1. IrvingSnodgrass - June 16, 1999 - 8:36 AM PT
What caused World War I? Did it solve anything? Or did it leave after-effects which we still see today, in places such as the Balkans?
Talk about World war I right here... the causes, the battles, the war, and the lasting effects.
2. Raskolnikov - June 16, 1999 - 10:48 AM PT
World War I was caused by Germany's late arrival to the great power scene, nationalist pressures in two decaying empires (Austria/Hungary and Russia), the alliance structure, and a match thrown on top of the ensuing powderkeg in the form of the assassination of the Archduke.
Lasting effects were the Bolshevik revolution, millions of deaths, WWII, and the cold war. I think its main positive lasting effects were to take the wind out of colonialism, since the imperial powers were weakened by the war, and with anti-war sentiments catching on and causing a questioning of the value of an empire.
3. 109109 - June 16, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
I would add three causes to Rask's: France's inability to perform the role of a major power, the influence of Bismarck on Kaiser Wilhelm (as a child), and the Kaiser's withered arm.
4. Wombat - June 16, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
WWI is the paradigm of technology outstripping tactics. Although the original participants should have known better, they fought a 19th Century war using 20th Century weapons. The British are somewhat absolved from this, at least in the beginning.
5. lazygeorge - June 16, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
I believe the British got a taste of the future and modern defensive fire power from the Boers. It was one of the reasons for the relatively good performance of the British Army in 1914. Unfortunately Haig unlearned it all by 1916.
6. pellenilsson - June 16, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
I agree with Rask that Germany's emergence after its unification as a great economic power in Europe, looking for political power, was a factor. I'm doubtful about nationalistic pressures at least in Russia. They were there (in Finland for example) but I don't think they can be counted among the direct causes.
What has not been mentioned is the slow-motion collapse of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire which had been on its way at least since the Crimean war. It had gradually lost all its Balkan possesions. Bosnia, which was to play a role had been occupied by Austria-Hungary since 1878 and was made part of it in 1908.
When talking of WWI it is sometimes forgotten that it was preceded by two Balkan wars in 1911-12, the causes, conduct and outcome of which are extremely confusing, except that they didn't solve anything.
To view the assasination of the Archduke Ferdinand as the cause of WWI is naive. Austria was looking for a casus belli for an attack on Serbia. The assasination provided a convenient one.
We also so have France's burning desire for revenge for its humiliation in 1870 when it lost Alsace-Lorraine and German troops occupied Paris.
In my view, there was no single cause. There was a number of both long-term and short-term pressures that converged and caused the status quo to crack. On a very abstract level it may be possible to argue that it was the emerging industrialised and liberal Europe that swept away its own antiquated political structures.
7. DocBrown - June 16, 1999 - 1:30 PM PT
Wombat, I disagree, at least as far as the war in the Atlantic Ocean went. The British used poorly designed battlecruisers, like the ironically named Invincible class, that were virtual deathtraps. Their armor arrangement assumed close range, Monitor vs Merrimack (Virginia) style combat instead of the plunging fire that won naval battles in WWI. Also, British armor piercing ammunition was 19th century technology. At Jutland many British shells shattered on impact, doing no damage to their German targets. The optical system used by British gun crews to determine the range to their targets was a barbaric throwback to the 19th century. British communication was also very poor during important battles.
In contrast, the Germans truely used 20th century naval weapons. They had good armor, capped armor piercing shells, and advanced optics. German naval tactics were fairly well suited to the battles they fought.
However the Germans did misuse the new technology in that their strategic plan was flawed. They assumed their navy would be fighting a defensive war, fighting off the invading British fleet. They built ships that were too slow and carried too little fuel to be used as a serious menace to British shipping, which is what the Germans really needed. Had they anticipated the course of the war better the Germans might have taken full advantage of the British navy's shortcomings.
Of course none of this says much about the cause of World War I. I just wanted to dispute Wombat's claim that the British used 20th century technology with 20th century tactics.
8. DocBrown - June 16, 1999 - 1:54 PM PT
As a long time student of WWI naval tactics, I have accumulated some good WWI reference links. One of my favorites is the entire text of Admiral Reinhard Sheer's memoirs about the war. Sheer commanded the entire German High Seas Fleet during the war.
Sheer has a definite opinion about the cause of the war: he blames the arrogance of the English! Here is a quote from Chapter 1:
"THE origin of the world-war lies in the opposition between the Anglo-Saxon and the German conceptions of the world. On the former side is the claim to the position of unrestricted primacy in seapower, to the dominion of the seas, to the prerogative of oceantrade and to a levy on the treasures of all the earth. 'We are the first nation of the world' is the dogma of every Englishman, and he cannot conceive how others can doubt it."
- Reinhard Sheer, 1919
9. DocBrown - June 16, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT
Trenches on the Web is a great resource for WWI information, but it would take a long time to understand the political causes of the war from this resource.
Ironically, The Versailles Treaty is a better place to start. This helps me to understand the politics . . . of one side at least. I also like the maps, but we engineers are visual thinkers.
10. Wombat - June 16, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Doc Brown:
Point taken--partially. I was referring mostly to the land war, the Western Front in particular.
