The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1914-1918 (Modern Wars)

Rating:
Summary: Central Powers
Review: Another excellent book. I enjoy reading about the Central Powers. There is not much literature on the Central Powers, in English. I don't speak or read German, and there is literature, in German.

Rating:
Summary: First Wold War
Review: Holger Herwig's First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary takes a unique perspective when analyzing the war. Instead of traditional theories that still attempt to place war-guilt and blame onto Germany, Herwig's position is that war needs to be viewed from Germany's position.

In describing the German point of view, Herwig illustrates how the war might have been the brief encounter people expected in 1914, but became a drawn out conflict largely due to Austria-Hungary and the ineptness of Austrian leaders. Once this occurred, it was only a matter of time before Germany could no longer sustain its war effort. Food shortages on the German homefront greatly hindered German military capabilities. Germany kept tapping its reserve of manpower usually to bolster Austrian blunders. Frequently Germany saved the day and kept Austria in the war (Germany had little choice but to assist her feeble ally if there was to be any hope of winning the war).

But Herwig is also critical of German high command,Falkenhayn, Hindenburg, and Ludendorff for its handling of the western front, notably the Somme, Verdun, and Passchendaele. The German high command was no more or less capable or inept as the allied high command; Germany as a nation was as much caught up in the war as Britain, France, or Russia. Herwig's main point is that after seventy years, the war guilt blame still falls upon Germany because Germany lost the war and Britain and France dictated the peace.

This book is essential for any student of the Great War. Herwig's thesis may seem radical to those who prefer the war-guilt pro Anglo-French analysis, but Herwig's understanding of the war and his presentation of facts cannot be easily discredited. His outright blame of Austria-Hungary as Germany's real nemesis may sound like sour grapes, but this is an outstanding historical effort.

Rating:
Summary: First Wold War
Review: Holger Herwig's First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary takes a unique perspective when analyzing the war. Instead of traditional theories that still attempt to place war-guilt and blame onto Germany, Herwig's position is that war needs to be viewed from Germany's position.

In describing the German point of view, Herwig illustrates how the war might have been the brief encounter people expected in 1914, but became a drawn out conflict largely due to Austria-Hungary and the ineptness of Austrian leaders. Once this occurred, it was only a matter of time before Germany could no longer sustain its war effort. Food shortages on the German homefront greatly hindered German military capabilities. Germany kept tapping its reserve of manpower usually to bolster Austrian blunders. Frequently Germany saved the day and kept Austria in the war (Germany had little choice but to assist her feeble ally if there was to be any hope of winning the war).

But Herwig is also critical of German high command,Falkenhayn, Hindenburg, and Ludendorff for its handling of the western front, notably the Somme, Verdun, and Passchendaele. The German high command was no more or less capable or inept as the allied high command; Germany as a nation was as much caught up in the war as Britain, France, or Russia. Herwig's main point is that after seventy years, the war guilt blame still falls upon Germany because Germany lost the war and Britain and France dictated the peace.

This book is essential for any student of the Great War. Herwig's thesis may seem radical to those who prefer the war-guilt pro Anglo-French analysis, but Herwig's understanding of the war and his presentation of facts cannot be easily discredited. His outright blame of Austria-Hungary as Germany's real nemesis may sound like sour grapes, but this is an outstanding historical effort.

Rating:
Summary: world war 3 getting thru this book
Review: i am a ww1 avid reader. i have 20 books about it, at least. i was all excited to be getting the definitive history, i knew would have two more volumes. somewhere in the first third of the book i began to loose interest as i was aware of all this already, perhaps, or the writer just wasn't holding my interest. if this will be one of your first books ever read about WW1, go for it! if you are an expert already, hold off as there is nothing new here, sorry to say. drquincy

Rating:
Summary: An excellent book
Review: The First World War destroyed the old imperial system that had governed Europe. Prior to the war central Europe was dominated by the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Imperial Russia. As a result of the war these countries were torn apart by social revolution with Communism taking control in Russia and Fascism in Germany.

Herwig in his stunning book explains why. The stunning incompetence of all of the participants in this conflict were breathtaking. The military incompetence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was such that they had lost close to one million men in the first year of the war. However conventional histories fail to look at the way countries managed their economies. Neither Germany nor Austro-Hungary were able to feed their populations during the war or even turned their mind to it.

The war years were a time when the normal people in those counties slowly starved to death, suffering from a range of diseases brought on by poor nutrition to witness their husbands and children taken away to die in huge numbers at the front.

The book is a stunning inditement of all of the great powers of the time. The First World War is the first cause of a lot which has gone wrong with this century.

Rating:
Summary: Shakey Alliance
Review: The focus of Holger Herwig's book is from the perspective of Germany and its principle ally, Austria-Hungary. Herwig implicitly argues Germany/Austria-Hungary lost the war because of incompetent generalship, and mismanagement of inadequate resources needed to wage war on a massive scale. Specifically, Herwig blames the failure on the Dual-Monarchy, its unwillingness to subordinate and cooperate in conjunction with its more powerful ally, Germany. Herwig downplays the myth of German military might and attempts to demonstrate that not even Germany, who had showed such greatness as a military power in the latter half of the 19th Century was ready for 20th Century style warfare. Herwig utilizes a chronological method and highly readable narrative style throughout. Generally, Herwig incorporates the standard top-down military/ diplomatic history approach describing causes of the war, mobilization, battles and leaders, major campaigns and results of the war. To a lesser degree, Herwig takes a look at the affects of war on society with such themes as hunger, disease, labor on the home front and gender issues. Overall, Herwig builds his argument by consulting archival sources previously waved over by the "Anglo-centric preoccupations of English language historians" (Strachan, quoted in Herwig, p. xiii). The author admits that a substantial amount of evidence dealing with the Great War was destroyed during bombing raids in WWII. He points out, however, that the reunification of Germany in 1989 has made available documents never before considered by western historians. Herwig relys heavily upon official histories of the war, mainly, Reichsarchiv's Der Weltkrieg 1914-1918, state papers focusing on other German states besides Prussia, and the official history of the Austrian-Hungarian Army. This source material is gleaned from many world famous archival institutions such as: Bundesarchiv (Koblenz), Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv (Freiburg), and Vienna's Haus-, Hof- und Staataarchiv, Politisches Archiv and Österreichisches Staatsarchiv. The author also utilizes diaries and memoirs; dissertations and scholarly articles; and secondary sources assembled in perhaps one of the most impressive bibliographies in recent military literature. Although highly readable, the author tends to be too general at times. For example, the Germans advanced through Belgium in a few sentences without any mention of the Belgium resistance or the Germany atrocities committed there in reprisal. One may notice that not once did he mention the scholarship of the historian Barbara Tuchman. In describing campaigns and battles, In contrast to John Keegan's _First World War_, Herwig focuses too much on the top echelons and rarely gets below corps level when recounting troop movements and engagements. Intermittently, Herwig fails to cite sources, particularly when quoting statistics, casualty figures, and troop strength (there are examples where he does quote statistical evidence though). Unlike Martin Gilbert's _First World War_ Herwig succeeds in illustrating the role of Austria-Hungary to great affect. The social/economic aspects of the war are handled adequately without diminishing the 'old style' military history narrative. The book's readability is one of its greatest strengths. Even a one-volume history of The First World War can be daunting, however Herwig captures and holds the reader's attention. On the whole, this work is a valuable addition to WWI literature.

Rating:
Summary: A detailed look into "the otherfronts" of W.W.I
Review: This book totally changed how I looked at the eastern front. Anyone how wants to understand the unending drive for a breakthrough on the western front needs to understand the ebb and flow of the eastern front. I always thought that the Austro-Hungarian forces just simple bad, this book tells you why. Has one of the best Bibliographies I've seen in a popular history.

P.S. I love the cover.