The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914

This is a very insightful review of how the minds of the politicians, monarchs, and military people functioned when most of Europe was composed of five colonial empires, Russia, Austria-Hungaria, Germany, Great Britain and France. The Great War was all but inevitable, and all five powers contributed to its inception, with the leading role of Russia and France as the instigators, not Germany as we were told.

Christopher Clark explains how intelligent, responsible and peace-loving politicians walked into a desaster without knowing. The Servians did not know that their "slav" nation, the later Yougoslavia, was an idle aim. It took the Bosnian and Kosovo wars to prove them wrong. Some have not yet understood. The Russians had the illusion that their population would sympathise with their slav neighbours in Europe. Instead, they got a revolution. Putin still has this illusion. Britain and France, who considered themselves "nation-states" (although they were not, they were colonial powers), gave not a single chance of survival for the Austrian multiple state. The later European Union has many similarities with Austria-Hungary and is strong. But Neither France nor Britain have understood this. Europe continues sleepwalking.

I recently finished The Hungarians by Paul Lendvai. I decided to read The Sleepwalkers to ensure I keep a parallel track on an important issue in both books. This book is mesmerizing although I guess blaming , almost solely, the Serbs and Balcans a bit stretchie. How the War begun? Good question...it could go back to Napoleon, Republican movements somed ecades before? Tremendous high level of iliteracy? So it goes. WWI deseves understanding and Sleepwalkers is the way to go.

As someone who was aware of only the barest factoids concerning this period, this book does a masterful job of illuminating the characters and countries involved. What is striking is the degree to which the principals believed they were responding to the provocations of others rather than being agents in the outcomes. Also striking is the fact that these men doomed millions of people to death and misery through ineptitude, prevarication and sometimes outright lying to further some vague personal motivation. I wish we could say we've learned as a species to avoid this trap, but GW Bush's benighted presidency shows we haven't.

This book is very thorough in describing all the events and personalities that unevitably led to war. There were so many of them that it is confusing now and then because it jumps back and forward in time. I never knew about all the different treaties the countries had and already all those treaties (who helps who in what circumstances) were confusing for the countries themselves. Clear is moreover that the Balkan area has always been a powder keg easily to be ignited. A great read.

Things are always much more complex than they first seem. The preparations for the European War is no exception. In Canada, we knew about the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo, but we didn't learn about the lead up or the intertwining treaties which led to an armed conflict. It was a simple matter that Germany invaded Belgium and that the Commonwealth was not going to have that!
Even though Clark is a pretty heavy read, he does a great analysis.

A large number of historians have no ready explanations for the outbreak of what came to be called World War I. Sleepwalkers is the exception. With jaw dropping scholarship, Christopher Clark provides plausible explanations including obscure events and personalities. Although the madness of European leaders remains on display because the war was not required in which tens of millions died, the rot of leadership on all sides demonstrates the myopia. Very readable if complex.

The first section, on the situation in Serbia that led up to the war, is chilling in it's contemporineity. I can think of no better analysis of why young, middle class Muslim men fall into extremism and become terrorists. The section on the dangers of diplomatic fog in a multipolar world and the role of the popular press is also relevant. I'm sorry to say that the wealth of historical detail eventually got the better of my patience, and I skipped on to the conclusion. Still, this is an important book for understanding not only the origins of WWI but our present situation in world affairs.

Outstanding, and very detailed, review of the events leading up to World War 1. Recommended for folks how enjoy getting to know the personalities of the people involved, the events preceding the assassination in Sarajevo and the machinations for the two months after that event that caused the outbreak of the war. Fairly easy reading, well documented.

Christopher Clark combines scholarly rigour with narrative flair in what many critics consider the best single volume work on the causes of the First World War. He marshals evidence of the intentions, understandings, and tragic misunderstandings of key decision-makers in the years preceding the war, and during the crisis of July 1914 which triggered the war. The book illuminates the complexity of the decision-making processes of the major powers of Europe. The executive branch of each state was not a unified and coherent actor, but rather an amalgam of institutions, individuals and factions. Power flowed through these systems in a dynamic way - at times, certain institutions, individuals or factions gained the upper hand, only to lose it later. This made it extremely difficult for the key players to understand and respond wisely to each other's actions. The complex geopolitical interests of the major powers feature prominently throughout the book. Clark's elegant prose style and expert structuring of his material make this book an excellent introduction to the most contentious and voluminous field of inquiry in modern history.

