Has anyone read John Mosier's "Myth of the Great War"?

>>2527874

That's not revisionist though. Had the Americans not joined the war effort, the war would have turned into a stalemate and possibly a German victory. Although stalemate was more likely. Once the Russians were out the Germans had a huge advantage, also the French were struggling to hold morale, the whole country almost gave up at Verdun when the Germans took the first fort.

The only reason not to buy the book is that the thesis is not new or particularly interesting.

Was the spring offensive not already petering out by the time Americans arrived in appreciable numbers? That said, that manpower would not be gambled so heavily in said offensive because it was meant as a great effort to secure advantage of not victory before the arrival of the Americans.

It wouldn't change the blockade though, which is more and more critical as time goes on.

Avoid if you are trying to learn about the first world war, if you already know about it read it to challenge your views. I say this as I read his book on Verdun, and well is was revisionist as fuck. He claimed the Americans won the battle of Verdun and that the Germans were winning the battle before they joined. He goes along the lines that the battle was fought to bleed France dry. Most historians today agree that the battle was to take Verdun and that excuse was made up by Falkenhayn after the fact to help cover up the failure. In that book he also is quite contradictory, in one page he talks about how incompetent a French general was because he was an engineer and one and half pages talks about how have a engineer as general was good for the Germans. Dude does this to make America have a stronger direct influence over the war then it did. It tries to say that Verdun was a French defeat and only won by America. There is a lot wrong with his book on Verdun but I will move onto the book your asking about.

When I was researching the inaccuracies in Mosier's book on Verdun I found his has tendency to rewrite history to make America have a larger impact on the thing at large. The book ironically pushes the myth that Germany lost no battles and was not defeated on the battle field. He does this his book on Verdun by claiming that the initial German push in France was aimed at Verdun not Paris. From what I read he uses this to excuse battle of the Marne not as German defeat as they were going to retreat anyway as they goal was not Paris but Verdun. He puts in it in German victory sense as well as they were able to fall back to their "planed line" in good order. Again he claims that Verdun was a German victory until America showed up. He uses the spring offensive as proof of German victory despite it being stopped by French and Commonwealth forces, and all it accomplished was wasting manpower and materials that Germany it did not have.

>>2528051
Well, unless the Germans start opening up all those new lands they got under Brest-Litovsk to supply the raw materials (especially food) that they needed.

No idea how feasible that is in practice though.

>>2527934

>Americans won WWI
>Not revisionist

Only in America perhaps

>>2528079
If you want some recommendations on the first world war here as some that I have:
War of Attrition by William Philpott
The fall of the ottomans by Eugene Rogan
A world undone by G. Meyer
The sleepwalkers by Christopher Clarl
the guns of august by Barbara W. Tuchman

Victory was caused by better Allied diplomacy, the blockade of the central powers by the Allied power which is mostly the northern blockaded but includes the Mediterranean one as well. The very underrated front in Salonika front was critical was well as it broke the Central powers as Bulgaria was forced out of the war which created an open under belly for the Allied powers to exploit. When hearing the news of Bulgaria's surrender Ludendorff foamed at the mouth and collapsed to the floor. combined with Italy's victories over AU forced them out of the war. This left Germany with an under belly that was not protected and did not have the manpower to do so. Combined with the fact that they had little food and used it inefficiently (their meat came from pigs which ate potatoes, while the allies ate animals that ate grass like cows and lambs. So when the Germans thought they had low potatoes they mass killed their pigs which caused a flood on the market causing a lot of it to rot, however it turned out they had more potatoes then they thus making the whole killing of the pigs useless.) meant that they have trouble holding out on the home front. They also lacked a lot of industy goods so they could not produce any where as much planes, tanks, and artillery as the allies could, so losing Those were the Germans way more than the Allies. With these factors a stalemate and German victory were out the question.

>>2528135

I'm not an American and I also happen to hold the opinion that American entry in WWI was one of the single worst things to happen in human history.

>>2527934
No.
Germany was starved and their big Spring Offensive failed, having sucked out the last of their ready supplies. After that the war was simply about time.

Without American involvement we could have had a few interesting things happen though

>Jutland 2.0 for sure
>Maybe the allies completely occupy Germany
>Maybe the Germans get off on better terms because everyone was tired
>Russian Revolution probably isn't as well contained
>Italy annexes a lot of Austria
>Way different break up of Ottoman Empire in Anatolia. Do the Greeks get Constantinople?

>>2528079

Wow, what a shitty author, I'm going to put him on black list of "things I should never read from".

Thanks, anon.

>>2528692
No problem, When I picked up his book about Verdun I knew nothing about the author. I was looking for some information that focused on the battle of Verdun when I saw "Verdun: The Lost History of the Most Important Battle of World War I, 1914-1918". I thought cool some information about french forces in world war 1 and won't some how make it about British forces. It was not all bad, I learnt some things from it like how over 80% of the western front was held by French forces. It also went into how the GQG had a straggle hold over information in the war. It does into how French intel was kept and why little of it is known to the public as large compared to Anglo forces. Since a lot of regions and area names over lap but have completely different meanings that baffle foreigners even to this day, while makes perfect sense to the French helped them a lot in intel and planning operations. He goes into how very few French battles are known compared to British ones is in part caused by how much control of information the GQG had. He goes into detail on how they did this for perhaps a chapter? Anyhow that's all the real information you will get out of that book, the rest is crap and is easily spotted if you already know somethings about the first world war. All in all you made the correct choice in avoiding that book and his Verdun one, not sure about his others. Would only read it if you want to know these revisionist arguments so you can counter them.

>>2528647
Germany owns ukraine at the time

allies could not invade germany without US troops, the british were thin and the french mutinous.

>>2528454
Kaiser pls go.

>>2528158
Are there any books about the diplomacy of World War 1? I'd love to hear about the means of getting Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, etc. involved in the war.

>>2529881
A lot of books on the first world war do spend time on diplomacy but don't focus on it. One I would recommend for the Ottomans is The fall of the ottomans by Eugene Rogan. It goes into detail about the background of the Empire before the war. It talks about its political structure, and its diplomacy in the precending wars and right before the war itself. The Ottomans originally wanted to side with the French and British as they gave loans and funds to the Empire. The young Turks also spent time in France so they grew to like the country. They viewed them as the more likely to win as well. However only really France had interest in siding with Turks but could not do so because Russia had interests in taking land from the Empire. It goes into detail about that relationship and the almost dual monarchy of the Empire based on Austria-Hungary, with it being Turks and Arabs. Would highly recommend.

A world undone by G. Meyer goes into the start of the first world war into great detail country by country at the start. Later it goes into detail about Greece entering the war and such. It does so with Romania as well, but diplomacy is not the main focus of the book. Its added in as with many books on the first world war, as its very important to want took place. The book does go into more detail then most other books and is another one I highly recommend.

War of Attrition by William Philpott goes into the general policies in diplomacy of both central and allied powers. This one focuses more the on general strategies of both sides than specific countries, still does this to show the difference between the two powers. The books permise is about how the Allies won the war of attrition on the home-front, Naval, Diplomacy, and man and material front over Central powers if I remember quickly. So he devotes some time into both sides diplomacy and how the allies were better and had the advantage over the central powers.

(1/2)

>>2528647
>Do the Greeks get Constantinople?
The Turks made their country, what's with this retarded Constantinople meme?

Why can't militant autist Christfags leave

>>2530703
the guns of august by Barbara W. Tuchman is all about he start and early phases of the war. So if you want a lot of great detail about the start of the war this is a book to look at.

I do not know of books that focus entirely on the diplomacy on getting a specific country into the war, or one that focuses entirely on the diplomacy of the war. Again a lot of the books on the first world war touch on why nations joined in first place as that had a direct impact on battle planning and the such. Unlike the second world war, which can have entire books just on the battles with little diplomacy in it, politics and diplomacy were a fundamental part of battles in the first world war. If you are writing a book on the Somme you are going to have to touch the the politics and diplomacy between France and GB, as to why that operation happened and the way it did.
(2/2)