German, England, Austria, Russia, later Soviet Russia, incidentally America, answered the questions and how those answers varied over time and why and who, especially who as personalities drove the changes.
Why did the war last so long? As quoted, the victor is the one who thinks they can win, 1/2 hour longer than the other. In the case of WWI, each side continued to believe that the war was winnable and needed to be in a position to dictate terms. Bad as the Treaty of Versailles was there is no reason to believe a German dictated peace would have been better. Defeated Germany expected a peace based on Wilson, but there was never a chance that the other powers would so dictate. With or without a Wilsonain framework the too many competing claims by those same peoples who had loyally fought for, against or between their host nations, there was no way that all, and no will that many would be appeased.
The tragedy of the returning veteran is discussed. Home came the hero to victorious countries, only to have the battle damaged quickly reclassified as mental cases and other language less than that of deserving veteran. In defeated countries, the returning soldier could be meet with cheers and degrees of bewilderment. The war ended so abruptly, with so little preparation that existing claims of betrayal and rumors of seditious internal enemies gained credence. Worse was a third class of nations, often forgotten in the joy of peace. In these countries, notably, but not exclusively Russia, Poland, Turkey,and Greece ; the 11th day of the 11 month marked no end to the war.
Professor Leonhard is certain that beginning a world war opens up a lot of topics not related to which divisions where shipped were. This much of his case is proved by the shear length of his book. If all you know about World War I are its too many battlefields and emerging technologies, your education has only started.
July 16, 2018
For the English-language reader today there is no shortage of histories surveying the First World War. Thanks to the centenary, several new volumes have been added to the fine books written over the years, giving readers a choice of works ranging from those of contemporary authors such as Winston Churchill, C.R.M.F. Cruttwell, and B.H. Liddell Hart to more modern studies by historians such as John Keegan, Hew Strachan, David Stevenson, and G. J. Meyer. Yet even when these authors have pursued a balanced approach and incorporated available German-language sources into their account, they usually have an inherent British or Allied focus resulting from a combination of factors.
This is just one reason why Jörn Leonhard's book stands out as a history of the conflict. Originally published in German in 2014, its translation into English offers readers of the language a survey of the war from an historian coming from a perspective rooted in a different set of sources and influences than those of his British and American counterparts. Yet this is just one of the many distinguishing characteristics of his fine work, which offers what is easily the most comprehensive single-volume history of the war yet written. Within its pages he offers an account that begins with an examination of the factors that lead to the war and ends with its postwar legacy. Along the way he discusses the war in all of its myriad aspects, from the politics and economics of the conflict to its effects on society and culture. No front is left unexamined, and all of it is integrated into a narrative that moves with considerable fluidity from topic to topic.
The result is a work that is massive in scope yet one that offers an insightful account of the war that defined the 20th century. There is little that escapes his coverage, which is informed throughout by a perspective that will be fresh for many English-language readers of the war. It makes for a book that has set the new standard by which histories of the First World War are judged, and one likely to remain the standard for some time to come.
This is just one reason why Jörn Leonhard's book stands out as a history of the conflict. Originally published in German in 2014, its translation into English offers readers of the language a survey of the war from an historian coming from a perspective rooted in a different set of sources and influences than those of his British and American counterparts. Yet this is just one of the many distinguishing characteristics of his fine work, which offers what is easily the most comprehensive single-volume history of the war yet written. Within its pages he offers an account that begins with an examination of the factors that lead to the war and ends with its postwar legacy. Along the way he discusses the war in all of its myriad aspects, from the politics and economics of the conflict to its effects on society and culture. No front is left unexamined, and all of it is integrated into a narrative that moves with considerable fluidity from topic to topic.
The result is a work that is massive in scope yet one that offers an insightful account of the war that defined the 20th century. There is little that escapes his coverage, which is informed throughout by a perspective that will be fresh for many English-language readers of the war. It makes for a book that has set the new standard by which histories of the First World War are judged, and one likely to remain the standard for some time to come.
June 19, 2018
A tour de force: gigantic and comprehensive: covers virtually everything, not just about the War militarily, in a genuinely international, multidisciplinary history. Never knew, for instance, that casualties in the eastern front were higher than on the more familiar (for an American) western one. Continually insightful in an almost off handed way: for instance, gives a much more complex reading to the USAs entry into the war then the usual “fresh Americans tipped the balance for exhausted Europeans.” Points to the contradiction of Wilsonian internationalism and his economic nationalism (as well as his racial attitudes), seed bed of trouble then at Versailles and later in the century - and now for that matter. Stylistically and organizationally it is very clear but it is long, incredibly detailed and requires an effort to read it. The author is German but it is not written from a national or nationalistic point of view but in the tradition of 19th century Germanic historiography.
I’d be curious to know how long it took to translate this, let alone write it!
I’d be curious to know how long it took to translate this, let alone write it!
May 8, 2024
Amazing. Leonhard makes a complicated read easy and not only goes into battles but the lives of families at home. A must read for anyone wanting to understand WWI.
April 6, 2024
"And just five days after the assassination, the Austrian plenipotentiary in Athens, Count Tanczos, wrote to Conrad von Hötzendorf: “War would overnight make us a state that ‘dares’ to wage a war. Whereas the whole of Europe—the Balkans excepted—has a crazy fear of war, the simple courage to have declared war would make us so respected that our vested rights … would be secure for decades to come.”"
Most of my criticisms boil down to the issue of trying to cover so much in a single volume history. He really tries to touch on basically everything, including a good amount on the circumstances that led to the state of play on June 28 1914. But the attempt at breadth means depth is lost, and a lot of narrative about the war simply disappears. For example, there's basically nothing about the status during the war - except for very occasional mentions as they relate to other countries - of:
- Bulgaria
- Romania
- China
- Greece, except from a little about the coup undertaken by the Entente
- The Ottoman Empire, outside the Armenian Genocide, Gallipoli and a couple more details of fronts moving
- Japan
- Any neutral countries (there's a little bit about struggles with food in Switzerland)
He - somewhat understandably for a German historian - gives a bit more attention to Germany than the other major states, but it's mostly only noticeable in him picking quotes from Germans to illustrate his points (Thomas Mann gets quoted a lot - I hadn't realised he was such a turd at the time). He does get into quite a bit of detail trying to cover every aspect of both the frontline and the home front of France, Germany, the UK and Russia but inevitably there's a lot of interesting stuff that's passed over quite quickly and there's not much narrative cohesion over the whole war. I do think his picking of illustrative examples, stories and quotes is extremely good - I was fascinated by lots of them. Again, this feels like a somewhat unfair criticism because it's inevitable in a single volume! It just makes me question if the approach was correct. In addition, the limited depth given to each area at each time means his thesis on each can sometimes be confused, muddled and even contradictory.