However, you go too far in denigrating British naval thought and technology. The battlecruiser was designed to "outgun" weaker ships and "outrun" stronger ones. They performed as designed at Heligoland Bight and the Falklands and up to a point at Dogger Bank. They were never intended to slug it out in a line of battle as at Jutland.
At Dogger Bank, the newer British battlecruisers proved superior to the Germans, and plunging fire from British main batteries almost sank the the Derfflinger (sp?) in the same manner as the Indefatigable and Queen Mary and Invincible were sunk at Jutland. The Germans learned the lesson of Dogger Bank (to prevent the flash from exploding ammo in the turret from reaching the magazine). The British did not.
In terms of innovation, you are plain wrong. The Dreadnought (all-big-gun battleship) concept rendered existing battleships instantly obsolete. Although a number of countries had similar ideas, it was the British who were able to put it into practice. This, combined with Percy Scott's gunnery theories (centrally directed main battery fire) and training technology an (early gunnery simulator that taught gunners how to aim at a moving target from a moving gun platform) revolutionized naval gunnery.
German optics were superior at long ranges, which gave them an initial edge. However, as ranges closed, British shooting became more accurate, and German accuracy fell off. At Jutland, the fact that there was initial confusion on which British ships were firing at which German ships also allowed the Von der Tann to fire at Indefatigable undisturbed for several minutes.
11. Wombat - June 16, 1999 - 2:06 PM PT
Cont.
German capital ships were better protected than their British counterparts. This came at the expense of speed and crew comfort. German naval gun development also lagged behind the British. The mismatch between German 11" and 12" cannons and the Brits' 13.5" and 15" was apparent.
You also do not mention the British use of aircraft at sea, which was also innovatory.
12. Wombat - June 16, 1999 - 2:26 PM PT
Germany's principal mistake was trying to compete against the British at all. Germany was a land power with a few isolated and economically worthless colonies. The British controlled all the sea approaches to the Atlantic. Had the Germans used all the resources they spent on their surface navy otherwise, they might have been able to win the land war, or better withstand the blockade.
13. DocBrown - June 16, 1999 - 2:31 PM PT
Okay, Wombat, I agree that I overstated my assault (my standard tactic for stirring up a new thread that I like). Sure the British Dreadnaught revolutionized naval warfare (warships of the period are still refered to as "pre-Dreadnaught" and "post-Dreadnaught)" but by the time war broke out everyone had them. The same goes for Percy Scott's gunnery theories, which were embodied in the German Bayern class as well as (or better than) any other ship.
My point was that to absolve only the British of the sin of fighting a 19th centruy war with 20th century weapons is a mistake. The Germans used some 20th century weapons AND tactics, such as chemical weapons and military aircraft, at least as well as anyone else. And they used submarine warfare more effectively than anyone, at least from a tactical point of view. (Strategically and politically, Sheer's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare probably got the Germans into more trouble than it was worth.)
14. Raskolnikov - June 16, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
Pelle: The Russian nationalism I was referring to was more "pan-slavism", which led them to jump into a war on behalf of an otherwise insignificant country like Serbia. If Russia had sat back and watched Serbia get attacked by A/H, the rest of the powers wouldn't have gotten involved.
15. Wombat - June 16, 1999 - 2:53 PM PT
Doc:
The Bayern and the Baden did not see major action. They were well-protected per usual, with coal-fired boilers. They were perhaps the equal of the Resolution class battleships (except there were four of the latter). They were markedly inferior to the Queen Elizabeth class, which were as fast as battlecruisers, with a battleship's protection ( at Jutland, the Warspite took fire from a good part of the High Seas Fleet without blowing up or otherwise sinking).
Doc:
Neither side really used the new technologies effectively at first, if at all. The Germans were almost as terrified of poison gas as those they used it against. When they failed to break through after its initial use, poison gas became a part of the stalemate itself.
Aircraft were not powerful enough to be used effectively for other than scouting and spotting roles. Fighter combat was certainly exciting, but until late in the war, attempts to gain air superiority were to allow spotter craft to aid artillery with comparative immunity.
The British Army did not really know what to do with tanks until Cambrai, and that ultimately failed when the British were unable to get reinforcements up in time to withstand German counterattacks.
German "Hutier" tactics were initially effective, but were ultimately unsustainable.
16. glendajean - June 16, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
When Germany declared war on Russia, the Kaiser sent the Czar a letter written in English (their common language as grandchildren of Victoria), explaining why the German government had decided to go to war against the Russians. The salutation is to Dear Cousin Nicky and the signature was from Cousin Willy.
In some part, these two men appear to have no clue what was about to happen. It's as if the leaders of Europe were dressing up for a costume ball, with their various military regalia, rather than understanding the seriousness of the war.
One effect was of course, the effective end of kings in Germany and Russia. Another was the reluctance in England to get involved in another war in Europe with Germany, a reluctance that Hitler exploited in the thirties.
17. pellenilsson - June 16, 1999 - 3:25 PM PT
Rask --- Message #14
That is no doubt a valid point.
All
Trivia question: why is a tank called a tank?
18. vonKreedon - June 16, 1999 - 3:28 PM PT
Pelle - Because the security cover for the British development of the tank was that it was a mobile Water Closet, colloqually known as a tank.
19. pellenilsson - June 16, 1999 - 3:36 PM PT
vonK
Full marks!
DocBrown
Thanks for the link to the Versailles Treaty. Looks very useful. I'm an engineer too.
GlendaJean
"It's as if the leaders of Europe
were dressing up for a costume ball, with their various
military regalia, rather than understanding the seriousness
of the war."
Exactly.
20. colossus - June 16, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
Irv:
I smell a rat. Pelle gets favored treatment around here, and
he's not even an American!
If we are going to discuss WWI, a subject I never tire of, I
hope people will share some of their favorite source
materials.
Here are 2 of mine:
On immediate causes:
Lions of July : prelude to war, 1914- William Jannen, Jr.
Novato, CA : Presidio, c1996.
For Internet fun site:
Trenches on the Web
Perhaps the sneaky Swede will share with us a tome of
Swedish Military Heroes of the Modern Age.
21. colossus - June 16, 1999 - 3:54 PM PT
Trenches on the Web
The subject of the Great Naval Arms race and the dreadnoughts is treated spectacularly in, what else?
R. Massie's "Dreadnought"
22. colossus - June 16, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
Two aspects of the "causes" (beyond, of course, French revanchism, Russian idiocy, and Serb brutality), the extensive discussions that no great war could ever occur or at worst would never last very long - because (sound familiar?)
- the world capitalist economy was too integrated
- the horrors of war were too awful to contemplate
Of the former, "The Great Illusion" by Norman Angell was a popular best seller which "demonstrated to the satisfaction of all informed opinion, that the disruption of international credit inevitably to be caused by war would either deter its outbreak or bring it rapidly to an end" [First World War, Keegan]
23. colossus - June 16, 1999 - 4:07 PM PT
Message #8 Yes Doc!
Another Trenches fan.
Plus, I downloaded and read Admiral Scheer's work a couple of years ago too!
Doc Brown, 5 others and I have done so.
24. colossus - June 16, 1999 - 4:13 PM PT
glenda:
From "Trenches"
Urgent diplomatic intercepts follow: ...St. Petersburg, July 29, 1914, 1:00 A.M. - Czar Nicholas II to Kaiser Wilhelm II: "I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war. Nicky"... ...Berlin, July 30, 1914, 1:20 A.M. - Kaiser Wilhelm II to Czar Nicholas II: "The whole weight of the decision lies solely on your shoulders now, [you] have to bear the responsibility for Peace or War. Willy"...
The entire set of Willy/Nicky telegrams are at Trenches.
Another, oft ignored but stupendous Battle was Tanenberg. Great read is "August 1914" by Solzhenitsyn
Of course "The Guns of August" is great as is the "Proud Tower". Tuchman is almost Swedish in her historical grasp and narrative ability. :)
25. colossus - June 16, 1999 - 4:17 PM PT
Franz Ferdinand was of course assassinated on the Feast of Vidov Dan, the anniversary of the great Serbian celebration of their defeat at Kosovo Polje in 1389.
Pigs.
26. colossus - June 16, 1999 - 4:21 PM PT
Lazy George makes a good point about the battle readiness of the Tommies of the BEF especially the value and practice of rapid entrenching - learned from the Boers - and their superb rifle marksmanship which Germans in 1914 often mistook for machine gun fire, it was so withering.
Unfortunately the general John French, was a Boer vet and an hysterical mess.
27. colossus - June 16, 1999 - 4:27 PM PT
Doc -
I am not so sure that the British Battlecruiser suffered so much from a mistaken view of tactics as from the mistaken assumption of Admiral Fisher that a battle cruiser could be as powerfully armed as a Dreadnought but much more lightly armored making up with increased speed for the lack of armament.
Originally intended to function like destroyers as scouts, their role was expanded to include not only scouting but pinning down the enemy with gunfire until the body of the fleet could arrive.
The German victory at Jutland, such as it was, is measured by their sucess with Beatty's battlecruisers.
28. goodfly - June 16, 1999 - 4:30 PM PT
Churchill was First Lord of the Admirality and was held primarily responsible for the catastrophe at Gallipoli, where ANZACS were butchered attempting to sieze the Heights in an ill concieved military and Naval operation. He of course redeemed himself in a later war.
29. RosettaStone - June 16, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
badinsect: Duh! Your copy sounds like something my kid had write in his 8-grade history report of the Newt Gingrich of his era, Winston Churchill.
Stay right there while I go find a flyswatter...
30. goodfly - June 16, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
Rosie; Did Slobo wear a rubber.
31. goodfly - June 16, 1999 - 5:05 PM PT
It might be interesting to know that armour plate from WWI Dreadnaughts was used as shielding in the constructing of whole body counters for scanning for nuclear activity in workers at nuclear facilities in the 50,s and 60's and might still be in use.
32. RosettaStone - June 16, 1999 - 5:06 PM PT
had write=had to write
rubbers? You mean from walking through all the manure I hear from you and your sugardaddy, Jexster.
33. goodfly - June 16, 1999 - 5:10 PM PT
No stupid you wear two of those.However he might have worn two in consideration that you were doing the blow job.
34. vonKreedon - June 16, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
Good - Please take it to the Pen, thanks.
