The Great War . An Imperial History

[RodB]

I read the last chapter first and it seemed promising - presented the allies after the Great War as being more interested in maintaining and enlarging their empires (by gobbling up the German colonies and the remains of the Ottoman Empire) than ensuring a just and workable peace in Europe.

The first chapter presents the hypothesis that the war was really a war for world domination between the Great Powers, and when they ran out of overseas countries to conquor they turned on each other. It presents the squabble over the remains of the Ottoman empire in Morocco and the Balkans as being the triggers that led to war.

Unfortunately the book does't seem to develop this, it just presents lists of casualties sustained by nonwhite colonial troops, and describes how they were cynically and selfishly used by the colonial powers, and how this did not gain them anything at all - no independence, no civil rights (not even for US troops). The treatment of nonwhites was indeed disgraceful, it doesn't support the "imperial origins" hypothesis of the war.

Any thoughts ?

[AndyHollinger]

I have not read the book. However, I have a collegue who subscribes to this theory about WWI. From a macro-world view sense it makes some sense. The 19th C was pretty much a grab at everything ownable and certainly Germany's empire is that ... I think it all comes down to do you view European human nature.