Thanks Europe the Last Summer is the next book I’m going to read.
I wasn’t stating my opinion as much as I was presenting Buchanan’s documentation. I thought your Kaiser goon analogy a very astute one.
I did find it interesting, again according to Buchanan, that a 75yr old treaty with Belgium was used by England ( Churchill ) to involve itself in WWI.
Also between 1814 and 1914 England had been in 10 wars; Germany just 3.
Then again, England had an empire upon which the sun never set.
Also between 1814 and 1914 England had been in 10 wars; Germany just 3."
I'll say again, I think Buchanan makes some good points -- as long as history itself doesn't conflict with his pre-conceived notions!
Consider these two examples you cite.
In the first, he grossly exaggerates Churchill's role in Britain's decision making. Yes, at the time, Churchill was in charge of the British Navy, and his duty was to make sure the navy was ready for war, which he did.
But there were far more important voices than Churchill's involved in deciding whether Britain would actually go to war. And in the beginning, those voices were steadfastly opposed.
What changed their minds was not Churchill, it was the Germans' invasion of little NEUTRAL BELGIUM. For the Brits, this was no minor detail!
One reason is, Britain, France AND GERMANY were all cosigners of the treaty which GUARANTEED Belgium's neutrality. In British eyes, if the Germans were willing to break their treaty with Belgium, then nothing the Germans said could be trusted!
So for Britain the question was: would France be destroyed and Europe dominated by Germany, without Britain doing anything to stop it?
Well, there was no real question -- for many centuries, Britain's policy had been to ally with the weaker powers to prevent any one stronger power from dominating Europe.
One century earlier, Britain allied with Germany to oppose Napoleon. In 1914 they allied with France to oppose the Kaiser. It's what Britain ALWAYS did!
Yes, Churchill's was a strong voice, but he did not make the final decisions.
And there are a number of other little details which Buchanan gets wrong. For example, Buchanan makes a big deal of saying the Kaiser "didn't know" that Britain would side with Belgium & France. But the Germans were actually told long before, that if they declared war on Belgium & France, Britain would come to their allies' defense.
In fact, the Germans knew it perfectly well, they just didn't care. The only thing they REALLY cared about was the fact that in 1914 the Germans were FINALLY ready for war, and would never again be in a better position to WIN IT. That's what mattered -- everything else was just excuses of one sort or another.
Bottom line: in July 1914 the Kaiser thought he could push Austria into invading Serbia WITHOUT starting a Europe-wide war. But he ALSO believed that if he DID start a wider war, Germany was finally ready for it.