A book that sets out to try and answer, like many books before, how Germany lost World War I. The title itself sets up the focus on Germany, but the Central Powers played a role too. Overall, a good book, that attempts to shake up current scholarly views.

I have just finished my read of "On a Knife Edge: How Germany Lost the First World War," by Holger Afflerbach. It was made available to me in the form of an ARC by Cambridge University Press, and I am very grateful to them. This text examines specifically the commitment of the German High Command and the various political constituencies in the Second Reich to "winning" the war. In the course of accomplishing this, the author examines both how "victory" might have been conceptualized by the very different constituencies in play as well as the very different views of those who were simply searching for a way to end the catastrophe of World War on somewhat equitable terms. Note how different this picture of a very divided Reich on the subject of winning the war and what costs might have to be paid is from the more accepted view of Germany stubbornly insisting on an all or nothing approach to the question of victory or a negotiated settlement. Therein lies the principle contribution of this work to studies of World War I. Not simply (or even primarily) a military history, this text embraces a much more holistic approach to examining the complex interplay of political and social forces that played out behind the scenes of the great military campaigns. While the author's interest is primarily focused on events relating directly to the Kaiser's Reich, it is obvious that these can only be understood in the broader context of European politics at the time. Well written and often startling in its analysis, this book should be a must read for anyone attempting to come to terms with the cataclysmic events of the Great War. Just to make one point that struck me as I was reading the author's analysis; it is fascinating how war and the horrors it encompassed came to dominate the discussions of alternative endings instead of traditional victory. I was put in mind of those who look at a conflict like Vietnam or Afghanistan and become increasingly trapped by the resources (in both blood and treasure) which they have already expended. This leads to a kind of straightjacket which comes to dominate discussions of withdrawal or war objectives, often leaving little resemblance to the more "logical" motives which had propelled things from the beginning. In short, the violence takes on a life of its own hushing the voices of those who could see where things were going. Read this book; the world of the Great War will look very different when you are finished.