The First World War - John Keegan

John Keegan's book The First World War is an authoritative examination of the 1914-18 conflict. It focuses primarily on military strategy and tactics, and contains relatively little material about the "home front", or the social and economic aspects of the war.

The writing style struck me as rather awkward, and for my own personal tastes lacks a certain fluency. However, the author's grasp of military matters and geopolitics is impressive, and this gives the book its main strengths.

Keegan has some interesting things to say about the circumstances under which war broke out, and about the factors which generated the fear and insecurity which sparked the catastrophe. He also guides the reader through the bewildering course of events on the Eastern Front and in Russia in 1917-18. The demise of Imperial Germany is related with a suitably dramatic flavour. People may not necessarily agree with all of the author's opinions, but they are carefully argued.

A recurring lament in this interpretation is the way in which Europe ruined itself at a time when it was flourishing in many respects. Some might justifiably contend that the fall of absolutism in Central Europe was a valuable and positive outcome, but the author points to the instability and resentment which these events triggered, with dreadful consequences in the years which followed. Change was not allowed to arrive "organically", perhaps?

Some of Keegan's viewpoints about the conduct of Allied generals, and also his conclusions on certain political developments, will probably not be fashionable amongst some 21st century observers. He seems to me to adopt a pragmatic but humane approach, and at several points in the book he appears to take a stab at "abstract" theories, both military and political.

The sense of pointless waste of lives pervades these pages, as it does with most accounts of the war. A continent seemingly intent on self-destruction, although the author, as I interpreted it, attributed the root causes to the ambition and vanity of one man (Kaiser Wilhelm II), whose actions and threats prompted much of the distrust and delusive alliance-building. The regularly quoted casualty statistics are sobering in the extreme.

The final paragraph ends the book on a rather enigmatic but reflective note.

Lenin.....The Train (1988 TV movie)

Lenin.....The Train is a TV movie from 1988, which chronicles the railway journey made by Lenin and his associates from Switzerland,via Germany, to Petrograd, in the run-up to the October Revolution. Ben Kingsley stars as the Russian revolutionary.

The film begins with a look at the tortuous negotiations between Lenin's people and the German authorities, the Germans being anxious to help Lenin with his revolutionary programme, as a means of getting Russia out of the First World War. Of course, negotiations also took place between the various Russian factions.

In some respects this is your typical TV-movie fare, but the gravitas and the general quality are elevated somewhat by the standard of the acting, Timothy West standing out in this regard. Initially, my opinion was that Ben Kingsley should have adopted a Russian accent, and that this was necessary to imbue the picture with authenticity. However, by the end I had concluded that this was no major issue, as Kingsley's mannerisms and gestures are very consistent and believable, and convey a distinct persona.

I feel that the movie portrays Lenin as the voice of reason and moderation, his sole objective being to instigate and foment the Revolution. To him, hotheads and indiscretions posed a threat to the prospects for the entire enterprise. Lenin knew that some emotions had to be suppressed, so as not to endanger the quest for the main prize. A plus point is that this film depicts the Bolsheviks as reasonably normal people, not as overly fanatical, belligerent or obsessive.

This movie contains repeated reminders of the futility and injustice of the war. When one looks at the tasks which the troops on all sides were being asked to undertake, it is a wonder that revolutions did not break out in all of the combatant nations. Whatever one thinks of the Bolsheviks, there is a case for arguing that they did the world a favour, by forcing the "democracies" to adopt more enlightened policies and attitudes. The soldiers and the masses had been acquainted with potent new ideas, and their co-operation and deference could no longer be taken for granted.

The picture concludes with the arrival of Lenin's train in Petrograd, an the film-makers thereby cleverly avoided having to cover the October Revolution itself.

Lenin.....The Train is surprisingly good and "learned" for a made-for-TV production The acting clearly lifts it, as does a sensitive and balanced exploration of many of the crucial issues.

Rosa Luxemburg (1986 film)

The movie Rosa Luxemburg, released in 1986, and directed by Margarethe von Trotta, is a biopic (of sorts) of the German-Polish revolutionary and activist. Barbara Sukowa plays the title role.

I say a biopic of sorts, because the movie does not cover the whole of her life, although there are a few flashback sequences, referring back to her childhood.

For much of this picture, there is a dark atmosphere of foreboding and oppression, often with a backdrop of snow and overcast skies. I personally found this to be galvanizing rather than discouraging. Some of the most powerful and effective imagery is of Rosa trudging around prison yards in the snow, accompanied by her poetic reflections and commentary.

In addition to the above, a good deal of the running time consists of Luxemburg arguing (often at the dinner table) with her "comrades" regarding strategy, tactics and theory. If some of the settings here are an accurate reflection, then it seems that Luxemburg and her friends and associates lived in a good deal of comfort and luxury, when they were not locked up in prison, that is.

I like this film, partly because it deals with European history and politics, and partly because it is imbued with the notions of learning, ideas and books. The period sets, costumes, decor and so forth, are impressively, if soberly and unobtrusively, done. The scene which depicted a "turn of the century" ball was nicely effected and presented - this is an area where many similar pictures fall down.

The theme for much of the movie, as I interpreted it, was that the subject was principled but headstrong, and often despaired of her older, more pragmatic and conservative colleagues, and their more measured approach. There is almost as much focus on her emotional and romantic entanglements as on the political arena, partly because such areas may illustrate some of the personality traits which helped to determine her destiny and her fate.

I was intrigued by her advocacy of mass action, rather then relying totally on the drudgery of party politics and parliamentary procedure and compromise. She kept receiving promises from her party leaders, but one suspects that they were empty promises, designed to placate her temporarily, though there is merit in the argument that a hasty or ill-prepared "revolution" might be self-defeating.

She was wrong, initially at least, to claim that there would be no mass support for the war which commenced in 1914, but was ultimately proved correct in many of her observations about the effects which the war would have. I thought that the film dealt with this stage of Luxemburg's life quite honestly and deftly, illustrating her despair,resignation and disillusionment at the nationalist fervour which helped to propel Europe towards war, and eloquently summing up her views on how developments in the conflict could slowly turn the tide of opinion.

The chronology might confuse a few people in places, but the main thing is the overall effect. This is not a blandly hagiographic account, but at the same time it does have the effect of making one think beyond the smokescreens and bland over-simplifications which tend to dominate (in my experience) mainstream 21st century discourse and comment.

Barbara Sukowa's performance is admirable. Many movies of this type are marred by cartoonish or over-inflated portrayals of the main players, but here Sukowa delivers a reasonably plausible and convincing picture.

A good movie, not excessively preachy or partisan.  It is visually pleasing, soundly acted and adroitly presented.

First World War - Martin Gilbert

I recently re-read Martin Gilbert's book First World War, and I found it sobering, if gripping.

This work takes the form of a narrative account, and it feels more compact than it really is, because the story is related in a largely "bite-size" format, within chapters covering clearly definable stages of the war.

For me, the book is imbued with its drama and poignancy by the inclusion of excerpts from the diaries and correspondence of a wide array of people who were involved in the conflict, or who were affected by it. It is possible to trace changes in their mood and attitudes as time goes on, as the realities and horrors slowly but surely sink in.  There are some anecdotes and stories here which should touch anyone's heart and conscience.

The style I would tentatively describe as moderate in tone, appealing to reason and a common sense of humanity. If anything, the restrained and matter-of-fact character of the writing succeeds by allowing the suffering and chaos to speak for themselves.

Due to the narrative format, the ebb and flow, and the fluctuations in morale and momentum, are vividly highlighted. Another effect of the author's diligence is to demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the struggle, and the diverse array of landscapes and cultures on which it impinged. The Balkans and the Middle East are prominent, and there is constant focus on the aspirations of nationalities and minorities for recognition in the post-war order of things.

The passages which deal with the build-up to the war are relatively brief, but they do convey the somewhat bizarre nature of events. Complacency and wishful thinking intermingled with the insecurity of those nations imprisoned by alliances. The diplomatic prelude also caused me to perceive that in some of the nations the decision-making process was confused and indistinct, with monarchs, politicians and military leaders overlapping.

It is disturbing to read of the harsh and repressive measures taken by "democratic" countries to crack down on, and suppress, protest and dissent during the war, even allowing for the exigencies of wartime. In addition, the callous attitudes displayed by some of the generals, and politicians, towards soldiers and civilians alike are disconcerting.

Some of the most illuminating portions of the book are the ones which encompass the periods in 1917/18 when the "Entente powers" were under real strain, specifically between Russia's collapse and the entrance of American forces into the field in meaningful numbers. The desperation and anxiety of those in power is palpable, and superbly brought across here, partly by the tetchy dialogue between the military leaders of the Western Allies.

