# Happy 100th. A terrible, terrible anniversary.



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

August 2, 2014

100 years ago yesterday Germany declared war on Russia.
100 years ago tomorrow Germany declared war on France. 
In and around these dates much of Europe declared war on each other. Germany was not the first to do so. Nor was Germany the fanatical force it was to become 25 years later. 

One-hundredth anniversaries of anything are usually heralded, but this one, the century mark of the worst war in the history of the world, has gone somewhat unnoticed. This summer the President was in France for the 70th anniversary of D-Day. Might he have driven to Flanders with a wreath or two? Apparently not. I've heard nothing about this anniversary. Have you? And do you care much? Not upset if you don't, The Great War is a particular fascination of mine.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Colonel House told Wilson that Europe was headed toward a "cataclysm" and that's an understatement. 

A conflagration in the Balkans set off a change of events that abruptly ended 3 empires, set up another war in which unspeakable horrors occurred and gave rise to a power vacuum in former imperials dominions.

I think it's safe to say that the current geopolitical struggles can trace much back to 1914 and the years preceding it.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Maybe little is happening in the USA, but here in Europe there will be four years of commemorations.

Even here in Ireland, where such things just weren't really spoken of for years, there was a new memorial unveiled the other day to the thousands of Irishmen killed in the Great War, despite protests from knuckle-dragging republicans, and their boos and cat-calls during the minutes silence.

I can assure you that everyone from governments to TV stations have a full schedule of events planned for the next few years in memory of the war.

By the way, was it not Britain that declared war on Germany?

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/01/meanwhile-at-the-tower-of-london/


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes, Britain declared on Germany, on the 4th of August. Glad to hear that Europe has not forgotten. I have an ambivalent view of Britain during this though. Not the bravery of those at the front. Hardly, but of the British-planned campaigns such as the Somme and Gallipoli and their leaders, Haig and Hamilton. Maybe we're doing little or nothing over here now because we didn't enter until '17. Which would be true to form for us: only talk about the part we are in. Thanks for posting. What is that photograph?

SG: interesting insight.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Peak and Pine said:


> Yes, Britain declared on Germany, on the 4th of August. Glad to hear that Europe has not forgotten. I have an ambivalent view of Britain during this though. Not the bravery of those at the front. Hardly, but of the British-planned campaigns such as the Somme and Gallipoli and their leaders, Haig and Hamilton. Maybe we're doing little or nothing over here now because we didn't enter until '17. Which would be true to form for us: only talk about the part we are in. Thanks for posting. What is that photograph?
> 
> SG: interesting insight.


The photo is of an art installation currently at the Tower of London.



> A cascade of ceramic poppies commemorating the dead of WW1 by ceramic artist Paul Cummins.
> 
> Entitled Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red, the work (still under construction) will ultimately comprise 888,246 red ceramic flowers planted in the dry moat around the Tower Of London.
> 
> The final symbolic poppy will be planted on November 11th, at which point the display will end.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/a-war-that-has-not-ended-1.1884076



> _On Monday, heads of state from around the world, including President Michael D Higgins, the king of Belgium and the president of Germany, will gather in Liège to mark the outbreak of the first World War. Although the atmosphere is expected to be one of sombre commemoration and reconciliation, for many living in the area the question of how to commemorate a war whose scars still run deep is more complex._


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Britain declared war on Germany for violating Belgian neutrality.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

This is true. Britain had had an agreement, together with all the other great European powers, since Belgium's inception (it's a relatively new country surprisingly) to uphold it's neutrality. However, Belgium constructed a pretty massive line of forts, guns and fortifications along its border with Germany and none along its border with France.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ the Kaiser was quite bellicose toward Belgium not just in the run up to the war but for some time before. He expected Belgium to back Germany in any conflict with France or Russia and each time he was rebuffed. 

"Chocolate soldiers" the Kaiser would call them. He insisted that German soldiers be given passage through Belgium in the event of war otherwise Belgium would pay a price. 

Belgian resistance at Liege was one of the factors for the unravelling of the Schlieffen plan.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

It could be argued that British diplomatic incompetence, at best, caused a Balkan crisis to become a world war. Or, perhaps more likely, if dreadfully cynically, deliberate British disinformation to Germany.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> It could be argued that British diplomatic incompetence, at best, caused a Balkan crisis to become a world war. Or, perhaps more likely, if dreadfully cynically, deliberate British disinformation to Germany.


Oh please, go on!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> It could be argued that British diplomatic incompetence, at best, caused a Balkan crisis to become a world war. Or, perhaps more likely, if dreadfully cynically, deliberate British disinformation to Germany.