The author describes this complex critical moment in history in an informative well written manner. This is the book to read for anyone interested in this tragic event that has shaped our world today. It makes one concerned that world leaders better know their history not to repeat this tragic event.

Essentially the thesis of this book is that the men who led the great powers of 1914 had little idea what they were about to do. And with a deft amount of skill, Mr. Clark definitely shows that is largely true. The point I found most fascinating was Mr. Clark's look at the power structure in each of the European powers. In each, even though all but France was styled a monarchy or an emperor, actual power did not rely on the person of the emperor. In Russia and Germany, where the sovereign was still thought to carry the final word, actually war parties had divided up throughout the depth and breadth of the government.

France's culpability is brought to the fore here. As a kid in the United States, much of the history of the First World War one gets is one that demonizes Germany and Austria, mentions the British naval build-up and really leaves France alone. That Poincare and the French complicity in this is striking and needs to be studied more thoroughly. And Clark doesn't pinpoint all blame on the French, but simply shows that they were a much to blame for their meddling in the Balkans, and their insistence on Russian involvement there.

The domino effect of the great powers lurch to war couldn't be stopped. Really, each nation bore its mark of blame in my view. Certainly on a continent where skulduggery and secrecy were the rule of the day, the fact that the red lines of each nation were clouded meant that when the machinery got going it moved glacially, but inevitably. There are lessons to be learned from this sequence of events. I really think part of the lurch to war was the fact that none of them had really been involved in a Europe-wide entanglement. That the old conventions of honor and valor were still attached to war, and since it had been many generations since Napoleon, that generation of leaders wanted to show their mettle. The nationalism and chauvinism of the press in each of the nations was also marked. And then the final part, they never met to discuss interests, they hid away from one another. Not a good sign.

This book has an importance for modern times as well. We are moving once again in the direction of a multi-polar world. We need to have mechanisms that allow us to avoid the tremendous tragedy that unfolded from 1914-1918. If we learn nothing from this is that clear and constant contact between the great powers might be able to avoid the wars that could bring us to our knees. Which, I guess, is a benefit of nuclear weapons. When each side knows that they can utterly destroy the other, it serves to make nations discuss more fully than they did 100 years ago.

It explains in well chewed pieces step by step, the reasons for one of the worst wars in history including: lack of institutional transparency and accountability, ethnic conflict, the negative effect of nationalism, and the fight for sovereignty. Very simply, this book deserves a five star rating because that was all I could give it. It is a fantastic and gripping read. If you are interested in learning about WWI then this is the book for you!

Finally, a book that explains how the Great War started. Gives great insight into personalities that formed policy and how diplomacy became dysfunctional. The writing is not simple but is easy to read. A must for anyone who wants to understand World War I and the continued instability of Europe and the Middle East.

This is a really thorough history of the background of people and events leading up to the outbreak of World War I. The only reason I give it four rather than five stars is that it can be quite tedious; there are lots of people's names, ethnic group, and regions/kingdoms to keep track of. Readers should go online and print out a map of the Austro-Hungarian region in 1914.

In a court of public opinion, wearing black robes and powdered white wigs, Clark paces the floor making final arguments in The Great Guilt trial. The victors have written their history for the previous 100 years, but with strident declarations Clark builds a monument to reasonable doubt.

If you are interested in the Great War, but haven't done much reading on the matter since high school or college, this will tear gaping holes in the narrative you remember (Gavril was just an anarchistic, Germany the evil imperialists prompted the war, etc).

A key book for any Great War enthusiast. In fact, after reading this book, I have found that getting through other presentations of the antecedents of the Great War is tedious and frustrating.

Also, I have to argue that maintaining German/Austrian guilt for the war requires wild back-bends and intellectual dishonesty. That Austria had no right to annex Bosnia, despite de facto rule for 30 years, because it had "no ethnographic relationship" is pretty rich in the context on an age of colonialism, and considering the other eastern powers (Russia especially) also governed large areas where they had no ethnographic relationship. Also, that Serbia had any right to claim Bosnia when less than half the people there identified as Serbian is baseless. Even if you are willing to use the farcical logic of rebuilding the old "Serbian Kingdom" from hundreds of years ago, the Bosnian lands were not part of that. Then, although it is clear that Austria chose war against Serbia (for what can be fairly argued are just reasons, even if in today's world a diplomatic solution would probably be reachable), it was Russia that chose to expand the conflict from a local to a general war. The Ferdinand assassination is a significantly more rational pretext for war than Russia's transparently self serving "defending the slav people" excuse.

A great story with all the players, and backgrounds for a true understanding of a pressure cooker that devolved into the collapse of the old world order.
Distrust, hatred, and pent up animosity from a long history of antagonism not only led to this war, but a fatally flawed peace.
Enjoyed every minute, and couldn't put it down.

What you probably think you know about how the First World War began is probably wrong. Christopher Clark examines all the causations from long before, some being not worthy of much ballyhoo at the time that end up becoming critical in the years leading up to the war, while others that nearly become a continental war years before the actual shooting started. The First World War, as most of were taught begins in a place that 95% of the world could care less about but has perpetually changed the lives of everyone from the fateful moment of June 28, 1914 through the present day, including how we view our own world. There is so much more to the story than that one event.

Other reviewers have claimed Clark follows the same beaten trail of blaming the Serbs. No doubt the Serbs were heavily involved. The infamous Black Hand, per evidence provided in Clark's masterpiece had been infiltrated by the Serb government and likewise, the Black Hand had also infiltrated the government. But the French have loaned Serbia millions of francs and are nearly insane about reclaiming Alsace and Lorraine. Poincare is a fanatical Germanophobe and appoints his school friend, the self-promoting Maurice Paleologue to the French embassy in St Petersburg. France has also heavily invested 2.5 billion gold francs into Russia for the purposes of improving their military rails long before the shooting begins. The Russians themselves from foreign minister Sazonov, Tsar Nicholas II, former foreign minister Izvolsky (now minister to Serbia) are all from the pan-Slav mold, protecting and making excuses for little Slav brother, the Serbs. They all believe the days of the dual monarchy are numbered and complain how poorly irredentist Serbian subjects in Austria-Hungary are treated while ignoring the fact that peasants within the Russian empire are worse off and completely oblivious to the fact that perhaps their own empire's days are numbered as well.

What I took away from the book is not only a better understanding of the how and why, but also a sense the French and the Russians have a lot to answer for. The Germans may have stood behind their ally, but who would not in their shoes? France incessantly pushes a willing Russia. And Britain's PM, Edward Grey never gives a straight answer which leaves the Germans wondering what the British are really up to, where German chancellor Bethmann thinks Germany stands (and is more than a bit bewildered why Germany's rapprochement efforts have gone nowhere).All the while Germany believes the coming conflict will be localized between Austria and Serbia - the entente are plotting haphazardly the demise of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Russian pre-mobilization looks more like a full mobilization even to many Russian ministers. How does it look to ministers of foreign powers?

In case you're wondering - or just getting into the First World War - start with this book and then, if you're curious about the Eastern front, consider reading Ring of Steel next. It's not a battle epic but it gives you a clear picture into the life inside the Central Powers (minus the Ottomans).

And you will need a scorecard. There are many characters as would normally be the case in world events of epic proportions. I used my laptop and MS Excel to keep track. For me it made the book more enjoyable and I think I got more out of it. You'll also need to keep your computer open to look up a number of lesser used vocabulary. A few words are curious as I found some difficult to translate into more common English - a relative few made no sense.

A thoroughly depressing account of the origins of the First World War and, in particular, the muddling, bumbling, vain, and ridiculous people in power who led their nations into an orgy of slaughter. Exceptionally well researched, delightfully written, and compellingly argued, Clark's book is already the benchmark treatment of the subject. The treatment especially of the role of the Kaiser is novel and provocative. But the outcome hangs over the book like a shroud and knowledgeable readers will experience a sense of dread throughout.

Christopher Clark took on a daunting task in his review of the roots of WWI. Rather than drill the well worn cliche the Germans as the bad guys into the ground he took what had to be an exhausting look at at the all too available documentation and compared participant's statements/actions against other accounts in an attempt at distilling some measure of understanding. His conclusion may not be satisfying to that part of us that likes things wrapped up in a neat little morality play complete with good guys and bad guys. What he found was human players trapped in a system of their own devising that had grown in complexity beyond their abilities to manage.
At the eve of WWI Europe had gone through one of their longer periods of peace in an age that also had brought a large degree of growth and change that threatened the established pecking order. Germany had outstripped the rest of Europe as an industrial power,much of that rest of Europe was in the grip of two empires,the Austrian and Ottoman that were in rapid decline,France was nursing resentment at its dominance having been successfully challenged by brash upstart Germany and the sun was about to set on the British Empire.
There had been no shortage of crisis leading up to WWI and the fact that these had been seemingly successfully defused seemed to lull the powers that be into a sense that they had finally built a system that allowed peace to be maintained indefinitely. Behind that complacency tensions between the major powers were slowly building to the point that when a black swan incident appeared the movers and shakers were proven to be all too fallible. The complexity comes from the array of treaties,agreements,side deals,understandings,subtle maneuvering and hidden reservations among the myriad participants at the heart of an ultimately unfathomable web of the status quo that had held major conflict at bay for decades. Add in an almost suicidally aggressive small country(Serbia) and you have a tangle of jackstraws beyond the ability of human logic to master.
At this level of international hardball it was hard to detect much difference between the major players on a moral level,lots of the minor human failings and virtues on display but unbridled evil was as absent as principled heroics, just us all too mortal humans going about our day to day. Home by Christmas indeed. Masterful job of research and synthesis for those of us that find this period both fascinating and illuminating.

P.S. Sleepwalkers and the body of my review are a fairly clinical discussion of one of the formative tragedies that introduced the world we live in today. It brought untold suffering to millions of people and lead to the even greater tragedy of WWII. But all that pain was not necessarily without purpose. We now live in a world where a vastly more pacifistic Europe is joined in a common government and massive conflict among the member states seems less likely than at any time in recorded history. In what must have been an unguarded moment when the Dali Lama was questioned about the continuing conflict in the Middle East he replied to the effect that perhaps they hadn't suffered enough yet to resolve their differences. Perhaps Europe has. That would be a transition caring people can support whole heartedly.

This is an excellent account of the events that led up to the outbreak of World War One. Professor Clark does not engage in the game of who was to blame, which tends to be the thrust of many of the books now coming out about the origins of WW1. Rather, this book focuses on the people, from Kaisers and Kings to Prime Ministers, Presidents, Foreign Ministers, Serbian terrorists, and public opinion in the major countries that ended up fighting the war.
Required reading in this centenary year.

This book is an eye opener. If American knew then what they know now, we would have never been in the war and Germany wouldn't have ever had a second chance. The kings, emperors and they pride were something else.

The incredibly well-written and well-rearched story of how World War I began. Prof. Clark tells the complicated story of how and why The Great War started with great clarity. All through the book I get thinking if only these people knew what they were getting into.

Very detailed history, not to mention timely, of the events leading up to the "Great War", that seeks to make sense of the various forces involved. However, lacking a Balkan background, some of the early chapters provide so much detail that it is easy to get a little lost whereas the coverage of more northerly Europe is easier to grasp.

A highly professional history and analysis of unbelievable politics and maneuvering prior to WW I. The proximate cause, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, is a misleading oversimplification. Prof. Clark's great inquiry probably reduces to intrigues to ignore people and too much national testosterone going back maybe 50 years prior to the war's start.

Read "The Guns of August" first, just to get your bearings (unless of course you were there) then read Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" and be aghast at (1) how great important men led the world to senseless war; and at (2) how they still do. This is a wonderfully objective tour through a minefield of opinion-laden territory. We are far enough away to see The Great War clearly, and to see what fools we've been.

A powerful book IF one is deeply interested in the subject. Well written. Particularly strong on the Balkans.' role in this terrible, unnecessary war.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The typeface of the paperback edition was so small it hurt my eyes to read. I ended up spending a lot more money purchasing a Kindle edition so that I coiuld read comfortably.

Great book, specially for readers who want to go deep into the reasons and decision that triggered WWI. As for myself, it was a bit more detailed than I expected. Thus, by the final chapters I was dragging myself towards the conclusions. Nevertheless, brilliant chapters about the Serbian regicide and the assassination in Sarajevo.

my son suggested reading this as he is preparing for the foreign service exam. interesting factual story of the politics and workings of governments then and am sure now. a student of history I am not but this book reads like a novel. Perhaps too complete but the information is all documented. anyone interested in WW1 or WW2 needs to read this book!

This an extremely interesting book. But it is not an easy read. It reads like a text book but I enjoyed reading it and thought it offers a wealth of information on this horrible slaughter. Without saying it explicitly the book can only lead to one conclusion: this war was completely unnecessary and could easily have been prevented.

The Sleepwalkers presents an impressive body of fact about conditions in Europe on the eve of World Wat I and the events that touched off the conflagration. Most valuable is the extensive examination of the political history of Serbia and the other Balkan states during the decade leading up to the War and how the brutal Serbian political culture was perhaps the decisive factor in the development of the ultimate crisis after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Familiar causes of the War are discussed, including the interlocking alliance system, imperialism, and the territorial aspirations and claims of the principal players. At the end, however, I was looking for a more rigorous analysis of why the various governments acted in the way they did. It's clear that the author disagrees with the verdict that Germany was principally responsible for the War (he makes a good argument that France gave Russia as much of a "blank check" as Germany did to Austria-Hungary,) but I didn't come away thinking he had put his finger on the question of why the War happened when it did, and whether there was any chance that it could have been avoided in either the short or the long run.

The tragedy of the war began years before August 1914 as the contradictions of imperialism reached their illogical conclusion. A very detailed and readable account that puts simplistic myths to rest and raises up the more troubling ambiguities of reality. Clark does little to comfort the reader and leaves you to struggle with the answers. A very thought provoking read.

Great history of the causes and commencement of WWI, detailing the machinations from the Balkans to Britain, from France to Finland. Well-written, historically revealing, and riveting. Highest recommendation for the story of WWI's origins not often told.

This book should be required reading by all government employees and employers. Very powerful novel about what could have been prevented if people would have been awake and not sleepwalking as the title suggests. Excellent book.

This history of the European leaders prior to and during WWI is staggering. Today, with global communications available, we know so much about what our leaders think, but in those days it was very different. This book was very technical at times but exposed me to the history I wanted to understand how the world changed as a result of this war.

We are always tempted to look for a simple answer to a complex question. In this book, the author demonstrates that there is no easy answer to the question of what caused the First World War. Instead, he provides a detailed, step-by-step narrative that shows all too clearly how the leaders of Europe stumbled into war.

A long and complex but very interesting read. Clark dispels the myth that the central powers were bent on conquest and rather details at length the confused policies, behaviors and actions that lead to the war.

EMMERSON, Charles. 1913: In Search of the World Before the Great War. Public Affairs. 2013. 528 + xvi pp, illus., selected bibliog., notes, index. $30.
CLARK, Christopher The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. HarperCollins. 2013. 697 + xxxii pp, illus., maps, notes, index. $29.99.

In the space of the months --Emmerson's book in March and Collins's in May-- we have two exceptional works of history, appealing to both scholars and lay readers, that mount a serious critique of popular interpretations of the origins of World War I. Both, directly rather than obliquely, are critiques of the popular (and outstanding) works of Barbara Tuchman -Emmerson takes on her The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (1966) and Clark the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Guns of August (1962).

Both are substantial works, by historians who are exceptionally widely read. They write like angles and spread their nets wide to capture evidence and te3lling examples to support of their arguments. And both point in the same direction: that regardless of mounting world and regional tensions at the start of the 1910s, there was substantial reason to assume that the tensions could be controlled, and if not completely controlled, that the result would simply be another of the regional conflicts that had become endemic from the late 1900s on.

Emmerson's informative and charming book is a Baedecker tour of the world in 1913: not just what was the state of affairs and of mind in the world's capitals -London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Vienna and St. Petersburg--but in places like Winnipeg and Melbourne, Durban and Bombay, Tehran and Jerusalem, Peking and Shanghai and Tokyo. The result is a quite different picture of the world, not of one on the brink of ineluctable world war but a world going on with its business, with a reasonable hope of continued peace, and certainly not the world conflagration that was the First World War. (An example, in 12913, the three cousins -the Russian tsar, the German emperor and the British king--met in Berlin for the wedding of the Kaiser's daughter, princess Victoria Louise, and prince Ernst of August of Cumberland. "When great potentates who are near relatives can meet in public and give full rein to their natural affection," opined the London newspaper, the Daily Graphic, "it is always legitimate to assume the political horizon is clear.")

