What do you think?
Rate this book
The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End
Winner of the Tomlinson Book Prize
A Times Literary Supplement Best Book of 2016
An epic, groundbreaking account of the ethnic and state violence that followed the end of World War I―conflicts that would shape the course of the twentieth century.
For the Western Allies, November 11, 1918, has always been a solemn date―the end of fighting that had destroyed a generation, but also a vindication of a terrible sacrifice with the total collapse of the principal enemies: the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. But for much of the rest of Europe this was a day with no meaning, as a continuing, nightmarish series of conflicts engulfed country after country.
In The Vanquished, a highly original and gripping work of history, Robert Gerwarth asks us to think again about the true legacy of the First World War. In large part it was not the fighting on the Western Front that proved so ruinous to Europe’s future, but the devastating aftermath, as countries on both sides of the original conflict were savaged by revolutions, pogroms, mass expulsions, and further major military clashes. In the years immediately after the armistice, millions would die across central, eastern, and southeastern Europe before the Soviet Union and a series of rickety and exhausted small new states would come into being. It was here, in the ruins of Europe, that extreme ideologies such as fascism would take shape and ultimately emerge triumphant.
As absorbing in its drama as it is unsettling in its analysis, The Vanquished is destined to transform our understanding of not just the First World War but the twentieth century as a whole.
A Times Literary Supplement Best Book of 2016
An epic, groundbreaking account of the ethnic and state violence that followed the end of World War I―conflicts that would shape the course of the twentieth century.
For the Western Allies, November 11, 1918, has always been a solemn date―the end of fighting that had destroyed a generation, but also a vindication of a terrible sacrifice with the total collapse of the principal enemies: the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. But for much of the rest of Europe this was a day with no meaning, as a continuing, nightmarish series of conflicts engulfed country after country.
In The Vanquished, a highly original and gripping work of history, Robert Gerwarth asks us to think again about the true legacy of the First World War. In large part it was not the fighting on the Western Front that proved so ruinous to Europe’s future, but the devastating aftermath, as countries on both sides of the original conflict were savaged by revolutions, pogroms, mass expulsions, and further major military clashes. In the years immediately after the armistice, millions would die across central, eastern, and southeastern Europe before the Soviet Union and a series of rickety and exhausted small new states would come into being. It was here, in the ruins of Europe, that extreme ideologies such as fascism would take shape and ultimately emerge triumphant.
As absorbing in its drama as it is unsettling in its analysis, The Vanquished is destined to transform our understanding of not just the First World War but the twentieth century as a whole.
446 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 1982
304 people are currently reading
3757 people want to read
About the author
Robert Gerwarth
13 books96 followersRobert Gerwarth is a Professor of European history, with an emphasis on German history. Since finishing a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship at Oxford, he has held fellowships at Princeton, Harvard, the NIOD (Amsterdam) and the Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of Western Australia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 251 reviews
March 2, 2018
Having finished this exceptional book, I now realise that my rather lazy and Anglo-centric view of the period following WW1, as a relatively peaceful era, was completely wide of the mark. Robert Gerwarth brilliantly describes how for many countries and regions, the Armistice on 11 November 1918, was just the start of five more years of violence and upheaval.
Four empires broke up in the aftermath of WW1: Austria-Hungary, Germany, tsarist Russia and the Ottoman empire. 'The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End' is a fast-paced, fluent and authoritative analysis of the turmoil in the territories of the four shattered empires, as well as in Greece and Italy. Civil wars overlapped with revolutions, counter-revolutions and border conflicts between emerging states, many sowing the seeds for WW2. This turmoil was frequently characterised by extreme violence and political disorder, with racial and religious minorities often suffering more than most.
'The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End' makes a convincing and compelling argument that “the story of Europe in the years between 1917 and 1923 is crucial for understanding the cycles of violence that characterised the continent’s 20th century”.
4/5
Four empires broke up in the aftermath of WW1: Austria-Hungary, Germany, tsarist Russia and the Ottoman empire. 'The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End' is a fast-paced, fluent and authoritative analysis of the turmoil in the territories of the four shattered empires, as well as in Greece and Italy. Civil wars overlapped with revolutions, counter-revolutions and border conflicts between emerging states, many sowing the seeds for WW2. This turmoil was frequently characterised by extreme violence and political disorder, with racial and religious minorities often suffering more than most.
'The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End' makes a convincing and compelling argument that “the story of Europe in the years between 1917 and 1923 is crucial for understanding the cycles of violence that characterised the continent’s 20th century”.
4/5
October 14, 2019
This book is way too short to contain the vast and furious events it tries to explain. In 1917-18 four empires collapsed (German, Russian, Habsburg, Ottoman) and dozens of new countries were born or imposed from above; the Bolshevik revolution in Russia drove everyone completely crazy with the notion that either you were a Red and you wanted to exterminate all the capitalist exploiters who had just caused the misery of four years of war, or you wanted to kill all the dangerous Reds before they hung you and your children from a lamp post; so that great paranoid battle was raging across all of Europe at the precise time that everyone was trying to create these newfangled nation states.
Because after you have lived in a huge multicultural empire like Austro-Hungary, and then you are allowed to inaugurate your new nation state, what is it that you will be thinking about? Making your new state ethnically pure, of course! Expelling from your ancestral lands the scurvy foreigners you have had to put up with for so many generations, that’s what.
So here was a rich recipe for chaos indeed – left-right civil wars mixed with land seizures by freebooting militias with a taste for ethnic cleansing. All done under the benign gaze of Woodrow Wilson, president of the USA, who believed that liberal democracy could replace despotic empire as easily as a man could swap a top hat for a bowler.
A FEW FLAVOURSOME QUOTES
Munich, 1919
As the army and Freikorps troops moved into the city more than 600 people were killed during the fighting, many of them civilian bystanders. Summary executions of prisoners continued…53 Russians who had served in the Red Army were tortured and shot in Pasing, an outskirt of Munich.
Hungary, 1919
A Red News article said : “Before they stifle the revolution, suffocate them in their own blood!”… Political violence in the second half of 1919 and the early 1920s took the lives of up to 5000 people.
Ruhr Valley, Germany, 1920
The army leadership had no reservation about opening fire on striking workers. In the event, some 1000 “Red Army” insurgents were killed before the March Rising was finally put down by government troops
Sofia, 1925
An underground group of communist activists detonated a bomb on 16 April 1925 in the roof of Sveta Nedelya Cathdral during a public funeral service for General Konstantin Georgiev, who had been assassinated by communists a few days earlier. The explosion led to the collapse of the cathedral’s roof, killing over 130 mourner, including many senior army officer and politicians
****
Now you can see that this book is 446 pages long in paperback, so that seems adequate, surely? But no – a whole 178 pages are taken up with end notes and the index, so this book is a mere 267 pages long, and that’s why I say it is too short. So many revolutions, counter-revolutions, coups, purges, riots, strikes, assassinations – they all begin to blur together. Professor Gerwarth brings the gruesome whirligig to a halt in the year 1923 and tells us that relative peace descended upon Europe, finally. It lasted for a whole six years! In 1929 the effects of the Wall Street crash swept over Europe bringing massive economic destabilisation, leading to another round of extreme politics, the abandonment of democracy and the coming of the jackboot, with World War Two and the Holocaust a few years down the line.
This history, I think, explains why many Europeans of today hold so dearly to the idea of the European Union.
Because after you have lived in a huge multicultural empire like Austro-Hungary, and then you are allowed to inaugurate your new nation state, what is it that you will be thinking about? Making your new state ethnically pure, of course! Expelling from your ancestral lands the scurvy foreigners you have had to put up with for so many generations, that’s what.
So here was a rich recipe for chaos indeed – left-right civil wars mixed with land seizures by freebooting militias with a taste for ethnic cleansing. All done under the benign gaze of Woodrow Wilson, president of the USA, who believed that liberal democracy could replace despotic empire as easily as a man could swap a top hat for a bowler.
A FEW FLAVOURSOME QUOTES
Munich, 1919
As the army and Freikorps troops moved into the city more than 600 people were killed during the fighting, many of them civilian bystanders. Summary executions of prisoners continued…53 Russians who had served in the Red Army were tortured and shot in Pasing, an outskirt of Munich.
Hungary, 1919
A Red News article said : “Before they stifle the revolution, suffocate them in their own blood!”… Political violence in the second half of 1919 and the early 1920s took the lives of up to 5000 people.
Ruhr Valley, Germany, 1920
The army leadership had no reservation about opening fire on striking workers. In the event, some 1000 “Red Army” insurgents were killed before the March Rising was finally put down by government troops
Sofia, 1925
An underground group of communist activists detonated a bomb on 16 April 1925 in the roof of Sveta Nedelya Cathdral during a public funeral service for General Konstantin Georgiev, who had been assassinated by communists a few days earlier. The explosion led to the collapse of the cathedral’s roof, killing over 130 mourner, including many senior army officer and politicians
****
Now you can see that this book is 446 pages long in paperback, so that seems adequate, surely? But no – a whole 178 pages are taken up with end notes and the index, so this book is a mere 267 pages long, and that’s why I say it is too short. So many revolutions, counter-revolutions, coups, purges, riots, strikes, assassinations – they all begin to blur together. Professor Gerwarth brings the gruesome whirligig to a halt in the year 1923 and tells us that relative peace descended upon Europe, finally. It lasted for a whole six years! In 1929 the effects of the Wall Street crash swept over Europe bringing massive economic destabilisation, leading to another round of extreme politics, the abandonment of democracy and the coming of the jackboot, with World War Two and the Holocaust a few years down the line.
This history, I think, explains why many Europeans of today hold so dearly to the idea of the European Union.
September 23, 2017
Page 169 (my book) Joseph P. Roth
“Nationalism is the new religion”
This book demonstrates convincingly, how November 11/1918 was not the end of war – particularly in Germany, and Eastern and Central Europe. And the nature of war changed – it became more ethnic based. With the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at war’s end into several nation states there was a violent nationalistic struggle. This was also encouraged by Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points which inspired the formation of new nations, particularly Point #10 (The people of Austria-Hungary ...should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development). Victimhood, too became a significant theme in all the defeated Central Powers – Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Austria. Italy, too, felt victimized; Italy was not rewarded territories that the Allies had earlier promised for aligning with them.
The extreme violence and upheavals of the Russian Revolution made all the new nations tremble with fear of the spread of Bolshevism. To counter potential Bolshevik threats many countries became right-wing dictatorships like Poland, Italy and Hungary. Of these perceived threats (scapegoats) were the Jews – this would culminate in the Holocaust.
Page 122-23 Germany - Freikorps
The paramilitary groups were bastions of soldierly camaraderie and “order” in what the activist perceived as a hostile world of democratic egalitarianism and communist internationalism. They perceived themselves as the nucleus of a “new society” of warriors, representing both the eternal values of the nation and new authoritarian concepts for a state in which the nation could thrive.
Page 254
Entire countries in Central and Eastern Europe were to be purged of those deemed racially or politically undesirable... The distinction between civilians and combatants, already blurred during the First World War, completely vanished [during 1918 – 1923].
This book traces the origins of the Second World War to the nation/ethnic cleansing that took place from 1917 to 1923. After, there was a brief respite – then it started all over again as the democracies lost ground and courage – and the dictatorships built up their power.
Note that this book has 267 pages of actual text, with many pages devoted to footnotes and bibliography. The maps were inadequate - cities and regions mentioned were not on the maps (I used google-map).
“Nationalism is the new religion”
This book demonstrates convincingly, how November 11/1918 was not the end of war – particularly in Germany, and Eastern and Central Europe. And the nature of war changed – it became more ethnic based. With the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at war’s end into several nation states there was a violent nationalistic struggle. This was also encouraged by Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points which inspired the formation of new nations, particularly Point #10 (The people of Austria-Hungary ...should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development). Victimhood, too became a significant theme in all the defeated Central Powers – Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Austria. Italy, too, felt victimized; Italy was not rewarded territories that the Allies had earlier promised for aligning with them.
The extreme violence and upheavals of the Russian Revolution made all the new nations tremble with fear of the spread of Bolshevism. To counter potential Bolshevik threats many countries became right-wing dictatorships like Poland, Italy and Hungary. Of these perceived threats (scapegoats) were the Jews – this would culminate in the Holocaust.
Page 122-23 Germany - Freikorps
The paramilitary groups were bastions of soldierly camaraderie and “order” in what the activist perceived as a hostile world of democratic egalitarianism and communist internationalism. They perceived themselves as the nucleus of a “new society” of warriors, representing both the eternal values of the nation and new authoritarian concepts for a state in which the nation could thrive.
Page 254
Entire countries in Central and Eastern Europe were to be purged of those deemed racially or politically undesirable... The distinction between civilians and combatants, already blurred during the First World War, completely vanished [during 1918 – 1923].
This book traces the origins of the Second World War to the nation/ethnic cleansing that took place from 1917 to 1923. After, there was a brief respite – then it started all over again as the democracies lost ground and courage – and the dictatorships built up their power.
Note that this book has 267 pages of actual text, with many pages devoted to footnotes and bibliography. The maps were inadequate - cities and regions mentioned were not on the maps (I used google-map).
January 6, 2019
The war to end all wars as the Great War - later the First World War/World War One - was contemporarily described and indeed thought of; but as we know today with civil wars (Spain) and imperial quests (Abyssinia & Second Sino-Japanese war) in the 1930s, the Second World War, the Middle East, the Korean War, the end of Empires (Dutch, British, French etc) and many others stretching to the current day, the list of wars, conflicts and revolts is long and terribly costly in lives.
We now know that the 1914-18 war ushered in considerable change of not just Europe's boundaries but also those in the near/middle East and further afield: changes to monarchies and political systems; legal & treaty arrangements and, importantly alongside these, changes in people's aspirations, aims and the approaches to achieve or stymie these.
Many who read the 1914-1919 (to Versailles) period and indeed prior appreciate the complexity of the period's politics and monarchies, technical and social changes and how these influenced the war, its aims, alliances, strategies, tactics and outcomes that led to WWII. Those who read WWII also have this baseline of how "we get to Poland in 1939" and indeed beyond with ramifications still to be seen and felt from both wars even into 2019
At a top level it is understood and well known that the large old empires such as Romanov, Hapsburg, Ottoman and Wilhelminian died in or by 1919. What perhaps readers of the period - and certainly myself here - don't quite appreciate is the detail and multitudinous level of conflict of the post-war period from 1917 (Russian revolution as well as worries such as the French mutiny) to the years into 1923, where civil wars surge, anarchy rises and those aforementioned empires flail and crash leading to even more turmoil, death (murder as well in battle) and destruction. Alongside Versailles and other end of wat treaties new models of politics rise and fall and rise again adapting to or taking advantage of circumstances where they settle scores and seek to meet objectives; negotiated or not; treated or not. Simply put the guns never fell silent on 11th November 1918 of if they did in some areas they continued or started afresh in many others.
Professor Gerwarth has weaved these complexities of nations (especially the vanquished), peoples, ethnicities, aims, objectives and politics together in such an informative read that leaves the reader in no doubt that his subtitle to The Vanquished of Why The First World War Failed To End is case proven.
Where the author excels is his ability to clearly show the key points and players with clarity whilst linking and weaving events from other nations or areas to the current narrative. I never lost track or sight of national events nor the events surrounding these both locally and wider. The Russian civil war, Poland, Turkey, Italy and of course Germany are well covered but that is not to say that other defeated nations are not. The complexity of the Balkans and southern Europe, the old Ottoman Empire and the middle East are all given time and page space. In fact so lucid, and dare I say enjoyable - I appreciate a difficult word to use when one is reading of people being killed - is this book that I would happily have seen it extended by 300 more pages just to get even more detail on Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Greece, Armenia, Yugoslavia, the Slav/Czech nations.
The book benefits from some 90 pages of notes and a solid possibly near exhaustive bibliography/sources listing. The photos in my copy that was a Penguin paperback from 2017, had some fine black and white photos and clear (and very welcome) maps.
All in all a fine read that shows Professor Gerwarth's skill and knowledge as a writer of this period. As he says in his final sentences in his Epilogue "It is not without grim historical irony that the centenary of the Great War was accompanied by civil war in Syria and Iraq, revolution in Egypt and violent clashes between Jews and Arabs over the Palestinian question, as if to offer proof that at least some of the issues raised but not solved by the Great War and its immediate aftermath are still with us today".
We now know that the 1914-18 war ushered in considerable change of not just Europe's boundaries but also those in the near/middle East and further afield: changes to monarchies and political systems; legal & treaty arrangements and, importantly alongside these, changes in people's aspirations, aims and the approaches to achieve or stymie these.
Many who read the 1914-1919 (to Versailles) period and indeed prior appreciate the complexity of the period's politics and monarchies, technical and social changes and how these influenced the war, its aims, alliances, strategies, tactics and outcomes that led to WWII. Those who read WWII also have this baseline of how "we get to Poland in 1939" and indeed beyond with ramifications still to be seen and felt from both wars even into 2019
At a top level it is understood and well known that the large old empires such as Romanov, Hapsburg, Ottoman and Wilhelminian died in or by 1919. What perhaps readers of the period - and certainly myself here - don't quite appreciate is the detail and multitudinous level of conflict of the post-war period from 1917 (Russian revolution as well as worries such as the French mutiny) to the years into 1923, where civil wars surge, anarchy rises and those aforementioned empires flail and crash leading to even more turmoil, death (murder as well in battle) and destruction. Alongside Versailles and other end of wat treaties new models of politics rise and fall and rise again adapting to or taking advantage of circumstances where they settle scores and seek to meet objectives; negotiated or not; treated or not. Simply put the guns never fell silent on 11th November 1918 of if they did in some areas they continued or started afresh in many others.
Professor Gerwarth has weaved these complexities of nations (especially the vanquished), peoples, ethnicities, aims, objectives and politics together in such an informative read that leaves the reader in no doubt that his subtitle to The Vanquished of Why The First World War Failed To End is case proven.
Where the author excels is his ability to clearly show the key points and players with clarity whilst linking and weaving events from other nations or areas to the current narrative. I never lost track or sight of national events nor the events surrounding these both locally and wider. The Russian civil war, Poland, Turkey, Italy and of course Germany are well covered but that is not to say that other defeated nations are not. The complexity of the Balkans and southern Europe, the old Ottoman Empire and the middle East are all given time and page space. In fact so lucid, and dare I say enjoyable - I appreciate a difficult word to use when one is reading of people being killed - is this book that I would happily have seen it extended by 300 more pages just to get even more detail on Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Greece, Armenia, Yugoslavia, the Slav/Czech nations.
The book benefits from some 90 pages of notes and a solid possibly near exhaustive bibliography/sources listing. The photos in my copy that was a Penguin paperback from 2017, had some fine black and white photos and clear (and very welcome) maps.
All in all a fine read that shows Professor Gerwarth's skill and knowledge as a writer of this period. As he says in his final sentences in his Epilogue "It is not without grim historical irony that the centenary of the Great War was accompanied by civil war in Syria and Iraq, revolution in Egypt and violent clashes between Jews and Arabs over the Palestinian question, as if to offer proof that at least some of the issues raised but not solved by the Great War and its immediate aftermath are still with us today".
January 25, 2021
Vae Victis (“Горко на победените”, лат.)
Великодушието на победителя в международната политика сигурно е най-рядкото явление. Всеизвестно е, че начинът, по който са третирани победените в Първата световна война, подготвя почвата за реваншистки настроения и екстремистки политики, които подпалват Втората. Само че и тук има нюанси, с които немският историк Робърт Герварт предава настроенията на една епоха, която не е само джаз, суинг и самозабрава.
Заслуга на тази книга е, че не се спира само върху Версайската система от договори като катализатор на насилието в междувоенните години. Едностранно наложеният мир формално закрепва вече създаденото с благословията на Антантата статукво от нови държави на мястото на разпаднали се империи, с произволни граници и огромни човешки маси озовали се в чужда държава за една нощ.
“Победените” съдържа смислена преоценка на прочутите 14 точки на Удроу Уилсън, които осиротели малцинства и обезправени мнозинства използват като легитимна платформа за граждански войни и революционни припламвания.
А в п��ихологически план с Голямата война човечеството скъсва със своето детство от Бел епок, променя представите за това що е “враг”, вдига рязко прага на насилието и смъква този на толерантността. Изведнъж въпросът за това към коя нация принадлежим и съвпада ли тази принадлежност с мястото, където живеем, придобива непозната до този момент спешност.
В книгата е представен по един балансиран начин обобщеният политически и социален климат на победените държави, към които авторът причислява и тези, които не са се доредили до щедрата плячка, заграбена от двете основни победителки – Франция и Великобритания. “Наградите” на периферните победителки като Гърция и Кралството на сърби, хървати и словенци се оказват бомби с часовников механизъм, които избухват при бреговета на Смирна в гръцкия случай и през 90-те за югослявяните.
Мащабът на загубите е лесно изчислим в материален план. Но именно нематериалните измерения на поражението са по-трайни и със съдбоносни последици. Договори се ревизират (разбирай, не се изпълняват), репарации се изплащат, или по-често опрощават, но чувството за национално унижение и покруса си остава психологическият фон на епохата.
Обеднял аристократ е жалка гледка. Едно от най-тъжните неща е поруганата бивша столица на хабсбургската империя Виена – някога щастлив град на цял куп народи, живеещи в приемлив мир под благосклонния поглед на Франц Йосиф.
Светът след Първата световна война е променен толкова цялостно и всеобхватно, че едва ли ще стигне и цяла библиотека, за да го опише. Тази задача става малко по-лесна, ако на първо време се очертаят загубите. Аз се сещам за една от тях - под руините на Голямата война е Светът от вчера, несъвършен, но незнаещ.
“....в навечерието на Втората световна война в Европа има много по-малко демокрации, отколкото в годините преди Голямата война.”
P.S. Стилът, подходът, всичко у Робърт Герварт като историк е на ниво - дано издадат и други негови книги.
Великодушието на победителя в международната политика сигурно е най-рядкото явление. Всеизвестно е, че начинът, по който са третирани победените в Първата световна война, подготвя почвата за реваншистки настроения и екстремистки политики, които подпалват Втората. Само че и тук има нюанси, с които немският историк Робърт Герварт предава настроенията на една епоха, която не е само джаз, суинг и самозабрава.
Заслуга на тази книга е, че не се спира само върху Версайската система от договори като катализатор на насилието в междувоенните години. Едностранно наложеният мир формално закрепва вече създаденото с благословията на Антантата статукво от нови държави на мястото на разпаднали се империи, с произволни граници и огромни човешки маси озовали се в чужда държава за една нощ.
“Победените” съдържа смислена преоценка на прочутите 14 точки на Удроу Уилсън, които осиротели малцинства и обезправени мнозинства използват като легитимна платформа за граждански войни и революционни припламвания.
А в п��ихологически план с Голямата война човечеството скъсва със своето детство от Бел епок, променя представите за това що е “враг”, вдига рязко прага на насилието и смъква този на толерантността. Изведнъж въпросът за това към коя нация принадлежим и съвпада ли тази принадлежност с мястото, където живеем, придобива непозната до този момент спешност.
В книгата е представен по един балансиран начин обобщеният политически и социален климат на победените държави, към които авторът причислява и тези, които не са се доредили до щедрата плячка, заграбена от двете основни победителки – Франция и Великобритания. “Наградите” на периферните победителки като Гърция и Кралството на сърби, хървати и словенци се оказват бомби с часовников механизъм, които избухват при бреговета на Смирна в гръцкия случай и през 90-те за югослявяните.
Мащабът на загубите е лесно изчислим в материален план. Но именно нематериалните измерения на поражението са по-трайни и със съдбоносни последици. Договори се ревизират (разбирай, не се изпълняват), репарации се изплащат, или по-често опрощават, но чувството за национално унижение и покруса си остава психологическият фон на епохата.
Обеднял аристократ е жалка гледка. Едно от най-тъжните неща е поруганата бивша столица на хабсбургската империя Виена – някога щастлив град на цял куп народи, живеещи в приемлив мир под благосклонния поглед на Франц Йосиф.
Светът след Първата световна война е променен толкова цялостно и всеобхватно, че едва ли ще стигне и цяла библиотека, за да го опише. Тази задача става малко по-лесна, ако на първо време се очертаят загубите. Аз се сещам за една от тях - под руините на Голямата война е Светът от вчера, несъвършен, но незнаещ.
“....в навечерието на Втората световна война в Европа има много по-малко демокрации, отколкото в годините преди Голямата война.”
P.S. Стилът, подходът, всичко у Робърт Герварт като историк е на ниво - дано издадат и други негови книги.
May 15, 2023
Europe Implodes.
The First World War is traditionally set between 1914-1918, the dates we all know. However as the armistice was agreed in the West and hostilities slowly ended, the rest of Europe and in the collapsing Ottoman Empire violence continued. Robert Gerwarth takes us on a journey to see how in these areas society was lost and the war continued to wage. For many people living in these areas this was just the beginning of extreme misery.
Gerwarth’s plan is to pull together all of these separate conflicts into one condensed volume, to show them developing side by side and sometimes linked. This is the period of the ‘dark continent’, where life gets increasingly violent and provides the prelude to the Second World War. We start with the two principle losers of the war, Russia and Germany and how their defeat came about and what this meant at home for civilians. We again are reminded of the Russian Revolution, the failure of the provincial government and the Kornilov affair which caused the collapse of Alexander Kerensky’s government and the subsequent power seize of the Bolsheviks. The Russian Civil War followed with deviating effect. In Germany, the clear misjudged pressure of Woodrow Wilson to clear the old order in Germany, caused its revolution, impotent Weimar Republic and multiple internal conflicts. The German Freikorps was born, which wages counter revolution in the fatherland and Baltic areas, to stave off Communist insurrection. This revolution and counter revolution is the main cause of the continued violence.
Travelling elsewhere Gerwarth takes us to the lands of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, where communist regimes where established and ousted. This caused a ripple effect across the rest of Europe with reactionary movements growing with Mussolini in Italy and similar regimes in Portugal and Spain. The war between Greece and Turkey is also explained and the sacred will to resist from Mustafa Kemel Artaturk, who defied the odds to resist allied pressure for settlement and overthrew the last remnants of the Ottoman Empire to establish a Turkish Republic. Again this was bathed in blood with thousands more Armenians being slaughtered. There was a huge population shift between Greece and Turkey, causing a 25 percent increase in citizens in Greece, which has contributed to poor and struggling state we see today.
Gerwarth explains that both conflicts are linked, through the personalities involved and the national resentments at the ‘redrawing of the maps’ after 1918. But he clearly states that by 1923 most of the fighting had ended and a period of ‘peace’ started, even if this was only an interlude to what was going to come in the 1930s. The growth of the regimes in the interwar period were not products of the brutalising effects of WWI but more to do with ideological divisions following the collapse of the old order. Britain and France who saw the same violence in war did not decent into the same madness, shows Gerwarth’s case in point.
The book is readable and strikes and nice middle ground between popular history and academic study. I however found nothing new in here which hasn’t been said elsewhere. However, to find this in one place os useful and being short is not a waste of anyone’s time, so on that basis it is worth a read.
The First World War is traditionally set between 1914-1918, the dates we all know. However as the armistice was agreed in the West and hostilities slowly ended, the rest of Europe and in the collapsing Ottoman Empire violence continued. Robert Gerwarth takes us on a journey to see how in these areas society was lost and the war continued to wage. For many people living in these areas this was just the beginning of extreme misery.
Gerwarth’s plan is to pull together all of these separate conflicts into one condensed volume, to show them developing side by side and sometimes linked. This is the period of the ‘dark continent’, where life gets increasingly violent and provides the prelude to the Second World War. We start with the two principle losers of the war, Russia and Germany and how their defeat came about and what this meant at home for civilians. We again are reminded of the Russian Revolution, the failure of the provincial government and the Kornilov affair which caused the collapse of Alexander Kerensky’s government and the subsequent power seize of the Bolsheviks. The Russian Civil War followed with deviating effect. In Germany, the clear misjudged pressure of Woodrow Wilson to clear the old order in Germany, caused its revolution, impotent Weimar Republic and multiple internal conflicts. The German Freikorps was born, which wages counter revolution in the fatherland and Baltic areas, to stave off Communist insurrection. This revolution and counter revolution is the main cause of the continued violence.
Travelling elsewhere Gerwarth takes us to the lands of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, where communist regimes where established and ousted. This caused a ripple effect across the rest of Europe with reactionary movements growing with Mussolini in Italy and similar regimes in Portugal and Spain. The war between Greece and Turkey is also explained and the sacred will to resist from Mustafa Kemel Artaturk, who defied the odds to resist allied pressure for settlement and overthrew the last remnants of the Ottoman Empire to establish a Turkish Republic. Again this was bathed in blood with thousands more Armenians being slaughtered. There was a huge population shift between Greece and Turkey, causing a 25 percent increase in citizens in Greece, which has contributed to poor and struggling state we see today.
Gerwarth explains that both conflicts are linked, through the personalities involved and the national resentments at the ‘redrawing of the maps’ after 1918. But he clearly states that by 1923 most of the fighting had ended and a period of ‘peace’ started, even if this was only an interlude to what was going to come in the 1930s. The growth of the regimes in the interwar period were not products of the brutalising effects of WWI but more to do with ideological divisions following the collapse of the old order. Britain and France who saw the same violence in war did not decent into the same madness, shows Gerwarth’s case in point.
The book is readable and strikes and nice middle ground between popular history and academic study. I however found nothing new in here which hasn’t been said elsewhere. However, to find this in one place os useful and being short is not a waste of anyone’s time, so on that basis it is worth a read.
July 31, 2017
The First World War has ended officially in 1918. This book argues that its aftermath was even more horrific and bloody for the states which were defeated (or otherwise totally disrupted) in the War. It focuses on Russia, Germany, the remains of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires. It is brilliantly narrated. There is no moralising or too much judgement. Instead, there are a lot of storytelling and factual material. And it is not dry: the author uses the memoirs of the people living through that time so you can hear the real voices.
Some of its parts were more familiar to me that the others. But there where a lot of new facts. For example, I did not know anything about the Freikorps in the Baltic. Also through the book, i discovered the novelist totally new for me - Marguerite Yourcenar. She wrote apparently famous novel set in the period and in the Baltic called "Coup de Grace". Unfortunately it looks like it totally out of print now in English. But I will keep looking...
The Vanquished is the best history book I've read this year so far.
Some of its parts were more familiar to me that the others. But there where a lot of new facts. For example, I did not know anything about the Freikorps in the Baltic. Also through the book, i discovered the novelist totally new for me - Marguerite Yourcenar. She wrote apparently famous novel set in the period and in the Baltic called "Coup de Grace". Unfortunately it looks like it totally out of print now in English. But I will keep looking...
The Vanquished is the best history book I've read this year so far.
January 12, 2021
Първата световна война като цяло си остава една “недовършена работа” за участниците в нея. Те някак естествено се оказват участници и във втората световна война.
Танцът на трагедията и цинизма в книгата обхваща периода 1917 - 1923 г.
Поредицата от Парижките мирни договори, сред които е и Ньойският, са нагледен пример как не трябва да се отнасяш с победените, освен ако не държиш да се видиш с тях след 20 години под дулото на оръжието.
Непосилните репарации са едно на ръка. Зверското обедняване, способствано и от черния петък на Уолстрийт, ожесточава германци и австрийци, отразява се непосилно на всички останали, включително и на българите.
Свободното (в смисъл на необвързано с правила и цинично) раздаване на земи сред държавите победителки води до изкуствено създаване на уж национално единни, но всъщност етнически разнообразни нови държави, или нарастване на стари (които са били на страната на Антантата). Например Полша се оказва с армия, която е била разпръсната между 3 империи, а войниците в тях са се били едни срещу други. Това разпределение на граници води до куп погранични военни или паравоенни конфликти, водещи до масово избиване на население от двете страни на границите, и свирепо етническо прочистване. Един вид доразчистване на сметките от Париж, но дори и това не помага, та тези сметки са предявени отново през следващата война, с поредната партида избити цивилни граждани. Както и през 90-те с войната в Югославия.
В началото, преди подписването на Парижките мирни договори, в победените държави властта вземат реформистки правителства, предимно леви. Обещанията за реформи на отдавна наболели социални и икономически проблеми, заедно с вярата в митичната справедливост на “големите” (Великобритания, Франция, САЩ), вдъхват надежди. Но “големите” бързо нарязват баницата за чужда сметка и залагат мини за бъдещето на целия европейски континент, а и на света. И привържениците на “реда” бързо вземат превес политически, обещавайки ревизия на несправедливите клаузи и лов на вътрешните врагове (разбирай най-вече евреи).
Русия с нейната гражданска война с милиони жертви и новоутвърдил се болшевишки режим допълнително кара старите политици да сънуват кошмари, които пък ги хвърлят в другата крайност на избиване (буквално) на всякакви инакомислещи. На самата Русия и нейните реки от кръв е отделено подобаващо внимание.
Пощадени няма. Герварт не пропуска никого от играчите, победители и победени. И не щади никого. Рухналите империи си имат и добрите черти, като толерантността, а новите национални държави могат да са доста зловещи. Гърци и турци вършат еднакво зверски кланета. Унгарци и украинци са изумително кръвожадни антисемити. Митичният Удроу Уилсън с неговите 14 прочути точки и налагане на принципа на “национално самоопределение” е поддръжник на сегрегацията, а големите колониални сили не включват “самоопределението” като приложимо за араби и чернокожи, които са си паплач втора ръка. “Големите” отхвърлят искането на Япония за “расова неутралност” при прилагане на правилата.
Рядко историците се интересуват от победените. А трябва. И в случая планът “Маршал” след втората световна война прави възможно зверствата да не се повторят, защото някой все пак си е взел поне една поука. Но колко много са невзетите.
Изключително стегнато, фактологично, обхватно и безпощадно описание в рамките на някакви си 250 страници. Браво на Герварт.
***
“...преживяното в окопите на първата световна война ожесточава както военните действия, така и обществото, тъй като установява нови, при това безпрецедентно високи граници на допустимо насилие.”
“Миротворците...считат Балканите и тяхната сложна демографска плетеница...като изключително объркваща.”
“...”самоопределението” е дадено само на народите, считани за съюзници на Антантата, но не и на техните противници през войната.”
“По-добре е за тях да останат тук и да бъдат изклани от Кемал, отколкото да отидат в Атина и да обърнат всичко �� главата надолу.”
Гръцкият администратор на Смирна обяснява защо няма да евакуира гръцките бежанци от Смирна
Танцът на трагедията и цинизма в книгата обхваща периода 1917 - 1923 г.
Поредицата от Парижките мирни договори, сред които е и Ньойският, са нагледен пример как не трябва да се отнасяш с победените, освен ако не държиш да се видиш с тях след 20 години под дулото на оръжието.
Непосилните репарации са едно на ръка. Зверското обедняване, способствано и от черния петък на Уолстрийт, ожесточава германци и австрийци, отразява се непосилно на всички останали, включително и на българите.
Свободното (в смисъл на необвързано с правила и цинично) раздаване на земи сред държавите победителки води до изкуствено създаване на уж национално единни, но всъщност етнически разнообразни нови държави, или нарастване на стари (които са били на страната на Антантата). Например Полша се оказва с армия, която е била разпръсната между 3 империи, а войниците в тях са се били едни срещу други. Това разпределение на граници води до куп погранични военни или паравоенни конфликти, водещи до масово избиване на население от двете страни на границите, и свирепо етническо прочистване. Един вид доразчистване на сметките от Париж, но дори и това не помага, та тези сметки са предявени отново през следващата война, с поредната партида избити цивилни граждани. Както и през 90-те с войната в Югославия.
В началото, преди подписването на Парижките мирни договори, в победените държави властта вземат реформистки правителства, предимно леви. Обещанията за реформи на отдавна наболели социални и икономически проблеми, заедно с вярата в митичната справедливост на “големите” (Великобритания, Франция, САЩ), вдъхват надежди. Но “големите” бързо нарязват баницата за чужда сметка и залагат мини за бъдещето на целия европейски континент, а и на света. И привържениците на “реда” бързо вземат превес политически, обещавайки ревизия на несправедливите клаузи и лов на вътрешните врагове (разбирай най-вече евреи).
Русия с нейната гражданска война с милиони жертви и новоутвърдил се болшевишки режим допълнително кара старите политици да сънуват кошмари, които пък ги хвърлят в другата крайност на избиване (буквално) на всякакви инакомислещи. На самата Русия и нейните реки от кръв е отделено подобаващо внимание.
Пощадени няма. Герварт не пропуска никого от играчите, победители и победени. И не щади никого. Рухналите империи си имат и добрите черти, като толерантността, а новите национални държави могат да са доста зловещи. Гърци и турци вършат еднакво зверски кланета. Унгарци и украинци са изумително кръвожадни антисемити. Митичният Удроу Уилсън с неговите 14 прочути точки и налагане на принципа на “национално самоопределение” е поддръжник на сегрегацията, а големите колониални сили не включват “самоопределението” като приложимо за араби и чернокожи, които са си паплач втора ръка. “Големите” отхвърлят искането на Япония за “расова неутралност” при прилагане на правилата.
Рядко историците се интересуват от победените. А трябва. И в случая планът “Маршал” след втората световна война прави възможно зверствата да не се повторят, защото някой все пак си е взел поне една поука. Но колко много са невзетите.
Изключително стегнато, фактологично, обхватно и безпощадно описание в рамките на някакви си 250 страници. Браво на Герварт.
***
“...преживяното в окопите на първата световна война ожесточава както военните действия, така и обществото, тъй като установява нови, при това безпрецедентно високи граници на допустимо насилие.”
“Миротворците...считат Балканите и тяхната сложна демографска плетеница...като изключително объркваща.”
“...”самоопределението” е дадено само на народите, считани за съюзници на Антантата, но не и на техните противници през войната.”
“По-добре е за тях да останат тук и да бъдат изклани от Кемал, отколкото да отидат в Атина и да обърнат всичко �� главата надолу.”
Гръцкият администратор на Смирна обяснява защо няма да евакуира гръцките бежанци от Смирна
November 8, 2021
Тази книга сериозно разклаща вярата ми в човешкия род и ми докарва лека до средно тежка депресия за поне седмица. Интересно ми е как историците се справят емоционално с проучвания, който изваждат на показ възможно най-лошото от човешката история. Професор Герварт се е справил отлично безпристрастно. Емоциите, които не е могъл да удържи, ги е предал с цитати от съвременници на описваните събития – всички до един ярко емоционални. Дори е цитирал откъс от „Септември“ на Гео Милев, за да илюстрира политическото насилие в България.
И с тази книга не можах да спра да мисля за „въобразените реалности“ на Ювал Ноа Харари – религия, нация, раса, национална държава. Всички те не съществуват другаде освен във въображението на хората и все пак милиони са умрели и продължават да умират заради тях. Не ни трябват сложни конспирации и кукловоди, които дърпат конците на световния ред - най-голямата конспирация са тези реалности. Ако е вярно, че интелигентността е страничен продукт от големината на мозъка ни – еволюцията не се е справила много добре. От толкова много мозък, ще се затрием сами като вид. Освен ако внезапно не удари астероид и не сложи край на мъките ни.
И за да не звуча съвсем депресарски, ще похваля книгата – интересна е, информативана (за мен, защото съм невежа за този исторически период), четивна. Особено се впечатлих от 110-те страници библиография.
И с тази книга не можах да спра да мисля за „въобразените реалности“ на Ювал Ноа Харари – религия, нация, раса, национална държава. Всички те не съществуват другаде освен във въображението на хората и все пак милиони са умрели и продължават да умират заради тях. Не ни трябват сложни конспирации и кукловоди, които дърпат конците на световния ред - най-голямата конспирация са тези реалности. Ако е вярно, че интелигентността е страничен продукт от големината на мозъка ни – еволюцията не се е справила много добре. От толкова много мозък, ще се затрием сами като вид. Освен ако внезапно не удари астероид и не сложи край на мъките ни.
И за да не звуча съвсем депресарски, ще похваля книгата – интересна е, информативана (за мен, защото съм невежа за този исторически период), четивна. Особено се впечатлих от 110-те страници библиография.
December 17, 2023
This is a non-fic that depicts the situation in ‘the vanquished’ – powers that lost the WW1, which includes Germany and its allies but also the Russian empire, in the years right after the formal end of the war on 11/11/1918. I read it as a Buddy reading for December 2023 at Non Fiction Book Club group.
I initially thought that the author will join the camp, which sees WW1 and WW2 as a single worldwide conflict. While he mentions this approach, the goal of this book is somewhat different: to highlight the horrific events that took place in large parts of ‘post-war’ Europe, the numerous conflicts of the years after 1917–18 have not attracted nearly as much attention as the events on the Western Front over the previous four years. This doesn’t only means ‘wars of the pygmies’ (as Winston Churchill famously called them) but also famines and pogroms.
The book starts with the fall of the Russian empire and the coming of the Bolsheviks. Here, while he mentions several short-lived states, e.g. Ukrainian People's Republic (1917-1920 in several incarnations), he chiefly follows the fallacy of survivor and its main interest is in those states that were able to survive. This means that he often follows established narratives, e.g. when talking about a peace conference started on 22 December 1917 in the fortress city of Brest-Litovsk as a ‘Russian-German affair’, chiefly overlooking other ‘minor’ participants from all sides.
Then he moved to central Europe, including Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and others. He correctly stresses atrocities committed by ‘right-wing’ forces there, say by Freikorps, and while mentioning that is was formally justified as a response to atrocities by Reds, he doesn’t dwell on those atrocities (quite possible that earlier books on the subject were ideologically more anti-Bolshevik, written before 1991).
Overall a solid overview of conflicts in the region and their effects.
I initially thought that the author will join the camp, which sees WW1 and WW2 as a single worldwide conflict. While he mentions this approach, the goal of this book is somewhat different: to highlight the horrific events that took place in large parts of ‘post-war’ Europe, the numerous conflicts of the years after 1917–18 have not attracted nearly as much attention as the events on the Western Front over the previous four years. This doesn’t only means ‘wars of the pygmies’ (as Winston Churchill famously called them) but also famines and pogroms.
The book starts with the fall of the Russian empire and the coming of the Bolsheviks. Here, while he mentions several short-lived states, e.g. Ukrainian People's Republic (1917-1920 in several incarnations), he chiefly follows the fallacy of survivor and its main interest is in those states that were able to survive. This means that he often follows established narratives, e.g. when talking about a peace conference started on 22 December 1917 in the fortress city of Brest-Litovsk as a ‘Russian-German affair’, chiefly overlooking other ‘minor’ participants from all sides.
Then he moved to central Europe, including Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and others. He correctly stresses atrocities committed by ‘right-wing’ forces there, say by Freikorps, and while mentioning that is was formally justified as a response to atrocities by Reds, he doesn’t dwell on those atrocities (quite possible that earlier books on the subject were ideologically more anti-Bolshevik, written before 1991).
Overall a solid overview of conflicts in the region and their effects.
October 3, 2020
The blood kept flowing following November 11, 1918, continuing for several years in the immediate wake of the First World War; it ran in regions such as the Baltic, Finland, the former Ottoman Empire, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, among others. Enormous numbers of persons were affected in far-flung violence, many killed, wounded and displaced, in part due to an intensification of ethnic nationalism, one of the author’s responses to why the war failed to end.
Professor Gerwarth details the consequences of that most imperfect peace embodied in the Treaty of Versailles, a peace that fueled ambitions for independence to many around the world. I now realize it wasn’t the emergence of the First World War that set the stage for future disruptions; rather it was the conclusion of that war that deserves the focus of our attention, for words that sounded noble and laudable at the time established expectations that led to calamity for many when pursued.
The role of expectations in the chain of history is, I think, underappreciated. To understand why the German army recognized defeat in the fall of 1918, we must understand the expectations of the military leadership at that moment, who then came to understand the practical implications of the American troops amassing on the Western Front, a conclusion far from the Dolchstoßlegende. In addition, I often think about the divergent courses of Russian and German history at this time. Professor Gerwarth addresses the question of why Germany did not follow Russia into revolution (p. 105):
Professor Gerwarth details the consequences of that most imperfect peace embodied in the Treaty of Versailles, a peace that fueled ambitions for independence to many around the world. I now realize it wasn’t the emergence of the First World War that set the stage for future disruptions; rather it was the conclusion of that war that deserves the focus of our attention, for words that sounded noble and laudable at the time established expectations that led to calamity for many when pursued.
The role of expectations in the chain of history is, I think, underappreciated. To understand why the German army recognized defeat in the fall of 1918, we must understand the expectations of the military leadership at that moment, who then came to understand the practical implications of the American troops amassing on the Western Front, a conclusion far from the Dolchstoßlegende. In addition, I often think about the divergent courses of Russian and German history at this time. Professor Gerwarth addresses the question of why Germany did not follow Russia into revolution (p. 105):
Despite its semi-authoritarian constitution that reserved the Kaiser, and not the Parliament, the right to appoint and dismiss governments, the Wilhelmine Empire offered the working classes significant organizational opportunities and a certain degree of political participation through universal male suffrage. It provided a legal system and a level of social and economic security that most Russians at the time could only dream of. To be sure, glaring socio-economic inequalities persisted within German society, but by 1914 it was widely accepted among a majority of the working classes that more can be gained through reforms than through a revolution. It was this realization that made the ‘Ebert generation’ decisively reject a Bolshevik-style bid for power.This readable, engaging book is impressively researched; the text spans 267 pages, yet the notes and bibliography combine for some 150 pages. One small criticism, Smyrna is mentioned in the very first sentence and there’s much discussion of events in that city. The map at the beginning of the book doesn’t show Smyrna, however; instead it shows Izmir, the current name for Smyrna. While the author does mention this connection later in the book, it would have been helpful if my geographic frustration was eased.
May 3, 2020
Highly enjoyable read.
Robert Gerwath presents an engaging, in-depth account of the violence that followed the Armistice of 1918. The author traces the aftermath of WWI in the territories of the four broken empires as well as in Greece and Italy.
The post-war conflicts had been often dismissed by contemporary observers as “wars of the pygmies”, a condescending term maintaining the misconception that Eastern Europe was innately violent and not worth the attention of the “inherently peaceful West”. However, the conflicts after 1917-18 had a logic and purpose much more dangerous. Unlike WWI, which was fought to force the enemy to accept certain conditions of peace, the post-war violence was quite more ungovernable; this conflicts were fought for annihilation – a genocidal logic, which would prevail later, in 1939-1945.
The sanguinary Russian Revolution, a striking example of class cleansing, which resulted in the universal fear of widespread Bolshevism, led to dictatorships as a defensive measure in some countries.
In his book, Gerwath analyzes the effect of changing Europe on the sentiments of the people. Soldiers that returned from the front suddenly found themselves in a hostile, unfamiliar world torn by civil wars and ethnic genocide, and their desire to return to the front only intensified, thus, carving the path for another war.
Robert Gerwath has masterfully connected all the pieces of his narrative; “The Vanquished” is a high-paced, compelling, although rather short, read. I especially enjoyed that author had examined the “less popular” belligerents like Bulgaria and Greece.
“The Vanquished” is a brilliantly written, insightful account of the Great War’s aftermath, its longterm effects, and the reasons behind the prolonged violence that followed the Treaty of Versailles.
Robert Gerwath presents an engaging, in-depth account of the violence that followed the Armistice of 1918. The author traces the aftermath of WWI in the territories of the four broken empires as well as in Greece and Italy.
The post-war conflicts had been often dismissed by contemporary observers as “wars of the pygmies”, a condescending term maintaining the misconception that Eastern Europe was innately violent and not worth the attention of the “inherently peaceful West”. However, the conflicts after 1917-18 had a logic and purpose much more dangerous. Unlike WWI, which was fought to force the enemy to accept certain conditions of peace, the post-war violence was quite more ungovernable; this conflicts were fought for annihilation – a genocidal logic, which would prevail later, in 1939-1945.
The sanguinary Russian Revolution, a striking example of class cleansing, which resulted in the universal fear of widespread Bolshevism, led to dictatorships as a defensive measure in some countries.
In his book, Gerwath analyzes the effect of changing Europe on the sentiments of the people. Soldiers that returned from the front suddenly found themselves in a hostile, unfamiliar world torn by civil wars and ethnic genocide, and their desire to return to the front only intensified, thus, carving the path for another war.
Robert Gerwath has masterfully connected all the pieces of his narrative; “The Vanquished” is a high-paced, compelling, although rather short, read. I especially enjoyed that author had examined the “less popular” belligerents like Bulgaria and Greece.
“The Vanquished” is a brilliantly written, insightful account of the Great War’s aftermath, its longterm effects, and the reasons behind the prolonged violence that followed the Treaty of Versailles.
October 8, 2024
This was fine and ‘does exactly what it says on the tin’, to borrow a phrase from Ronseal, but I didn’t find it as engaging as most of the other history books I’ve read recently. Perhaps if I hadn’t read some truly excellent history books lately, I’d have given this one a better rating. Them’s the breaks, though, folks.
Read
May 29, 2022Ένα βιβλίο που έχει ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον όχι μόνο για όσους ασχολούνται με τον Α' ΠΠ αλλά και για όσους θέλουν να μάθουν περισσότερα για τη Μικρασιατική Καταστροφή. Στο βιβλίο περιγράφεται όλο το διεθνές γίγνεσθαι της εποχής και εκτός από το κομμάτι που αναφέρεται συγκεκριμένα στα γεγονότα που οδήγησαν στο 1922, βλέπει κανείς τη γενικότερη εικόνα και καταλαβαίνει πληρέστερα το πλαίσιο και τις αιτίες. Βέβαια υπάρχουν πιο εμπεριστατωμένα βιβλία για καθένα από τα γεγονότα που εξετάζονται αλλά νομίζω ότι μια πολύ καλή συγκεντρωτική εισαγωγή που τα καλύπτει με ενιαίο τρόπο.
Δείτε λίγο περισσότερα στο Ex Libris 239!
Δείτε λίγο περισσότερα στο Ex Libris 239!
December 18, 2021
Очаквах малко повече от това четиво, може би на база високата оценка тук, донякъде и понеже не научих абсолютно нищо ново.
Иначе добро изпълнение и поглед към следвоенните конфликти и граждански войни.
П.П към издателите
Никак не ми е приятно да дам 27лв. за книга и корицата да се разлепи. Формата е адски неудобен за държане (книгата е 300стр. и това огромно тяло не е никак удачно), а за капак и ми се разпадна в ръцете, нещо, което все по-често ми се случва на фона на безумно скъпите книги, особено на Изток Запад, които имат средна цена от над 25лв.
Иначе добро изпълнение и поглед към следвоенните конфликти и граждански войни.
П.П към издателите
Никак не ми е приятно да дам 27лв. за книга и корицата да се разлепи. Формата е адски неудобен за държане (книгата е 300стр. и това огромно тяло не е никак удачно), а за капак и ми се разпадна в ръцете, нещо, което все по-често ми се случва на фона на безумно скъпите книги, особено на Изток Запад, които имат средна цена от над 25лв.
February 7, 2017
interesting take on the defeated nations of WW1 (Russia, Germany, Austria and Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria) but uneven as it is more of a short summary than a detailed analysis and the book has probably 1/3 of the number of pages in references (the actual text is about 200 pages or so)
Absorbing most of the time but needed more detail to be really good
Absorbing most of the time but needed more detail to be really good
April 15, 2017
A fascinating book that explores how the strife experienced by the defeated and other combatant nations of world war one seeded the more expansively genocidal second war. The opening chapter, which begins with the expulsion of Greeks from Smyrna in 1923 and the quite horrific murder of the Orthodox archbishop by a Turkish mob, sets out the line of the thesis clearly: that the varied civil wars, revolutions, counter-revolutions, ethnic conflicts and border disputes that visited Russia, Germany, Turkey, Italy and the Hapsburg successor states marked a distinct change in the way some European societies saw themselves and others, and how war was perceived and conducted. The 1919 - 1923 period is essentially a precursor to 1939 - 1945. The first throb of Barbarossa starts here. What follows in the book are a series of potted histories of the course of various conflicts. For the uninitiated, these will serve as a useful primer, especially for those used to seeing world war one through an Allied filter. For the non-layman, it's debatable whether Gerwarth adds anything new to the better documented histories, say Weimar insurrections, or the Russian Civil War. However, Gerwarth does shine his light in some unusual places like Hungary and Bulgaria, and an emphasis on Turkey and the example Ataturk provided for western fascists is welcome. Overall, it's a pretty good book to recommend to anyone who needs reminding of what can happen when multiculturalism is trumped by rampant nationalism and catastrophist notions of the enemy within, the enemy other who lives just down the road.
June 21, 2018
This thoroughly researched book covers the time between the end of WWI and 1923-ish. This time period is often overlooked so it is a great addition to the research. I highly recommend.
January 3, 2021
Exceptional. An example of my favourite history books, one that deeply informs me of an area I have neglected while simultaneously overturning the accepted position. Brilliantly written, weaving together what are at first glance disparate conflicts into a beautiful yet bloody tapestry that would only foretell even greater suffering to come.
This is the history of the 'post-war' years (mostly 1917-23) over a huge arc of land from the frozen arctic tundra to the middle east. Spoiler the 'war' never ended for most of the peoples of these lands, it just changed its name and scope. The 'peace' post war just created the conditions for future devastation.
It charts the fall of the old empires, these states and their peoples becoming vanquished, including surprisingly some of the 'victors' of the war such as Italy and Ireland, as a battered Europe struggled to come to terms with new realities. We have the seeds of the ethnic conflicts and the ushering in of an age of extremes that would convulse Europe and the world into the next official world war.
The violence and suffering were off the charts, with millions dead - even excluding the flu pandemic and the famines caused by the various conflicts. The brutality is hard to fathom, from the German brigades in the Baltic states, to the Soviet policies to their own people, to the expulsion of the Greeks from the new Turkish state - some of whom, the Pontic Greeks, had been there since 600 BC! Think mass burnings, disembowelling's, crucifixions, and people skinned alive. Now that's history! And sadly the world would see it writ large a few years later.
Its a tragedy and condemnation that only Finland (not for long) and Czechoslovakia (already reduced) remained by 1939 of the post war states.
The Jews as so often has been the case, suffered as much as anyone, finding it was better to be part of a multi ethnic empire rather than as a minority in a ethno-nationalist state to their great cost, repeatedly.
The new states created from the carcasses of the old empires were ethnically homogenous in the minds of their planners only - Poland was 35% non Polish, there were more Germans in Czechoslovakia than Slovaks. This, mashed together with revolutions across much of the continent led to chaos, violence, and a brutal resort of masses of peoples. The sections on the American President Wilson are excellent, especially his personal mental gymnastics allowing him to believe in enforced racial differences and self determination of peoples! Also his difficulty with idealism and violent realities - including dealing with the new threat of worldwide communist revolution.
It is easy to understand the vanquished powers sense of injustice at the peace settlements forced upon them, they were terrible! This is widely know about the treaty of Versailles, yet I was not aware that this was the best of a terrible lot! With most of the others falling to pieces not long after the war. There are great explanations of why they became what they were.
The sections of the multiple revolutions (many of witch I did not even know about!) are lucid and illuminating. Eye opening on how Japan reacted to their side-lining post war - the racial discrimination sending them off on a path that leads to the next war.
The pillars of devastation reminded me of the 4 great levelling horsemen described brilliantly by Walter Scheider, state collapse, revolutions, full mobilisation warfare, and pandemic. All were here, all caused outrageous suffering. A time of wreckage and desolation.
This is the history of the 'post-war' years (mostly 1917-23) over a huge arc of land from the frozen arctic tundra to the middle east. Spoiler the 'war' never ended for most of the peoples of these lands, it just changed its name and scope. The 'peace' post war just created the conditions for future devastation.
It charts the fall of the old empires, these states and their peoples becoming vanquished, including surprisingly some of the 'victors' of the war such as Italy and Ireland, as a battered Europe struggled to come to terms with new realities. We have the seeds of the ethnic conflicts and the ushering in of an age of extremes that would convulse Europe and the world into the next official world war.
The violence and suffering were off the charts, with millions dead - even excluding the flu pandemic and the famines caused by the various conflicts. The brutality is hard to fathom, from the German brigades in the Baltic states, to the Soviet policies to their own people, to the expulsion of the Greeks from the new Turkish state - some of whom, the Pontic Greeks, had been there since 600 BC! Think mass burnings, disembowelling's, crucifixions, and people skinned alive. Now that's history! And sadly the world would see it writ large a few years later.
Its a tragedy and condemnation that only Finland (not for long) and Czechoslovakia (already reduced) remained by 1939 of the post war states.
The Jews as so often has been the case, suffered as much as anyone, finding it was better to be part of a multi ethnic empire rather than as a minority in a ethno-nationalist state to their great cost, repeatedly.
The new states created from the carcasses of the old empires were ethnically homogenous in the minds of their planners only - Poland was 35% non Polish, there were more Germans in Czechoslovakia than Slovaks. This, mashed together with revolutions across much of the continent led to chaos, violence, and a brutal resort of masses of peoples. The sections on the American President Wilson are excellent, especially his personal mental gymnastics allowing him to believe in enforced racial differences and self determination of peoples! Also his difficulty with idealism and violent realities - including dealing with the new threat of worldwide communist revolution.
It is easy to understand the vanquished powers sense of injustice at the peace settlements forced upon them, they were terrible! This is widely know about the treaty of Versailles, yet I was not aware that this was the best of a terrible lot! With most of the others falling to pieces not long after the war. There are great explanations of why they became what they were.
The sections of the multiple revolutions (many of witch I did not even know about!) are lucid and illuminating. Eye opening on how Japan reacted to their side-lining post war - the racial discrimination sending them off on a path that leads to the next war.
The pillars of devastation reminded me of the 4 great levelling horsemen described brilliantly by Walter Scheider, state collapse, revolutions, full mobilisation warfare, and pandemic. All were here, all caused outrageous suffering. A time of wreckage and desolation.
January 5, 2022
Robert Gerwarth's The Vanquished explores the violent aftermath of World War I in Europe. Gerwatrh isn't the first writer to show that the climax of the "War to End All Wars" led to an immediate outbreak of revolutions, civil wars and internecine conflicts, as centuries-old empires collapsed and newfound nations squabbled for territory. Discussed are well-worn subjects like the Russian Revolution and Civil War; Germany's fragile experiment with democracy and failed coups by left and right wing extremists; Turkey's reemerge under Mustafa Kemal as a secular modern state; Italy's embrace of fascism following their "mutilated victory" in the war. Fresher for most readers will be Gerwarth's discussion of the turmoil in Central and Eastern Europe: Bulgaria ended the war with mutinous soldiers marching on the capital, a rebellion they put down with German assistance; Austria was reduced to an ineffectual rump state quickly suborned by authoritarianism; Hungary experienced a brief, bloody communist revolution before Admiral Horthy's White Terror purged the country's left; Yugoslavia skirmishes with its neighbors and represses minorities at it seeks to form a firm state; Greece's "Great Schism" during the war led to an ill-fated invasion of Turkey and further domestic turmoil. All of which led the groundwork for future conflicts, the Second World War most obviously, but later explosions through the post-Cold War era as well; it's difficult not to read about the forging of the Yugoslav state, against the will of many national groups, and not think about the conflicts that scored the region in the '90s and '00s. A worthwhile read demonstrating how "peace" is often a continuation of war through other means.
February 8, 2017
The book is a historical masterpiece, covers the history just after the end of the First Great War detailing all the travails of the new republics and nations which came into existence after the demise of the great Landed empires, Romonovs, German Riche, Habsburg and the Ottomans of the 19th century. The fall of these mighty empires resulted in a great chaos and rude political awakening for millions of its subjects who suddenly found themselves confronting a variety of hitherto unknown and untested political ideologies which led to civil war in some places and putsch in others. Some of the new nations went into a revivalist spiral of vengeful hate against their conquerors which resulted in the Second Great War of 1940. The growth of right wing fascism makes completes sense to me now after reading about the whole context of the aftermath of the First Great War.
It's a fascinating read for any fan of history.
It's a fascinating read for any fan of history.
November 27, 2022
第一次世界大戰，無疑的，是近代以來影響最大的一場事件。按照英國史家霍布斯邦的說法，十九世紀結束於大戰爆發的1914，然後舊歐洲從此摧毀於一役，就此進入“極端的年代”。而歲月匆匆，四年前世人尚在紀念大戰爆發百年，現在也到了終戰的時刻，只是歷史教科書往往這樣告訴讀者，卻忽略掉了事實上和平並未完全真正的到來。
其實已經有不少史家提出，應該把兩次大戰視為一個整體的事件來理解，而中間只是一場短暫的“戰間期”。這個說法是其來有自，也逐漸得到認同，甚至在那個時間點，在看完巴黎和約之後，法國元帥福煦即評論過：「這不是和平，只是二十年的休戰。」。或許相對一戰的暴發原因可以寫成堆積如山的作品，展開二戰的罪咎只要推給那位希特勒即可，這當然是不負責任的說法。光是只要思考，為什麼德國會在那個時間點誕生此人，並讓他掌權，就需要把時間點往回推了。事實上，歷史是連續性的，二戰是一戰延伸的產物，它的所有“因”幾乎可以回溯到前次大戰，而更多的，則是奠基在常常被忽略的“戰間期”。《戰敗者》就是目前少數被引進華文圈，針對這個議題討論的專著。
作者羅伯特‧格瓦特(Robrt Gerwarth)就是企圖在這本書中告訴我們，在1917年到1923年為止的這段期間，革命與暴力從未在歐洲停歇，和約不但沒有帶來應有的效果，反而更加深了衝突。而這段期間內，造成紛亂的現象主要有三：
‧無法停歇的暴力
雖然我們無法否認人性中存在暴力的因子，但戰爭對於這種成分的誇大跟扭曲讓它超越了一般的界線。而且這是一旦跨越之後，要回到原點並不是說做就能做到的。大戰後的士兵，不論是哪一方，都沒能得到妥善的安置與對待，雖然這是出於很多的因素，許多政府為了處理其他要事就已經焦頭爛額，根本無暇他顧，但顯然這些人應該是更優先而非怠慢。以德國來說，身為敗者，無法像戰勝國那樣交代吃了這麼多苦所為何來，回到老家又往往遭到冷遇，後來很多士兵又選擇了繼續參戰，他們前往東線參加對抗布爾什維克的戰爭。不過這也是其中的一部分，有更多的，則成為當時極端政治黨派的生力軍，是社會不安定的重大因素。我們不要忘了，那位元首本身也是不安份的大戰老兵之一。馬基維利說過“任何虧待老兵的國家都必將自食惡果！”。
‧民族主義病毒
一場大戰，摧毀了四個古老帝國，隨之而生的，是許多個依各民族畫分獨立的眾小國。表面上這種按照“民族自決”精神誕生的政治體，應該最符合當時人們的需求，不用再受困於“民族的囚籠”之中，但事實上是，經過幾百年的混居，要輕易的在地圖上畫出一個“純粹”的單一民族疆域，根本就是癡人說夢。這樣的結果，只造成了更多的糾紛跟衝突，特別是巴爾幹這個早就被稱之為“歐洲火藥庫”之處，更是如同火上加油般，整個大爆炸了。
這種境況，隨著“民族自決”讓位給現實政治，變的更加惡化。理想主義者美國總統威爾遜，拋下他美好的口號逃之夭夭，留下的則是不管哪一方都感到不滿的邊界畫分，種下了另外一場大戰的因子。這種修正主義，成為當時歐洲各國的詭異“共識”。
而這種民族糾紛在崩潰了的鄂圖曼帝國表現的最鮮明。希臘人跟土耳其人幾百年的糾葛就此引爆，企圖重建拜占庭的計畫遭到凱末爾的迎頭痛擊，最終只好帶著一堆無奈的同胞退回本土。許多人必須離開祖先定居的家園，來到陌生的“祖國”，卻也因為帶著太多“異國元素”不怎麼受待見而兩頭不是人，這大概就是民族主義最大的諷刺。
更令人驚悚的是作者接下來的這段話：
沒有哪位政治家比希特勒對觀察1918年至1923年間安納托利亞的形勢發展更有興趣。...希特勒不僅佩服凱末爾對協約國不妥協的抵抗，還企圖效仿他的方式，在經歷戰爭失敗後建立起一個完全世俗的，國家主義和民族同質化的國家。統一與進步委員會在第一次世界大戰時對亞美尼亞人的種族滅絕政策，以及凱末爾對土耳其基督徒的無情驅逐，都在納粹的幻想中留下了鮮明的印記，它們成為未來幾年希特勒美夢的靈感來源和計劃的範例。
當然，凱末爾會說自己跟元首素昧平生，這個鍋他可不背。但不管怎樣，釋放出來的民族主義病毒，擴散開來造成的後果要承受的不只是猶太人。雖然人類常常為了許多理由互相殘殺，如果是為了生存這也是沒有辦法，物競天擇，但為了“看不見的神”跟莫名其妙的“民族分界”而冷血屠戮同為人類的物種，就顯得愚不可及了。
‧共產主義的幽靈
大戰造成的眾多後果中，恐怕又以“實存社會主義國家”的建立為重中之重吧。這是自從馬克思提出其宣言以來，第一個讓“幽靈實體化”，它告訴世人，共產主義不再只是理想，它可以打造出來。這個現實造成了歐洲普遍的惶恐--資產階級或興奮--無產階級，讓原本就已經動盪不安的政局更形惡化。
階級革命混合著政治現實，它在西歐開始擴散，但並沒有像馬克思預言的那樣大暴發，主要原因在於社會主義者本身對於其目標的達成手段本來就存著分歧，此外，絕大部分發達資本主義國家的右翼勢力往往有足夠的力量將之撲滅--不論是用大棒還是胡蘿蔔。但是，革命終究是造成了某些傷痕，在德國的慕尼黑，曾經建立的短暫蘇維埃政權，其殘酷血腥的鬥爭手段不但沒有達成目的，反而引來更多的仇視，讓巴伐利亞州更加右翼化，納粹黨及希特勒在此處發跡，不是沒有道理。
這三大現象造成的紛亂約在二十世紀二零年代中漸漸停歇，主要原因是戰後破損的世界經濟逐漸重上軌道，人類這種生物，在照顧好肚子之後，也就比較不會那麼激進了。但這並不代表之前的那些問題都已然解決，他只是隱藏到了檯面下，成為隨時會點燃的火種。而果不其然，當經濟大蕭條在全世界引爆的時候，前面的這些燃點，全都加倍的歸來，造成更大的動盪。
這全都是一戰造成的因。今天，我們討論二戰原因，甚至討論現在的許多國際局勢的淵源，都要從當時回溯起。本書，徹底的補足了常常被忽視的這一塊。
《戰敗者》的翻譯流暢，作者的敘事能力出色，對於事件也有自己的觀點跟評論，常常能引導讀者並告知其脈絡及影響，是不可多得的好書，值得詳讀。
其實已經有不少史家提出，應該把兩次大戰視為一個整體的事件來理解，而中間只是一場短暫的“戰間期”。這個說法是其來有自，也逐漸得到認同，甚至在那個時間點，在看完巴黎和約之後，法國元帥福煦即評論過：「這不是和平，只是二十年的休戰。」。或許相對一戰的暴發原因可以寫成堆積如山的作品，展開二戰的罪咎只要推給那位希特勒即可，這當然是不負責任的說法。光是只要思考，為什麼德國會在那個時間點誕生此人，並讓他掌權，就需要把時間點往回推了。事實上，歷史是連續性的，二戰是一戰延伸的產物，它的所有“因”幾乎可以回溯到前次大戰，而更多的，則是奠基在常常被忽略的“戰間期”。《戰敗者》就是目前少數被引進華文圈，針對這個議題討論的專著。
作者羅伯特‧格瓦特(Robrt Gerwarth)就是企圖在這本書中告訴我們，在1917年到1923年為止的這段期間，革命與暴力從未在歐洲停歇，和約不但沒有帶來應有的效果，反而更加深了衝突。而這段期間內，造成紛亂的現象主要有三：
‧無法停歇的暴力
雖然我們無法否認人性中存在暴力的因子，但戰爭對於這種成分的誇大跟扭曲讓它超越了一般的界線。而且這是一旦跨越之後，要回到原點並不是說做就能做到的。大戰後的士兵，不論是哪一方，都沒能得到妥善的安置與對待，雖然這是出於很多的因素，許多政府為了處理其他要事就已經焦頭爛額，根本無暇他顧，但顯然這些人應該是更優先而非怠慢。以德國來說，身為敗者，無法像戰勝國那樣交代吃了這麼多苦所為何來，回到老家又往往遭到冷遇，後來很多士兵又選擇了繼續參戰，他們前往東線參加對抗布爾什維克的戰爭。不過這也是其中的一部分，有更多的，則成為當時極端政治黨派的生力軍，是社會不安定的重大因素。我們不要忘了，那位元首本身也是不安份的大戰老兵之一。馬基維利說過“任何虧待老兵的國家都必將自食惡果！”。
‧民族主義病毒
一場大戰，摧毀了四個古老帝國，隨之而生的，是許多個依各民族畫分獨立的眾小國。表面上這種按照“民族自決”精神誕生的政治體，應該最符合當時人們的需求，不用再受困於“民族的囚籠”之中，但事實上是，經過幾百年的混居，要輕易的在地圖上畫出一個“純粹”的單一民族疆域，根本就是癡人說夢。這樣的結果，只造成了更多的糾紛跟衝突，特別是巴爾幹這個早就被稱之為“歐洲火藥庫”之處，更是如同火上加油般，整個大爆炸了。
這種境況，隨著“民族自決”讓位給現實政治，變的更加惡化。理想主義者美國總統威爾遜，拋下他美好的口號逃之夭夭，留下的則是不管哪一方都感到不滿的邊界畫分，種下了另外一場大戰的因子。這種修正主義，成為當時歐洲各國的詭異“共識”。
而這種民族糾紛在崩潰了的鄂圖曼帝國表現的最鮮明。希臘人跟土耳其人幾百年的糾葛就此引爆，企圖重建拜占庭的計畫遭到凱末爾的迎頭痛擊，最終只好帶著一堆無奈的同胞退回本土。許多人必須離開祖先定居的家園，來到陌生的“祖國”，卻也因為帶著太多“異國元素”不怎麼受待見而兩頭不是人，這大概就是民族主義最大的諷刺。
更令人驚悚的是作者接下來的這段話：
沒有哪位政治家比希特勒對觀察1918年至1923年間安納托利亞的形勢發展更有興趣。...希特勒不僅佩服凱末爾對協約國不妥協的抵抗，還企圖效仿他的方式，在經歷戰爭失敗後建立起一個完全世俗的，國家主義和民族同質化的國家。統一與進步委員會在第一次世界大戰時對亞美尼亞人的種族滅絕政策，以及凱末爾對土耳其基督徒的無情驅逐，都在納粹的幻想中留下了鮮明的印記，它們成為未來幾年希特勒美夢的靈感來源和計劃的範例。
當然，凱末爾會說自己跟元首素昧平生，這個鍋他可不背。但不管怎樣，釋放出來的民族主義病毒，擴散開來造成的後果要承受的不只是猶太人。雖然人類常常為了許多理由互相殘殺，如果是為了生存這也是沒有辦法，物競天擇，但為了“看不見的神”跟莫名其妙的“民族分界”而冷血屠戮同為人類的物種，就顯得愚不可及了。
‧共產主義的幽靈
大戰造成的眾多後果中，恐怕又以“實存社會主義國家”的建立為重中之重吧。這是自從馬克思提出其宣言以來，第一個讓“幽靈實體化”，它告訴世人，共產主義不再只是理想，它可以打造出來。這個現實造成了歐洲普遍的惶恐--資產階級或興奮--無產階級，讓原本就已經動盪不安的政局更形惡化。
階級革命混合著政治現實，它在西歐開始擴散，但並沒有像馬克思預言的那樣大暴發，主要原因在於社會主義者本身對於其目標的達成手段本來就存著分歧，此外，絕大部分發達資本主義國家的右翼勢力往往有足夠的力量將之撲滅--不論是用大棒還是胡蘿蔔。但是，革命終究是造成了某些傷痕，在德國的慕尼黑，曾經建立的短暫蘇維埃政權，其殘酷血腥的鬥爭手段不但沒有達成目的，反而引來更多的仇視，讓巴伐利亞州更加右翼化，納粹黨及希特勒在此處發跡，不是沒有道理。
這三大現象造成的紛亂約在二十世紀二零年代中漸漸停歇，主要原因是戰後破損的世界經濟逐漸重上軌道，人類這種生物，在照顧好肚子之後，也就比較不會那麼激進了。但這並不代表之前的那些問題都已然解決，他只是隱藏到了檯面下，成為隨時會點燃的火種。而果不其然，當經濟大蕭條在全世界引爆的時候，前面的這些燃點，全都加倍的歸來，造成更大的動盪。
這全都是一戰造成的因。今天，我們討論二戰原因，甚至討論現在的許多國際局勢的淵源，都要從當時回溯起。本書，徹底的補足了常常被忽視的這一塊。
《戰敗者》的翻譯流暢，作者的敘事能力出色，對於事件也有自己的觀點跟評論，常常能引導讀者並告知其脈絡及影響，是不可多得的好書，值得詳讀。
November 6, 2018
本書是一本對於「戰間期」各國狀況描述的一本好書。在我們一般談到歐洲史由一戰至二戰的過程中，通常都會將重點放在戰敗的俄德、與戰勝的英法。但正如我在亂讀書過程中注意到的一件事︰每個地方的人都很努力地在過活（與胡搞折騰）。因此本書便著重於一戰末期至戰間期，席捲歐洲各地（除英法之外）的政治狂暴現象。下個簡單結論︰所謂一次大戰的結束之後，整體來講並未給歐洲帶來和平，而是產生更嚴重更血腥的瘋狂暴力騷亂。
1. 本書作者想打破一個長久以來的簡單「正邪兩判」的觀點︰第一次大戰之後，四個獨裁的邪惡大帝國（俄國羅曼諾夫王朝、奧斯曼土耳其、哈布斯堡奧匈帝國、霍亨佐倫德意志帝國）的瓦解，民族主義與民主共和國的興起，是件符合歷史正義的好事。實際上，若以人民的生命財產而言，根��不是這麼一回事。原本的「帝國」，在其本質上一定是相對地強調包容與多元，只要臣民對帝國統治者效忠即可；但進入民族主義、民主共和、共產主義信仰的階段之後，原本沒有什麼矛盾的小群體便開始互相厭惡，各自混亂相殺至死方休。
2. 本書對於美國威爾遜總統的「十四點和平原則」沒有好感，認為他（以及英法戰勝國）只是為了裂解奧匈帝國、製造新紛亂。當中的「民族自決」原則從來沒有任何客觀標準，因人設事（禁止德奧日耳曼合併、背叛阿拉伯世界、無視列強海外殖民地）。可以說，戰間期各地發生的血腥暴力（作者將這段期間的中東歐評為「地球上最暴力的地區」），美國也是幫兇。
3. 除了一無可取的巴黎和會之外，一戰之後折騰歐洲的另一關鍵則是俄國的布爾什維克革命。諸帝國因戰敗而造成法統的瓦解並成立了各個小朋友共和國之後，無一不受到赤色革命的風潮，烽火遍地、內戰不止。而特別顯目的一點，則是當時中東歐各國領導布爾什維克革命的，有一大堆都恰巧是猶太人——這也解釋了為何後來會出現《最終解決方案》。
4. 在這一連串的暴力衝突中，沒有任何一個政權是「無辜」的（我之前不曉得捷克也曾經如此兇悍屠殺百姓），所有相鄰的領導者都可以拿任何理由砍來砍去。
5. 若在這當中還有任何可以值得寫成戲劇進行主軸的（也就是有嚴格意義的成功而非一團胡塗混戰），除了列寧的革命成功之外，就是土耳其凱末爾的復國過程了。原本希臘被英國慫恿佔領西安那托利亞（讓希臘國王可以恢復當年東羅馬時期的榮光），卻被西亞病夫戰敗國給趕入愛琴海——但正如前面所說的，大型的奧斯曼帝國瓦解之後，原本不是問題的宗教問題，卻在這場土耳其復興的戰爭結束之後，希臘正教徒與穆斯林再也不能共處，搞得兩國「互換人民」，折騰不已。
---
值得細細閱讀的好書。
1. 本書作者想打破一個長久以來的簡單「正邪兩判」的觀點︰第一次大戰之後，四個獨裁的邪惡大帝國（俄國羅曼諾夫王朝、奧斯曼土耳其、哈布斯堡奧匈帝國、霍亨佐倫德意志帝國）的瓦解，民族主義與民主共和國的興起，是件符合歷史正義的好事。實際上，若以人民的生命財產而言，根��不是這麼一回事。原本的「帝國」，在其本質上一定是相對地強調包容與多元，只要臣民對帝國統治者效忠即可；但進入民族主義、民主共和、共產主義信仰的階段之後，原本沒有什麼矛盾的小群體便開始互相厭惡，各自混亂相殺至死方休。
2. 本書對於美國威爾遜總統的「十四點和平原則」沒有好感，認為他（以及英法戰勝國）只是為了裂解奧匈帝國、製造新紛亂。當中的「民族自決」原則從來沒有任何客觀標準，因人設事（禁止德奧日耳曼合併、背叛阿拉伯世界、無視列強海外殖民地）。可以說，戰間期各地發生的血腥暴力（作者將這段期間的中東歐評為「地球上最暴力的地區」），美國也是幫兇。
3. 除了一無可取的巴黎和會之外，一戰之後折騰歐洲的另一關鍵則是俄國的布爾什維克革命。諸帝國因戰敗而造成法統的瓦解並成立了各個小朋友共和國之後，無一不受到赤色革命的風潮，烽火遍地、內戰不止。而特別顯目的一點，則是當時中東歐各國領導布爾什維克革命的，有一大堆都恰巧是猶太人——這也解釋了為何後來會出現《最終解決方案》。
4. 在這一連串的暴力衝突中，沒有任何一個政權是「無辜」的（我之前不曉得捷克也曾經如此兇悍屠殺百姓），所有相鄰的領導者都可以拿任何理由砍來砍去。
5. 若在這當中還有任何可以值得寫成戲劇進行主軸的（也就是有嚴格意義的成功而非一團胡塗混戰），除了列寧的革命成功之外，就是土耳其凱末爾的復國過程了。原本希臘被英國慫恿佔領西安那托利亞（讓希臘國王可以恢復當年東羅馬時期的榮光），卻被西亞病夫戰敗國給趕入愛琴海——但正如前面所說的，大型的奧斯曼帝國瓦解之後，原本不是問題的宗教問題，卻在這場土耳其復興的戰爭結束之後，希臘正教徒與穆斯林再也不能共處，搞得兩國「互換人民」，折騰不已。
---
值得細細閱讀的好書。
November 11, 2018
На днешния ден, 11 ноември 1918 година, точно в 11 часа заглъхват оръдията по последните фронтове на Първата световна война. Краят на насилието в Европа обаче е все още твърде далеч. Континентът е обхванат от много по-ужасяващи конфликти, отколкото враждуващите страни някога са си представяли, че ще отприщят с обявяването на войната през лятото на 1914 г.
„Победените“ на Робърт Герварт е удивително обобщение на отприщеното от войната насилие, продължило много след примирието в Европа. И стряскащо свидетелство, че войната, която трябваше „да доведе края на всички войни“, всъщност само сменя формата си, но не и насилствената си природа, предизвиквайки на места много по-големи катаклизми, отколкото по фронтовете.
Вижте ревю в Библиотеката: https://bibliotekata.wordpress.com/20...
„Победените“ на Робърт Герварт е удивително обобщение на отприщеното от войната насилие, продължило много след примирието в Европа. И стряскащо свидетелство, че войната, която трябваше „да доведе края на всички войни“, всъщност само сменя формата си, но не и насилствената си природа, предизвиквайки на места много по-големи катаклизми, отколкото по фронтовете.
Вижте ревю в Библиотеката: https://bibliotekata.wordpress.com/20...
June 21, 2017
On November 11th, 1918, at precisely 11:11 am, all of the guns on the Western Front fell silent. For the first time in four years of horrific war, every cannon, rifle, machine gun ceased, according to the provisions of a just-signed armistice. Apparently soldiers experienced the sudden silence as something like the onset of divine mercy. Men wept openly, overcome by the quiet and shattering arrival of peace.
Many people take this astonishing moment as the end of World War I, with some good reason. Hostilities did end in France. Soon after a semblance of liberal democracy began to spread, abetted by American president Wilson's idealism. Yet Robert Gerwath's The Vanquished shows that the war did not end on that date. In fact, several wars continued, and several others sprang into terrible life, wrecking havoc largely among the many peoples whose nations lost in the war. World War I did not so much end as fall apart, stagger along, and mutate.
More than 4 million people died of violence right after WWI, in revolts, civil wars, invasions, and coups (7). So much for "peace".
This isn't a question of pedantic detail. Instead, paying attention to what happened alongside and right after the Armistice of Compiègne honors the enormous struggles that also occurred, while shedding light on subsequent events, including the rise of fascism and WWII.
This is rich and complex history, so I'll summarize all too quickly.
In eastern Europe, the Russian revolutions of 1917 (the fall of the tsar, the Bolshevik revolt, the construction of a Soviet state) gave way to a spectacular civil war, which included a war with Poland, an attempted invasion of Germany, and invasion by multiple other nations (including the United States, Britain, France, and Japan), only ending in 1922. Newly independent Baltic states experienced revolts and invasions, like the Latvian War for Independence (1918-1920). Newly independent Finland fought an intensive civil war in 1918, killing 1% of its population (as a visitor to that country, I can testify that that war's impact is still a living thing in the 21st century). Bulgarians revolted against their state, which led to a reign of terror against its putative supporters.. Hungary had a Soviet-style state in 1918, which was overwhelmed by its neighbors in still more fighting.
Soldiers from the defeated German empire formed independent groups (Freikorps) to fight in these wars, and also at home, since Germany itself went through at least one revolution, plus a series of revolts and attempted coups. For instance, left wingers created a Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1918, which lasted until demolished by Freikorps and others in 1919.
Farther east, European powers dismantled the Ottoman Empire, which led to a bitter war primarily between Greece and newly formed Turkey, along with newly formed Armenia and victorious France.
Western Europe fared better than the aforementioned central and eastern Europe, but still endured further strife. Spain underwent "three Bolshevik years" of revolts and instability, culminating in a dictatorship. Ireland fought for independence from Britain, then lunged into civil war. Across the Atlantic the United States spasmed into a Red Scare, with multiple civil liberty violations and acts of violence.
Another victor, Italy, experienced postwar unrest, which grew into "what seemed increasingly like an open civil war... About 3,000 people were killed in Italy between 1919 and 1922" (161). What ended that was Mussolini's March on Rome and the birth of the first fascist state in 1922.
In fact, Gerwarth argues, WWI only ended in 1923, giving way to a far too brief period of peace broken up once more in 1929 (16, 248).
What drove all of this horror and chaos? To begin with, nationalism continued to chew up European borders, as relatively recent nationalist feelings ran up against older delineations of empire. WWI's victors, while containing national republics of various sorts, were also intercontinental empires, and fought to balance these contradictions. Moreover, the successful Soviet revolution of 1917 inspired workers' uprisings around the world, along with anticommunist movements; this is, after all, the start of the longest struggle of the 20th century, the Cold War.
Further, the victors were a mess. The Vanquished shreds the reputation of the Treaty of Versailles or, more to the point, the character of its signatories, who managed the epic hypocrisy of mouthing slogans of national self-determination while engaging in historical land grabs and meting out harsh, eventually self-defeating terms to the defeated Central Powers. That much is well know. Gerwarth goes further, showing that the Versailles leaders added incompetence to hypocrisy, gradually losing control of the European area situation. Violence and sharp politics on the ground undid the victors' achievements and plans repeatedly. Wilson's dream of spreading democracy actually backfired, with dictatorships on the rise, not retreat, by the mid-1920s (245).
Along the way terrible precedents were set, and old ones renewed. WWI began with strong efforts to avoid killing civilians (Entente/Allied propaganda would overstate German atrocities), but the post-1918 conflicts blurred the civilian-soldier boundary thoroughly. Irregular forces of many kinds would take to the streets, setting up a matrix for fascism's rise. And ethnic cleansing became a serious policy tool, especially with the Greek-Turkish population exchange of 2 million people across the Aegean.
There are many good things to approve of in this book. Gerwarth writes clearly and at times with passion, nicely organizing a great deal of complexity into clarity. He relies on a rich range of sources.
At a smaller level, I was pleased to see Gerwarth accurately refer to the Sykes-Picot agreement as Sykes-Picot-Sazanov (57).
There are some weaknesses, however. The biggest is neglecting the Spanish influenza, which ravaged the world at precisely this time, and killed a mind-boggling 50 million or so people. On the political side, I wanted to learn more about colonial lands as they took up nationalism against victorious empires, from India to Vietnam. And, with Richard Fulton, I also wanted more on the post-Ottoman Middle East.
These are complaints of greed based on a book that does so much so well. Strongly recommended.
Many people take this astonishing moment as the end of World War I, with some good reason. Hostilities did end in France. Soon after a semblance of liberal democracy began to spread, abetted by American president Wilson's idealism. Yet Robert Gerwath's The Vanquished shows that the war did not end on that date. In fact, several wars continued, and several others sprang into terrible life, wrecking havoc largely among the many peoples whose nations lost in the war. World War I did not so much end as fall apart, stagger along, and mutate.
For those living in Riga, Kiev, Smyrna, or many other places in eastern, central, and south-eastern Europe in 1919, there was no peace, only continuous violence. (4)
More than 4 million people died of violence right after WWI, in revolts, civil wars, invasions, and coups (7). So much for "peace".
This isn't a question of pedantic detail. Instead, paying attention to what happened alongside and right after the Armistice of Compiègne honors the enormous struggles that also occurred, while shedding light on subsequent events, including the rise of fascism and WWII.
This is rich and complex history, so I'll summarize all too quickly.
In eastern Europe, the Russian revolutions of 1917 (the fall of the tsar, the Bolshevik revolt, the construction of a Soviet state) gave way to a spectacular civil war, which included a war with Poland, an attempted invasion of Germany, and invasion by multiple other nations (including the United States, Britain, France, and Japan), only ending in 1922. Newly independent Baltic states experienced revolts and invasions, like the Latvian War for Independence (1918-1920). Newly independent Finland fought an intensive civil war in 1918, killing 1% of its population (as a visitor to that country, I can testify that that war's impact is still a living thing in the 21st century). Bulgarians revolted against their state, which led to a reign of terror against its putative supporters.. Hungary had a Soviet-style state in 1918, which was overwhelmed by its neighbors in still more fighting.
Soldiers from the defeated German empire formed independent groups (Freikorps) to fight in these wars, and also at home, since Germany itself went through at least one revolution, plus a series of revolts and attempted coups. For instance, left wingers created a Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1918, which lasted until demolished by Freikorps and others in 1919.
Farther east, European powers dismantled the Ottoman Empire, which led to a bitter war primarily between Greece and newly formed Turkey, along with newly formed Armenia and victorious France.
Western Europe fared better than the aforementioned central and eastern Europe, but still endured further strife. Spain underwent "three Bolshevik years" of revolts and instability, culminating in a dictatorship. Ireland fought for independence from Britain, then lunged into civil war. Across the Atlantic the United States spasmed into a Red Scare, with multiple civil liberty violations and acts of violence.
Another victor, Italy, experienced postwar unrest, which grew into "what seemed increasingly like an open civil war... About 3,000 people were killed in Italy between 1919 and 1922" (161). What ended that was Mussolini's March on Rome and the birth of the first fascist state in 1922.
In fact, Gerwarth argues, WWI only ended in 1923, giving way to a far too brief period of peace broken up once more in 1929 (16, 248).
What drove all of this horror and chaos? To begin with, nationalism continued to chew up European borders, as relatively recent nationalist feelings ran up against older delineations of empire. WWI's victors, while containing national republics of various sorts, were also intercontinental empires, and fought to balance these contradictions. Moreover, the successful Soviet revolution of 1917 inspired workers' uprisings around the world, along with anticommunist movements; this is, after all, the start of the longest struggle of the 20th century, the Cold War.
Further, the victors were a mess. The Vanquished shreds the reputation of the Treaty of Versailles or, more to the point, the character of its signatories, who managed the epic hypocrisy of mouthing slogans of national self-determination while engaging in historical land grabs and meting out harsh, eventually self-defeating terms to the defeated Central Powers. That much is well know. Gerwarth goes further, showing that the Versailles leaders added incompetence to hypocrisy, gradually losing control of the European area situation. Violence and sharp politics on the ground undid the victors' achievements and plans repeatedly. Wilson's dream of spreading democracy actually backfired, with dictatorships on the rise, not retreat, by the mid-1920s (245).
Along the way terrible precedents were set, and old ones renewed. WWI began with strong efforts to avoid killing civilians (Entente/Allied propaganda would overstate German atrocities), but the post-1918 conflicts blurred the civilian-soldier boundary thoroughly. Irregular forces of many kinds would take to the streets, setting up a matrix for fascism's rise. And ethnic cleansing became a serious policy tool, especially with the Greek-Turkish population exchange of 2 million people across the Aegean.
There are many good things to approve of in this book. Gerwarth writes clearly and at times with passion, nicely organizing a great deal of complexity into clarity. He relies on a rich range of sources.
At a smaller level, I was pleased to see Gerwarth accurately refer to the Sykes-Picot agreement as Sykes-Picot-Sazanov (57).
There are some weaknesses, however. The biggest is neglecting the Spanish influenza, which ravaged the world at precisely this time, and killed a mind-boggling 50 million or so people. On the political side, I wanted to learn more about colonial lands as they took up nationalism against victorious empires, from India to Vietnam. And, with Richard Fulton, I also wanted more on the post-Ottoman Middle East.
These are complaints of greed based on a book that does so much so well. Strongly recommended.
October 4, 2022
4*+ (Втори прочит на книгата)
Преди няколко години, когато излезе от печат, прочетох книгата и бях изумен от значителния обем фактология и цитирана литература, помесетени в нея. След втория ѝ прочит днес, подбуден от професионални занимания със засегнатия исторически период, затвърждавам силно позитивното си мнение. Първото, което ще направи впечатление на българския читател е, че на страната ни, като "победена" в ПСВ и следователно обхваната от темата на книгата, е отделено подобаващо внимание. Събитията на Югоизточния фронт и значението им в заключителния етап от ПСВ не са пренебрегнати, както е традиция в много западни исторически трудове. Второто много ценно в книгата са 100-те+ страници референции и цитирана литература, насочващи заинтересования читател към по-детайлна информация за изследваните процеси, личности и събития. На трето, но в никакъв случай последно място, трябва да отчета, че сравнителното изследване на съдбата на "победените" държави в ПСВ в периода 1917 - 1923 г. е може би единственото такова, достъпно на български език. Възможността да проследим сътресенията, през които преминават съюзниците ни в края на Голямата война, а впрочем и някои от членовете на Антантата, ни позволява да погледнем на събитията в България около и след подписването на Ньойския договор в по-широк европейски контекст. На много места в Централна, Източна и Югоизточна Европа всъщност войната не свършва през 1918 г. България, воюваща с малки паузи още от 1912 г. и смазана от наложените ѝ в Париж условия (пропорционално най-тежките от гледна точка на население и икономика), като че ли няма сила да продължи с насилието. В страната в никакъв случай не царува спокойствие и кървави епизоди в следвоенния период не липсват, но поне крайностите на болшевизма, антиболшевизма, антисемитизма не ни застигат с пълна сила, както е в ред други страни.
Преди няколко години, когато излезе от печат, прочетох книгата и бях изумен от значителния обем фактология и цитирана литература, помесетени в нея. След втория ѝ прочит днес, подбуден от професионални занимания със засегнатия исторически период, затвърждавам силно позитивното си мнение. Първото, което ще направи впечатление на българския читател е, че на страната ни, като "победена" в ПСВ и следователно обхваната от темата на книгата, е отделено подобаващо внимание. Събитията на Югоизточния фронт и значението им в заключителния етап от ПСВ не са пренебрегнати, както е традиция в много западни исторически трудове. Второто много ценно в книгата са 100-те+ страници референции и цитирана литература, насочващи заинтересования читател към по-детайлна информация за изследваните процеси, личности и събития. На трето, но в никакъв случай последно място, трябва да отчета, че сравнителното изследване на съдбата на "победените" държави в ПСВ в периода 1917 - 1923 г. е може би единственото такова, достъпно на български език. Възможността да проследим сътресенията, през които преминават съюзниците ни в края на Голямата война, а впрочем и някои от членовете на Антантата, ни позволява да погледнем на събитията в България около и след подписването на Ньойския договор в по-широк европейски контекст. На много места в Централна, Източна и Югоизточна Европа всъщност войната не свършва през 1918 г. България, воюваща с малки паузи още от 1912 г. и смазана от наложените ѝ в Париж условия (пропорционално най-тежките от гледна точка на население и икономика), като че ли няма сила да продължи с насилието. В страната в никакъв случай не царува спокойствие и кървави епизоди в следвоенния период не липсват, но поне крайностите на болшевизма, антиболшевизма, антисемитизма не ни застигат с пълна сила, както е в ред други страни.
January 2, 2019
Great overview of the issues that arose after WWI and the Paris Peace Treaties. Gerwarth organizes this first by time, and then by country. He traces the breakdown of empires, the rise of short-lived democratic nation-states, and the subsequent "revisionism" and abandonment of democracy as a political system that could deal with the problems of inter-war Europe. I would have loved a timeline (so I made one myself.) My people on my mom's side come from the highly contested lands of Hungary, Galicia, and Ruthenia. Most of them were in the U.S. already in 1914. But I will always remember my great-grandfather's anger at "what they did to Hungary."
January 30, 2021
Unfortunately, this book was a huge disappointment. Part of it was because the title gives high expectations. Yet, instead of "Why the First World War failed to end,” you get badly written information on what happened after the year 1916 in Europe, all of which we learned in high school! On top of that, the author doesn't hide who his favourites are, thus making the whole work really tendentious. The cherry on top are the factual mistakes, one of the many examples being the date in which the Munich Agreement was actually signed.
March 3, 2023
A brilliant corrective to years of narrowly viewing the first world war through the narrow prison of the western front. Any one interested in the history of this period or WWI should read this book. So much of current history in Eastern Europe has its roots in what happened after 1918. It is a complex, messy world and for those who like history as a story of good versus evil and bad guys against good guys this will be a frustrating if illuminating read. I can't praise it enough.
January 9, 2021
Ένα βιβλίο ιστορίας που δεν μένει απαρατήρητο για μια περίοδο που οφείλουμε να εξετάσουμε εάν επιθυμούμε να αντιληφθούμε τι έγινε και φτάσαμε στον Β’ ΠΠ
Displaying 1 - 30 of 251 reviews