I. The Germans and their rather deranged Kaiser seem the more obvious cause. The whole sorry business serves as an illustration of the danger of becoming needlessly entangled in overseas hostilities. A whole generation lost and the country nearly bankrupted merely to prepare the ground for WWII.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

From a purely historical standpoint, WWI was the culmination of the industrial revolution and all of it's societal and cultural problems that went along with it as well as the rise of nationalism that started in the 19th Century. 

Historians often call the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon as the end of the Ancien Regime, but when one thinks about it, the regime was still intact after that. Though the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved, the Hapsburgs still sat on the throne of a large empire, Prussia consolidated the rest of Germany and there was the German Empire and the Romanov Dynasty continued. The Ottoman Empire was still intact though fatally flawed and its days numbered. 

I've always been struck as to the clash of cultures that the lead up to, and the actual break out of, WWI was. On the one hand we had professional armies, lethal defensive technology and a burgeoning middle class thanks to the industrial revolution and commerce. We had rail, communications at almost an instant and mechanized transportation. 

On the other hand we had monarchs who were mere figure heads and didn't know how to grapple with the new. The German Kaiser was truly delusional. He continually interfered in things he had no knowledge of and his overall knowledge of government and military affairs was, at best, limited. The Tsar didn't even like to talk on a phone as he thought it beneath the dignity of a Monarch. Franz Joseph was old and feeble and all were under the influence of their ministers. 

If not for the absolute tragic outcome and the future tragedies it made possible, one could call it a comedy of errors.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

The more I learn of The War, the less hostile my attitude toward Germany and I'm curious if Germany's attitude towards itself is similar. Apologetic and remorseful as they are toward WWII, if they are to be believed, might they be not at all that way toward WWI. Odradek says Merkel and others are gathering in Liege, Belgium, site of the first hostilities and a German victory. A bold move, I wonder what she'll say.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I don't think the Germans need to feel guilty or feel remorseful about. It was a different world back then and with different attitudes.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

A good write by SG above, but I differ with the characterization of the Kaiser as delusional or a mere figurehead. He was a very sharp cookie, a hands-on cookie. He was not a Hitler. He was not a Jew-hating schizoid maniac. He was a moral man whose chief goal in life was the same as Rodney Dangerfield's: he wanted a little respect, for himself and his country.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ He was certainly a man who wanted peace but he was also full of bluster. Obviously I didn't know him personally, but almost everything written about him paints a picture of a man who lacked self confidence, and who constantly meddled in military affairs (he fancied himself a military man) as well as committing diplomatic gaffes one after another. Bethmann-Hollweg was constantly having to clean up after him. He took everything very personally, especially when it came to diplomacy. He was convinced that he could impress upon his "fellow monarchs" to see things Germany's way. 

There's a great story about the flights of fancy that the Kasier would take. He once came up with an ideal of a single man submarine that could be used to infiltrate enemy waters. He called it "The Homonculous". He was dogged in the pursuit of it even though Tirpitz thought it was a distraction. Once on a stag hunt with Tirpitz, the Kaiser mentioned that he was no longer interested in the program. Tirpitz wired back to his headquarters, "Stag and Homonculous dead!".


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I don't think the Germans need to feel guilty or feel remorseful about. It was a different world back then and with different attitudes.


I'm not so sure of this. While not feeling guilty exactly, I feel remorseful and ashamed for what we did here even a longer time ago toward some of our own even though the culture here, hopefully, has changed.

I'm thinking that not only must not the collective German presence be remorseful toward WWI, but might even be proud of its part. Angie may give us a clue soon. Frankly, after pouring through books of WWI facts and lure these past few years, I'm sort of surprised that the Germans lost.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Why are you surprised the Germans lost?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> ^ He was certainly a man who wanted peace but he was also full of bluster. Obviously I didn't know him personally, but almost everything written about him paints a picture of a man who lacked self confidence, and who constantly meddled in military affairs (he fancied himself a military man) as well as committing diplomatic gaffes one after another. Bethmann-Hollweg was constantly having to clean up after him. He took everything very personally, especially when it came to diplomacy.


You may have come across material that I have yet to discover, but I've no knowledge of Chancellor Bethmann-
Hollweg being other than a weak sister, albeit a very courtly one. One of the more interesting reads on this subject of the Kaiser's personality is Gerard's My Four Years In Germany, published amazingly in the heart of the war in 1917, Gerard was the American ambassador to Germany, 1912-16, I think.  I gotta go to bed


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> Why are you surprised the Germans lost?


Oops, I didn't see this.