The message in Clark's magisterial history of the origins of the Great War, a book that will shape the contours of discussion for a generation to come, complements Emmerson's picture but is both more focused and more nuanced. In the introduction to his long and detailed account of what actually happened step by step and actor by actor, in the buildup to this tragic catastrophe, Clark argues that (1) the July Crisis if 1914, the month preceding actual war, was "the most complex [event] of modern times, perhaps of any time so far," and (2) that it is best approached not by asking why it happened but rather how.

"Questions of why and how are logically inseparable, but they lead us in different directions. The question of how invites us to look closely at the sequences of interactions that produced certain outcomes. By contrast, the question of why invited us to go in search of remote and categorical causes: imperialism, nationalism, armaments, alliances, high finance, ideas of national honour, the mechanics of mobilization,. The why approach brings a certain analytical clarity, but it also has a distorting effect, because it creates the illusion of a steadily building causal pressure; the factors pile up on top of each other pushing down on events; political actors become mere executors of forces long established and beyond their control."

This attention to questions of how rather than why leads to a step by step analysis of what actually happened in increments, not in bloc, and who the actors were and why they behaved\ as they did at each step. Along with that, Clark shows how attitudes changed during the two decades leading to the war, provoking a final break between old allies and invoking an acceptance of military means as the final, though not always desired, end to international confrontations.

A book this detailed could be deathly boring but it isn't, not at all. This is a book filled with peoples -the story it tells is rife with agency--and Carlson (like Emmerson as well) writes a vigorous and engaging prose.

Emmerson's is a very good book and a welcome addition to the literature of pre- and World War I. Clark's book should prove to be a classic. Both are great reading, not just for the scholar but for any enthusiast of good history writing.

We are always tempted to look for a simple answer to a complex question. In this book, the author demonstrates that there is no easy answer to the question of what caused the First World War. Instead, he provides a detailed, step-by-step narrative that shows all too clearly how the leaders of Europe stumbled into war.

A long and complex but very interesting read. Clark dispels the myth that the central powers were bent on conquest and rather details at length the confused policies, behaviors and actions that lead to the war.

EMMERSON, Charles. 1913: In Search of the World Before the Great War. Public Affairs. 2013. 528 + xvi pp, illus., selected bibliog., notes, index. $30.
CLARK, Christopher The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. HarperCollins. 2013. 697 + xxxii pp, illus., maps, notes, index. $29.99.

In the space of the months --Emmerson's book in March and Collins's in May-- we have two exceptional works of history, appealing to both scholars and lay readers, that mount a serious critique of popular interpretations of the origins of World War I. Both, directly rather than obliquely, are critiques of the popular (and outstanding) works of Barbara Tuchman -Emmerson takes on her The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (1966) and Clark the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Guns of August (1962).

Both are substantial works, by historians who are exceptionally widely read. They write like angles and spread their nets wide to capture evidence and te3lling examples to support of their arguments. And both point in the same direction: that regardless of mounting world and regional tensions at the start of the 1910s, there was substantial reason to assume that the tensions could be controlled, and if not completely controlled, that the result would simply be another of the regional conflicts that had become endemic from the late 1900s on.

Emmerson's informative and charming book is a Baedecker tour of the world in 1913: not just what was the state of affairs and of mind in the world's capitals -London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Vienna and St. Petersburg--but in places like Winnipeg and Melbourne, Durban and Bombay, Tehran and Jerusalem, Peking and Shanghai and Tokyo. The result is a quite different picture of the world, not of one on the brink of ineluctable world war but a world going on with its business, with a reasonable hope of continued peace, and certainly not the world conflagration that was the First World War. (An example, in 12913, the three cousins -the Russian tsar, the German emperor and the British king--met in Berlin for the wedding of the Kaiser's daughter, princess Victoria Louise, and prince Ernst of August of Cumberland. "When great potentates who are near relatives can meet in public and give full rein to their natural affection," opined the London newspaper, the Daily Graphic, "it is always legitimate to assume the political horizon is clear.")