At the same time I'm giving it four stars because for a lot of it I was deeply fascinated. It's long and occasionally it's hard going but I highlighted huge amounts because there were really interesting insights. One small nice thing I liked was the summary points at the end of each chapter - this took up a few pages of each but helped keep things firm in my head. The really broad sweep is helpful in showing just how much the war changed everything, while still showing continuities from before and also making it very clear just how much WW2 was descended from ideas and leftovers of WW1. As always with a good non fiction book that covers a lot, it's hard to pick out good examples to show because I'd end up just trying to post 50 pages of quotes I especially liked, heh.
"The first British soldier killed in the war was the 16-year-old John Parr from Finchley, who had worked as a golf caddy and in Summer 1914 had hidden his true age in order to volunteer as soon as possible for the Middlesex Regiment. As a bicycle scout, he came across German cavalry north of Mons in Belgium and was shot in an exchange of fire. The last British soldier killed in the war was George Ellison, a mineworker from Leeds, who at the age of 40, on patrol near Mons, fell at 9:30 A.M. on November 11, 1918, just 90 minutes before the armistice came into effect. As a member of the 5th Royal Irish Lancers, he had fought all through the war on the western front... The two British soldiers, from the beginning and end of the war, fell only a few kilometers from each other. Fifty-two months of war separated their deaths, but they had defended more or less the same piece of territory"
Most of my criticisms boil down to the issue of trying to cover so much in a single volume history. He really tries to touch on basically everything, including a good amount on the circumstances that led to the state of play on June 28 1914. But the attempt at breadth means depth is lost, and a lot of narrative about the war simply disappears. For example, there's basically nothing about the status during the war - except for very occasional mentions as they relate to other countries - of:
- Bulgaria
- Romania
- China
- Greece, except from a little about the coup undertaken by the Entente
- The Ottoman Empire, outside the Armenian Genocide, Gallipoli and a couple more details of fronts moving
- Japan
- Any neutral countries (there's a little bit about struggles with food in Switzerland)
He - somewhat understandably for a German historian - gives a bit more attention to Germany than the other major states, but it's mostly only noticeable in him picking quotes from Germans to illustrate his points (Thomas Mann gets quoted a lot - I hadn't realised he was such a turd at the time). He does get into quite a bit of detail trying to cover every aspect of both the frontline and the home front of France, Germany, the UK and Russia but inevitably there's a lot of interesting stuff that's passed over quite quickly and there's not much narrative cohesion over the whole war. I do think his picking of illustrative examples, stories and quotes is extremely good - I was fascinated by lots of them. Again, this feels like a somewhat unfair criticism because it's inevitable in a single volume! It just makes me question if the approach was correct. In addition, the limited depth given to each area at each time means his thesis on each can sometimes be confused, muddled and even contradictory.
At the same time I'm giving it four stars because for a lot of it I was deeply fascinated. It's long and occasionally it's hard going but I highlighted huge amounts because there were really interesting insights. One small nice thing I liked was the summary points at the end of each chapter - this took up a few pages of each but helped keep things firm in my head. The really broad sweep is helpful in showing just how much the war changed everything, while still showing continuities from before and also making it very clear just how much WW2 was descended from ideas and leftovers of WW1. As always with a good non fiction book that covers a lot, it's hard to pick out good examples to show because I'd end up just trying to post 50 pages of quotes I especially liked, heh.
"The first British soldier killed in the war was the 16-year-old John Parr from Finchley, who had worked as a golf caddy and in Summer 1914 had hidden his true age in order to volunteer as soon as possible for the Middlesex Regiment. As a bicycle scout, he came across German cavalry north of Mons in Belgium and was shot in an exchange of fire. The last British soldier killed in the war was George Ellison, a mineworker from Leeds, who at the age of 40, on patrol near Mons, fell at 9:30 A.M. on November 11, 1918, just 90 minutes before the armistice came into effect. As a member of the 5th Royal Irish Lancers, he had fought all through the war on the western front... The two British soldiers, from the beginning and end of the war, fell only a few kilometers from each other. Fifty-two months of war separated their deaths, but they had defended more or less the same piece of territory"
April 3, 2023
Knowing the history of The First World War is essential to understanding the world today, not just because it led directly to a second and even greater catastrophe, but because it contains countless lessons for governments, politicians, societies and civilians today.
Leonard discusses the vision nineteenth-century Europeans had, and how it changed with the writings of Nietzsche, how their understanding of reality changed because of Planck and Einstein, and Freud. Technology of transportation and communication produced a crisis for many “as historically experienced time and the individual-biographical experience of time grew further apart” as displayed by the works of Robert Musil and Thomas Mann.
The American Civil introduced (possibly reintroduced) the concept of total war and Friedrich Engels has a quote that is worth quoting at length.
“No war is any longer possible for Prussia-Germany except a world war and a world war indeed of an extent and violence hitherto undreamt of. Eight to ten millions of soldiers will massacre one another and in doing so devour the whole of Europe until they have stripped it barer than any swarm of locusts has ever done. The devastations of the Thirty Years' War compressed into three or four years, and spread over the whole Continent.”
What a war in Europe could mean was all there to be seen, but still the war came. From the outset, not being seen as primarily responsible was all-important. But one begs the question, what were the war aims exactly? Lost in the hubbub of timelines of mobilization and the decision-makers being out of reach, there is a distinct lack of specific objectives on which to base success and the probability of achieving it.
The Germans advance came to a halt before Paris and its taxis, the Russians mobilized faster than expected, defensive weapons won out over the “cult of the offensive.”
Stagnation.
Artillery.
Gas.
Death.
The war ground on and on. Millions died. In various horrific ways millions died in the trenches, in no-man’s-land, on the eastern front at Tannenberg which wasn’t fought at Tannenberg, on the western front at the fortress of Verdun and the rivers of Belgium and France, and on the southern front and it’s twelve battles of the Isonzo, and smaller but crucial battles across the globe. The millions who died were from Europe but also from Africa, the Middle East, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and eventually, the United States.
World War I changed the structure of the world and Leonard does as good a job as I have read in helping the reader understand the military, political, economic, cultural, and social reasons for the war, how it’s fighting was enabled and encouraged and it’s tragic outcomes. Some things changed irrevocably, others changed only to fall back. Was anything at all accomplished? If not, could they have known it at the time? What can be learned from it all and how do we make use of our knowledge?
A final note on one unique aspect of this book. I very much appreciate the attention paid to literature, as a reader of Thomas Mann, Robert Musil, Franz Kafka and many war novelists. It helps inform my understanding of the war and histories of the war help me understand the literature of those who lived through it.
To set the mood for reading this I suggest a piece of music that will grate on the ears of most, which is appropriate all things considered. I get chills every time when the lyrics “our field artillery made a mistake” is followed by Colonel Whittlesey's note. It puts forward a very human element that is always lingering behind a reading of Pandora’s Box.
1914 - Arrival. The Meuse Argonne
Leonard discusses the vision nineteenth-century Europeans had, and how it changed with the writings of Nietzsche, how their understanding of reality changed because of Planck and Einstein, and Freud. Technology of transportation and communication produced a crisis for many “as historically experienced time and the individual-biographical experience of time grew further apart” as displayed by the works of Robert Musil and Thomas Mann.