Because of their military superiority. Not in numbers of men, tho they had millions, but in armament, training, discipline and leadership. And they almost never lost a battle, right up to the end. They kept winning and winning. Remember, this war wasn't fought in Germany, this war was fought primarily in France and on the sea. Anytime you ave a fight-to-the-death war country-to-country and none of the fighting is in your country, then you're in pretty good shape no matter how rough the going.

This is also something that neglects to get mentioned in our own conflicts since the War of 1812. Hell, we're always staging the battles in someone else country and we either win (Mexican, Spanish-American, WWI,WWII, Kuwait & Iraq) or it's a draw (Korea). We only lost once (Viet Nam), but it was still in someone else's country and we didn't get beat exactly, we just gave up, thankfully, then conducted the world's longest retreat over 6 oceans.

The Hun in WWI had mustard gas, flame throwers, u-boats, storm troopers, cool helmets, bigger guns, more of them, a constant supply of ammo, most of France's railroads and food gardens and the knowledge and training to use this stuff. The Allies had zip comparatively and the worst zip of all was Sir Alexander Haig who sent 20,000 men to their death in one 24-hour period at his superbly poorly planned and executed battle of the Somme. Plus another 30,000 maimed for life. And this i all in one day, July 1st, 1916. Yes, I am surprised the Germans lost. But it doesn't mean I'm not glad they did I really gotta go to bed now. Pee first.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Oops again. Before I gotta go bed I gotta check to see what the latest thread that guy Hitch has started from crap he's lifted from the National Review.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I've often wondered about different outcomes and how they might have affected the NAZI rise to power. It seems that a more decisive end,regardless who wins might have kept the NAZIs from ever gaining a foothold. A strong German win might have had quite an effect on the way things turned in Russia. The last century with neither NAZIs nor Soviets... Just realized that none of my own speculations bother to count France as power.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

^^^Interesting. But remember, the Russian Revolution took place before the war was over and the Bolshevics, especially the worst of them, were in power and fairly entrenched come November 11, 1918, Armistice Day and a hypothetical victorious but not hypothetical worn out and worn down Germany would have had a tuff go trying to ride herd on those Bolshy babies.

Incidentally, welcome here, Hitch. The National Review site must be down.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Prior to the outbreak of WWI, Russia's military was starting to ramp up, although not yet at the level of the Germans. Russia had the edge in manpower and potential manpower obviously, but it was not yet as industrially advanced as Germany and the rest of Europe. There's a great passage in "Guns of August" where in Russian soldiers start shooting at Russian bi-planes, not realizing that they were Russian; Only Germans are clever enough to come up with flying machines was what they thought. 

I think the problem was that the militaries of the time, almost universally, believed dearly in the Cult of the Offensive. Their doctrines were offensive, yet the technology and weaponry favored a defensive war. In the East it was certainly a war of mobility, but in the West it was obviously a stalemate brought on by defensive technology without a countering offensive technology or developed doctrine. The Somme is a perfect example of this disconnect between defensive capability and the inability of European armies to understand how to deal with it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Glad to hear that Europe has not forgotten.


Why would we have forgotten? :mad2: And we don't need an American to make such comments :mad2:
My paternal grandfather, James de Buitléir was with a British Cavalry unit in France. He was blinded by gas, sent back to southern England for rehabilitation before travelling home to Kilkenny.

Like I said, why would we have forgotten?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ That's a little unfair. I don't think anything demeaning was meant by his comment.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> Glad to hear that Europe has not forgotten.





Earl of Ormonde said:


> Why would we have forgotten? :mad2: And we don't need an American to make such comments :mad2:


Calm down. Have always liked your posts, liked them better than most here. I didn't like that one.

How could you possibly be offended by what was intended as a compliment to your side of the Atlantic as well as a swipe at mine, i. e., we here_ do_ seem to have forgotten. And if you're so worked up about this and had family in the fray, why didn't you start this thread instead of me? (Thnx, SG, for the back-up.)


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Peak and Pine said:


> A good write by SG above, but I differ with the characterization of the Kaiser as delusional or a mere figurehead. He was a very sharp cookie, a hands-on cookie. He was not a Hitler. He was not a Jew-hating schizoid maniac. He was a moral man whose chief goal in life was the same as Rodney Dangerfield's: he wanted a little respect, for himself and his country.


'A little respect' is one way of putting it, but he went about it the wrong way. Psychologists may make merry with the Kaiser: unloveable and unloved by his mother (why?), an incestuous daydreamer, pathologically jealous of his cousins Nicky and George (and possibly with good reason to be suspicious, given Anglo-Russian diplomatic manoeuvring), and a withered arm to top it off.

