David Reynolds

A critically acclaimed historian describes the first World War in terms of its lasting impact on politics, diplomacy and economics as well as art and literature across the 20th century and not just as a precursor to World War II. 20,000 first printing.

The Long Shadow: The Legacies of the Great War in the Twentieth Century

Amanda Valentin

The first part of the book was slow...the second part was much more interesting. Overall, I thought this book was interesting but a little dry.

Bryan Alexander

How did people react to the stupendous shock and horror of WWI?

In The Long Shadow David Reynolds explores the century following 1914 to see how it was remembered or "refracted". It's a very useful tour, covering a lot of ground: politics, poems, movies, historiography, architecture.

The first third of the book summarizes WWI, the immediate aftermath, and its connections to the rise of fascism. This is very useful, as the titanic experience of WWII often blots out what came before. Reynolds shows connections between veterans' groups and fascist organizations as well as their opponents. He carefully pulls out the implementation of expanded suffrage across Europe, and looks to a variety of effects, from stability in Britain to the importance of women's votes in the rise of Hitler (67). Reynolds also reminds us that the British empire actually expanded after 1918, and that London started running into problems of overextension, which in turn helps set up the immense process of decolonialization. He is also deeply critical of many Allied leaders in the way they handled events after 11/11/18:The British had got themselves into a monumental mess in the Middle East, signing agreements that, as Balfour later admitted, were "not consistent with each other"
 and represented "no clear cut policy." (95-6)There's a fascinating argument about differences in imperial policy towards settler states (think Canada) and non-settler states (India), and an intriguing argument defending - well, explaining - Neville Chamberlain in terms not of appeasement but air power.

The book really focuses on the British response after the first third, and emphasizes how different that reaction was to the way other European nations experienced and viewed WWI over time. Britain's economy did far better than its continental peers; above all, Britain was relatively distanced from the war. The distance appears in political fallout, but also in the way artists respond; Reynolds makes the case that the UK didn't have artists like the fierce German Otto Dix or the Russian Natalia Goncharova’s "Mystical Images of War" sequence. Instead, British artists, especially poets, "were unusual in defining their country so intensely through its countryside." (186) In contrast, the several similarities between the UK and the rest of Europe are striking, such as the use of continental methods in Ireland, and a reconsideration of Ireland as one of Europe's small nations (like Czechoslovakia, etc.)

As time moves on and the practical results of WWI gradually faded, Reynolds turns more to cultural and historiographical responses. WWI becomes a kind of glass through which subsequent generations would scry contemporary issues, such as modernism, WWII, consumerism, the welfare state, the 1960s counterculture, and the Cold War. "For all the countries involved, the First World War would be refracted through the prism of the Second." (243) . For example, Reynolds reminds us of the importance of Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August in John Kennedy's Cuban missile crisis (1962) decision-making, but also takes time to criticize that book (312-3).

One major surprise for me when reading was how British-centric the whole book turned out to be. The political focus is on Britain and her empire. The balance of artistic creation is British. The publisher doesn't foreground this, and Reynolds actually, carefully, introduces things by saying he "hope[s] to offer a much-needed corrective to narrowly Anglocentric conceptions of what the hell [the war] was all about." (Kindle location 188) But The Long Shadow is really about British responses. That's useful as far as it goes, especially by reminding audiences of Ireland, but as I progress in my WWI studies I grow tired of UK-centrism. As someone perennially focused on Russia, I was especially saddened at how few notes Reynolds sounds about that vital nation. Ironically, Reynolds castigates Barbara Tuchman for "focus[ing] overwhelmingly on western Europe" (312).

The Long Shadow is an interdisciplinary book, wading into disparate domains: political history, poetry, military strategy, film. As such it is not a good introduction to the topic, because it depends on reader awareness of WWI and its impact. I admire Reynolds' ambition and range.

The Long Shadow: The Legacies of the Great War in the Twentieth Century

Reviews