... exactly this contrast between the Franco-Prussian war (and Prussia's wars with Austria and Denmark shortly before, as well as other wars of the period). Because when the war started out, people did expect something like that - a few months, maybe half a year of fighting, a quick and clear victory for one side, and then some relatively modest demands in the peace treaty. And for a moment in late August 1914 when the French and the British Expeditionary Force were on the verge of letting the Germans break through to take Paris, while in the east the Russians were getting destroyed at Tannenberg, that outcome looked quite possible. Maybe a quick French/Russian defeat would've been better than what actually happened - then again, more likely it would just have led to a rematch down the line anyway. Perhaps not quite as spectacularly horrible and lethal as the WW1-WW2 combination, but bad enough.

True. They all thought they would be home by Christmas. They had no idea what kind of war they were getting themselves into. A quick Russian defeat would have been interesting. Germany would certainly have been a far different country in the 20s then.

Not just people in the US. But definitely of interest.

It is true that Europeans read this too. But right now the anti-Russia rhetoric is increasing quickly in the US media. And while I agree with some of it, too much of it is ill informed. The more people know about Russia and Russian history, the more they can make informed decisions I think.