No doubt the Germans were hoping for a repeat of the franco-Prussian war of 1870 - a swift, easy victory - following which they could knock out Russia. As soon as there was stalemate, Germany was doomed, and what a price the rest of Europe had to pay.



Peak and Pine said:


> ...The Allies had zip comparatively and the worst zip of all was Sir Alexander Haig who sent 20,000 men to their death in one 24-hour period at his superbly poorly planned and executed battle of the Somme. Plus another 30,000 maimed for life. And this i all in one day, July 1st, 1916. Yes, I am surprised the Germans lost. ...


British generalship of the time was far from perfect - coming to terms with new technology took a very long time.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I sometimes tend to the macabre, and so I was tempted to throw a WWI party. I intended to serve bratwurst and mustard.

Americans are, I believe, more inclined to celebrate specific events (Pearl Harbor, 9/11, D-Day), and the conclusion of processes rather than their beginnings. Thus, I think there will be more in our media in four year's time. Remember, what happened a week ago a hundred years ago had little to no immediate effect on Americans. Then again, if Kim Kardashian squeezes out another pup in four years, the end of WWI may be eclipsed.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Each culture/country recounts, celebrates, commemorates and otherwise recognizes important events, whether joyous or sad, in ways congruent with it's own experiences and memories. 

Here in the states, we obviously remember D-Day and Pearl Harbor as the 2 seminal events of WWII (our perspective). The Russians remember Stalingrad. For reasons that have been all too well documented, We did not enter into WWI until quite late. Our body count was quite low and the overall blood feud between the European powers was not all that apparent to the average American. 

The Great War was rather a blip on the American radar screen. It did not have the economic, political and cultural impact of WWII for us. Therefore while we recognize it, most don't have the same visceral response as our European cousins. Europeans still call it "Armistice Day" where as we recognize it as "Veterans Day". There's not even the slightest reference to WWI in the name of the holiday. 

It's really too bad actually. I've always been of the opinion that we Americans have a very short attention span and a poor understanding of how the world we live in was shaped.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Oh please, go on!


Two points really.
1) When the Germans asked Britain how they would react to German violation of Belgian neutrality, Britain's response was vague enough for Germany to think that Britain wouldn't do anything. Hence Germany's surprise when Britain declared war over a "scrap of paper". The argument suggests that if Britain had made an unequivocal response to Germany's question, ie. "If you enter Belgium we will declare war on you", then Germany wouldn't have invaded Belgium, the Schlieffen Plan would have been a non-starter, so Germany would have been unlikely to declare war on France, and given that Germany's only mobilisation plan was against France, then Germany would have been unlikely to go to war at all.
2) Most people who study the First World War tend to be students of international History, or military History, or international relations, and tend to focus on the events in Europe, especially to do with the actions of the Great Powers. They tend not to focus on country's internal affairs. Britain was undergoing a constitutional crisis in the summer of 1914, as well as a crisis in Ireland which was close to civil war. The Loyalists of Ulster had raised an armed and trained force which was prepared to use its arms to prevent Home Rule. The Tory opposition, under Bonar Law had declared that he and his Party would support armed rebellion against the Home Rule Bill, should it become law. Finally, the commanding General in the Curragh, General French, had written to the Government indicating that if ordered north against the armed Loyalists, he would refuse to do so. How can a country faced with significant internal crises best solve them? By an external threat, of course! It is such a common ploy of governments, to distract the population from the internal tensions by focusing on an external threat. The outbreak of a war, which Britain thought could be easily won, would have been an ideal distraction from potential civil war in Ireland and the threat of mutiny in the Army. How hard was Britain going to try to stop the onset of war, given the circumstances?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Calm down. Have always liked your posts, liked them better than most here. I didn't like that one.
> 
> How could you possibly be offended by what was intended as a compliment to your side of the Atlantic as well as a swipe at mine, i. e., we here_ do_ seem to have forgotten. And if you're so worked up about this and had family in the fray, why didn't you start this thread instead of me? (Thnx, SG, for the back-up.)