The American Civil introduced (possibly reintroduced) the concept of total war and Friedrich Engels has a quote that is worth quoting at length.
“No war is any longer possible for Prussia-Germany except a world war and a world war indeed of an extent and violence hitherto undreamt of. Eight to ten millions of soldiers will massacre one another and in doing so devour the whole of Europe until they have stripped it barer than any swarm of locusts has ever done. The devastations of the Thirty Years' War compressed into three or four years, and spread over the whole Continent.”
What a war in Europe could mean was all there to be seen, but still the war came. From the outset, not being seen as primarily responsible was all-important. But one begs the question, what were the war aims exactly? Lost in the hubbub of timelines of mobilization and the decision-makers being out of reach, there is a distinct lack of specific objectives on which to base success and the probability of achieving it.
The Germans advance came to a halt before Paris and its taxis, the Russians mobilized faster than expected, defensive weapons won out over the “cult of the offensive.”
Stagnation.
Artillery.
Gas.
Death.
The war ground on and on. Millions died. In various horrific ways millions died in the trenches, in no-man’s-land, on the eastern front at Tannenberg which wasn’t fought at Tannenberg, on the western front at the fortress of Verdun and the rivers of Belgium and France, and on the southern front and it’s twelve battles of the Isonzo, and smaller but crucial battles across the globe. The millions who died were from Europe but also from Africa, the Middle East, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and eventually, the United States.
World War I changed the structure of the world and Leonard does as good a job as I have read in helping the reader understand the military, political, economic, cultural, and social reasons for the war, how it’s fighting was enabled and encouraged and it’s tragic outcomes. Some things changed irrevocably, others changed only to fall back. Was anything at all accomplished? If not, could they have known it at the time? What can be learned from it all and how do we make use of our knowledge?
A final note on one unique aspect of this book. I very much appreciate the attention paid to literature, as a reader of Thomas Mann, Robert Musil, Franz Kafka and many war novelists. It helps inform my understanding of the war and histories of the war help me understand the literature of those who lived through it.
To set the mood for reading this I suggest a piece of music that will grate on the ears of most, which is appropriate all things considered. I get chills every time when the lyrics “our field artillery made a mistake” is followed by Colonel Whittlesey's note. It puts forward a very human element that is always lingering behind a reading of Pandora’s Box.
1914 - Arrival. The Meuse Argonne
May 23, 2021
It took a while to finish the book, but it was worth it. Written by a German academic, it is interesting, comprehensive overview of the Great War.
Through the story of WWI is shown how anything a human being starts or plans very quickly runs out of control and lives its own life, therefore the name of the book “Pandora’s box” makes a good point about the main plot. The war brought colossal changes and it shaped, determined further development of major events in 20th century.
So if you like history and want to get a thorough overview of the WWI, then this book is for you.
Through the story of WWI is shown how anything a human being starts or plans very quickly runs out of control and lives its own life, therefore the name of the book “Pandora’s box” makes a good point about the main plot. The war brought colossal changes and it shaped, determined further development of major events in 20th century.
So if you like history and want to get a thorough overview of the WWI, then this book is for you.
June 1, 2020
While not a narrative history of WW I and thus probably not of much interest to those without any special interest in that war, this is the best analysis I have read of the entirety of that war: military, political, economic, social, and personal. Moreover, Leonhard being German covers all of the participants world wide and avoids the almost omnipresent British chauvinism found in most of what I’ve read. At the same time, he makes no excuses for Germany’s responsibilities and keeps a clear eye the entirety of the war.
December 6, 2022
It's a miracle folks, a near-comprehensive history of the First World War that pays equal attention to events occuring outside of the Western Front. While many broad histories play as a sort of "Greatest Hits" CD of the subjects they encompass, Leonhard manages to paint a portrait of a world on fire that is vivid and compelling.
May 22, 2023
A well-researched and comprehensive work.
As expected, the level of detail is exhaustive, though Leonhard does assume some background knowledge of the war on the reader’s part. Leonhard ably describes the effect of the war on the belligerents’ societies and economies. Politics and diplomacy are also ably covered. The sheer size allows Leonhard to describe poignant details like the war’s last casualties. The coverage of the war is pretty broad, ranging from politics to industry, finances, strategy and tactics, among others. The analysis is also solid, and Leonhard attacks a lot of conventional wisdom. His discussion of the war’s origins is broad and nuanced, and he avoids trying to boil them down to any one factor or player.
Some readers may find the coverage of the war’s origins inadequate. The writing is dry. The translation is good, but it can be a bit clunky. German-language books can be wordy, with lengthy sentences, and reading these in English can be a bit awkward. At one point 1918 is rendered “2018.”
There’s a few errors. Arthur Balfour is called “James” at one point. Leonhard writes that Kitchener commanded the troops at Gallipoli, and mentions Allied soldiers seizing “bridgeheads” there (he must mean beachheads) He writes that Nicholas I took no action against Felix Yusupov after he killed Rasputin, though he did banish Yusupov to his estate and sent another conspirator to the Persian front. Leonhard also writes that during the October Revolution in Russia Kerensky “took refuge in the US embassy” (he didn’t, Kerensky seized one of the embassy cars to escape Petrograd) Leonhard also claims that Allenby's capture of Jerusalem in 1917 boosted Lloyd George’s confidence in British military leadership (it did?) Elsewhere Leonhard writes that Aleksei Brusilov joined the Whites when civil war broke out in Russia.
A solid and engaging work overall.
As expected, the level of detail is exhaustive, though Leonhard does assume some background knowledge of the war on the reader’s part. Leonhard ably describes the effect of the war on the belligerents’ societies and economies. Politics and diplomacy are also ably covered. The sheer size allows Leonhard to describe poignant details like the war’s last casualties. The coverage of the war is pretty broad, ranging from politics to industry, finances, strategy and tactics, among others. The analysis is also solid, and Leonhard attacks a lot of conventional wisdom. His discussion of the war’s origins is broad and nuanced, and he avoids trying to boil them down to any one factor or player.
Some readers may find the coverage of the war’s origins inadequate. The writing is dry. The translation is good, but it can be a bit clunky. German-language books can be wordy, with lengthy sentences, and reading these in English can be a bit awkward. At one point 1918 is rendered “2018.”
There’s a few errors. Arthur Balfour is called “James” at one point. Leonhard writes that Kitchener commanded the troops at Gallipoli, and mentions Allied soldiers seizing “bridgeheads” there (he must mean beachheads) He writes that Nicholas I took no action against Felix Yusupov after he killed Rasputin, though he did banish Yusupov to his estate and sent another conspirator to the Persian front. Leonhard also writes that during the October Revolution in Russia Kerensky “took refuge in the US embassy” (he didn’t, Kerensky seized one of the embassy cars to escape Petrograd) Leonhard also claims that Allenby's capture of Jerusalem in 1917 boosted Lloyd George’s confidence in British military leadership (it did?) Elsewhere Leonhard writes that Aleksei Brusilov joined the Whites when civil war broke out in Russia.
A solid and engaging work overall.
February 5, 2021
perhaps Leonhard doesn't have a deep enough knowledge of the actual military conflict, but he hauls out the old lines about 19th-century tactics and 20th-century technology, going so far as to say that only in 1917-18 were new methods of conducting the war explored. This is simply not true.
Due it seems to the imbalance of casualties suffered vis-a-vis the French army, Leonhard gives little credit to the small British Expeditionary Force -- only six divisions as compared toeighty-two of the French! -- which was effectively destroyed in its fighting retreat from Belgium in Autumn of 1914 but played a crucial role in wrecking the Schlieffen Plan and saving Paris.
Leonhard seems to write quickly beyond the actual fighting in order to dwell upon 'symbolic representations' and 'collective memories'. It appears that he relies upon secondary sources for most of his military information, reaching his own conclusions that don't exactly line up with most accounts. For example, attributing the British failure at Gallipoli to an underestimation of the Turkish army. That well may be, but shouldn't their be some discussion at least of the failures of British command or a mention of the topography of the battlefield? And many of these sources upon which he draws some major conclusions might be considered less than scholarly. John Baynes anyone?
In a text of 900 pages, it is astonishing that Leonhard's narrative constantly meanders from one point to the next without much extensive explanation or systematic discussion. The Gallipoli Campaign, for example, gets barely five pages.
Some sloppy errors such as misspelling Suvla Bay (printed "Suval")
Due it seems to the imbalance of casualties suffered vis-a-vis the French army, Leonhard gives little credit to the small British Expeditionary Force -- only six divisions as compared toeighty-two of the French! -- which was effectively destroyed in its fighting retreat from Belgium in Autumn of 1914 but played a crucial role in wrecking the Schlieffen Plan and saving Paris.
Leonhard seems to write quickly beyond the actual fighting in order to dwell upon 'symbolic representations' and 'collective memories'. It appears that he relies upon secondary sources for most of his military information, reaching his own conclusions that don't exactly line up with most accounts. For example, attributing the British failure at Gallipoli to an underestimation of the Turkish army. That well may be, but shouldn't their be some discussion at least of the failures of British command or a mention of the topography of the battlefield? And many of these sources upon which he draws some major conclusions might be considered less than scholarly. John Baynes anyone?
In a text of 900 pages, it is astonishing that Leonhard's narrative constantly meanders from one point to the next without much extensive explanation or systematic discussion. The Gallipoli Campaign, for example, gets barely five pages.
Some sloppy errors such as misspelling Suvla Bay (printed "Suval")
July 2, 2024
An absolute masterpiece. This is not a war history book that follows a war’s battles from beginning to end. This book tackles every single aspect affected by the First World War. It doesn’t just follow a couple European countries and instead talks in length about the other nations involved in the war. It does this in depth and detail. He shows how it effected women’s rights, social values, the idea of nation hood itself I can go on and on. If you want to read only one book about World War One please make it this one. This is not a boring fact throwing book with no substance. This is a book that makes you really understand the horrors soldiers and citizens went through before during and after the war. The impact of this war was sooo much larger than I expected. So happy I read this!!
August 6, 2019
The book should have been titled "A political history of the First world war" As a military history book it has a number of flaws and some irritating mistakes (General Brusilov did not join the whites, for example, and armored cruisers are not pocket battleships).
It offers some good insight regarding the evolution of the political situation, both national and international.
It offers some good insight regarding the evolution of the political situation, both national and international.
July 17, 2020
A riveting all encompassing look at the Great War and its devastating effects on the nations, communities and individuals that took part in it. Highly recommend for any one (amateur or academic) interested in a general but thorough overview of the cause, duration and aftermath of the war.
My only criticism is that I found several typos in the English translation (hardcover).
My only criticism is that I found several typos in the English translation (hardcover).
April 21, 2020
Essentially summarizing other 5-Star comments:
— German historian but you almost couldn’t tell.
— A panorama of the entire war with each year given its own lengthy chapter.
— Massive in scope yet extremely insightful.
— The new standard for WWI history books.
Relies on Alexander Rabinowitch, Robert Service and Orlando Figes for the Russian portions. All well regarded.
— German historian but you almost couldn’t tell.
— A panorama of the entire war with each year given its own lengthy chapter.
— Massive in scope yet extremely insightful.
— The new standard for WWI history books.
Relies on Alexander Rabinowitch, Robert Service and Orlando Figes for the Russian portions. All well regarded.
February 13, 2019
A behemoth of a book. Perhaps the best single volume history of the conflict. Leonhard patiently analyses each year, giving them their own context and feel. Ultimately an absorbing overview of the military, economic, political and social consequences of WW1.
December 13, 2019
I believe those who are interested with early 1900's history will be very interested in this book which touches upon the first world war and the human geography that was changed by the first world war.
January 2, 2019
Pandora’s Box is a truly impressive work and well worth the investment of time to read it. This is the single most comprehensive history of the First World War that I’ve read, and Leonhard makes sure that the whole scope of the war is captured and from all sides. The war was complex and nuanced, and he handles that well. There were so many overlapping conflicts - especially the Russian Revolution - and he weaves them in too. The best thing about this book is that the perspective is not dominated by the British view, unlike most work about the First World War that I have found.
This is not an easy read, however. The language is dense and complex (note I read the English translation), and Leonhard does not follow the narrative structure of Anglo-American historians. Each chapter covers a year of the war, but within those, he looks at different themes and aspects associated with that year as sub-chapters. These can cover all sorts, including discussions of philosophical aspects.
I learned so many interesting things in this book. I was surprised at how all sides were so close to collapse in 1917. Indeed, local successes by the Austro-Hungarians at Caporetto almost led to a total collapse of Italy. The French army became unable to launch offensives for the rest of the year after the mutinies in Spring 1917, and the British were in a similar position by the end of 1917. The Russians completely collapsed and withdrew, the country wracked by internal problems caused by the war. All sides were exhausted and running out of soldiers. Only the entry of the USA tipped the balance to the Allies. However, since August and September 1914 - the bloodiest months of the war - no side was willing to consider a compromise peace, lest the tremendous cost in lives be considered a waste. Only when the Germans were unable to replace casualties by October 1918 did they consider reaching out to Woodrow Wilson for peace talks.
Some other interesting facts I recall (mainly so that I can remember them):
The cost of killing one Central Powers soldier came to $14,300, against $4,500 for one Allied soldier.
77% of French soldiers called up were killed, captured or wounded (and this was less than Germany).
