Mr. Powell does not advance any opinion that the German's behaved like saints. He does set the record straight that leading up to, during and post-WWI neither were France and England. And the motives and designs of France and England were not without their own imperial ambitions; they were no more seeking to "make the world safe for democracy" than was any other European power.
Before the U.S. entered the war, Germany had already lost the battle for the seas with England and it was having touble getting needed imports, if it was going to continue the war. Although Britain held the seas, it was in no position to mount a continental land war on its own. Germany and France were in a de-facto stalemate; neither one could advance and both just kept sending the recruits in as more cannon fodder - no one was "winning".
Without U.S. intervention, the stalemate on the ground had a chance of becoming an armistice in place and then leading to a peace treaty. Whatever 'arrangements' that would have come out of such a treaty, there would have been no great winners or losers, and the treaty itself would not have been the result of some great military victory.
Germany would not have been already prostrated leading into the depression. Many of the national psychological and economic factors that Hitler relied on would either not have existed or would not have been as severe. Instead of twenty years of national humiliation, the Weimar Republic would have been in a better position in the 30s and 40s to negotiate the end of Europe's continental imperialisms with a France and England it had chosen to make peace with.
Before judging where you think Mr. Powell is wrong, read his book; his research, his display of historical context and his historical perspective are all greater than yours or mine.
Except the fact that Nazi Forces were advancing to Iran and the Middle EAst and would have had control of the oil fields and then they would have been unstoppable.
Go back to MIT and hang out with Chomsky!
[T]he motives and designs of France and England were not without their own imperial ambitions; they were no more seeking to "make the world safe for democracy" than was any other European power.
As far as France goes, no argument from me. They were hot for Alsace and Lorraine. The Brits, IIRC, would have stayed out of a war between France and Germany as long as Belgium's neutriality (and territory) were respected. It was the German advance into Belgium (part of the "Schlieffen Plan") that brought Britain in. "Making the world safe for democracy" came from Wilson, not from anyone in Europe, IINM.
Before the U.S. entered the war, Germany had already lost the battle for the seas with England and it was having touble getting needed imports, if it was going to continue the war. Although Britain held the seas, it was in no position to mount a continental land war on its own.
Britain "held the seas" (especially after Jutland) but only on the surface. However, the U-boats were wreaking havoc on Britain's supply lines to the US, its dominions, and its colonies. While the British naval blockade did hurt Germany (people starving in the hundreds of thousands and food riots all over), Germany and Austria-Hungary had the advantage, in terms of military supplies, of better "interior lines," since the Central Powers were (at least after the occupation of Serbia)contiguous.
Without U.S. intervention, the stalemate on the ground had a chance of becoming an armistice in place and then leading to a peace treaty. Whatever 'arrangements' that would have come out of such a treaty, there would have been no great winners or losers, and the treaty itself would not have been the result of some great military victory.
An interesting "what if" scenario. My reading of the ever-inflamed states of mind of the leadership among the warring parties informs me otherwise. I can only say that honorable (and well-informed) minds can disagree on this one.
Germany would not have been already prostrated leading into the depression. Many of the national psychological and economic factors that Hitler relied on would either not have existed or would not have been as severe.
Hitler relied heavily on the "Dolchstoss" (stab in the back) excuse as to why Germany lost, since many believed
it was true (starting at the very top with Ludendorff).
Instead of twenty years of national humiliation, the Weimar Republic would have been in a better position in the 30s and 40s to negotiate the end of Europe's continental imperialisms with a France and England it had chosen to make peace with.
Not sure there would have been a republic in Germany had the war ended without a clear victory on either side. Maybe the Kaiser would have been overthrown, but who can really say?
Before judging where you think Mr. Powell is wrong, read his book; his research, his display of historical context and his historical perspective are all greater than yours or mine.
As I said, I'll look for it.
Best,
es