35. ranheim - June 16, 1999 - 6:18 PM PT
Please re-read #22; in particular, Edward Grey of England, did not believe that war would come. My paraphrase : he was the author of the famous WW I statement the "The lights have gone out all over Europe."
These are a few things that occurred prior to WW I for you to consider. 1). The House elected in 1910 seperated Joe Cannon from power by forbidding the Speaker of the House (Cannon) to have a membership on the powerful Rules Committee. Prior to 1910, one could not afford to oppose Cannon too seriously as he had a strangle-hold on patronage; assignments to the various committees; how legislation was to be brought to the floor. Cannon's loss of power meant Wilson's gain in power. That to be important after his 2nd election! 2). Parliment Act of 1911 : The House of Lords lost ALL power over money matters. 3). This continues to be an absolutely horrible thing for USA citizens today : in 1911 U.S. vs Grimaud. This decision said the "administrative rulings" have the "force of law". A DAMNED bureaucrat's words have the force of law? Utter crap! 4). By Feb., 1913 enough states had ratified it : The Income Tax. Don't you feel lucky!?
Now when we start following East Coast bank loans to the "Allies", I'll have more to say.
36. patsyrolph - June 16, 1999 - 6:29 PM PT
I've been sort of tempted to order Fergusens _The Pity of War_ . Anyone read it yet? Reviews have lead me to believe it's beyond deconstruction and claims WWI would never have happened if.........
37. cigarlaw - June 16, 1999 - 7:48 PM PT
WWI STARTED BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED TO STOP IT.
38. jonesatlaw - June 16, 1999 - 10:02 PM PT
Rosetta Stone- Your comparison of Churchill to Newt Gingrich is the newest and most telling proof that you don't know your ass from your elbow.
Churchill would be better remembered than Newt for his writing alone. His role in pre-war British reform differentiates him from Newt. The policies suppported by Churchill were adopted. Newt's weren't. Churchill went on to leadership in two wars, and is remembered as one of the most influential leaders of the century. Newt is justly fading into obscurit y as rapidly as he rose to power.
More on topic- Wilson's calls for self determination for mational/ethnic minorities certainly has echoes in todays Blkans wars as well as any number of chronic nastiness in Europe. I am reminded of one waggish response to his 14 points- "Even God had only ten..."
39. wexxford1 - June 17, 1999 - 5:20 AM PT
Niall Ferguson's " The Pity of War" has good stuff on American World War I propaganda-- and the laws that put honest reporters in jail for covering the war objectively . European propaganda and censorship paled, sez ferguson,alongside the draconian measures of the United States . " After the 1917 Espionage Act was amended by the Sedition Act of May 1918,even criticizing the way in a lodging house was illegal. More than 2,500 Americans were indicted under this legislation, of whom nearly a hundred received prison sentances of between ten and twenty years . The director of a supposedly patriotic film--The Spirit of '76-- was sentenced to fifteen years because it was anti-British. Not even Britain approached this level of suppression of free speech during the way. It made a mockery of the Allied powers' claim to be fighting for freedom . " ( Pages 222-223).
In this chapter -'The press gang"-- we can see how Madison Avenue thinking -- "The People are Morons. They need to be treated as Morons" --took control during WW1. Ferguson's book is a fair stab at showing how wars are created--and more important, how the morons are kept marching . Remember our Air Force boys propaganda slogan :" Peace Is Our Profession." Sorta like the rubbish uttered by Americans in WW1-" A war must be fought for the freedom of small nations."
URGENTLY NEEDED ; AN HONEST HISTORY OF AMERICAN PROPAGANDA IN THE 20TH CENTURY.
40. DocBrown - June 17, 1999 - 6:43 AM PT
In trying to make his point that WWI was a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons, Wombat said:
> The Bayern and the Baden did not see major action.
So what? They still embody Percy Scott's gunnery theories very nicely in their design. And I said before that the German navy was planned under the flawed assumption that its role would be to defend against a British invasion in the North Sea. Better insight would have indicated the need for faster ships.
> Aircraft were not powerful enough to
> be used effectively for other than
> scouting and spotting roles. Fighter
> combat was certainly exciting, but
> until late in the war, attempts to
> gain air superiority were to allow
> spotter craft to aid artillery with
> comparative immunity.
Scouting, spotting, and recon *are* vital 20th century roles for aircraft. Both sides used them effectively to perform these functions. In fact, aircraft still carry out these missions to this day.
In general I agree with your observations about the war on land. I might expand on your theory by supposing that all the new technology, not just chemical weapons, paralized the troops of both sides with fear. As you say this contributed to the stalemate. The elite and mechanized warriors, such as Admirals and Aviators, did adopt seminal 20th century tactics during the war. But the footsoldiers in the trenches never quite made the transition into an effective 20th century fighting force.
41. DocBrown - June 17, 1999 - 6:53 AM PT
For those interested in discussing the political causes of the war, Trenches on the Web provides this detailed sequence of events from 1839 to 1914: The Long Fuse.
I would like to discuss these causes with other Fraygrants. They seem so complex that I can barely understand them.
42. 109109 - June 17, 1999 - 7:16 AM PT
I think short shrift is given to the temperament of the Kaiser. His father was an Anglophile and a budding democrat (I believe he was married to Queen Victoria's daughter, who considered Germans something just above militaristic primates). William, however, came to loathe both his mother and father, and, in his formative years, he fell under the sway of Bismarck. While Bismarck never put much sway in the Teutonic splendor and majesty of Germany (or in war as a means to effect long-term diplomacy), the Chancellor imbued such nonsense in the boy to counter the democratic leanings of his father, in the expectation that he would have to find allies to continue his dominance of German policy.
Problem is, the boy bought the whole line, he was physically deformed, thereby making him overcompensate, and he felt belittled and second-class in the face of his English family (he took great delight in humiliating his Uncle, who would succeed Victoria).
William's father died of throat cancer after a very short time in power, William took power as a teen (I believe), and, after a time, realized that Bismarck was looking for a puppet. William was having none of it and Bismarck was out. With Bismarck gone, German foreign policy tranformed from that of considered alliances to prevent wide-scale war to competition in the colonies with England, France, and Russia. Very minor colonial disputes became matters of honor for William, and his inferiority complex began to impact upon world affairs more and more.
43. 109109 - June 17, 1999 - 7:18 AM PT
Clarification from above: Williams' mother - not Victoria - had the low opinion of Germans.
44. Raskolnikov - June 17, 1999 - 7:36 AM PT
So, was WWI avoidable? If so, how?
My take is that a third Balkan war would have been extremely tough to avoid. Serbian nationalism was a direct threat to the declining A/H emire, and a war between A/H and Serbia was damn near written in stone. But it need not have gone beyond that. Inept foreign policy decisions by Germany and Russia led to the alliance structure, and those decisions could have been avoided.
45. cmboyce - June 17, 1999 - 7:46 AM PT
re Message #39
"Sorta like the rubbish uttered by Americans in WW1-"A war must be fought for the freedom of small nations."
...and the similar rubbish of 1965 and 1991 and 1999?.
"URGENTLY NEEDED ; AN HONEST HISTORY OF AMERICAN PROPAGANDA IN THE 20TH CENTURY."
I nominate you. Make it a good rant with plenty of Wexxfordian humor and bile, and it might get published. Then, with some luck, you might find yourself dancing master to a lot of the morons. Given moronicity, _someone_ should be practicing special ed.
46. ranheim - June 17, 1999 - 8:28 AM PT
To add to #39
With a name like mine (it is Norweigian not germanic) there were a great many hassles in my grandfather's day in southern Minnesota. In the church that my father attended as a youth, Norweigian was the language. They were forced to stop that and to speak in English by the powers-that-be in Minneapolis/St. Paul. That meant the two railroads (the Northern Pacific and Great Northern); big banks (branches of east coast banks would better describe them); what was to become Cargill; etc. Barns and houses were painted (graffiti - spelling?) - why yellow? My father distinctly remembers yellow. Was there an escess of yellow paint locally? Did it have to do with yellow (as in lack of courage)? He and his family escaped physcial violence but friends of my grandfather's family were temporarily imprisoned on trumped-up charges and beaten. The environment in southern Minnesota in the time of WW I was definitely "police state" in oreintation.
As an aside, 3 of my 4 grandparents were born in Norway. The entire family had a hostile view of Washington D.C. that was communicated to us in my generation as a result of the WW I experience. More on immigration to the USA might be informative : in the years just prior to WW I, more than 400,000 people from the Austro-Hungarian Empire arrived in the USA. Official figures are not available for some reason; but, at least as many or more came from Russia. Oppression and very poor economic possibilities were the given reasons.
The East Coast became accustomed to having their way TOTALLY following the War Between the States. They would not willingly harbor dissent of any kind during WW I. This era is a horrible chapter in the history of the USA!
47. Wombat - June 17, 1999 - 8:51 AM PT
Doc:
Most of the seminal doctrine on the use of air power and armor was written between World Wars I and II, based on the "misuse" of tanks and aircraft by all sides in World War I. These "20th Century" tactics using technology that had its origins in World War I but evolved in a quantum manner between the wars, were used to great effect in WW II.
Re Baden and Bayern: So by 1916 the Germans had designed ships that embodied advances that the British already had. Ooh!
48. pellenilsson - June 17, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
Many interesting posts. I'm a bit pressed for time so just a few comments for now.
jonesatlaw - Message #38
"Churchill would be better remembered than Newt for his writing alone."
Indeed. He received the Nobel Prize in literature 1953.
DocBrown - Message #41
"I would like to discuss these causes with other Fraygrants. They seem so complex that I can barely understand them."
I'm game. I would think colossus is too and maybe others.
109109 - Message #42
Most scholars regard Wilhelm as shallow, impulsive and obsessed by Prussian notion of honor and military valour. But his advisors often shared his views. Just today I saw an article (Swedish) that the chancellor of the day Bethman-Hollweg realised that a A/H attack on Serbia might well cause a general war but that was OK because Germany needed to crush Russia in any case.
Finally, a general observation about the outbreak. The 'normal' course of events in the 19th century was (1) diplomacy fails; (2) mobilisation; (3) more diplomacy "under the nose of the gun"; (4) fails agin; (5) fails again.
Germany's war plan, the Schlieffen plan eliminated (3) and (4). Mobilisation meant war. Once the trains started to roll there was no turning back.
