Active Users:404 Time:01/07/2025 06:10:09 PM
Seems kind of nonsensical Cannoli Send a noteboard - 14/03/2017 01:33:49 AM

In the first place, what was in it for Germany? They were still up against the Western Allies, whom they considered more dangerous, and who were doing the really effective stuff that would bring down Germany, namely the British blockade. Without the eastern territory Germany hoped to annex to feed itself, they were in danger of being starved out by the blockade and the US was leaning into the fight in spite of Wilson running for reelection on a peace platform. And even if it was a good deal, if the departure of Russia could have swayed the Western Allies to give up, there is no evidence that Germany had the sense to take it. They effectively finished off Russia well ahead of time as a fighting force, but kept grinding ahead on the Eastern Front until they got the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which some historians consider a critical delay that gave US forces time to get into the fight.

Back to the issue of Germany accepting Kerensky's overture, as noted by the author, "Germany" has little to do with the decisions being made, they were effectively being made by Ludendorf & Hindenburg, both of whom were, in the factional contentions over national strategy in the Germany armed forces, easterners. The German officers were sharply divided on the question of which direction Germany should concentrate her military efforts. The "eastern" clique pushed for the old Drang nach Osten, to acquire Lebensraum and especially, agricultural resources, with the goal of making Germany self-sufficient. IIRC, the westerners sought to impose their will on the Western powers to achieve political & diplomatic advantages. Ludendorf, Hidenburg & the other men of the eastern chapel had defeating Russia and expanding across Eastern Europe as the principal war aims. Accepting peace with that goal in sight would have been out of the question for them, absent Anglo-Franco armies swarming across the Rhine, which was never going to happen. Hindenburg told an American reporter after the war that what made them give up was the persistence of the American attack in the Argonne. Without that show of determination and commitment, the Germans had been confident that they could stave off any attacks by the British & French indefinitely. America's entry with the vast material wealth, industrial capacity and a much bigger, and heretofore untapped, manpower pool was the game-changer, and Argonne Wood proved they had the will to use it.

Essentially, the German leadership was far too confident in 1917 to accept a peace offer of status quo ante bellum. At that point any such offer would be seen by most powers as a sign of weakness, and they would not have accepted it. France, maybe, depending on who happened to be in charge at the moment, but the UK's military leadership grievously misled their civilian government as to the true state of their forces and situation AND were too incompetent to realize they were getting beaten like a drum. So England was not about to sue for peace or accept German offers of status quo ante, and without that, there was no reason for Germany to back down in the East. They had all but exhausted the capacities of the Russians, and had effectively knocked Serbia, Romania & Italy out of the war, while tying up substantial British forces in Turkey & Greece with minimal commitments of their own, and surprising performances by the Central Powers' second team. In the minds of the powers that be in Germany, there was no motivation to stop and doing so would have forfeited the raison d'etre of the whole war in the minds of the men in charge.

Cannoli
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
Reply to message
The February Revolution and Kerensky’s Missed Opportunity - 13/03/2017 09:37:00 PM 785 Views
Fascinating stuff - 13/03/2017 10:52:58 PM 407 Views
Who knows? It could have been worse off. - 13/03/2017 11:37:54 PM 499 Views
What's your opinion on Lenin? - 14/03/2017 02:06:59 AM 444 Views
Lenin. A monster. - 14/03/2017 12:55:18 PM 475 Views
Thanks. I'll ask him too. *NM* - 14/03/2017 03:01:36 PM 228 Views
Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were all bloodthirsty mass murderers. - 14/03/2017 08:59:06 PM 499 Views
That's fascinating. But give me a book recommendation! - 14/03/2017 09:15:57 PM 411 Views
Start with a general history of Russia - 14/03/2017 10:17:22 PM 523 Views
Excellent. Thank you. It's next on the list. - 15/03/2017 02:11:14 AM 477 Views
Russian history is as depressing as they come. - 15/03/2017 12:08:15 PM 469 Views
Read Figes first, I suppose. - 14/03/2017 10:55:23 PM 431 Views
Thanks, Tom. I've been putting off reading good literature because of my unfamiliarity with Russia. *NM* - 15/03/2017 02:12:10 AM 213 Views
Which books have you put off reading? *NM* - 15/03/2017 12:05:32 PM 200 Views
DEMONS and THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV are the big two. - 15/03/2017 02:58:13 PM 420 Views
You don't necessarily need to know the history. - 15/03/2017 03:15:38 PM 455 Views
I'm always afraid I'm missing something critical, though! - 15/03/2017 03:50:59 PM 408 Views
Annotations are amazing. My eBook version of War and Peace was the same. - 15/03/2017 04:03:59 PM 428 Views
My High School English teacher neglected Russian literature. - 16/03/2017 01:46:29 AM 387 Views
Hmmmm. - 16/03/2017 01:18:14 PM 427 Views
Tolstoy was a reprehensible human being - 15/03/2017 04:02:52 PM 410 Views
I had no idea. I was under the impression he was deeply devout. - 16/03/2017 01:47:43 AM 422 Views
Here's one example: - 16/03/2017 02:06:45 AM 429 Views
Good lord. The man sounds deranged. But that's fascinating! Is there a good biography on him? *NM* - 16/03/2017 07:50:10 AM 211 Views
Pavel Basinsky's bio is best - 16/03/2017 02:46:47 PM 592 Views
Getting it now. Thanks. *NM* - 16/03/2017 11:06:25 PM 203 Views
For what it's worth, I read Lenin & Trotsky as genuine idealists, while Stalin as just a thug - 15/03/2017 11:16:36 AM 481 Views
I think that's entirely incorrect. - 15/03/2017 04:00:54 PM 492 Views
I didn't mean stupid or brutish, I meant more like a mafia don than a statesman - 16/03/2017 12:18:34 PM 379 Views
Well if you want to completely redefine the phrase "just a thug", perhaps you're right - 16/03/2017 02:43:38 PM 408 Views
Good point - 16/03/2017 09:52:29 PM 538 Views
I hear what you're saying, but... - 16/03/2017 11:53:19 PM 433 Views
Attempt at clarification - 17/03/2017 12:55:03 AM 510 Views
Hehehe..."Fuck off" - 19/03/2017 05:23:49 PM 443 Views
Seems kind of nonsensical - 14/03/2017 01:33:49 AM 509 Views
Good reply. - 14/03/2017 12:57:47 PM 489 Views
They weren't really wrong - 14/03/2017 01:30:07 PM 523 Views
I do enjoy historical "what if" situations. - 14/03/2017 01:47:27 AM 421 Views
Hi there. - 14/03/2017 01:02:44 PM 391 Views
I still think democracy among those insidiously intrusive Western values Russia resists so fiercely - 14/03/2017 02:37:39 PM 498 Views
Is it your persistant anti-Russia bias that makes you so dogmatic? - 14/03/2017 02:51:23 PM 427 Views
I have no problem with Russia, only its government - 14/03/2017 03:07:14 PM 525 Views
Really? - 14/03/2017 03:15:10 PM 449 Views
What a terrible article - 14/03/2017 08:04:50 PM 400 Views
I thought you would think this way. - 15/03/2017 12:04:57 PM 480 Views
I can't decide what I think about Evans - 15/03/2017 04:10:05 PM 392 Views

Reply to Message