The legacy of the war was awful, and the fighting and killing persisted in east and southeast Europe until 1923. Ethnic minorities were killed, expelled or persecuted in the new natron-states in the formerly multiethnic empires, with Jews targeted particularly hard. Prisoners of war found themselves with no country to return to after the breakup of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Soldiers of the new nation-states who had fought for these empires were inconveniences to the new national narratives and forgotten. Vast numbers of veterans from all participating countries returned home to unemployment (they had lost their jobs on call-up), broken countries, and an often unsympathetic populace. The middle classes had been hit particularly hard, as industrial workers had been protected for the war effort. The peace treaties pleased no one and set the stage for future conflict (Turkey violently resisted the first treaty that was applied to them). Expectations had been set high across the board and heavy disillusionment set in when they were inevitably not met. This was particularly the case with promises of national self-determination, or other often contradictory promises made to bring allies on board. Participation of many national groups, like the Irish and Indians but with all participating countries, had been in the hope of winning greater rights. When this didn’t happen for those two examples, Ireland erupted into civil war, and India saw massacres of protesters against British rule. The whole of the course of the 20th century seems to have been affected by the First World War, particularly the tragedies of that century, and it is amazing how much this has generally been overlooked. This makes Pandora’s Box a particularly important read, to understand the history since.
This is not an easy read, however. The language is dense and complex (note I read the English translation), and Leonhard does not follow the narrative structure of Anglo-American historians. Each chapter covers a year of the war, but within those, he looks at different themes and aspects associated with that year as sub-chapters. These can cover all sorts, including discussions of philosophical aspects.
I learned so many interesting things in this book. I was surprised at how all sides were so close to collapse in 1917. Indeed, local successes by the Austro-Hungarians at Caporetto almost led to a total collapse of Italy. The French army became unable to launch offensives for the rest of the year after the mutinies in Spring 1917, and the British were in a similar position by the end of 1917. The Russians completely collapsed and withdrew, the country wracked by internal problems caused by the war. All sides were exhausted and running out of soldiers. Only the entry of the USA tipped the balance to the Allies. However, since August and September 1914 - the bloodiest months of the war - no side was willing to consider a compromise peace, lest the tremendous cost in lives be considered a waste. Only when the Germans were unable to replace casualties by October 1918 did they consider reaching out to Woodrow Wilson for peace talks.
Some other interesting facts I recall (mainly so that I can remember them):
The cost of killing one Central Powers soldier came to $14,300, against $4,500 for one Allied soldier.
77% of French soldiers called up were killed, captured or wounded (and this was less than Germany).
The legacy of the war was awful, and the fighting and killing persisted in east and southeast Europe until 1923. Ethnic minorities were killed, expelled or persecuted in the new natron-states in the formerly multiethnic empires, with Jews targeted particularly hard. Prisoners of war found themselves with no country to return to after the breakup of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Soldiers of the new nation-states who had fought for these empires were inconveniences to the new national narratives and forgotten. Vast numbers of veterans from all participating countries returned home to unemployment (they had lost their jobs on call-up), broken countries, and an often unsympathetic populace. The middle classes had been hit particularly hard, as industrial workers had been protected for the war effort. The peace treaties pleased no one and set the stage for future conflict (Turkey violently resisted the first treaty that was applied to them). Expectations had been set high across the board and heavy disillusionment set in when they were inevitably not met. This was particularly the case with promises of national self-determination, or other often contradictory promises made to bring allies on board. Participation of many national groups, like the Irish and Indians but with all participating countries, had been in the hope of winning greater rights. When this didn’t happen for those two examples, Ireland erupted into civil war, and India saw massacres of protesters against British rule. The whole of the course of the 20th century seems to have been affected by the First World War, particularly the tragedies of that century, and it is amazing how much this has generally been overlooked. This makes Pandora’s Box a particularly important read, to understand the history since.
March 1, 2023
Pandora's Box: A History of World War I is an outstanding work of nonfiction by one of Germany's leading academic historians. It is a sprawling, incredibly researched book which attempts to set the conflict in its contemporary context and grant readers a detailed look at the many ways-both martial and non-military-it materially impacted the course of world events.
Readers seeking a rigorous recounting of the Great War's numerous battles and generals will, however, need to look elsewhere. The major clashes are of course discussed by Leonhard, but he angles to go beyond that in this lengthy meditation on the First World War. The author more often than not chooses to delve into the implications of the conflict for society in a number of the belligerent countries, looking at how it was coped with by the impacted citizenry.
From blockades to significant numbers of young men lost in a small age cohort to the United States and England temporarily turning their backs on vaunted freedoms in favor of wartime curbs, few of the changes wrought by this destructive conflict are glossed over in Pandora Box's nearly one thousand pages.
Socio-cultural contexts are given equal footing with examinations of the war's military aspects, and it is this more than anything else which sets Pandora's Box apart. Frequent strikes and a feeling that home populations might turn on their countries' war efforts were important elements of what politicians from Lloyd George to Alexander Kerensky had to take into consideration.
The unrest in Ireland, as well as the manner in which this produced tensions within the British military effort, were the sort of thing Leonhard seemed to take pains to analyze. The Habsburg empire's challenges in holding disparate ethnicities with varying loyalties together in their fighting forces were a parallel difficulty faced by the opposing side.
But the book never becomes a slog through statistics and data. Compiling long lists is not something Leonhard engages in; the human element is omnipresent in lieu of a rehashing of numbers. Pope Benedict's XV failed attempt at a peace plan is an example of the sort of interesting World War One side story Leonhard takes time out to delve into.
Pandora's Box deserves a lot of credit for not focusing excessively on one country or side (Allied or Central Powers), instead giving voice to how the war impacted the everyday soldiers and citizens everywhere from the Ottoman Empire, Russia, France, England, and the United States.
Leonhard takes the time to look at the changing ways information and propaganda were consumed during this era, and he also does not gloss over the fighting which took places in African colonies during the first world war. Readers will learn often overlooked bits of information; that the fighting in colonies like British East Africa would result in more deaths than the entire U.S. military suffered during the war is the sort of thing which does not remain unremarked upon in this book's pages.
The author notes that the notion of a limited "cabinet war," one fought for limited stakes and not undertaken to entirely humiliate the opposing power (think in terms of the Franco-Prussian War), went out the window during the First World War. In terms of the large amount of destruction caused and suffering imposed, this was shown to be a truly terrible development.
Pandora's Box does not claim to put forward an overarching explanation for how exactly the world got to the point of fighting such a brutal war. It instead settles in for a rich accounting of the human toll and empire-wide transformations of the First World War, and thanks to this it can be considered a strong addition to the body of Great War writing. Reading this book as a complement to Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers will leave readers with a strong grasp of the what unfolded during the dark years of 1914-1918.
A solid four and a half star book, those who enjoy learning more about the War to End All Wars could do a lot worse than Pandora's Box.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
Readers seeking a rigorous recounting of the Great War's numerous battles and generals will, however, need to look elsewhere. The major clashes are of course discussed by Leonhard, but he angles to go beyond that in this lengthy meditation on the First World War. The author more often than not chooses to delve into the implications of the conflict for society in a number of the belligerent countries, looking at how it was coped with by the impacted citizenry.
From blockades to significant numbers of young men lost in a small age cohort to the United States and England temporarily turning their backs on vaunted freedoms in favor of wartime curbs, few of the changes wrought by this destructive conflict are glossed over in Pandora Box's nearly one thousand pages.