49. cigarlaw - June 17, 1999 - 10:40 AM PT
INTERESTING SIDELIGHT TO WWI. THE GERMAN INVASION OF BELGIUM MAY HAVE PREVENTED A MILITARY COUP AND/OR CIVIL WAR IN GREAT BRITAIN OVER THE 'IRISH QUESTION.' AN EXCELENT BOOK TO READ WAS WRITTEN BY MY FORMER PROFESSOR GEORGE DANGERFIELD, 'THE STRANGE DEATH OF LIBERAL ENGLAND 1910-1914'. I BELIEVE IT IS A PULITZER PRIZE WINNER.
IT HAS BEEN OVER 30 YRS, BUT, AS I RECALL, A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE BRITISH GENERAL STAFF WERE IRISH PROTESTANTS. THE LIBERALS WERE PROPOSING HOME RULE FOR IRELAND. THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY OF OCCUPATION IN IRELAND ALL ESSENTIALLY MUTIONEIED IN 1914 AND SIGNED A LETTER ANNOUNCING THEY WOULD REFUSE TO OBEY ANY ORDER FROM THE GOVT LEADING TO IRISH INDEPENDENCE. THIS HAPPENBED SHORTLY BEFORE WWI STARTED AND THE BLOOD OF SCOTLAND AND IRELAND FLOWED INTO FRENCH TRENCHES TO PROP UP THEIR GERMAN-ENGLISH TYRANTS. (EDITORIAL COMMENT)
50. cigarlaw - June 17, 1999 - 10:45 AM PT
INTERESTING QUOTE FROM LLOYD GEORGE AT VERSILLES GIVING HIS ASSESSMENT OF WILSON AND THE FRENCH PREMIER -- WHOSE NAME ALLUDES RIGHT NOW--SOMETHING HOW CAN I GET ANYTHING DONE WHEN CAUGHT BETYWEEN 'ONE MAN WHO THINKS HE IS NAPOLEON AND ANOTHER NWHO THINKS HE IS JESUS CHRIST?'
51. Wombat - June 17, 1999 - 10:53 AM PT
Ah yes...the Curragh "Mutiny." There are those who argued that the British entered WW I to take people's minds off that. Sounds like you are one of them. Note: far more "English" died than Scots or Irish.
The "mutiny" came about when Northern Irish Protestants began to form armed militias to oppose Home Rule for Ireland. Some British officers serving in Ireland warned that they would not order troops under their command to disarm these militias. One of the leaders was then Col. Hubert Gough, who distinguished himself in WWI by presiding over the destruction of his own Fifth Army in 1918 in the "Ludendorff Offensive."
52. cigarlaw - June 17, 1999 - 10:58 AM PT
WWI WAS THE 1ST WAR WHERE BEAN COUNTERS WHO NEVER WENT TO THE FRONT TOOK OVER. AN EXAMPLE IS SEEN IN KUBRICK'S FILM 'PATHS OF GLORY' IN A GREAT SCENE WHERE THE DIV. COMMANDER IS CALCULATING LOSSES TO TAKE THE 'ANTHILL'. 5 PERCENT WILL BE KILLED BY SHORTFALLS OF OPUR OWN ARTILERY. 5% IN THE GERMAN COUNTER BOMBARDMENT. 10% GETTING THROUGH OUR OWN WIRE, 10 PERCENT FROM MACHINE GUNS IN NO MAN'S LAND, ANOTHER 10 PERCENT CUTTING TNROUGH THE GERMAN WIRE. THAT MEANS 60 PERCENT WILL GET TO THER GERMAN LINES. THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
AT YPRES IN 1918, AFTER SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUND BRITISH CASUALTIES ATTACKING THROUGH A SEA OF MUD, THE ARMY COMMANDER DROVE OUT TO LOOK AT THE LAND HE LIBERATED. HE SAID, 'MY GOD. WE REALLY DID NOT SEND OUR MEN OUT TO FIGHT IN THAT, DID WE?'
53. cigarlaw - June 17, 1999 - 11:58 AM PT
IN THAT SENSE VIETNAM WAS AMERICA'S WWI (OF COURSE, WITHOUT MILLIONS OF CASUALTIES). IN BOTH WARS, THERE WAS NO MEASURE OF VICTORY, AT LEAST ON OUR SIDE, EXCEPT COUNTING CORPSES. BOTH SIDES WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF ACCEPTING THE OTHER SIDE'S OFFER FOR PEACE HALF WAY THROUGH, BOTH SIDES WERE HUNG UP ON THE IDEA OF VICTORY, WHICH SIMPLY REQUIRED WILL AND 100,OOO MORE MEN.
54. cigarlaw - June 17, 1999 - 12:13 PM PT
WOMBAT: YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT.
I WAS IMPRESSED, AND MOVED WHEN IN SCOTLAND THAT EVERY SMALL VILLAGE HAD A MONUMENT TO THE DEAD IN WWI. WHENLOOKING AT THEM, COUNTING NUMBERS, AND OBSERVING THE CURRENT SIZE OF THE TOWN, ONE COULD SEE THAT EVERY HOUSEHOLD MUST HAVE HAD AN EMPTY CHAIR IN 1919.
