I don't agree with that in the least, and here's why:
If you set as your standard the US Civil War of 1861-1865 -- for the "maximum military deaths" a civilization can endure and still prosper: that number is 2.2% of the population.
In the First World War, the only nations which exceeded 2.2% military deaths were France (3.5%), Germany (3.1%) and Turkey (3.6%).
Britain suffered 1.9% deaths, Russia 1% and the USA .1%.
Overall, Europe suffered 1% military deaths in the Great War -- fewer than half US deaths in the Civil War.
So European civilization was no more "dead" in 1919 than was the US in 1865.
But there was a huge difference between 1865 and 1919, and in a word, that difference was: Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.
The US Civil War ended with Unconditional Surrender of Confederates, complete US victory and quick recovery of "American Civilization's" dynamic growth.
The First World War ended according to President Wilson's idea of "peace without victory", with undefeated Germany still eager for Round Two.
So Europe did not die at the Somme, it was killed by a US President too eager to make nicey-nicey with people who truly needed to be utterly defeated and unconditionally surrender.
That took a Second World War, with another 75+ million deaths, at which point European Civilization was prostrate and no longer in control of its destiny.
Today? Well... we will never again see 1914 when the Great War began, or even 1991 when it finally, finally ended.
But there is nothing which guarantees US hegemony forever, and strong partnerships can easily allow one or the other partner to become "senior" as conditions dictate.
Our current Democrat "lead from behind" administration comes to mind...
How can you say Germany was undefeated, given that they lost their colonies, were forced into paying massive (and unaffordable) reparations, and were effectively disarmed?
I would hesitate to say that Germany was eager for round 2. Rather they were hesitant, and had to be brought to it by little steps, against lesser players.
Strong diplomacy against Hitler might have prevented war. The political class at that time (see Stanley Baldwin) was not up to it.
BroJoe, I thought of your post over the weekend, and while you make some good points, I have some disagreement. For a long time I’ve thought that the real men of Europe were all killed off in the Great War. The Brits died at the Somme, the French at Verdun, but the Germans took another generation and they died at Stalingrad.
I don’t think the percentage of population losses really tells the full story. Yes, the United States suffered a high percentage of population losses compared to the European powers in World War 1. But there were other differences, and most of them had to do with the vigor of the society, both before and after the war.
The American Civil War came at a time when the United States had just begun a huge expansion in terms of territorial development, industrial development and population growth, partly fueled by large immigration from Europe. That growth was the result of many factors which existed independent of the Civil War, and many historians believe the Civil War was merely one its features. However, despite the losses in the war, the United States, particularly the victorious northern part, exited the war stronger and more prosperous than it entered it. And that trend was going to continue for several more generations.
Europe entered the Great War as a prosperous, vibrant civilization, but left the first great struggle exhausted and disillusioned. It was no longer a vibrant, healthy civilization, but a sick and vulnerable one. The great nations lost their competitive edge. The main difference with the United States was in underlying conditions that were more or less independent of the war. While the United States was just beginning its rise, by 1914 Europe had already reached the zenith of its world power. It was something of a wasting asset; it could only decline relative to the rest of the world, and it was only a question of at what pace. The two wars that ripped the Continent apart didn’t cause that decline, it only accelerated it.
So a 2% loss in population in a country that has continuous 5% growth isn’t going to make much of an impact. A 2% loss in a country that isn’t growing can start a cycle of tailspin.