The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman condensed the opening drama of The Great War into 440 pages. “Europe as a powder keg” is easily described and articulated through analysis of the belligerents’ pre-war operations and alliances. Barbara Tuchman is a Pulitzer Prize winning historian and journalist, her main focus centers around geopolitical affairs. Tuchman’s analysis of the first thirty days of the war demonstrates how inadequate each nation’s military was at the wars onset. The Guns of August present the reader with the primary factors of the disposition, political, and initial combat operations that shaped the First World War. However, the Author’s writing style was the forefront in conveying to the reader that Europe was foolishly …show more content…
walking headfirst into war with their “eyes closed”. While most other books concentrate on the nations as a whole, The Guns of August illustrates the interactions of the royal families of Europe helped fan the flame of war.
The alliances of Europe were what ultimately led each nation into declarations of war amongst one another. The modern era was quickly approaching and the monarchies of old would …show more content…
either be dismantled entirely or limited completely after this conflict. The royal families of Europe were blood-related to which Tuchman would state “Edward, the object of this unprecedented gathering of nations, was often he ‘uncle of Europe’ a title which, insofar as Europe’s ruling houses were meant, could be taken literally” (Tuchman, pp. 4). The complicated natures of politics are much more complex with the issue of blood relatives on the opposing side. Rivalries between Russia, Germany, and Great Britain grew out of jealousy rather than necessity. Tuchman would theorize that “Germany might have had an English entente for herself had not her leaders suspecting English motives, rebuffed the overtures of the Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, in 1899 and again in 1901” (Tuchman, pp. 5). This alliance could have either quickly ended the war through superior military might by combining both the German Army and the British Navy, or even forgone the war entirely. In the wake of Edward VII’s death, Tuchman describes the interactions and formalities exchanged between members of the royal family. The customs and courtesies that followed during the funeral would be the last the world would see of a mass royal event. Through mostly observation revolving around Wilhelm II and his personal interactions, Tuchman would elude that the Kaiser was the “Black Sheep” of the family however, previous and current (at the time) ambitions of the German Empire was the cause of this. Formalities aside, when topic of The Great War comes to mind, most people think of trench warfare, which would be mostly the case on the Western Front. However, this was not the intent of military at odds at one another. “Overconfidence” is the theme what Tuchman accounts to the initial days of the war on both sides. However, the Germans originally had the upper hand they relented. “All this is hindsight. On August 24 the Germans felt an immense surge of confidence. They saw only beaten armies ahead; the genius of Schlieffen had been proved; decisive victory seemed within German grasp (Tuchman, pp 262). While both sides agreed that this would be a “short affair” the massing armies would clash and loose men at an alarming rate. Nationalism and failure to follow through, is what drew the initial trench lines through the Western Front. Tuchman would note “They were twelve days in which world history wavered between two courses and the Germans came so close to victory that they reached out and touched it between the Aisne and the Marne” (Tuchman, pp 342). The drama that unfolded itself in Europe would resound over the whole world. Expectations of a short and glorious war would fade, and the realization that this conflict would drag the nations themselves to the breaking point would begin to emerge. “That was all; the time for splendor was past. It did not shout “forward!” or summon men to glory. After the first thirty days of war in 1914, there was a premonition that little glory lay ahead (Tuchman, pp. 434). The author definitely highlighted the disposition and political influence of each nation prior to the declaration of war.
Chronologically, Tuchman stayed to the general timeline of the events that proceeded, and subsequent situations that revealed themselves through the initial momentum of the war, however, she would refer to the past frequently when attempting give better insight. This is used, to give the reader a better understanding on the decisions these certain individuals came to. As far as perspective and biased; the beginning seemed to be a neutral standpoint, but progressing through the book it seemed to fall under the same concentration of German analysis with slight focuses on the Triple Entente. Though I enjoyed the backstory additions to the Guns of August, but I don’t think the average reader would appreciate the somewhat previous synopsis of individuals introduced to the reader at certain points in the book. In the prelude to the arrival of initial combat, is where I enjoyed the book best. This is where it highlighted the feeling of tension around Europe rather than the depicting treaties and alliances as the pure cause of the war. While Tuchman doesn’t discount the alliance of pre-war Europe, she illustrates the internal strife which mostly centered on Germany’s Wilhelm II and his administrators. While Tuchman notes multiple issues of the past between the nations at war, her skill as a writer is what primarily assist the reader piece together the situation.
The author has a very good understanding of the English language and uses colorful words and analogies to describe the situation. The best example of this is “While concentration of the armies was proceeding, advance groups of the German and French forces moved to the attack as if through a revolving door” (Tuchman, pp. 163) It is either by irony or coincidence that the author used that analogy for the onset of the war. The revolving door analogy is the best representation of strategy in the First World War. Barbara Tuchman style of writing helps the reader understand the gravity of the situation and makes the reader think more critically of the issue rather than a basic understanding. A description of Tuchman’s style of writing from Brittanica.com deserves the credit faithfully describing how the author writes “Tuchman brought a historical period or personage to life by an accumulation of vivid and concrete details. She combined a masterful literary style with a clear and powerful grasp of complex historical issues” (Brittanica.com). During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy was so moved by Barbara Tuchman’s analysis of the failures and mishaps of Europe (circa. 1914) that he decided on a strategy to avert war with The Soviet Union. This factor is well evident in Tuchman’s writing style, as she demonstrates with articulating the eroding of diplomacy in Europe. While many books on the subject of The Great War appeal to war historians around the world, The Guns of August highlight the events leading to war and the initial thirty days into France and Belgium. Tuchman relies on her extensive knowledge of the political climate of turn of the century Europe and gives the reader insight into the primary leaders of the conflict. What Tuchman is primarily known for is her keen appreciation and understanding of the English language. She uses a stunning array of vocabulary and symbolism to help guide the reader to an understanding. I would highly recommend this book to a historian or student that wants to get a better understanding of the events in August 1914.
Such alliances are the very things that laid the foundation for the conflict of World War I because every country had multiple reasons for joining their respective alliance, mainly for revenge, distrust, or
Mark Danner, an editor for the New York Times magazine, recounts in The Massacre at El Mozote a horrific crime against humanity committed by a branch of the Salvadorian army. He gives multiple points of views and cites numerous eye witnesses to try and piece together something that has been tucked away by the government at the time. In December, of 1981, news reports were leaked to major newspapers in the united states about an atrocity committed and a total massacre of a hamlet in El Salvador, known as El Mozote, or the Thicket. At first, the account was of over a thousand civilians, women men and children with no guerrilla affiliation were massacred. Danner pieces together the testimonies of the survivors, and interviews with officers in the Salvadorian army.
that he had earned the position as the ruler of Europe the entire and would soon take
Zieger, Robert H. (2000). America’s Great War: World War I and the American Experience. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Adams, Michael C. C. The "Best War Ever: America and World War II" Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 1994. Bailey, Ronald H. The Home Front, U.S.A. Time-Life Publishing, Chicago, IL. 1978 Bard, Mitchell G.
Grayzel, Susan R. The First World War: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013. Print.
This set a belligerent mood in Europe as each nation was prepared to fight a war. A German officer once said "in time of peace, prepare for war," and that is exactly what European nations did, eventually leading to the Great War. Without a doubt, the one underlying cause of the three described above that was most responsible for World War I was the system of alliances.
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
To write this book the author, John Toland, had to devote 15 years researching different stories from all sides of the war. He studied war memoirs, interviewed war veterans, and read military documents. While doing this he focused on both the allied and axis forces to truly understand both sides of the story and be able to write such a descriptive and accurate piece of work. This research was used in the book to describe the unlikely victory of the Americans over the Germans during the “Battle of the Bulge”.
Within Europe, imperialism occurred at the height of industrialization. As European countries were discovering more about the sciences and mass production benefits via industrialization, a demand and competition for more land and produce was developing, and this would create the tension needed to begin the First World War. Germany and Great Britain were two powerful European countries that had been trying to establish control in Africa and Asia, two countries that were not as strong as them, and relatively vulnerable. Due to rebellions of the native people and interferences by each other and other countries, they were not entirely successful. This lack of cooperation between European countries in the attempt to govern and control weaker states so as to use their products for trade caused tension, and finally after it built up to a certain point, war was the only option left.
Although the alliance system was a main cause of the First World War, it arose because of several other factors, and did not cause the war single handedly. Nationalism, the love and support of one's country, has always existed. In this era, however, it was to take part in the creation of one of the most famous wars in history. Since so much pride was devoted to countries, it made the possibilities of peace between past rivals less probable. It also meant that most nations, especially the great powers, would rather fight a war than back down from a rival's diplomatic provocation.
The Alliances not only contributed to war breaking out; it made the war last longer and become on a much larger scale; major political disputes would inevitably cause a large conflict. The alliances caused suspicion, fear, and tension among nations. The two camps were the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary). When countries formed alliances with each other it gave them protection, if a country was threatened or under attack then the alliance would come to that country’s aid. Countries made an alliance when they both needed protection from a stronger country. When Austria-Hungary had heard about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand they went to war with Serbia which resulted in a chain reaction of countries going to war with one another, and when countries teamed up to support their attacked friends when war came, it meant that a number of nations would fight, not only the two involved in a dispute. The division of...
O’Neill, William L. World War II A Student Companion. 1 ed. William H. Chafe. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Alliances played a hefty role in the inevitability of World War One. Countries were constantly at each other’s necks and needed power in order to protect themselves from each other. This is where alliances came in; countries could seek shelter from others by developing truces with close friends. Having a truce was beneficial in most ways because it provided the illusion of being a bigger power, and offered one extra support in case of a crippling event. Then again they did also create tensions between the countries that could only escalate further. For example, in the year 1879 there was a dual alliance created between Germany and Austria-Hungry. This alliance was created to protect them from Russia, who ...
Another key cause was Nationalism. Nationalism is “an ideology that arose in the nineteenth century and that holds that all peoples derive their identities from their nations, which are defined by common language, shared cultural traditions, and sometimes religion” (Hunt, G-4). Nationalism can also be described as the attitude that people of a nation have when they care about their national identity as well as the actions these people might take when seeking to achieve self determination. Everyone in the European countries had a lot of pride and joy for their country. This led to these countries trying to prove their dominance and power. Every country had to show that they were the best to all the other countries. Since this was happening, everyone wanted to show their best by helping an alliance in war.