A facet of First World War which enriches it greatly is the light which it sheds on the character and traits of participants at differing levels, with their varying temperaments, morals and intellects. Some of the quotes attributed to Kaiser Wilhelm II made me shudder, as did the deluded thinking of some in the German hierarchy as the war neared its conclusion. They failed to clearly appreciate which way the wind was blowing.

Also prominent in my mind was a consequence of the war which is often overlooked. That is the sheer waste of natural resources, and the damage to the natural environment, which was brought about.

I think that humankind, or at least parts of it, have by and large learned, and progressed, in the past hundred years. However, books such as this one should be read by people of all backgrounds, generations and outlooks, as a cautionary tale, and as a stark warning and reminder.

Peacemakers - Margaret MacMillan

After a gap of two or three years, I recently revisited this book about the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Not only did it turn out to have fewer pages than I remembered, but it is also very wide-ranging, embracing the discussions concerning the Balkans, the Middle East and Asia as well as the "core" European concerns.

 

The tone is generally entertaining and breezy. It was a good idea to set the scene with character sketches of the main protagonists - Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George. Indeed these pen portraits, extending to various politicians, diplomats and hangers-on, are one of the most likeable aspects of "Peacemakers". They are supported by passages conveying the "culture" of the conference, and the social activities which went on.

 

 

 

One of the things which struck me was that the "Big Three" were all nominally of a similar political creed - liberals. This, however, did not prevent numerous tensions, antagonisms and disagreements. All were acutely aware that, in addition to forging what they saw as a new international order, they were playing to their respective domestic political and public galleries. The two were not always wholly compatible. Short-term feelings of revenge or schadenfreude might be scant consolation for bitterness and complications stored up for future years.

 

It was sad to be reminded of the attitudes which still prevailed in 1919 towards people from Asia and Africa, even among self-proclaimed "liberals". This was especially visible in the dealings of the "powers" with Japan and China. At least the Americans occasionally delivered a subtle anti-colonialist dig at the British. Still, double-standards were evident throughout, in the approach of the British and the French. The writing was on the wall, but much British energy was still being expended in seeking to preserve the empire.  Should they have been looking more to the future?

 

This book also provides an intriguing window on attitudes to the Bolsheviks, in the wake of the Russian Revolution. As Wilson and Lloyd George correctly observed, it was injustice and cruelty which had given to rise to the revolution, but there was also much naivete and wishful thinking about what the Bolsheviks might turn out to represent.

 

Looking back, it also seems ridiculous for Allied governments to have been contemplating further military involvement in the internal affairs of Russia, after what the troops and civilians had just had to endure during World War One. No wonder there were mutinies and protests. Thank goodness that sanity prevailed before too much damage was done. Any further intervention might have been counter-productive, by spreading revolutionary ideas, and the muddled policies were probably a blessing in disguise. The ones who really benefited were the Soviets, who gleefully used the appearance of Western bullying for propaganda purposes.

 

How important was the Russia question in dictating how the conference proceeded?  The author rightly points out that the vexing social and economic pressures in Europe were largely independent from what was going on in the East. They would have existed regardless of the Russian Revolution.

The most troubling chapters of "Peacemakers" deal not with Germany, but with the debris of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. The frustration of the three major powers over Italy's territorial demands and obstinacy is palpable. On the other hand, the conduct of the Allies concerning Turkey and its periphery seems like little more than shambolic. As mentioned above, the treatment of Japan and China was shabby, and the consequences for the West were arguably just as momentous as those stemming from decisions pertaining to Europe.

As this book went on, I began to lower my opinion of the pre-eminent statesmen (Wilson, Clemenceau, Lloyd George), for varying reasons. I suppose that whenever one probes deeply into the lives of prominent people, their negative traits and characteristics become more apparent, and some illusions are eroded.

One of the fascinating things about the conference was that it represented a change-over, or at least an attempt at one, from the old diplomacy to the new way of doing things.  Thus, countries felt they had to cloak unjust territorial or political demands in the clothes of the new order, citing dubious statistics and historical "facts" of questionable veracity.  Still, the disingenuous behaviour of some was hardly less admirable than the double-standards often displayed by the main powers, in seeking to perpetuate their colonial influence and strategic and economic advantages.

The Americans were quite justified in their exasperation at the "secret deals" made by their allies earlier in the war, and the way in which these complicated the post-war negotiations.  However, the thought occurs that they might have been on more solid ground if they had entered the conflict earlier. France and Britain were fighting for their lives before 1917, and in the real world, any sort of expedient or advantage must have seemed worthwhile.

The author makes some persuasive and well-balanced points in appraising the merits of the treaties and the effects of what occurred at the Conference. The Treaty of Versailles allowed Germans to perceive, rightly or wrongly, that it was unjust and humiliating, whilst at the same time its provisions and its implementation, did not do enough to avert future aggression. As MacMillan rightly says, though, the peacemakers could have done worse. They were not dealing with a simple, ideal or perfect world.  A lot of water had still to pass under the bridge during the inter-war years, and World War Two was by no means inevitable. That was how I interpreted her conclusions, anyway!

 

This is the sort of book which reminds me that much has changed in the past ninety-odd years, but also that much has remained the same.

 

Lawrence of Arabia - movie review

As far as classic movies are concerned, David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" was until recently one that had largely slipped through my net, and never truly "clicked" with me. Why this should have been I am not entirely sure, as it theoretically ticks most of the boxes for me, both thematically and artistically, and another of Lean's works, "The Bridge On The River Kwai", is probably my favourite movie of all time. Anyway, I have dusted off the DVD, and thought that I would offer my thoughts and observations.

The first thing to say about this film is that the visuals are sumptuous, and the cinematography top notch. The panoramic shots of desert valleys and camel trains are breathtaking, and endow "Lawrence of Arabia" with an epic, sweeping quality. Even the crowd scenes, which few directors can make look authentic, are nicely executed.

Of course, the other central element of the film is Peter O'Toole's highly impressive portrayal of the main character. It seems that the film-makers stuck pretty much to historical record, and how much the performances are consistent with the real personalities of the people will be a matter of debate. O'Toole's performance makes Lawrence seem like an ambiguous, even nebulous figure. A mass of ambiguities and contradictions, but also endearing in an eccentric, truculent kind of way.

As with "The Bridge On The River Kwai", one of the threads running through the story is the clash of cultures, and the interface of British values and imperialism with other peoples. Even though his superiors exuded a certain arrogance, Lawrence's approach is more equivocal, perhaps even manipulative, exploiting the lack of trust which the Arabs held for the British hierarchy. He is his own man, independent-minded, but with his own agenda, and the adulation shown towards him suits his own agenda. He seems to have driven all concerned to distraction at one time or another...

The scene from this film which customarily receives most acclaim is that of Omar Sharif approaching on the horizon on a camel. However, the one which sent a tingle down my spine was the one where Lawrence returns after rescuing a comrade who had become lost in the desert. This was a turning point, after which the Englishman was revered by those under his command. At times, it is easy to forget that Lawrence was employed by the British army, and that this campaign was essentially a theatre of the First World War.

The real "meat" of this movie is the effort of Lawrence to make sense of the factional and tribal rivalries and politics which appear to be impeding unity against the Turks and progress towards freedom and independence. His exasperation is made clear, as he tries to arbitrate as an outsider, or make them see reason.

I liked the way in which the touchy and vexed question of British imperialism was addressed, when the army commanders were asked whether Britain had any designs on Arabia. The awkward and non-committal answers given reflected both the unspoken reality, and their reluctance, as mere soldiers, to become embroiled in political matters.

The introduction of the American journalist Bentley adds a different dimension, but even his romantic illusions are soon confronted by the gruesome realities of war.

The supporting performances are part of the fabric which make this film special. Anthony Quayle is especially impressive as Colonel Brighton, seeking to rationalize Lawrence's unconventional methods. A word too for the atmospheric and evocative music of Maurice Jarre.

The fact that "Lawrence of Arabia" concludes on a somewhat downbeat and inconclusive note only adds to its appeal. War, and its outcome, are rarely straightforward, ideal or edifying.

A magnificent film.

The Sleepwalkers - Christopher Clark - book review

After being hugely impressed by his imperious book "Iron Kindgom", a study of Prussia, I was excited to discover that Christopher Clark had written an analysis of the events which led up to the outbreak of the First World War. This book is entitled, quite aptly, "The Sleepwalkers".

Many television documentaries about military history receive deserved plaudits, but the more I read the more I realize that even the most substantial of these programmes are at best superficial, at worst downright misleading. Such documentaries are superbly produced and entertaining, but in order to acquire any authoritative understanding, it is essential to read meticulously researched investigatory works. The Sleepwalkers is the type of study which reinforces this view. It is a truly masterly piece of scholarship, impressive both in its scope and its flavour.

Even in the early pages, I was struck by Clark's characteristic capacity to blend intricate language with an accessibility and infectiousness which compels people to read on. This was one of the great joys of "Iron Kingdom".

Refreshingly, the "how" tends to supersede the "why". No preconceptions and smug premises. He takes a detailed and open-minded look at what unfolded in the run-up to the conflict. Beginning with receptive minds helps to minimize prejudices and inflexible conceits.

Early on, there is a clear and lucid account of how Serbia's position, and that in the Balkans generally, evolved. The minutiae are probably little known to most people. We are reminded how economic and social conditions in a country can impinge on its fate.

As regards Austria-Hungary, a somewhat different picture is painted than is ordinarily the case. The empire is portrayed as more benign, and less recalcitrant, than is customary. The Habsburgs were not entirely blameless, but equally they were battered by extraneous factors. The author also stresses the impact of the peculiar "dual monarchy" and the attendant machinery of government.

Throughout the book, there is superb examination of the motives and insecurities behind the alliances which emerged in the decades leading up to 1914. An example of this is the suggestion of how suspicions about Britain's intentions and reliability contributed towards the Franco-Russian understanding. Clark allows himself time and space to elaborate on these processes, but does so cogently.

Much of this work is given over to an analysis of the fall-out from conflicts, imperial ambitions and trouble-spots in the preceding decades, and their effects on international relations, allegiances and diplomacy. Particular attention is paid to the Moroccan crisis and the Balkan Wars, and also to the ambitions of Russia in central Asia and the Far East.  These chapters underline the extent to which the cementing of alliances was partially dictated by calculations arising from matters on the periphery.

The book slowly begins to focus on the salient factors, and the extent to which the blossoming of the Entente alliance isolated Germany, whose assumptions and calculations could no longer sustain the desired balancing act. Clark cleverly and convincingly argues how hostility was focused and channeled, with the Balkans assuming greater gravity as tensions elsewhere were subdued or diminished.  The mechanisms by which the orientation of Turkey and Bulgaria occurred are revealingly related.

I was particularly impressed with the passages devoted to an explanation of the foreign policy machinery which existed in the European states, and how this affected developments. The account of the role, approach and outlook of Kaiser Wilhelm II is possibly a little at variance with the widely accepted view.  Attention is drawn to the indistinct and multi-faceted structures in some of the nations, and how these influenced the course of the crisis. The detailing of cliques, factions and upheavals is expertly and tidily undertaken.

Some stress is given to the role of the Entente Powers in tacitly sanctioning sorties, for example Italian operations in Libya, which had repercussions, including in the Balkans, and the attempts of the Central Powers to discourage such moves. Again, stripping away the veneer of popular conceptions about what elevated tension, and who was culpable. The author also points out instances where "nationalism" was used as a cloak for avarice, self-interest and megalomania.

There is a probing exploration of apparent French belligerence and assertiveness, and its assessment of the strategic implications of Germany's "two-front" dilemma. The analysis of the rough and tumble of French political life is valuable, as is the depiction of the fluctuations in sentiment seen in both Russia and Britain.

An extensive look at the fallout from the Sarajevo assassination is naturally an important part of this book. During the July crisis itself, whatever its strident behaviour of preceding years, was Germany guilty of misjudgment rather than malevolence, particularly concerning Russian intentions in the Balkans?  Clark highlights ambiguities in the sequence of events which are seldom included in modern accounts. It also becomes clear how many of the Powers formulated multi-layered approaches to the situation, downplaying the chances of others intervening whilst clinging to allies in the event of war.

Austria seemed blinkered in its obliviousness to the prospect of external interest in the Balkan theatre. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia also comes into sharp focus, including the degree to which the Serbian response was conditioned by the likelihood of Russian support.

This work also looks at less publicized aspects of the crisis, such as the attitude of the Hungarians and the minorities within the Habsburg lands, and France's campaign to embolden and bolster Russian resolve to intervene on the side of Serbia.

It is interesting to note how fixated the Entente Powers seemed on preserving their alliance by whatever means, rather than in objectively appraising Austrian (and German) intentions on the Serbia issue. The importance of Russian mobilization is also thrown into sharp relief. In this reading, there appeared to be a distinct absence of war-mongering on the part of Germany.  In fact, imperial Germany comes across less as almighty and overbearing than clumsy and inept.

We also get a brilliantly articulated critique of how Britain arrived at its decision to get involved, the strategic balancing act which it attempted, and the domestic considerations which weighed heavily.

In recent times, it seems to have become the norm to observe that all of the combatants were claiming defensive motives, and seeking to portray others as the aggressors.  I would contend that this book adheres to that view to some degree, but crucially it fleshes out the subtleties and discrepancies.

In conclusion, this is an insightful, fast-paced and enlightening read.

The Eastern Front - 1914-1917 - Norman Stone

The First World War continues to hold a grim fascination for many, both because of the perceived futility of the conflict, and due to the watershed in history which it represented. Much of the mainstream material about the war focuses on the Western Front, and the horrific war of attrition in France and Belgium. In English-speaking countries, little is said about the Eastern Front by comparison, even though that arena was pivotal to the origins of the war, and how it unfolded on a wider scale.

I was therefore pleased to come across Norman Stone's study of the Eastern front, originally published in 1975. A relatively short, but highly informative work, which reaches beneath the surface of this theatre of the conflict, which is treated quite sparingly and superficially in many overall accounts of "The Great War".

My own feeling is that some chroniclers of the Eastern Front have their assessments unduly shaped by understandable enmity towards the Tsarist and Habsburg regimes, and therefore give a slanted or distorted interpretation of events and their causes, perhaps seeking out signs of basic inhumanity where in reality ineptitude, confusion and miscalculation are nearer the mark.

In this book, Stone certainly challenges some of the popular theories about why the Russians in particular suffered setbacks at various stages of the campaigns, on the question of the manufacture and supply of munitions for example. Whilst shortages did emerge, often they were not in themselves decisive, but sometimes proved a convenient excuse to conceal or refute other deficiencies.

I was at first surprised by how much space is dedicated to discussion of logistical and industrial matters, but on reflection I can see why this is the case.  By its very nature and geography, the eastern front placed much onus on movement via strategic railways, both in terms of mobilization and swift transportation of reserves. Also, the crises in the war-effort shed some light on trends and faults within Russian society which had major implications later on. It suited some dissenters to distort the truth, in order to exploit the situation for their own political ends.

As for the Austro-Hungarians, the chaotic and dysfunctional nature of the dual monarchy is laid bare.  It is noteworthy that Stone suggests that the various nationalities which made up the empire were not overly disloyal or hostile to begin with.  Indeed, it is pointed out that the Italian campaign inspired some unity, much more so than was evident in the Russian sector, where Slav was expected to fight Slav. It was only when mistakes and misfortune started to encroach that dissent and defiance became serious and widespread. Goodwill was regularly squandered because of callousness and insensitivity.

The paragraphs concerning Austro-German dialogue are quite revealing. From a comparatively early stage, aims and agendas seemed to be diverging, an the relations and dialogue illustrated how flimsy and rotten the alliance was.  It brings to mind the German remark about being "shackled to a corpse".

Another theme running through parts of this book is how, in its own way, the Eastern Front was just as inconclusive and frustrating as its western counterpart, if different in character. Almost throughout, it was more mobile and fluid, but hollow victories abounded for both sides, the "cause" hardly being advanced, and heavy losses incurred.

There is a chapter which largely concerns itself with Romania's very sad and wretched "cameo role" in proceedings. It is a moot point whether they were "bribed"or coerced into entering the war by the Entente powers against their better judgement, but in the final analysis the outcome of the affair arguably served the interests of the Central Powers more, and created some new anxieties for the Russians.

"The Eastern Front" concludes with quite an exhaustive examination of how the economic collapse brought about the misery, turmoil and discontent which triggered the revolution in Russia. A story of growing pains, dislocation, disarray and despair.

All in all, this book was not quite what I anticipated.  I expected a chronological rendering of the military campaign(s), with diplomatic and social context added.  In the event, it went well beyond that, and enhanced my knowledge and understanding not just of events in the east, but in the war overall.

A valuable and very readable book.