If you can't see how an American saying "Glad to hear that Europe has not forgotten" to Europeans can be offensive then I can't explain it for you. If I misread you, and read an insinuation there that wasn't there, then I apologise. 
Why didn't I start a thread? Well, you beat me to it 

I'm not worked up. I am also calm....now  But telling an angry perosn to calm down is like throwing fuel on the fire. When I'm angry I'm angry and calm is the last thing I want to be


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Prior to the outbreak of WWI, Russia's military was starting to ramp up, although not yet at the level of the Germans. Russia had the edge in manpower and potential manpower obviously, but it was not yet as industrially advanced as Germany and the rest of Europe. There's a great passage in "Guns of August" where in Russian soldiers start shooting at Russian bi-planes, not realizing that they were Russian; Only Germans are clever enough to come up with flying machines was what they thought.
> 
> I think the problem was that the militaries of the time, almost universally, believed dearly in the Cult of the Offensive. Their doctrines were offensive, yet the technology and weaponry favored a defensive war. In the East it was certainly a war of mobility, but in the West it was obviously a stalemate brought on by defensive technology without a countering offensive technology or developed doctrine. The Somme is a perfect example of this disconnect between defensive capability and the inability of European armies to understand how to deal with it.


Curiously enough the European Armies had already learned how to deal with it. The Battle of the Somme, although enormously costly in lives was a victory for the allies, as was Verdun. Both battles saw the destruction of the German army's ability to conduct an offensive, and without a successful German offensive the war was always going to end with Germany's defeat. To focus on the Somme for now; Britain used every form of technology available to destroy the German Army, which was the purpose of the Battle. It was irrelevant how much territory was taken, the purpose of the offensive was to break the German Army and the German High Command recognised that the Battle ended in their defeat. The allies could replace their losses but the Germans couldn't replace theirs. The Somme was an attritional battle in exactly the same pattern as Austerlitz was an attritional battle, the enemy are worn down until their reserves are fully committed, then the decisive attack wins the battle. The only difference, apart from technology, was the scale. The "knock out" offensives in 1917 at Paaschendaele and Nivelle's offensive on the Aisne both failed, but for different reasons. The final offensive, Haig's Autumn Offensive of 1918 finally and absolutely defeated Germany.
Again curiously, when Pershing finally committed his troops to the offensive in 1918 he, and his commanders, refused to be advised by the "effete" allies and, rejected the fire and movement tactics that they urged, arguing that American troops would be able to succeed by moral force and frontal attacks. They didn't, of course, and when the American Expeditionary Force tried again they used the same tactics as their British and French allies, and this time met with success.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> If you can't see how an American saying "Glad to hear that Europe has not forgotten" to Europeans can be offensive then I can't explain it for you.


The part about "...I can't explain it to you", you got that right. You can't apparently. I'm thinking sincerely that you are the only person in their right mind that would find that remark anything but complimentary. And since you are in your right mind and one of the sharpest posters and first reads I look for when signing on, I'm a little dumbfounded by this.

(Chouan, looking forward to reading your latest post here, as well as SG's. But later.)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> The part about "...I can't explain it to you", you got that right. You can't apparently. I'm thinking sincerely that you are the only person in their right mind that would find that remark anything but complimentary. And since you are in your right mind and one of the sharpest posters and first reads I look for when signing on, I'm a little dumbfounded by this.


I will now then try to explain, the "glad to see/hear" format is often used sarcastically, and coming from an American regarding Europe strengthened that feeling.
But as I wrote before, "If I misread you, and read an insinuation there that wasn't there, then I apologise."
I clearly did misunderstand. Sorry.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Curiously enough the European Armies had already learned how to deal with it. The Battle of the Somme, although enormously costly in lives was a victory for the allies, as was Verdun. Both battles saw the destruction of the German army's ability to conduct an offensive, and without a successful German offensive the war was always going to end with Germany's defeat. To focus on the Somme for now; Britain used every form of technology available to destroy the German Army, which was the purpose of the Battle. It was irrelevant how much territory was taken, the purpose of the offensive was to break the German Army and the German High Command recognised that the Battle ended in their defeat. The allies could replace their losses but the Germans couldn't replace theirs. The Somme was an attritional battle in exactly the same patter as Austerlitz was an attritional battle, the enemy are worn down until their reserves are fully committed, then the decisive attack wins the battle. The only difference, apart from technology, was the scale. The "knock out" offensives in 1917 at Paaschendaele and Nivelle's offensive on the Aisne both failed, but for different reasons. The final offensive, Haig's Autumn Offensive of 1918 finally and absolutely defeated Germany.
> Again curiously, when Pershing finally committed his troops to the offensive in 1918 he, and his commanders, refused to be advised by the "effete" allies and, rejected the fire and movement tactics that they urged, arguing that American troops would be able to succeed by moral force and frontal attacks. They didn't, of course, and when the American Expeditionary Force tried again they used the same tactics as their British and French allies, and this time met with success.


The question is not whether one side was eventually victorious as all battles of attrition at some point tilt to one side vs. another. The question is, "would the body count have been not as high if....?"

