I agree, and I wouldn't have any problem with an article saying so. But he undercuts his own credibility by saying all the stuff in the media you've heard is a smokescreen. It isn't. It's similarly simplistic and incomplete, in many cases. WWI was a was of attrition. As soon as the Germans were stopped at the Marne, they were all but guaranteed to eventually lose. This is because the British blockade prohibited Germany from trading with the US. Germany, lacking the resources to be self-sustaining for four years, was starved out of the war. Conversely, the population of France and Britain were largely unaffected by the war, and by some accounts actually had it better than before, because their trade with the US ballooned to far higher than it was previously. I certainly don't dispute that the Kiel Mutiny was a very significant event, but by that point, Germany's fate was already sealed; it only needed a catalyst for the regime to collapse completely. I'm all for highlighting lesser know aspects of history, but when presented with an obvious agenda, and without context, it comes off as dishonest.