All The Kaiser's Men Sparknotes

All the Kaiser’s Men, written by Ian Passionham, a retired British major and historian, picturesquely portrays the German soldier’s life and death on the Western Front during WWI. Passingham presents a very traditional view of WWI—viewing Germany not as a victim defending itself against hostile neighbors, but as a bully demanding influence and respect militarily. He asserts that, “The why, the point and the justification for the conflict were, and remain, rooted in containing the over-weaning ambition of what was a militaristic Germany.” Passionham argues that had Germany not been so militant, WWI would not have occurred.
The author begins his book by presenting sources that he utilizes throughout the book. Passingham amassed a vast collection

of sources that includes biographies, statistical records, articles, diaries, soldiers, pictures, and poetry. When portraying the lives of Germans, he uses only German sources. The vast majority of the German sources are pre-1933 because people living in Germany during 1933-1945 only wrote on WWI through a lens that conformed to Nazis Germany’s worldview. Primary sources that written post-WW2 were also not used because they were too far removed from the war. Passingham uses both primary documents and the work of other historians when citing statistical data relating to battles, armies, logistics, and etc.
All The Kaiser’s Men is a well-written book. Passingham’s writing style is impressively lucid and incorporates maps and pictures on nearly every page to keep his readers intrigued. Passingham’s use of statistics diaries and poetry gives credibility to his arguments and deeper perspective to his narration of German suffering and ambition. Throughout the book, Passingham does a wonderful job of balances dry facts and analysis with dialogue and imagery.
After the defeat of France during the Franco-Prussia War, Germanic states formed to create Germany with the Kaiser the Federal Monarchy. The nation’s surrounding neighbors were weary of the new grand industrious and populous power. Following the nations formation, the country avoided war through the guidance of Bismarck. Otto von Bismarck was a key advisor to early Kaisers and persuaded them focus their foreign policy on effective policy. For decades, Germany was able to avoid war through Bismarck’s leadership. However, the emphasis on diplomacy diminished when Wilhelm II came into power. Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck and began to rely on power politics to exert influence. Germany then went from being the “new kid on the block” to being the “new bully on the block.”
Under Kaiser Wilhelm’s leadership, Germany became a militaristic state.

As soon as he came into power, Kaiser Wilhelm tore the democratic features that his liberal father helped develop. Real power no longer resided in the Reichstag, but almost solely in the Kaiser and his small sphere of military advisors. Encouraged by his military advisors, the Kaiser began massive ship building programs and militarized the populace. The rich Prussian tradition was restored. Germany’s behavior not only resulted in an arms race with traditional German enemies, but also alienated Germany’s close friend, Britain. German Chancellor Bethman-Hollweg summed up the Kaiser’s policy in this way: “Challenge everybody, get in everyone’s way and, in the course of it all, and weaken nobody.” By 1907, Britain, France, and Russia had formed the Triple Entente—brought together by their mutual apprehension of Germany rising

militarism.
The Triple Entente formed because the attitude of Germany’s leaders and populace made Germany’s intention to use her military evident. In his speeches, the Kaiser asserted no power would stop Germany from expanding its influence on the global stage. “Gemeinschaft” amongst the people was evident. The Gemeinschaf attitude was the belief that Germans, regardless of class or party, should be united in securing Germany’s greatness by taking an active role in the military. The German populous relished in the prospect of establishing their dominant place in Europe through war. Passingham argues that Germany had not been so militant, the complex alliances would not have formed and WW1 would not have happened.
Passingham’s analysis of WW1 also provides explanations for why Germany lost the war. Before the war started, European nations believed that if a war were to take place, the conflict would be over in a matter of months. By 1916, after experiencing years of human carnage, the world began to understand that victory would not come through one decisive battle. The war would end when one side had depleted their resources and whose people first lost the will to continue the war.
Throughout the war, German leaders’ poor strategic decisions that resulted in losses that they could not afford to sustain. During the earlier stages of the war, General Falkenhayn devastated the backbone of his army to retain ground won during the campaign. By 1915, his dogma of not losing a foot of ground resulted in the loss of the army’s valuable officers and most elite troops. General Von Malke, Falkenhayn’s replacement, continued to waste its troops through Marterialsclacht—warfare to drain your opponent of its human life and materials. Though Germany was winning during many crucial points of the war, the nation’s leaders insisted on dragging out the conflict. By the time the U.S. committed troops and materials to the allies in 1918, German leaders could no longer hope to outspend their enemies in resources.
What also hurt Germany throughout the conflict was the food shortages the populace endured.

Since the beginning of the war, the British navy blocked over 70% of the Germany’s merchant shipping. To ensure that the army received enough provisions, the government rationed the nation’s food supply. By the winter of 1916, the populous rations dropped to one-half to what they were at the beginning of the war and resulted to eating turnips. The rich, who were able to buy food off the black market, were able to maintain a healthy diet while the rest of Germany starved. Discontent surged and morale plummeted during the Turnip winter. By 1916, the nation’s sense of Gemeinschaft had all but disappeared. After years of food shortages and losing hundreds of thousands of relatives and friends, Germany’s populous no longer wanted victory. Germans wanted peace, bread, and

work.
While the author beautifully portrays the German side of the Western front and provides excellent sources to support his arguments, Passiongham does neglect some important topics. For instance, Passingham asserts that his book rejects the narrative that Germany was the bully and not one being bullied during WW1. Passingham gives little discussion of the view he tries to dismiss. Furthermore, Passing neglect to discuss religion’s role in the lives of German soldiers, citizens, and leaders during WWI altogether. For centuries, religion had been a significant political and societal role in Europe during time of war. If Passingham did not believe that religion played a major role throughout the war, then he should say so and explain why.
Without question, All the Kasier’s Men gives provides a very clear human perspective of WW1 while providing critical view of German militancy and its consequences. Often times when reading books that provides extensive analysis and commentary on WW1, readers get lost in the body counts and logistics. Passingham however provides a moving narrative of German frustration, suffering, and ambition while also providing the reader with an understanding of the causes and effects of war. Every reader that appreciates history will not be bored with Passingham. All the Kaiser’s Men is a must read.