The message in Clark's magisterial history of the origins of the Great War, a book that will shape the contours of discussion for a generation to come, complements Emmerson's picture but is both more focused and more nuanced. In the introduction to his long and detailed account of what actually happened step by step and actor by actor, in the buildup to this tragic catastrophe, Clark argues that (1) the July Crisis if 1914, the month preceding actual war, was "the most complex [event] of modern times, perhaps of any time so far," and (2) that it is best approached not by asking why it happened but rather how.

"Questions of why and how are logically inseparable, but they lead us in different directions. The question of how invites us to look closely at the sequences of interactions that produced certain outcomes. By contrast, the question of why invited us to go in search of remote and categorical causes: imperialism, nationalism, armaments, alliances, high finance, ideas of national honour, the mechanics of mobilization,. The why approach brings a certain analytical clarity, but it also has a distorting effect, because it creates the illusion of a steadily building causal pressure; the factors pile up on top of each other pushing down on events; political actors become mere executors of forces long established and beyond their control."

This attention to questions of how rather than why leads to a step by step analysis of what actually happened in increments, not in bloc, and who the actors were and why they behaved\ as they did at each step. Along with that, Clark shows how attitudes changed during the two decades leading to the war, provoking a final break between old allies and invoking an acceptance of military means as the final, though not always desired, end to international confrontations.

A book this detailed could be deathly boring but it isn't, not at all. This is a book filled with peoples -the story it tells is rife with agency--and Carlson (like Emmerson as well) writes a vigorous and engaging prose.

Emmerson's is a very good book and a welcome addition to the literature of pre- and World War I. Clark's book should prove to be a classic. Both are great reading, not just for the scholar but for any enthusiast of good history writing.

What a stunning tour of the multi-decade events, misunderstandings, domestic tumult and hubris cascading to the assassination that served as the small spark starting the conflagration known as World War I. Other books about the war always left me flat. This one had me shaking my head throughout, still not understanding how events could have spun so far out of control. Sleepwalkers, indeed. Superb!

The book is an exceptional account of the events leading to the catastrophic onset of World War I. The history is generally not familiar to Americans. A terrorist plot in Sarajevo precipitates a world war. Great Britain, France, and Russia entered the war although they had not been attacked, nor had they been threatened with attack. The statesmen (Sleepwalkers) of the era are brought to life in wonderful detail. Again, the individuals and the events are not familiar to Americans. The book has been researched in exquisite detail; the material is organized and presented wonderfully. Christopher Clark provides his interpretations of the events and documents which preceeded and led to the war. Events which may pique the interest of prospective readers are: The regicide in Serbia, 1903. The Italian invasion of Libya, 1911. The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913. The involvement of the Great Powers in Morocco. The annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Serbian terrorist societies. The details relating to the assassination of the Archduke.

The book is an exceptionally well researched exposition of government ineptidude, mismanagement, dishonesty, and betrayal which permitted a despicable terrorist plot to precipitate 4 years of war and enormous individual suffering and loss.

I already gave five stars to Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 by Clark, Christopher (2007) and this book probably also deserves five. However, I'm giving it only four for two reasons:
- it tends to minimize the role of Germany in the start of the war. At least, while what went on in Austria, France, England or Russia is very well explained, I feel that what went on in Germany is more "fuzzy". It's presented as if Germany was not actively looking for war, just using an opportunity... maybe, that's true?
- France appears as one of the key warmongers. It's true that France was bent on revenge after its disastrous defeat against Prussia in 1870, but is not its role a bit exaggerated, compared to the role of Germany?
This being said, the description of the events in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and of the Austrian reaction is excellent, which means that this book easily deserves its four stars.

Sleepwalkers is about how, not why, Europe fell into the abyss of war in 1914. It is a terrific work of history, but for the lay reader, it is way too long and gets too bogged down in minutia. Hence four stars instead of five. What makes this book different from the volumes I have read on the origins of World War One is that is puts the emphasis on where it started, the Balkans. After reading the early chapters of the book, Clark proves, intentionally or not, the Bismark aphorism, that the Balkans were not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.

For someone like myself schooled in the works of Tuchman (chaotic and inept decision making theory) and Fischer (Germany wanted a war from the get go) Clark's book is an eye opener. First it makes all of the players seem rational and second it puts far more emphasis on the role of France and Russia in starting the war. Both France and Russian planning was based on a "Balkan inception" scenario; something that was given to them on silver platter by the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarejevo on June 28. Within five weeks Europe was at war. As an aside the fear of growing Russian power not only motivates Germany, but also France in that France feared that in only a few years Russia would no longer need an alliance with them.

Although Clark convincingly covers the intrigues of Belgrade, Venice, St. Petersberg, Paris and London; he does not spend sufficient time on Berlin. I know that might be more of a "why" question than a "how" question, it is necessary for the story. It speaks the need to understand whether Austria-Hungary was an independent actor or a pawn of Berlin.

These quibbles aside there is so much to learn here and there are lessons for today. Afterall the Sarajevo trigger was an act of state-sponsored terrorism.

David Shulman

An incredible well researched and well written history of events in each and all countries involved in triggering WWI. "There is no smoking gun, this is a tragedy". A must read to understand XX century events, and more importantly, incredibly relevant to 2016 political landscape in Russia, Austria, Hungary, UK and the US! Cannot recommend it high enough to cultured readers.

Highly detailed but engaging work tracing the mutual mistrust and paranoia among the Great Powers that culminated in World War I. The author focuses on the history of their competing interests and policies in the Balkans during the 19th and early 20th centuries and on the suspicion generated by their ongoing imperial rivalry. He explains "how" the Great War came to pass but does not ignore the "why", broadly concluding that blame should be shared by all. His approach is somewhat revisionist and less critical of Austria and Germany than most studies. A thoughtful addition to the large body of scholarship on a subject of enduring fascination.

The author covers a lot of information and I commend him, but it is a chore to read. The book covers from about the 1880’s on up until the troop mobilizations and declarations of war in 1914. This book is hard to follow, it’s really tough to establish a correct chain of events throughout the timeline. At least sections 1 & 2 felt that way to me. Section 3 was better only because there seems to be better historical documentation of the events of 1914.

I wanted to learn more about each country’s history and motivations that lead to the Great War but I don’t think this book does the job. There might be something else out there, I would suggest looking for that first.

5 stars!!!!! Brilliant, insightful, thorough... Reading this book not only helped me better understood the world that gave us The Great War , but also an understanding of how much of that world is still with us informing/impacting our 2014 world.

Mark Buchanan began his book, Ubiquity: Why Catastrophes Happen with a discussion about the First World War. It was, he suggested, like major earthquakes, forest fires and hurricanes. They may be expected but not predicted. A "hundred year storm" should strike only once in a century, but it might occur two years in a row.
Fascinated by that prologue, I decided to read up on the First World War. I knew only that it happened for no apparent reason. The Sleepwalkers satisfied my resolution though it doesn't help me sleep any better at night.
Christopher Clark sets out to show how the War began, rather than why. He reviews the relationships, correspondence and minutes of various meetings to describe a day-by-day series of decisions. He looks at the personal lives of the actors and considers what made them tick. He considers the cultural myths and imaginaries that limited their vision; and the ebb and tide of public opinion.
His title, Sleepwalkers is apt: though most of the statesmen dreaded the possibility of war they didn't think it would actually happen. They kept waiting for the other side to blink, not realizing how the pressures they created made it impossible for anyone to back down.
Toward the end of the book he offers some reassurances that, because of the First, Second and Cold wars, we have better structures in place to help nations resolve their differences. The formerly great European nations are no longer struggling to build and maintain their empires. They have even banded together to form an Economic Union. For those developments we can be grateful.
But some ideologues in America today demonstrate less critical self-awareness than the men who gave us the great wars. Parts of the news media are as volatile and irresponsible as ever. A century of technology has not changed human nature. If we have backed away from total nuclear war and have begun to dismantle those particular WMDs, we must still work very hard to restrain those impulses that would drive us to the edge and over.

I heartily recommend The Sleepwalkers to anyone with a passing interest in history. There are more characters in this book than a Russian novel, but Dr. Clark describes them well and, most of the time, I knew who was doing what to whom.

Ninety-nine years after the outbreak of World War I there is still a lively debate about the causes of the war. In this book the author carefully sifts through and analyzes communications of the powers that participated for a period of about twenty years leading up to the conflict with a particular emphasis on the Balkan states. Earlier authors have attempted to place the overall blame onto one or more nations, usually Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Here that narrative is brought into question. Those who find a deterministic flavor in this book are, I think, missing the point. But it does look as if things inconveniently fell into place during the July crisis of 1914.