Socio-cultural contexts are given equal footing with examinations of the war's military aspects, and it is this more than anything else which sets Pandora's Box apart. Frequent strikes and a feeling that home populations might turn on their countries' war efforts were important elements of what politicians from Lloyd George to Alexander Kerensky had to take into consideration.
The unrest in Ireland, as well as the manner in which this produced tensions within the British military effort, were the sort of thing Leonhard seemed to take pains to analyze. The Habsburg empire's challenges in holding disparate ethnicities with varying loyalties together in their fighting forces were a parallel difficulty faced by the opposing side.
But the book never becomes a slog through statistics and data. Compiling long lists is not something Leonhard engages in; the human element is omnipresent in lieu of a rehashing of numbers. Pope Benedict's XV failed attempt at a peace plan is an example of the sort of interesting World War One side story Leonhard takes time out to delve into.
Pandora's Box deserves a lot of credit for not focusing excessively on one country or side (Allied or Central Powers), instead giving voice to how the war impacted the everyday soldiers and citizens everywhere from the Ottoman Empire, Russia, France, England, and the United States.
Leonhard takes the time to look at the changing ways information and propaganda were consumed during this era, and he also does not gloss over the fighting which took places in African colonies during the first world war. Readers will learn often overlooked bits of information; that the fighting in colonies like British East Africa would result in more deaths than the entire U.S. military suffered during the war is the sort of thing which does not remain unremarked upon in this book's pages.
The author notes that the notion of a limited "cabinet war," one fought for limited stakes and not undertaken to entirely humiliate the opposing power (think in terms of the Franco-Prussian War), went out the window during the First World War. In terms of the large amount of destruction caused and suffering imposed, this was shown to be a truly terrible development.
Pandora's Box does not claim to put forward an overarching explanation for how exactly the world got to the point of fighting such a brutal war. It instead settles in for a rich accounting of the human toll and empire-wide transformations of the First World War, and thanks to this it can be considered a strong addition to the body of Great War writing. Reading this book as a complement to Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers will leave readers with a strong grasp of the what unfolded during the dark years of 1914-1918.
A solid four and a half star book, those who enjoy learning more about the War to End All Wars could do a lot worse than Pandora's Box.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
May 21, 2023
It was more of a political and socio-political history of the war than it was a military history. And that's fine; there are abler military historians and Leonhard emphasized what he knew. My concern with his military history is not its paucity but his willingness to cut across century-old historical disputes with scant justification for his judgment. His appraisal of the British performance (though not the Empire) and that of their military leadership as an army is almost uniformly hostile, well beyond that demanded by a critical reappraisal (and it's hard to perform such a task as a tiny part of a larger story). His take on the US performance is similarly negative, even though by war's end they were a reasonably competent fighting force and getting better. That is to say his military history is not merely limited but excessively opinionated, and his opinions are unsupported by facts. Occasionally where he does try to qualify them, his qualifications contradict his earlier, more strident assertions (such as the role of tanks in 1918). His casualty counts at various points seem way off, and his inability to distinguish between casualties who are permanently out of the fight (dead or maimed) gives unrealistic ideas of the military situation on the ground.
Likewise his take on the tenuousness of British participation, politically, economically, and militarily, is jaundiced; they had their moments but of all the pre-US combatants they clearly emerged from the war in the strongest position, if still a diminished one.
His takes on the US political system were amateur and facile, so at odds with his judgments of France and especially Germany. It's strange to spend page after page talking about violence against outsiders among all the major belligerents - including pogroms and similar large-scale violence in the East - and then claim that similar instances of American vigilantism are a feature of the frontier. Wilson probably played a far more intentional role in bringing about war than Leonhard allows. Race was undoubtedly an important theme in the history of America in that time period, and someone better versed in America circa 1916 would understand Wilson's uniquely pernicious role in legitimizing racism as an intellectual force. Instead he inserted a jumble of rather incoherent lines on the subject, including an offhand comment about Northern black hostility to Southern black migration, which is an unfair characterization of that response.
His writing about the common soldier's response to the fighting is somewhat unsatisfying. As everyone does, he gives us Sassoon and Remarque and others, but (contra many before him) he doesn't give us the impression that they were especially representative. Nor does he hold Junger up as an exemplar, and he does acknowledge the gap between Storm of Steel and Junger's diaries. However, he is rather limited in the course of a book of this length on the subject of the rank and file, and he's more content to gauge attitudes based on desertion rates, discipline, and other, more quantifiable factors.
So within his narrow field of expertise - political and socio-political history, especially of Continental Europe - the book was quite good, although his impetuousness on other judgments does call into question the reliability of his judgment there too (fields in which I simply don't know enough to levy intelligent criticism). The wider accomplishment is more of a mixed bag than some of the effusive reviews allow.
Likewise his take on the tenuousness of British participation, politically, economically, and militarily, is jaundiced; they had their moments but of all the pre-US combatants they clearly emerged from the war in the strongest position, if still a diminished one.
His takes on the US political system were amateur and facile, so at odds with his judgments of France and especially Germany. It's strange to spend page after page talking about violence against outsiders among all the major belligerents - including pogroms and similar large-scale violence in the East - and then claim that similar instances of American vigilantism are a feature of the frontier. Wilson probably played a far more intentional role in bringing about war than Leonhard allows. Race was undoubtedly an important theme in the history of America in that time period, and someone better versed in America circa 1916 would understand Wilson's uniquely pernicious role in legitimizing racism as an intellectual force. Instead he inserted a jumble of rather incoherent lines on the subject, including an offhand comment about Northern black hostility to Southern black migration, which is an unfair characterization of that response.
His writing about the common soldier's response to the fighting is somewhat unsatisfying. As everyone does, he gives us Sassoon and Remarque and others, but (contra many before him) he doesn't give us the impression that they were especially representative. Nor does he hold Junger up as an exemplar, and he does acknowledge the gap between Storm of Steel and Junger's diaries. However, he is rather limited in the course of a book of this length on the subject of the rank and file, and he's more content to gauge attitudes based on desertion rates, discipline, and other, more quantifiable factors.
So within his narrow field of expertise - political and socio-political history, especially of Continental Europe - the book was quite good, although his impetuousness on other judgments does call into question the reliability of his judgment there too (fields in which I simply don't know enough to levy intelligent criticism). The wider accomplishment is more of a mixed bag than some of the effusive reviews allow.
December 27, 2020
A comprehensive, single-volume history of WWI from a German author. Its approach is holistic and goes far beyond the battles and armaments: it covers geopolitics and diplomacy, national politics, economics, public opinion, morale, ideas, and culture. There's an entire chapter on war injuries, how they affected people, how they were perceived, and so on. All fronts and combatants are explored, and all this squeezed into just 900 pages (much is left out - for example no mention is made of Hoover's famine relief efforts).
Leonhard disagrees with the "sleepwalking" thesis of WWI, but still argues that none of the combatants were really prepared for the war. There were no clear plans, no war aims, and the quickly mounting losses created a kind of sunk cost fallacy - the war had to be won no matter what, in order to justify the terrible casualty figures. Leonhard keeps quoting politicians' speeches where they argue that defeat must absolutely be avoided, and how the sacrifice is necessary for the "prize of victory", but ultimately it seems they had little idea of what that prize actually was.
It's incredible how close to collapse everyone was at the end of the war. Clemenceau was right: “The longer the war lasts, the more you see develop the moral crisis that signifies the end of all wars. The … trial of armed strength, the brutalities, acts of violence, plunder, bloodbaths: that is the moral crisis in which one side or another ends up. The one that morally holds out the longest is the victor. And the great oriental people that suffered for centuries the trials of war succinctly formulated this idea: ‘The victor is the one who believes he is not defeated for a quarter of an hour longer than his adversary.’ That is my maxim of war. I have no other."
Leonhard's treatment of the aftereffects of the war are limited (I was disappointed that there was virtually nothing about the effect of the reparations imposed on Germany), but he argues that WWI left the world destabilized. American foreign policy has changed very little in the last 100 years. The real victor, he says, was not any country or ideology. "The true victor was war itself—the principle of war and the possibility of total violence." As the title suggests, Leonhard presents WWI as the start of a new, chaotic, bellicose stage of history.
Its approach is rather abstract, so if you're looking for a visceral description of the trenches this isn't the book for you. The translation isn't great, and it can get a bit dry and repetitive, but overall it's a very impressive tome. n.b. the hardcover edition from HUP is astonishingly bad and started falling apart immediately.
Leonhard disagrees with the "sleepwalking" thesis of WWI, but still argues that none of the combatants were really prepared for the war. There were no clear plans, no war aims, and the quickly mounting losses created a kind of sunk cost fallacy - the war had to be won no matter what, in order to justify the terrible casualty figures. Leonhard keeps quoting politicians' speeches where they argue that defeat must absolutely be avoided, and how the sacrifice is necessary for the "prize of victory", but ultimately it seems they had little idea of what that prize actually was.
It's incredible how close to collapse everyone was at the end of the war. Clemenceau was right: “The longer the war lasts, the more you see develop the moral crisis that signifies the end of all wars. The … trial of armed strength, the brutalities, acts of violence, plunder, bloodbaths: that is the moral crisis in which one side or another ends up. The one that morally holds out the longest is the victor. And the great oriental people that suffered for centuries the trials of war succinctly formulated this idea: ‘The victor is the one who believes he is not defeated for a quarter of an hour longer than his adversary.’ That is my maxim of war. I have no other."
Leonhard's treatment of the aftereffects of the war are limited (I was disappointed that there was virtually nothing about the effect of the reparations imposed on Germany), but he argues that WWI left the world destabilized. American foreign policy has changed very little in the last 100 years. The real victor, he says, was not any country or ideology. "The true victor was war itself—the principle of war and the possibility of total violence." As the title suggests, Leonhard presents WWI as the start of a new, chaotic, bellicose stage of history.
Its approach is rather abstract, so if you're looking for a visceral description of the trenches this isn't the book for you. The translation isn't great, and it can get a bit dry and repetitive, but overall it's a very impressive tome. n.b. the hardcover edition from HUP is astonishingly bad and started falling apart immediately.
December 30, 2018
Leonhard's magisterial and meandering portrait of the First World War reads like a well-written encyclopedia (meaning as both a compliment and critique). The book tracks all of the military, social, political, economic, and cultural changes unleashed by the proverbial pandora's box that was the Great War (1914-18).
Each year of the war is covered in great detail, with insights on everything from the literature that sprung up through the war to the failure of the Sclieffen Plan and the re-orientation of generals towards positional trench warfare until the last months of 1918. Leonhard tracks developments in each society exhaustively - Great Britain; France; Germany; Austria-Hungary; Italy; Russia; the Ottoman Empire; and many more. However, one should note that the book is light on military tactical history, and is best read in conjunction with such military histories as John Keegan's "The First World War,"
While there are many take-aways from the Great War, perhaps the most enduring and painful lesson is the raising and crushing of expectations. Trust in liberal democratic organizations and structures was smashed apart by slaughters at Verdun, the Somme, and Flanders. Men were asked to die for the sake of continuing the war, for the sake of not leaving their peers as vainless victims of a war. Wilsonian nationalism and Leninist communism fired the imaginations of peoples disillusioned by a world turned bloody, mechanical, and distinctly un-human.
We may today live in a world directly influenced by the end of the Second World War. However, it is useless to try to understand the current global order without understanding the dissolution of the old order in the maw of the First World War.
Each year of the war is covered in great detail, with insights on everything from the literature that sprung up through the war to the failure of the Sclieffen Plan and the re-orientation of generals towards positional trench warfare until the last months of 1918. Leonhard tracks developments in each society exhaustively - Great Britain; France; Germany; Austria-Hungary; Italy; Russia; the Ottoman Empire; and many more. However, one should note that the book is light on military tactical history, and is best read in conjunction with such military histories as John Keegan's "The First World War,"
While there are many take-aways from the Great War, perhaps the most enduring and painful lesson is the raising and crushing of expectations. Trust in liberal democratic organizations and structures was smashed apart by slaughters at Verdun, the Somme, and Flanders. Men were asked to die for the sake of continuing the war, for the sake of not leaving their peers as vainless victims of a war. Wilsonian nationalism and Leninist communism fired the imaginations of peoples disillusioned by a world turned bloody, mechanical, and distinctly un-human.
We may today live in a world directly influenced by the end of the Second World War. However, it is useless to try to understand the current global order without understanding the dissolution of the old order in the maw of the First World War.
June 30, 2019
Pandora's Box by Jorn Leonhard
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
Peter Jackson's "They Shall Not Grow Old" sparked a belated interest in World War I. I say belated because I saw the movie and read this book in 2019, not during the centennial of World War I, which was strangely muted.
This book covers World War I from soup to nuts. It starts off with history leading up to World War 1 and then moves into the war on a year by year, country by country, battlefield and home front basis. This provides the reader with an immersion in the experience of the war and provides a greater appreciation for what the people living through it went through as they realized that the romantic ideas of the war that they had at the beginning turned into a horrifying reality.
There are a lot of details in this book that explains how Word War 1 evolved. One of the details that surprised me was that according to the author there was not a great outpouring of enthusiasm for the war by the majority of Europeans. Whatever war enthusiasm there was remained mostly in the large cities. In the countryside, the war was looked at with trepidation.
I listened to this as an audible book I did not have any problems with comprehension. The text remained captivating and informative at all times.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
Peter Jackson's "They Shall Not Grow Old" sparked a belated interest in World War I. I say belated because I saw the movie and read this book in 2019, not during the centennial of World War I, which was strangely muted.
This book covers World War I from soup to nuts. It starts off with history leading up to World War 1 and then moves into the war on a year by year, country by country, battlefield and home front basis. This provides the reader with an immersion in the experience of the war and provides a greater appreciation for what the people living through it went through as they realized that the romantic ideas of the war that they had at the beginning turned into a horrifying reality.
There are a lot of details in this book that explains how Word War 1 evolved. One of the details that surprised me was that according to the author there was not a great outpouring of enthusiasm for the war by the majority of Europeans. Whatever war enthusiasm there was remained mostly in the large cities. In the countryside, the war was looked at with trepidation.
I listened to this as an audible book I did not have any problems with comprehension. The text remained captivating and informative at all times.
January 17, 2019
The causes of World War I are so complex that new books about its origins are released all the time, it lasted five long years with fronts all over Europe and battles extending to the Middle East and North Africa, it caused social and political upheavals in all of the empires that took part, and we still live with the consequences of its resolutions. Writing a one volume history of the war that covers all of this ground is an enormously ambitious undertaking. Leonhard's book is a tour de force, covering the political origins, the military history of the battles themselves, the social and political histories of the strains that war mobilization put on the multiethnic empires that took part, and a thorough analysis of the war's geopolitical legacies, which stretched far beyond Europe itself. If you're looking for just a blow-by-blow account of the major battles of World War I, you will probably want to look elsewhere. But if you're interested in understanding this epochal event in all of its complexity, it would be difficult to beat this remarkably erudite work. It's quite an accomplishment.
August 19, 2019
This is a very good single volume history of the First World War. The author is German, and by that very fact has a unique point of few (the other histories I have on the subject were all British or American). The point of view is not necessarily pro or con but simply different.
The First World War has always fascinated me. It started not because of an assassination of the heir to the Hapsburg throne, but because those in power feared losing prestige. Negotiating a peaceful solution instead of listening to those (on all sides) that believed failure to attack was weakness and would mean national loss of reputation.
There were no defined war aims. As the war progressed both sides found themselves in a trap. As the casualties grew to incomprehensible numbers and the destruction ruined economies anything short of victory would have been seen by the population as a repudiation of the dead’s sacrifice. So, no negotiated peace was possible from 1916 on.
The scope was truly global, In the end the world would never be the same again and the seeds of a second greater catastrophe were planted.
The author’s approach to time line is suited to the topic.
The First World War has always fascinated me. It started not because of an assassination of the heir to the Hapsburg throne, but because those in power feared losing prestige. Negotiating a peaceful solution instead of listening to those (on all sides) that believed failure to attack was weakness and would mean national loss of reputation.
There were no defined war aims. As the war progressed both sides found themselves in a trap. As the casualties grew to incomprehensible numbers and the destruction ruined economies anything short of victory would have been seen by the population as a repudiation of the dead’s sacrifice. So, no negotiated peace was possible from 1916 on.
The scope was truly global, In the end the world would never be the same again and the seeds of a second greater catastrophe were planted.
The author’s approach to time line is suited to the topic.
July 15, 2021
I found this a thoroughly refreshing read. To read a great war history which is written from a German perspective I find is incredibly useful in balancing the vast weight of great war literature which mainly concerns the war from a British or empire perspective. Some critical areas of the conflict that receive attention in this book are seldom more than brushed over in other histories. Things like the war in Africa, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian politics, the Balkans and the eastern front. This is far from a western Front centred history that is commonly offered as a great war history.
However, it is worth mentioning that this book should be viewed as a work of scholarship. It is an in-depth study and covers alot of key issues and events, particularly politically, on all fronts. So it is a lot to take in and process. Therefore, it requires a clear and active mind to fully appreciate. It is not a good book to read in bed or if one is looking for a nice narrative. This is a book to be absorbed and to utilise as a tool to persue new areas of understanding of the wider conflict that was the great war.
A highly recommend
Thanks for reading
However, it is worth mentioning that this book should be viewed as a work of scholarship. It is an in-depth study and covers alot of key issues and events, particularly politically, on all fronts. So it is a lot to take in and process. Therefore, it requires a clear and active mind to fully appreciate. It is not a good book to read in bed or if one is looking for a nice narrative. This is a book to be absorbed and to utilise as a tool to persue new areas of understanding of the wider conflict that was the great war.
A highly recommend
Thanks for reading
April 30, 2023
After like 2 months (but feels like so much longer), I've finally managed to finish this doorstopper of a book.
Pros:
- extremely in-depth and interesting
- goes into all aspects of the Great War - social, political, economic, military
- devotes a good amount of attention to all fronts, not focused exclusively on Western Front
- very balanced look into sometimes overlooked perspectives - the Central Powers, Eastern Europe, women, anti-colonial movements
- truly drives in the international context of the conflict
Cons:
- typos, misspellings, etc. it stood out to me bc otherwise it's a very well-produced book
- confusing maps
- sometimes used very technical/verbose language that can be hard for laymen
Despite the cons I mentioned, overall I was very impressed, def one of the best works I've read so far in my WW1 rabbit hole era.
P.S. It was also kinda adorable how obvious it was the book was translated from German - the phrasing, the compound words like "enemy-images" and "action-logics"...
Pros:
- extremely in-depth and interesting
- goes into all aspects of the Great War - social, political, economic, military
- devotes a good amount of attention to all fronts, not focused exclusively on Western Front
- very balanced look into sometimes overlooked perspectives - the Central Powers, Eastern Europe, women, anti-colonial movements
- truly drives in the international context of the conflict
Cons:
- typos, misspellings, etc. it stood out to me bc otherwise it's a very well-produced book
- confusing maps
- sometimes used very technical/verbose language that can be hard for laymen
Despite the cons I mentioned, overall I was very impressed, def one of the best works I've read so far in my WW1 rabbit hole era.
P.S. It was also kinda adorable how obvious it was the book was translated from German - the phrasing, the compound words like "enemy-images" and "action-logics"...
December 20, 2024
This is a great book about WWI. It takes a comprehensive look on the war in its entirety, a task so monumental you’d think one can only fail in it, but Leonhard emerges from it immensely succesful. He covers things with just enough detail that they stay with you yet few enough for the work to not get bogged down or become boring. He also draws some big lines and interpretations, giving cohesion to the whole.
The important thing about the book is that it’s military history in the broadest possible sense. Leonhard certainly covers the battles, but he situates them in the broad framework of society, politics and individual experiences. He takes care to cover the home fronts of the fighting nation from production to organisation to labour relations to experiences of people to political developments to national mood to many special topics. Each country is covered separately, which also helps to reinforce how the war was: we build our mental maps by observing the differences and similarities between countries. All in all, a fantastic work.
The important thing about the book is that it’s military history in the broadest possible sense. Leonhard certainly covers the battles, but he situates them in the broad framework of society, politics and individual experiences. He takes care to cover the home fronts of the fighting nation from production to organisation to labour relations to experiences of people to political developments to national mood to many special topics. Each country is covered separately, which also helps to reinforce how the war was: we build our mental maps by observing the differences and similarities between countries. All in all, a fantastic work.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews