What do you think?
Rate this book
1918: War and Peace
Book by Dallas, Gregor
627 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2000
1 person is currently reading
67 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 6, 2013
A detailed and enthralling account of this crucial period of history. The author provides us with many vivid portraits of the war itself, its aftermath and its’ participants – like Lloyd George, Siegfried Sassoon, Herbert Hoover, Walter Rathenau and many others. We are presented with an authentic painting of the era – the trenches of the Western Front, the sad anarchy and brutality that reigned in Eastern Europe where the killings continued long after November 11th, 1918.
Mr. Dallas has a unique and sometimes overly meticulous writing style – but from this emerges the conflicted Europe of that period. Mr. Dallas handles both the microcosm and the macrocosm very well.
Germany, after the November Armistice was unrepentant and as Mr. Dallas demonstrates the Army successfully shifted responsibility for the defeat unto an almost non-existent civilian government – hence the myth of “the stab in the back”. In a very real way Germany surrendered but was not conquered – it would take another 27 years for that to happen. And even though the fighting stopped on the Western front, it continued in the East, with Germany involved for several years. This fighting was much more fluid, with constant territorial swapping between various regions.
The book concentrates on Europe – don’t look to this book for how the “Treaty of Versailles” carved up the Middle East. But one gets a graphic canvas of a troubled Europe with many unresolved issues. Clemenceau was correct to emphasize France’s protection from Germany. England was more interested in her navy and Empire, the United States moved away from Wilson’s high strung idealism and didn’t even bother to join the League of Nations. I found this book better than a previous one I had read by Mr. Dallas which was about Clemenceau – “At the Heart of the Tiger”. This book presents well a multitude of European topics and personalities.
Mr. Dallas has a unique and sometimes overly meticulous writing style – but from this emerges the conflicted Europe of that period. Mr. Dallas handles both the microcosm and the macrocosm very well.
Germany, after the November Armistice was unrepentant and as Mr. Dallas demonstrates the Army successfully shifted responsibility for the defeat unto an almost non-existent civilian government – hence the myth of “the stab in the back”. In a very real way Germany surrendered but was not conquered – it would take another 27 years for that to happen. And even though the fighting stopped on the Western front, it continued in the East, with Germany involved for several years. This fighting was much more fluid, with constant territorial swapping between various regions.
The book concentrates on Europe – don’t look to this book for how the “Treaty of Versailles” carved up the Middle East. But one gets a graphic canvas of a troubled Europe with many unresolved issues. Clemenceau was correct to emphasize France’s protection from Germany. England was more interested in her navy and Empire, the United States moved away from Wilson’s high strung idealism and didn’t even bother to join the League of Nations. I found this book better than a previous one I had read by Mr. Dallas which was about Clemenceau – “At the Heart of the Tiger”. This book presents well a multitude of European topics and personalities.
February 26, 2023
RIDDLED with errors of both fact and interpretation.
Long-time followers of mine know that I'm a serious WWI buff. When I saw this hefty book at the library, I figured it was definitely worth a read.
It's not.
On the errors of interpretation? Seeing, around page 180, his assumption that Germany’s stated war aims pre-1918 were non-negotiable flipped on a light bulb. On this and “belligerent Germany,” he appears to rely way too much on Fritz Fischer, partially to totally rejected by many modern historians who have written about World War 1 in the 21st century. Both he and Fischer’s top disciple, Imanuel Geiss, are in his bibliography.
Errors of fact?
Dallas first claims France’s 1914 parliament was the most peace-loving in history, and also talks up President Poincare. He totally ignores, or deliberately shunts aside that Poincare totally worked around Prime Minister Viviani (and the Foreign Ministry) during the July Crisis.
He next talks about how peace-loving Britain was at this time. Not so much. The Liberal Imperialist government, from Campbell-Bannerman on in the late 1900-aughts, had been shoveling money to Belgium to pay for its rearmament. Ignores also that the most Eurocentric members of the 1914 Cabinet, led by Grey, wanted to declare war even without a German invasion of Belgium.
Back to errors of interpretation, but also partially errors of fact? About 50 pages later? The claim that the “glue” for the Entente before WWI started, in the last couple of years before it started, was fears of German warmongering. In reality, right up to the July crisis, relations within the three Entente nations remained fluid.
He has errors outside of WWI as well. Writing in 2001, Dallas claims that only two US midterm congressional elections were earth-shaking: 1866 and 1918. He had 6-7 years of insight to analyze 1994 by this point. Anyway, post-2001, he’s even more clearly wrong.
And no, Hughes didn’t outpoll Wilson by half a million votes in 1916. Rather, it was the other way around.
The capper, at which point I stopped reading?
Dallas said that the House of Windsor was the House of Hanover pre-1917. This would of course be news to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, his wife Queen Victoria, their son King Edward VII, and his son, King George V, who changed the family name specifically because of its German sound.
I stopped reading at this point.
Long-time followers of mine know that I'm a serious WWI buff. When I saw this hefty book at the library, I figured it was definitely worth a read.
It's not.
On the errors of interpretation? Seeing, around page 180, his assumption that Germany’s stated war aims pre-1918 were non-negotiable flipped on a light bulb. On this and “belligerent Germany,” he appears to rely way too much on Fritz Fischer, partially to totally rejected by many modern historians who have written about World War 1 in the 21st century. Both he and Fischer’s top disciple, Imanuel Geiss, are in his bibliography.
Errors of fact?
Dallas first claims France’s 1914 parliament was the most peace-loving in history, and also talks up President Poincare. He totally ignores, or deliberately shunts aside that Poincare totally worked around Prime Minister Viviani (and the Foreign Ministry) during the July Crisis.
He next talks about how peace-loving Britain was at this time. Not so much. The Liberal Imperialist government, from Campbell-Bannerman on in the late 1900-aughts, had been shoveling money to Belgium to pay for its rearmament. Ignores also that the most Eurocentric members of the 1914 Cabinet, led by Grey, wanted to declare war even without a German invasion of Belgium.
Back to errors of interpretation, but also partially errors of fact? About 50 pages later? The claim that the “glue” for the Entente before WWI started, in the last couple of years before it started, was fears of German warmongering. In reality, right up to the July crisis, relations within the three Entente nations remained fluid.
He has errors outside of WWI as well. Writing in 2001, Dallas claims that only two US midterm congressional elections were earth-shaking: 1866 and 1918. He had 6-7 years of insight to analyze 1994 by this point. Anyway, post-2001, he’s even more clearly wrong.
And no, Hughes didn’t outpoll Wilson by half a million votes in 1916. Rather, it was the other way around.
The capper, at which point I stopped reading?
Dallas said that the House of Windsor was the House of Hanover pre-1917. This would of course be news to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, his wife Queen Victoria, their son King Edward VII, and his son, King George V, who changed the family name specifically because of its German sound.
I stopped reading at this point.
February 24, 2019
The last year of the WWI as seen from five capitals. As such, it is centered on Europe and the Unite States. He does provide a detailed account of the offensives of the year. Instead of breaking down the German spring offensive and Entente summer counter offensive, Dallas depicts a massive movement of men. This is an interesting and useful way to look at the year after years of stalemate.
April 15, 2015
I like the idea of a book on how wars end. I also enjoyed his book on 1945.
If you want to know of the 1914-1918 war then read "A World Undone" first.
If you want to know how it started - then go for "Guns of August."
I have read on Amazon some reviews that called this book into account because Dallas did not particularly value the American feats of arms in WWI - which didn't go down well with those reviewers.
What I found particularly interesting was the pre-nazi Germany that emerged. I had been taught (International Relations 101A) that the Germany of Gustav Stresemann was a 'good' Germany; sadly lost to Hitler. Dallas calls that into doubt - and I enjoyed having what I thought I knew called into doubt.
I often re-read the opening section - with the envoys crossing the line. Dallas captures the reality of the German military collapse quite nicely.
If you want to know of the 1914-1918 war then read "A World Undone" first.
If you want to know how it started - then go for "Guns of August."
I have read on Amazon some reviews that called this book into account because Dallas did not particularly value the American feats of arms in WWI - which didn't go down well with those reviewers.
What I found particularly interesting was the pre-nazi Germany that emerged. I had been taught (International Relations 101A) that the Germany of Gustav Stresemann was a 'good' Germany; sadly lost to Hitler. Dallas calls that into doubt - and I enjoyed having what I thought I knew called into doubt.
I often re-read the opening section - with the envoys crossing the line. Dallas captures the reality of the German military collapse quite nicely.
June 8, 2011
Sometimes the toughest history to write is the "glue logic", the narrative that covers the world between the cracks. "1918" is such a book. The world has plenty of books about the 1919 peace conferences at Versailles, about the major battles of WW1, about the Russian revolution, but Dallas aims for a history that covers the weaving together of all these elements. He largely succeeds. In the same way that "A Peace to End All Peace" and "From Eden to Armageddon" cover the little-known realm of imperial conquest of the Middle East after WW1, Dallas pulls together elements of the closing days of the First World War, using language that is both unique and fresh, and a story line that is different from any other books of the period. Fascinating story, well told.
September 30, 2014
Excellent detailed narrative covering the last 6 months of WWI and about 6 months post Armistice. Chock full of insights and great character descriptions including a very unfavorable picture of President Wilson. I feel this book fills a void. Everyone wants to write about how the war started, and too few analyze deeply how it was ended. One revelation for me was that the armistice only ended fighting on the Western Front. In fact, more people died from November 1918 to 1922 in central and eastern Europe than in fighting from 1914-1918. Germany was still fighting Poland long after the armistice.
June 20, 2014
I realize the book is called 1918, so that, by this point, The Great War is nearly done, but I really feel this book would have benefitted from more than a paragraph about what went on to trigger the First World War. I felt plopped into the middle of a book/story, and the disjointed, lack of cohesiveness to the writing/story-telling didn't help at all.
I read 75 pages and they were a slog. I'm going to find another book to explain the First World War to me, and once I understand it, I WON'T be picking this book up again!
I read 75 pages and they were a slog. I'm going to find another book to explain the First World War to me, and once I understand it, I WON'T be picking this book up again!
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews