Alan Warwick Palmer (1926–2022)

Like England’s Charles II, the Ottoman Empire took “an unconscionable time dying.” Since the seventeenth century, observers had been predicting the collapse of this so-called Sick Man of Europe, yet it survived all its rivals. As late as 1910, the Ottoman Empire straddled three continents. Unlike the Romanovs, Habsburgs, or Hohenzollerns, the House of Osman, which had allied itself with the Kaiser, was still recognized as an imperial dynasty during the peace conference following World show more War I.

The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire offers a provocative view of the empire’s decline, from the failure to take Vienna in 1683 to the abolition of the Sultanate by Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) in 1922 during a revolutionary upsurge in Turkish national pride. The narrative contains instances of violent revolt and bloody reprisals, such as the massacres of Armenians in 1896, and other “ethnic episodes” in Crete and Macedonia. More generally, it emphasizes recurring problems: competition between religious and secular authority; the acceptance or rejection of Western ideas; and the strength or weakness of successive Sultans. The book also highlights the special challenges of the early twentieth century, when railways and oilfields gave new importance to Ottoman lands in the Middle East.

Events of the past few years have placed the problems that faced the last Sultans back on the world agenda. The old empire’s outposts in the Balkans and in Iraq are still considered trouble spots. Alan Palmer offers considerable insight into the historical roots of many contemporary problems: the Kurdish struggle for survival, the sad continuity of conflict in Lebanon, and the centuries-old Muslim presence in Sarajevo. He also recounts the Ottoman Empire’s lingering interests in their oil-rich Libyan provinces. By exploring that legacy over the past three centuries, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire examines a past whose effect on the present may go a long way toward explaining the future.
From: Goodreads show less

Interesting, well-written; a largely unknown chapter of early nineteenth century European history. On the face of things, Marie Louise was set up to repeat the unfortunate circumstances of her great aunt Marie Antoinette. She was a sweet and sheltered Austrian Archduchess who was "sacrificed" to a political marriage with the leader of Austria's traditional enemy France. And Marie Louise had been brought up to think of Napoleon as the uncouth Corsican brigand who twice despoiled the sancitity show more of her beloved Vienna. But it seems that Marie Louise was much more resourceful - better able to adapt - and made the best of her marriage of circumstances. While they were together, Napoleon and Marie Louise seem to have been truly devoted to one another. And after Napoleon's fall, Marie Louise was able to look after herself - and her son - quite well, thank you very much.

Is birth-order part of the difference? Marie Antoinette was "the last of the litter," while Marie Louise was the oldest, and most responsible, in her family. She was Emperor Francis' favorite child, and their relationship was important personally and politically. It seems that upbringing is important, even in royal families.

Alan Palmer has written a sympathetic, understanding portrait that combines history and biography in a balanced account. He is a amused, and an amusing, storyteller. He is neither a strong Bonapartist nor a fierce anti-Bonapartist, which is a admirable thing indeed. show less

In contradistinction to many other histories of World War I, historian Alan Palmer shifts the focus away from the Western Front. Other fields of battle became more salient as the war wound to its conclusion, and he explains why that was so.

At this late date in the 21st Century, most Americans who know anything at all about World War I think of it as an almost unremitting, awful four-year slugging match fought from the trenches on the Western Front in Northern France until the Americans came show more along and forced Germany to (almost) surrender. [The war was primarily fought between the “Central Powers” (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) and the “Allies” (France, Russia and Britain). Other countries joined one side or another as the war progressed, with Italy joining both at one time or another.]

Indeed, if you look only at the number of troops employed, killed, injured, or missing in action, that isn’t such a bad summary even though it omits a rather large portion of the war that took place between Germany and Russia (that Germany won) on the Eastern Front.

One wonders how the commanders and the politicians of the contending armies could have continued to send literally millions of troops to their death in battles that advanced the front lines no more than 10 miles, and usually a lot less, from their starting point. In fact, as Palmer reports, several leaders attempted to break the stalemate of the Western Front trenches by starting invasions elsewhere. The first such effort by the British was the assault on Constantinople that became know as the Battle of Gallipoli, which ended in disaster for the Allied invaders.

Britain’s Prime Minister during the last part of the war, David Lloyd George, thought the way to defeat Germany was “by knocking away the props,” i.e. defeating Germany’s allies and invading Europe from the south and east. In Alan Palmer’s recounting of the war, that is close to what occurred. It is true that at the very end of the war, the Allies had assembled three rather large armies, in Iraq, Salonica, and northern Italy, that were poised to invade Germany from its lightly defended south and east. Nevertheless, it cannot be gainsaid that Germany’s losses in manpower and equipment on the Western Front, along with the arrival of more than one million Americans, were probably more of a factor in its decision to seek an unfavorable armistice.

Palmer does not actually conclude that the war was won on the Eastern and Southern Fronts. It’s just that he seems more interested in those campaigns than in the hecatomb on the Western Front. And who can blame him? Armies actually moved about in the Middle East, and in the East, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire were decisively defeated. Besides, a lot less has been written about those theaters.

Evaluation: Palmer is a vivid writer who brings the events of the war to life. His accounts of the last weeks of the war on all fronts and the negotiations of the “peace” are masterful. This book might not make a good introduction to World War I literature because it pays somewhat scant attention to the most significant theater of the war. However, it is a very good addition to the voluminous literature of the war for those of us who have read a substantial amount about it already.

Note: Maps and photos are included in the hardcover version of the book.

(JAB) show less

Short, excellent book that concentrates on the Western Front in Belgium. I like that it also covers just enough of the rest of the war to give you an overview of both the war and of how the Salient changed in importance. The Belgians are given a lot more coverage here than in most histories. They were treated as full participants in the war. Easy to read, a great addition to books on WWI.