A "War to End All Wars" Does Not End in a Negotiated Solution

A "War to End All Wars" Does Not End in a Negotiated Solution
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

A “War to End All Wars“ Does Not End in a Negotiated Peace

In an op-ed in the New York Times on 6 April, Michael Kazin joins the list of revisionist authors who argue that it was a mistake for the U.S. to have entered World War I. The alternative, the argument goes, would have been eventually a negotiated peace between the exhausted belligerants.

Prof. Kazin is neither the first nor the most prominent to espouse this thesis. The most dubious assertion is that, without U.S. intervention, the two sides would have fought to a draw, and the oppressive Versailles Peace Treaty (and by extenaion World War II) would have been avoided.

The point is not whether the war would have been fought to a draw but whether Germany could be cut down to size. Only the U.S. could do it.

Years later, in early July 1944, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the commander of Allied forces in the West, wrote to Gen. George Marshall, who ran the war from Washington. The telegram stated in part, “The trouble we have is the trouble we’ve had all along: the fighting qualities of the German soldier”.

Support HuffPost

Popular in the Community