The technology of the Great War far outstripped what commanders and politicians were able to think of in terms of integrating it into doctrine. There was no armored doctrine in WWI; tanks were used to support ground troops. Clausewitz famously declared that the defensive was the stronger form of warfare and WWI bore this out. As the defensive made strong offensives highly unlikely, the only strategy that really seemed to work was attrition.

This is the case with the Somme as well as in Verdun where Falkenhayn wanted to "bleed the French white".

As for the British being responsible, I don't think it's an accurate read. What was going on in the Balkans and the circling of the vultures over the dying Ottoman Empire was far more destabilizing than any mixed signals the Brits were sending to Germany re: Belgium. One could argue that all the powers were sending mixed signals, particularly the monarchies as the politics in these countries was truly puzzling. The monarchs in many cases didn't even know what their ministers were doing and military branches within the same country weren't even aware of what the other branch was doing (this was the case in England as well as in Germany between the army and navy).

Of course in the end Germany was blamed as the aggressor, and I suppose it's always true that the victors get to write the history and assign the blame.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The question is not whether one side was eventually victorious as all battles of attrition at some point tilt to one side vs. another. The question is, "would the body count have been not as high if....?"
> 
> The technology of the Great War far outstripped what commanders and politicians were able to think of in terms of integrating it into doctrine. There was no armored doctrine in WWI; tanks were used to support ground troops. Clausewitz famously declared that the defensive was the stronger form of warfare and WWI bore this out. As the defensive made strong offensives highly unlikely, the only strategy that really seemed to work was attrition.
> 
> This is the case with the Somme as well as in Verdun where Falkenhayn wanted to "bleed the French white".


There was armoured doctrine in WW1; use the tanks to suppress machine gun fire and attack the German gun line. The problem was a technological one, not a doctrinal problem. The tanks available, at least until 1918, simply weren't reliable enough or fast enough or mobile enough to do anything more than they did. There were examples, in 1918, of Whippets routing entire German regiments and brigades, once the technological problems had been solved. By 1918 Britain, for example, was using the Mk.V without guns as a personnel carrier and a supply vehicle. This was only possible because of the development of more powerful and more reliable engines, like the American "Liberty". Even air supply, on a limited scale, was being used. Platoon and even section machine guns were developed, and the tactical doctrine to use them, with the Brits using the American Lewis, the French using the Chauchat, which, curiously, the Americans used rather than the Lewis. The Germans were using the Madsen, the Bergmann and a lightened version of the Maxim.
The suggestion that First World War generals were out of their depth, or didn't understand the new weapons, simply isn't true. The Allies *had* to be on the offensive because Germany was occupying French and Belgian territory. Hence allowing them to sit in their trenches just wasn't an option, politically, any more than the French could abandon Verdun. The political imperative trumped the military.
That attrition was the method is undeniable, but all warfare was essentially attritional. If both sides' technology is similar, then the "wearing out battle" is the only option. The fallacious "indirect approach" idea simply wasn't workable, any more that lloyd George's "knocking away the props" idea. Germany could only be defeated in France, and could only be defeated by an offensive that would finally break their Army. That offensive occurred in 1918, but the Germans knew that the war was lost by the end of 1916, unless something unknown occurred, which, of course, it did with the collapse of Russia.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> As for the British being responsible, I don't think it's an accurate read. What was going on in the Balkans and the circling of the vultures over the dying Ottoman Empire was far more destabilizing than any mixed signals the Brits were sending to Germany re: Belgium. One could argue that all the powers were sending mixed signals, particularly the monarchies as the politics in these countries was truly puzzling. The monarchs in many cases didn't even know what their ministers were doing and military branches within the same country weren't even aware of what the other branch was doing (this was the case in England as well as in Germany between the army and navy).


Yes, but the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the clashes in the Balkans had been going on for ages and had led to local wars, in 1912 and 1913, but didn't necessarily mean that a European War was inevitable. That European leaders *thought* that a war was inevitable is a different question. If the European leaders had really wanted to avoid war, it could have been done. There was no real suggestion thoughout July that war was coming, the Austrians waited nearly a month after their ultimatum to Serbia before even mobilising and the Germans neither mobilised nor declared war until they thought that Britain wouldn't get involved. If Sir Edward Grey had said to the Germans "Invading Belgium means war with us" then the Germans would, at least, have thought twice before going to war. War may have come, Germany may have considered that involving Britain wouldn't make it impossible for them to win, so Germany may have gone to war anyway. But a firm stand by Britain would, I think, have stopped them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Yes, but the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the clashes in the Balkans had been going on for ages and had led to local wars, in 1912 and 1913, but didn't necessarily mean that a European War was inevitable. That European leaders *thought* that a war was inevitable is a different question. If the European leaders had really wanted to avoid war, it could have been done. There was no real suggestion thoughout July that war was coming, the Austrians waited nearly a month after their ultimatum to Serbia before even mobilising and the Germans neither mobilised nor declared war until they thought that Britain wouldn't get involved. If Sir Edward Grey had said to the Germans "Invading Belgium means war with us" then the Germans would, at least, have thought twice before going to war. War may have come, Germany may have considered that involving Britain wouldn't make it impossible for them to win, so Germany may have gone to war anyway. But a firm stand by Britain would, I think, have stopped them.


1914 was a culmination and a continuation of the events that had taken place over the previous 10 years. Tensions between France and Germany and Germany and England were already heightened due to the Morocco crisis as well as the naval race. France did not want to go to war over a crisis in the Balkans, but it feared that it would lose Russia as an ally and a counter to Germany if they did not back them up.

England's concern, as it has always been, was stability on the continent and a balance of powers. She would have joined Germany had she thought that doing otherwise would tip the scales toward French and/or Russian domination. Thanks to the Russo-Japanese war, that notion was tamped down a bit.

Germany was paranoid and constantly feared envelopment and so a countdown started in which the great powers were spinning head long into a catastrophe but continued to think that one could be avoided because they had been avoided before.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I think SG is correct. Germany had clear plans for domination of the Continent and had been planning for a military campaign for many years. It had also built up its navy in a way that clearly challenged Britain's assumed dominance, war with Britain being eventually inevitable if Germany was to fulfil its ambitions of an overseas empire.

There is some incidental evidence that Britain, or at least King George V, saw war with Germany as inevitable, indeed something to be brought on:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I have not commented here today because my knowledge of the war is only in the vacuum of 1914-1918 and is fact based only, thus I am fascinated to hear analysis. Such as that of Chouan, Langham and SG. Would that we had German members. Carry on. (Sorry about the Earl and me thing)


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Well slightly contradicting my earlier view that Britain would have done well to have stayed out of the war, if as may well be the case, war was inevitable, then thank God we won. I do think the Germans are wonderful people with many great talents, but it has to be observed and noted that they have not always been the most benevolent of conquerors.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ I think SG is correct. Germany had clear plans for domination of the Continent and had been planning for a military campaign for many years. It had also built up its navy in a way that clearly challenged Britain's assumed dominance, war with Britain being eventually inevitable if Germany was to fulfil its ambitions of an overseas empire.
> 
> There is some incidental evidence that Britain, or at least King George V, saw war with Germany as inevitable, indeed something to be brought on:


The US had clear plans for the invasion of Canada in the 1930's; they'd even built airfields new the frontier for air support for the invasion. However, there is no evidence that they were ever going to actually invade. Germany had been planning for a war with France and Russia since the failure of the Re-insurance Treaty. That doesn't mean that they were actually going to seek to go to war, whatever Fritz Fischer argued.
Britain had planned war with both Russia and France in the years before 1914, and nearly did go to war with France in 1899, but again, that doesn't mean that war with Germany, or France, or Russia was actually intended. However, Britain did view Germany's fleet as a deliberate provocation and as a deliberate threat to Britain, especially given the nature of the warships that Germany was building, which were clearly aimed at Britain. Tirpitz argued that Germany's fleet was built so as to ensure that Britain took Germany seriously, rather than as a deliberate threat. Well he would, woudn't he.... Britain did increasingly cast Germany as the villain in the first years of the new century, with a vast corpus of mostly dreadful literature in which the Germans invade, or plan to invade; "The Riddle of the Sands" is one such.
Bismarck certainly planned for German domination of Europe, but through its economic strength not through war. Indeed, if Bismarck had had his way, Europe would have been dominated by Germany, much as it is now, by about 1910.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ Well slightly contradicting my earlier view that Britain would have done well to have stayed out of the war, if as may well be the case, war was inevitable, then thank God we won. I do think the Germans are wonderful people with many great talents, but it has to be observed and noted that they have not always been the most benevolent of conquerors.


Indeed. The terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were harsh in the extreme, and may have led to the very punitive form of the Treaties of Versailles. similarly, the terms of the French capitulation following the Franco-Prussian War were harsh, despite Bismarck arguing against this. His view was that defeat of France was sufficient and that the purpose of the war, German political unity, had already been achieved, and German hegemony through economic might would naturally follow. However, the King of Prussia and the Army thought that a successful war needed rewards, such as treasure and land, hence demanding Alsace, Lorraine, and reparations. This of course, meant that enmity with France would continue, whereas Bismarck thought that if France had been treated generously, Prussia/Germany would be able to live in peace and prosperity.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The US had clear plans for the invasion of Canada in the 1930's; they'd even built airfields new the frontier for air support for the invasion. However, there is no evidence that they were ever going to actually invade. Germany had been planning for a war with France and Russia since the failure of the Re-insurance Treaty. That doesn't mean that they were actually going to seek to go to war, whatever Fritz Fischer argued.
> Britain had planned war with both Russia and France in the years before 1914, and nearly did go to war with France in 1899, but again, that doesn't mean that war with Germany, or France, or Russia was actually intended. However, Britain did view Germany's fleet as a deliberate provocation and as a deliberate threat to Britain, especially given the nature of the warships that Germany was building, which were clearly aimed at Britain. Tirpitz argued that Germany's fleet was built so as to ensure that Britain took Germany seriously, rather than as a deliberate threat. Well he would, woudn't he.... Britain did increasingly cast Germany as the villain in the first years of the new century, with a vast corpus of mostly dreadful literature in which the Germans invade, or plan to invade; "The Riddle of the Sands" is one such.
> Bismarck certainly planned for German domination of Europe, but through its economic strength not through war. Indeed, if Bismarck had had his way, Europe would have been dominated by Germany, much as it is now, by about 1910.


The difference was that Germany's plans were much much further advanced - an enormous conscript army and a system of taxation in place for years that presupposed war. By contract, Britain's army was almost exactly as the Kaiser rather unkindly described it, and UK income tax was 2.5%. I do tend to accept Fischer's account, but not all do.



Chouan said:


> Indeed. The terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were harsh in the extreme, and may have led to the very punitive form of the Treaties of Versailles. similarly, the terms of the French capitulation following the Franco-Prussian War were harsh, despite Bismarck arguing against this. His view was that defeat of France was sufficient and that the purpose of the war, German political unity, had already been achieved, and German hegemony through economic might would naturally follow. However, the King of Prussia and the Army thought that a successful war needed rewards, such as treasure and land, hence demanding Alsace, Lorraine, and reparations. This of course, meant that enmity with France would continue, whereas Bismarck thought that if France had been treated generously, Prussia/Germany would be able to live in peace and prosperity.


There was a certain pattern. German activities in SW Africa do not withstand close inspection either, but of course European colonisation of Africa is another can of worms.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> The difference was that Germany's plans were much much further advanced - an enormous conscript army and a system of taxation in place for years that presupposed war. By contract, Britain's army was almost exactly as the Kaiser rather unkindly described it, and UK income tax was 2.5%. I do tend to accept Fischer's account, but not all do.


Britain, however, was spending an absolute fortune on new Dreadnoughts, and France was spending even more on increasing its army than Germany was. That Germany pre-supposed war appears to be quite reasonable, given the agreements between Russia and France, and the large military budgets in both countries.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ True, true it seems the Admiralty was desperate to try to keep ahead of the Germans, who were building their own. If Fischer's work is to be accepted, however, Germany had actual plans, whereas Britain may only have been reactive.

Interestingly, the Germans have achieved in peace that which eluded them in two wars - which puts a twist on war being 'the continuation of politics by other means'.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Further to my post No.34, I found this recently, which rather bears out what I'd written 
"_When he arrived in Europe, Pershing had openly scorned the slow trench warfare of the previous three years on the Western Front, believing that American soldiers' skill with the rifle would enable them to avoid costly and senseless fighting over a small area of no man's land. This was regarded as unrealistic by British and French generals, and (privately) by a number of American generals such as Army Chief of Staff Tasker H. Bliss and his own Hunter Liggett. Even German generals were negative, Ludendorff dismissing Pershing's strategic efforts in the Meuse-Argonne offensive by recalling how "the attacks of the youthful American troops broke down with the heaviest losses".[SUP][34][/SUP] The AEF had done well in the relatively open warfare of the Second Battle of the Marne, but the eventual U.S. casualty rates against German defensive positions in the Argonne (120,000 U.S. casualties in six weeks, against 35 or 40 German divisions) were not noticeably better than those of the Franco-British offensive on the Somme two years earlier (600,000 casualties in four and a half months, versus 50 or so German divisions). More ground was gained, but then the German Army was in worse shape than in previous years."
_
Mostly based on work by David Trask, an American Historian specialising in America in WW1.

There's an interesting article here https://www.historynet.com/world-war-i-wasted-lives-on-armistice-day.htm about Pershing and the American Army and Marines in November 1918. Worth reading.


----------

