The Myth of a Guilty Nation, 1922. By: Albert Jay Nock

by Albert Jay Nock

This was Albert Jay Nock's first great anti-war book, a cause he backed his entire life as an essential component of a libertarian outlook. The book came out in 1922 and has been in very low circulation ever since.

The narrative has incredible staying power. The burden of the book is to prove American war propaganda to be false. The purpose of the war was not to liberate Europe and the world from German

Genres: History, Politics, World War I, Nonfiction, War, Military History

118 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1922

About the author

American libertarian author, Georgist, social critic of the early and middle 20th century, outspoken opponent of the New Deal.

He served as a inspiration for the modern libertarian and Conservative movements.

He was one of the first Americans to self-identify as "libertarian"

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/Ful...

Reviews

[Steven Ferre · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the first time in my life, the cause of WWI makes sense to me. Prior to this, all I'd ever been taught was that the war was caused by the assassination an Austrian Archduke,some murky treaties and a generally hostile Germany. I remember thinking at the time that this was a little naive, but my history teachers were always eager to skip over WWI to proceed onward to WWII, so I allowed myself to be distracted.

However, when one reads this book, it becomes apparent that the the imperial ambitions of England, Russia, & France were threatened by a successful Germany. Consequently, they planned, through treaties, and documented military build-ups, to neutralize Germany at some point. That point came with the assassination which was fostered by the Russians and provided the excuse they needed to address Germany.

A bulleted outline of this book should be taught in history courses. It certainly helps to explain the German hatred of the Versailles treaty and Hitler's ability to stoke the German people's desire for revenge, which has heretofore been rather mysterious to me.

[Sylvester · Rating 4 out of 5]

The myth of a Guilty Nations examines the causes of the First World War and more importantly, debunking the myth that Germany was the aggressor. Conclusion everyone was at fault here and the bloodshed could have been prevented.

[Dio Mavroyannis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not really a book, more of a short pamphlet. I am not sure if I agree with everything being told here but for the case he is presenting Nock seems right on.

Very clear, very convincing, Russia/France/England were itchy for war as made evident by their spending on defense prior to the war. This means the narrative of "sudden war" doesn't really hold water, indeed the assassination itself is usually portrayed to not make any sense (Why would Belgrade want to instigate this?), but if you use the assumption that Russia wanted 1) Wanted the war, 2) controlled Belgrade, then it seems to make more sense.

[Miles Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

An intense and brutally honest rebuke of Entente propaganda. Nock argues conclusively that Germany should never have been forced to bear the "sole guilt" clause in the treaties ending the Great War.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book might as well have been titled "Things The Public School System Avoids Teaching in History Classes."

It is a case study in the fact that history is written by the winning side. American children are taught that the Allies were the good guys and that Germany was evil, but what they are not taught is that war is never that simple.

Nock's book is well-documented and well-written, but reflects very poorly on the action of Britain and France in the years leading up to the First World War. His book explains the rationale behind the actions of the major European powers in the early 20th century, and provides a much better explanation than the official statements given at the time.

The following is perhaps the best quote of the book, and still resonates today.

... Lord Robert Cecil said in the House of Commons that the restitution of Alsace and Lorraine to France was "a well-understood war-aim from the moment we entered the war." As things have turned out, it is an odd coincidence how so many of these places that have iron or coal or oil in them seem to represent a well-understood war-aim. Less than a month before, in October, 1917, General Smuts said that to his mind the one great dominating war-aim was "the end of militarism, the end of standing armies." Well, the Allies won the war, but judging by results, this dominating war-aim seems rather to have been lost sight of.

[Jennifer Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this examination of the diplomatic and military activities of England, France, Germany and Russia in the years leading up to WWI, Nock attacked the central premise of the highly punitive Treaty of Versailles (that Germany was solely responsible for the war), and made some pretty accurate predictions of what would ensue from the treaty's enforcement. A good reminder that what the average citizen knows about any military conflict depends upon what the government allows you to know and what the media choose to report. Personally, I think this is a critical era in world history to understand, since nearly all of the political upheaval around the globe for the remainder of the 20th century was arguably rooted in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.

[Brendan Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Destroys the idea that Germany was solely responsible for WWI... Which destroys the credibility of the Versailles treaty... Which lead to WWII.