"there is no doubt Germany deserves a good portion of blame for its decision to give Austria-Hungary a “blank cheque” to respond to Serbia in July 1914. A big part of this calculation was the belief among German leadership that there was a closing window where it could challenge the French-Russian alliance before Russia’s industrialisation made them unchallengeable."
That's nonsense. Germany was tricked into this war by Russia, France and Britain. Germany didn't want war with Russia, but Russia very much wanted war with Germany and Austria.
I have to disagree with the initial part. Whilst Europa is wrong in its clear and definite assertion of the Germans winning the war at the time, to say that it would definetly have ended in an allied victory is also fraught. A much better argument is that the entente was already winning in 1918 with or without the US.
You cannot take a coalition as a collective. Each individual nation had its own concerns. Also by the numbers metric, russia should not have left. They had ample manpower, their equipment whilst not spectacular was still ample and growing thanks to renewed lend lease, and the germans were still pretty far away from Kiev or Petrograd before the reds capitulated. And yet it did capitulate.
The French army after the nivelle offensive (so not Verdun, that's just Europa being stupid) was in a state of uproar. The allies may have had an overall manpower advantage, (even without discarding the colonies who cannot really be conscripted and therefore would give less than their native overlords), but France itself absolutely didn't. It's why percentage wise France suffered the most out of all the great powers.
Whether Falkenheyn's plan to bleed France white is real or if it even would have worked is another matter, but clearly France was not doing well at Verdun.
I always distrust materialistic understandings of war because they tend to be rationalist and deterministic in a realm where irrational humans operate.
Great article, I think what you're doing here is important. I think it's especially important to refute the idea that Jewish bankers wanted American involvement in WWI, since this obscures their hatred of Tsarist Russia and the important role they played in financing the Bolshevik Revolution.
However, I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that the German peace offer was non-serious. There is quite a bit of evidence in this American Pravda article that it was taken very seriously:
The crucial element here is probably the involvement of Woodrow Wilson. America had enormous leverage over the British, so even if the British didn't want Germany's peace, Wilson probably could have forced it on them. Although I don't think the German offer was as harsh as you're portraying it. The article notes that Germany did offer to restore Belgium, for example. It seems like only a series of diplomatic blunders prevented the deal from happening.
I don’t get why Woods thinks the timing of the announcement of the monumental UK decision to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine proves what he thinks it does. I observe as a layman but one infers that the Balfour declaration requires a massive quid pro quo between the UK empire and world Jewry. Why does Woods think that the Brits antagonized their Arab allies fighting the Turks ? Why make such a declaration ? Why raise hopes for other ethnic groups from Dublin to India to Vietnam that their nationalist aspirations could be met ? What did the London government get for that Balfour declaration?
Such a great analysis to be so completely wrong. Perhaps I might suggest the author gain a lot more life experience before committing this crap to paper.
Thanks for doing this
"there is no doubt Germany deserves a good portion of blame for its decision to give Austria-Hungary a “blank cheque” to respond to Serbia in July 1914. A big part of this calculation was the belief among German leadership that there was a closing window where it could challenge the French-Russian alliance before Russia’s industrialisation made them unchallengeable."
That's nonsense. Germany was tricked into this war by Russia, France and Britain. Germany didn't want war with Russia, but Russia very much wanted war with Germany and Austria.
How was Germany tricked?
This entire analysis is actually quite weak and is largely based on "BBC History" type of material, not independent source analysis.
I have to disagree with the initial part. Whilst Europa is wrong in its clear and definite assertion of the Germans winning the war at the time, to say that it would definetly have ended in an allied victory is also fraught. A much better argument is that the entente was already winning in 1918 with or without the US.
You cannot take a coalition as a collective. Each individual nation had its own concerns. Also by the numbers metric, russia should not have left. They had ample manpower, their equipment whilst not spectacular was still ample and growing thanks to renewed lend lease, and the germans were still pretty far away from Kiev or Petrograd before the reds capitulated. And yet it did capitulate.
The French army after the nivelle offensive (so not Verdun, that's just Europa being stupid) was in a state of uproar. The allies may have had an overall manpower advantage, (even without discarding the colonies who cannot really be conscripted and therefore would give less than their native overlords), but France itself absolutely didn't. It's why percentage wise France suffered the most out of all the great powers.
Whether Falkenheyn's plan to bleed France white is real or if it even would have worked is another matter, but clearly France was not doing well at Verdun.
I always distrust materialistic understandings of war because they tend to be rationalist and deterministic in a realm where irrational humans operate.
Hi Keith,
Great article, I think what you're doing here is important. I think it's especially important to refute the idea that Jewish bankers wanted American involvement in WWI, since this obscures their hatred of Tsarist Russia and the important role they played in financing the Bolshevik Revolution.
However, I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that the German peace offer was non-serious. There is quite a bit of evidence in this American Pravda article that it was taken very seriously:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-lost-histories-of-the-great-war/
The crucial element here is probably the involvement of Woodrow Wilson. America had enormous leverage over the British, so even if the British didn't want Germany's peace, Wilson probably could have forced it on them. Although I don't think the German offer was as harsh as you're portraying it. The article notes that Germany did offer to restore Belgium, for example. It seems like only a series of diplomatic blunders prevented the deal from happening.
Thanks for your work here.
Very well written
MI6's Keith "Woods".
I don’t get why Woods thinks the timing of the announcement of the monumental UK decision to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine proves what he thinks it does. I observe as a layman but one infers that the Balfour declaration requires a massive quid pro quo between the UK empire and world Jewry. Why does Woods think that the Brits antagonized their Arab allies fighting the Turks ? Why make such a declaration ? Why raise hopes for other ethnic groups from Dublin to India to Vietnam that their nationalist aspirations could be met ? What did the London government get for that Balfour declaration?
Such a great analysis to be so completely wrong. Perhaps I might suggest the author gain a lot more life experience before committing this crap to paper.