![]() ![]() While Stone attributes Russia’s defeat in the war to both the viability of the social and economic system and the events at battle, he emphasizes the latter. Besides providing an updated and much-needed account of the eastern front that incorporates a larger available pool of Russian sources, it is the approach taken by David Stone, both by focusing on and contextualizing the Russian perspective, that contributes to the discussion in an interesting way. In fact, Norman Stone’s (unrelated to author in review) 1976 work, The Eastern Front 1914-1917, continues to be one of the few solid studies regarding this topic. The book’s focus on Russia certainly addresses one lacuna in the historiographical field, as coverage and literature of the eastern front lies in the shadow of its western counterpart. Stone’s goal is not to revolutionize our understanding of the war but rather to flesh out the Russian perspective through a study of Russia’s experience on the battlefield. In The Russian Army in the Great War: The Eastern Front, 1914-1917, David R. Other studies have sought to ascribe blame to particular parties for the outbreak of the war. Christopher Clark’s ambitious work, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (2013), is one such example. ![]() Throughout the years, and notably the last two with the one hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the First World War, scholarly debates focusing on the conflict have tended to center on the difficulties in providing an all-inclusive account of the war. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |