|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 6, 2014 22:43:37 GMT -6
I'm currently reading a most interesting history written by the British historian John Keegan entitled "The First World War." I'm only about 100 pages into it to this point, and while the author does go into considerable detail about the military aspects of the war later in the book, this first part is concerned exclusively with the failed--one might even say "disastrous"--diplomatic and strategic bungling that immediately preceded the the outbreak of hostilities. It is hard to escape the impression that it was a war no one (except perhaps the Austrians against the Serbs) wanted, but everyone seemed powerless to stop, like a floor covered with mouse traps tripping one after the other when a ping-pong ball is tossed into the center of the room and trips the first one. What is so tragic is that there was no rational reason for any of it to have happened. The issues at stake were by no means worth a general European war that cost over 20 million dead before the final shots were fired. It wasn't so much fundamental issues that led to the outbreak of war, but a misplaced sense of national pride on the part of the ruling dynasties that led them down the path to war. The real irony of the war was that it led ultimately to the destruction of the very system of dynastic rule that had governed Europe for centuries. In the end, it settled nothing, and in it also were planted the tragic seeds of a second and much more destructive war 20 years later.
Views and comments?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 6:15:16 GMT -6
I agree. WW1 was the result of many complicated factors leading the European nations towards and then to war. Alliances, mutual defence agreements added to patriotic posturing and opportunism.
War it seems often creates itself. As in chess the pieces move and respond to those of the opponent. A situation can evolve, rather than be a grand plan. Just my two bobs worth.
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 9, 2014 11:45:45 GMT -6
I agree. WW1 was the result of many complicated factors leading the European nations towards and then to war. Alliances, mutual defence agreements added to patriotic posturing and opportunism. War it seems often creates itself. As in chess the pieces move and respond to those of the opponent. A situation can evolve, rather than be a grand plan. Just my two bobs worth. All of the players in that chess game miscalculated, for each had its own agenda, and none took into proper account the true motives of the other players. The Austro-Hungarians wanted the destruction of Serbia whose ethnically different population pushing for independence had been a thorn in the side of the Empire for decades, but they did not actually wish to begin a general European war. The Russians feared increased Austro-Hungarian influence in the Balkans might threaten their access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea, and also threaten Russia itself since the Germans were allied with, and backing, the Austro-Hungarians. The French lived in fear of an attack by Germany similar to that which occurred during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and resulted in the loss of the Alsace-Lorraine region to Germany. When Germany mobilized, the French saw little choice but to mobilize as well. Indeed, their entire war plan was based on recapture of Alsace-Lorraine, a effort which proved disastrous for them initially. The Germans saw the troubles in the Balkans as an opportunity to expand outside the boundaries which other European countries, especially Russia and France, had attempted to confine them within since unification of Germany in 1871. The British were perhaps the most uncertain of the lot. They remained generally aloof from the conflicts on the Continent as they had for centuries, but were allied with the French and pledged to the integrity of Belgium, as were the French. When it became obvious the Germans were about to thrust into Belgium as part of their Schlieffen Plan, the British saw little choice but to declare war and commit what few ground troops they had to the Continent. Yet another factor in all this is that none of the players really understood what a general war in Europe would actually mean in terms of cost, both in lives and treasure. After all, there hadn't been such a war for a century. No one understood what havoc modern weapons--particularly artillery and machine guns--would wreak on the battlefield when entire national armies were engaged, nor how difficult it would actually be to move those armies over the many rivers and the few narrow roads of Europe. In short, the war soon became a trap as if one set by some malevolent monster that lasted for four long years, gobbling up men and material in wholesale lots.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 12:08:23 GMT -6
I agree the powers that be did not understand the devastation of modern war. Some say the first modern war was the US Civil War, or the Crimea. I think it was WW1 especially with improved artillery and Machine Guns. Of course, in the early days of 1914/15 even the soldiers and many volunteers shared the ignorance of the politicians and Generals. It was still a game, an adventure.
|
|
|
Post by armedandsafe on Jul 9, 2014 16:32:32 GMT -6
I've always felt various countries' leaders and diplomats felt WWI would be a continuation of the "Knights and Lords" engagements of the past. Therefore, there wasn't much serious diplomacy applied. This failure led to some skirmishes into neighboring country's property, intended to make a diplomatic point. The advancement in weapons technology turned that into the slaughter of a generation.
Then, the same diplomats applied heavy penalties (some say, unreasonable)upon the countries who were held to be responsible sparking the war, which led to the enmity that allowed WWII to kick into gear.
Pops
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 10, 2014 0:28:43 GMT -6
I've always felt various countries' leaders and diplomats felt WWI would be a continuation of the "Knights and Lords" engagements of the past. Therefore, there wasn't much serious diplomacy applied. This failure led to some skirmishes into neighboring country's property, intended to make a diplomatic point. The advancement in weapons technology turned that into the slaughter of a generation. Then, the same diplomats applied heavy penalties (some say, unreasonable)upon the countries who were held to be responsible sparking the war, which led to the enmity that allowed WWII to kick into gear. Pops Many in European leaders at the time did believe that a general war would actually be a good thing for the European political scene; it would "clear the air" so to speak, and remove many of the small timers, leaving more pickings for the big guys. They also believed that such a widespread war could not possibly last more than a few weeks, or a couple of months at most, given modern weapons and tactics, simply because no national economy could sustain the enormous cost and disruption of such a conflict much beyond that period. "The troops will all be home by Christmas," they said. No one envisioned what it would really become, a seemingly bottomless pit of death and destruction that claimed a whole generation of young men. Yes, the Versailles Treaty at the end of the war was a travesty. It forced Germany to accept the entire blame for the war (the infamous Clause 34 of the treaty) and exacted penalties that effectively crippled the German economy for more than a decade and removed any hope of success by the new Weimar government that came to power. The peace that followed was merely an intermission before the next active phase of the war which was to being in 1939. What really occurred during the period between 1914 and 1945 was a second 30 Years War in Europe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 0:29:59 GMT -6
I've always felt various countries' leaders and diplomats felt WWI would be a continuation of the "Knights and Lords" engagements of the past. Therefore, there wasn't much serious diplomacy applied. This failure led to some skirmishes into neighboring country's property, intended to make a diplomatic point. The advancement in weapons technology turned that into the slaughter of a generation. Then, the same diplomats applied heavy penalties (some say, unreasonable)upon the countries who were held to be responsible sparking the war, which led to the enmity that allowed WWII to kick into gear. Pops Well said. Old world values and attitudes applied clumsily to a complex and dangerous mess. Of course we know WW1s end laid the foundations for WW2, but then almost two thousand years ago a Germanic warrior leader (Arminius) who destroyed a Roman army laid the foundations for conflict in Europe for centuries. Including WW1. Where do you draw the line.
|
|
|
Post by armedandsafe on Jul 10, 2014 16:07:09 GMT -6
I've always felt various countries' leaders and diplomats felt WWI would be a continuation of the "Knights and Lords" engagements of the past. Therefore, there wasn't much serious diplomacy applied. This failure led to some skirmishes into neighboring country's property, intended to make a diplomatic point. The advancement in weapons technology turned that into the slaughter of a generation. Then, the same diplomats applied heavy penalties (some say, unreasonable)upon the countries who were held to be responsible sparking the war, which led to the enmity that allowed WWII to kick into gear. Pops Well said. Old world values and attitudes applied clumsily to a complex and dangerous mess. Of course we know WW1s end laid the foundations for WW2, but then almost two thousand years ago a Germanic warrior leader (Arminius) who destroyed a Roman army laid the foundations for conflict in Europe for centuries. Including WW1. Where do you draw the line.Cain?
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 10, 2014 18:56:09 GMT -6
Only if you're "Abel," Pops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 13:23:28 GMT -6
Its also worth remembering all parties expected the war to be over in a few months, by Christmas in fact. Starting in the Summer of 1914 many joined up in a hurry, afraid of missing the fun and adventure. A couple of shattered dead bodies and the occasional loose head would soon put that right. The diplomacy was based on a quick fight, not the entrenched slogging match they got.
No one in 1914 expected it to last until 1918, thats for sure.
I recommend the book 1914: Days of hope by Lyn Macdonald. Its a series of recollections of those Brits that were there, a real eye opener. Sort of 'Oh, they thought that'.
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 12, 2014 16:01:30 GMT -6
Its also worth remembering all parties expected the war to be over in a few months, by Christmas in fact. Starting in the Summer of 1914 many joined up in a hurry, afraid of missing the fun and adventure. A couple of shattered dead bodies and the occasional loose head would soon put that right. The diplomacy was based on a quick fight, not the entrenched slogging match they got. No one in 1914 expected it to last until 1918, thats for sure. I recommend the book 1914: Days of hope by Lyn Macdonald. Its a series of recollections of those Brits that were there, a real eye opener. Sort of 'Oh, they thought that'. The entire German strategy--indeed, the whole basis of the Schlieffen Plan--was for a quick war, six weeks at the most. Mobilize quickly, ruthlessly thrust through Belgium into northern France, crush the French, capture Paris, and end the war before other likely enemies could assemble and enter the fight, particularly the Russians to the east. Everything was planned, and everything was to run according to a timetable that must be kept. It almost worked. Had it not been for a lucky break the French and British recognized and took advantage of at the First Battle of the Marne, it likely would have and the whole course of European history would have been changed. The biggest problems the Germans encountered were the difficulty in moving large armies over the few and narrow roads of Europe, unanticipated strong resistance from the Belgians, lack of adequate communications, and an unexpectedly quick mobilization and offensive by the Russians. Everyone expected a war of maneuver, which, except for the first 30 days or so, did not turn out to be the case. Instead, the war became a game of thrust and counter-thrust launched from extensive trench systems that changed very little from 1914 to 1917-18, and ran all the way from the Belgian boarder to Switzerland. Whole armies were sacrificed to gain only a few yards of ground, which was then often lost to enemy counter-attack shortly thereafter. The death toll was almost beyond belief. It never ceases to amaze me that both sides were able to keep it up as long as they did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 0:50:06 GMT -6
Stubbornness, along with unwillingness to loose face. As long as there were more unfortunate soldiers to throw into the cauldron, it would continue.
Where were the voices saying the losses were too high, this slaughter is madness? Why was military doctrine so inflexible?
|
|
|
Post by 1shot1k_Admin on Jul 13, 2014 0:59:40 GMT -6
Stubbornness, along with unwillingness to loose face. As long as there were more unfortunate soldiers to throw into the cauldron, it would continue. Where were the voices saying the losses were too high, this slaughter is madness? Why was military doctrine so inflexible? Much to say about that sad crazy event... One thing always got me upset ( has happened in other conflicts I'm sure ) ......but the so called great Black Jack Pershing (he gave Patton his pistols) and generals on both sides....allowing and ordering suicide attacks when a TIME for cease fire and war's end was KNOWN.....criminal...possibly treason...my opinion to this day...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 9:13:26 GMT -6
Yes 1shot, criminal indeed. As were the actions of many Generals in that war, ordering attacks against strongly held entrenched positions in the full knowledge casualties would be very high.
Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do, and die.
Or to quote from a popular soldiers song in WW1, 'Were here because were here because were here because were here. Were here because were here because were here because were here.'
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 13, 2014 10:51:30 GMT -6
Stubbornness, along with unwillingness to loose face. As long as there were more unfortunate soldiers to throw into the cauldron, it would continue. Where were the voices saying the losses were too high, this slaughter is madness? Why was military doctrine so inflexible? Much to say about that sad crazy event... One thing always got me upset ( has happened in other conflicts I'm sure ) ......but the so called great Black Jack Pershing (he gave Patton his pistols) and generals on both sides....allowing and ordering suicide attacks when a TIME for cease fire and war's end was KNOWN.....criminal...possibly treason...my opinion to this day... Indeed that happened, 1shot. On the already announced date the Armistice was to take effect, November 11, 1918, at 11:00 AM, (the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, 1918), several British, French, and American commanders ordered attacks to be made before 11:00 AM in the hope to gain a few more useless yards of ground, and apparently to increase their own reputations as field commanders to aid in promotions after the war. None of those attacks were particularly successful, and none of them mattered one whit after the fighting ceased. They nonetheless pointlessly sacrificed the lives of several thousand soldiers on both sides. Was it criminal? In a technical sense, obviously not, but in a moral sense it most certainly was. Tranter, the book I'm reading by Keegan does explain why so many costly but ineffective battles occurred on the Western Front from 1914 to 1918. In many ways, the explanation lies with lack of sufficient technology and tactical ability to coordinate large scale attacks against entrenched positions. The art of fortification at that time, up until the very end of the war at least, was simply too effective to be overcome by massed frontal assaults. That was true of both sides. Communications usually broke down shortly after the battle began, making it impossible to coordinate accurate artillery fire, or to send reserve reinforcements where needed quickly enough to affect the outcome. The attackers usually faced a defense in depth, trench systems behind trench systems, backed up by artillery and machine gun positions that had already been sighted on target to foil just such an attack. Even if a limited breakthrough was made, armies lacked the ability to follow up the advantage gained before the enemy could bring up reinforcements and counterattack.
|
|