THE ONLY EQUIVALENT I HAVE SEEN IN THE U.S. WAS IN FRONT OF THE COURTHOUSE IN ELKO, NEVADA. IT SEEMS 14 MEN FROM THAT COUNTY DIED IN 1917-1918. CONSIDERING ITS CURRENT POPULATION, THE MAJORITY OF MILITARY AGE MEN MUST HAVE BEEN CASUALTIES.
BTW, THE ENGLISH BROUGHT IN THE GERMAN'S. IF THE DIED FOR THEM, I HAVE ONL;Y PASSING, BUT COMPASSIONATE INTEREST FOR BRAVE MEN DYIONG FOR ILLUSIONS. BUT THE SCOTS, WELSH, AND IRISH WERE SERVING THEIR OPPRESSORS. THEY DID IT TOO WELL (GRIN)
55. pellenilsson - June 17, 1999 - 12:20 PM PT
CigarLaw
Clemenceau is the name you're looking for.
And yes, these memorials all over the UK are quite moving. As are the war cemetaries. I have only seen the ones at El Alamein and Gallipoli but I understand that the ones in Belgium (Ypres and others) impress in a depressive way. Man's folly!
56. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
Message #39
Wexx suggests the Great Mystery of WWI, to me at least.
After the failure of the Schliffen Plan and Plan 17 in September 1914 several things became very clear. First, it became clear that neither side could achieve sufficient forward tactical mobility to break and exploit the other's lines. The lateral movement afforded each side on the Western Front by the rail networks, especially once entrenching began, would always be able to overcome any breakthrough into the rear areas.
Second and relatedly, each side had to have been aware that the hopes each entertained for a "decisive" battle as detailed and endlessly "gamed" in their respective war plans could not be achieved.
Third, the casualties involved were vastly higher than anyone anticipated.
Fourth, the war that everyone "thought" would never come or would soon be over had no end in sight.
Certainly by 1916 it should have been clear that this war would be a bloody stalemate.
The surprising thing to me is that there is no record, at least that I am aware of, that any general staff or political command authority in any belligerent country ever even raised any of these questions even though each is a discrete element of the pre-war plans of both sides.
The real criminals of WWI were the British, French, German, Russian, Austrian and Italian governments.
57. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 12:29 PM PT
Message #44
Rask,
Quite right that the Serbs needed to be dealt with. Keegan takes the novel position (novel in that I have never read it before) that if AH had moved quickly to dispatch the Serbs rather than dither with the alliance structure, WWI would not have happened (at least as it did - I think the French would have found some excuse somewhere)
Keegan bases his argument on the fact that most countries expected AH to act to avenge the crime of Sarajevo and were surprised when this did not happen.
My objection to the argument is that the option of a quick and decisive strike, no matter how good it looks in hindsight, was never (as far as I know) raised in any of the internal debates of the Austrian government. An option not raised IMO does not exist.
58. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 12:33 PM PT
Niner's take on the Kaiser is largely correct (please don't quote me on this)
I don't think though that the Kaiser's ever got "Short-shrift". Indeed I think the literature gives the boob too much shrift.
The Kaiser's sins were largely sins of ommission, opportunities lost, Germany's strategic hand not played instead of misplayed.
That the guy was a narcissistic, squarebashing nincompoop, cannot be doubted. A more effective leader though would probably have led to German dominance of Continental Europe.
As for democracy, Germany was in a sense, the most democratic nation in Europe. The Social Democratic Party was Europe's largest, its trade unions the most powerful.
59. tmachine - June 17, 1999 - 12:38 PM PT
I recommend a terrific book I just started, Dark Continent by Mark Mazower (Knopf), which came out recently and while basically discussing Europe after WW1 offers terrific insight both into the factors that contributed to the war (such as nationalism vs. ideology) and that had such reverberations after it.
cigarlaw--The Strange Death of Liberal England, what a great book! where did Dangerfield teach?
60. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT
Message #41
Doc:
I have bookmarked. I don't have the time now but I would be happy in the next day or 2 to take each item listed in the Long Fuse timeline and give my take on what significance I see.
Remind me if I forget. I am still fighting the 3d Balkan War on the LATimes discussion group.
61. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
Pelle:
Where is JarheadRoth2?
Did you chase him off? I think he might have some useful input, more than a little in fact.
62. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
Pelle:
A common mistake IMO =
"Germany's war plan, the Schlieffen plan eliminated (3) and (4). Mobilisation meant war. Once the trains started to roll there was no turning back"
Keegan offers many interesting insights on the Schliffen plan not the least of which is accord with 109109's kaiser bashing. The war plans did not eliminate human choice and perhaps with some creativity could have enhanced the available options.
Here is Cigarlaw's observation that to some extent all the parties really wanted to get it on.
63. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
Cigarlaw,
Thanks for the book rec GEORGE
DANGERFIELD, 'THE STRANGE DEATH OF
LIBERAL ENGLAND 1910-1914'
I'd not heard your take b4. Will look for it at SF library.
64. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
Message #55
Brit War Cemetaries movingly described in Keegan 421-23
Over 600 cemetaries were constructed for British war dead. Each is under the care of the War Graves Commission. The French have deeded the land as "spelutures perpetuelles" and over 1,000 gardners tend them in perpetuity
65. Raskolnikov - June 17, 1999 - 1:26 PM PT
I have not read a whole lot about military history. But my impression has been that warfare had largely favored the attacker since the invention of gunpowder - that is, an entrenched position wasn't all that valuable since fortifications could be taken out with artillery, and guns didn't provide as much of an advantage on defense, since by the time you reloaded, you would have a knife in your gut.
But this changed with the advent of repeating rifles, and particularly the machine gun, making a fortfied defensive position rather unassailable. And that this advantage was reduced again with the invention of the tank.
WWI occurred within the brief window where defensive positions were strong.
Am I right in this?
66. ranheim - June 17, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
A question still in my mind is "why did the USA involve themselves in WW I". Best as I can tell, both sides were exhausted : money and manpower. And the war was bound to grind to a halt when Wilson caused the USA to enter the war. That same Wilson had promised in his second campaign that he would keep us out of war. Why then? As good an answer as any was proposed by one of the original muckrackers - I forget which one. His take was that the House of Morgan - most of the east coast banks as well - was wondering who was going to be able to pay them back at the end of the war. It was decided that paying back the loans would be impossible; certainly in a timely fashion. I have never seen this elsewhere, but, that author maintained that the US government took over all loans by USA banks to the Allies. The loans to Germany were NOT assumed by the government; thus they lost all. The biggest winner was the House of Morgan; loser was Kuhn-Loeb. The author said a source of some of this information was Claude Kitchin of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Knowing what a small number of people ran New York and Washington in those days, I find the above very probable. Does anyone else know whether this was the manner in which the private banks saved their skins?
67. Wombat - June 17, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
Rask:
It was really the advent of the rifled musket and rifled, shell-firing artillery that made field fortifications valuable. The former, because it at least tripled the range of a soldier's firearm, allowing for numerous volleys on advancing troops before they got into bayonet range, and the latter because shell-fire on formations in the open caused heavy casualties, which could be avoided by digging in.
Numerous and well-supported, well-trained infantry could still take trenches, but as the technology improved, as muzzleloaders became breech loaders, and breech loaders, became repeaters (and more powerful smokeless powder was introduced) it became increasingly difficult. The introduction of reliable automatic weapons (machine guns) made it almost impossible.
Advances in artillery worked against the attacker as well. Again, muzzle loaders were replaced with breech-loaders, the French invented a mechanism that controlled the cannon's recoil, which allowed rapid accurate fire.
The combination of machine guns, rapid rifle fire, and rapid-fire field artillery shredded the French attacks in 1914. The British did the same to the Germans at Mons, before superior numbers forced them to retreat.
68. jroth2 - June 17, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
raskolnoikov,
IMO you are half right. The balance of advantage between the defense and the offense changes often in response to, among many factors; new technology, new tactics, different styles of war-fighting, changes in logistics, different geographical and climatic conditions.
In America there is a tendency to emphasise the changes caused by technological advances (it's what we are good at). Some commentators, such as Archer Jones, emphasise the relative development of missile weapons vs. shock weapons. If anyone is interested we can spend some time on the distinction; basically in WWI missile weapons in the defense defeated the shock action of the offense. Of course the tank returned shock action to primacy 25 years later on the same battlegrounds.
Re the Naval aspects: I disagree with the general characterization of all the governments being composed of shortsighted fools. The British government entered the war very reluctantly and joined the alliance structure prior to 1914 because it saw no alternative to counter the strategic menace of the German naval buildup. Had Tirpitz and Wilhelm not sought naval power to the extent that Massie and others document, I doubt the British would have become as involved as they did.
Others will counter that it was in any case a principal tenet of British policy to prevent hegemonic control of Europe. That is so; but the German naval buildup reduced the diplomatic and strategic options available to the British, practically ensuring their participation.
69. jroth2 - June 17, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
The reasons for American participation remain obscure to me. I seriously doubt that war profits were the main cause. Certainly Wilsonian idealism played some part. The British propaganda effort was also quite effective in shaping American opinion- at least at the elite level. The German submarine campaign played into the British effort and the imbecility of the Zimmerman telegram certainly provided the British with a propaganda windfall.
Still, I'm left wondering if there are not some major structural reasons for American participation. Since American territorial gains were minimal, what was the realpolitik basis for the decision?
70. jroth2 - June 17, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
To continue with my point regarding British participation:
At the turn of the century Britain was a satisfied status-quo power. Germany was a rising power, anxious to find its place in the Sun. The A/H, and to a lesser extent the French, were both worried about their declining status, the former in an absolute sense, the latter relative to their mortal enemies to the East. Russia was a strange mixture; growing in population and resources but politically fragile.
IMO, the causes of the War had as much to do with the relative positions and trajectories of the Great Powers as it does with the intelligence- or lack thereof- of the statesmen and military leaders.
71. Raskolnikov - June 17, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
My understanding is that American involvement was largely due to unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans. We had rattled our saber earlier, and they had backed off. The Germans eventually realized that they were going to lose the war unless they managed to choke off France and England's supplies from the US. They knew this might draw the US into the war, but they hoped to be occupying Paris by the time US troops arrived. If they hadn't gotten bogged down on the eastern front in forcing the Bolsheviks to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, they might have succeeded.
72. Raskolnikov - June 17, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
Thanks for the info on weapons history, by the way.
73. pellenilsson - June 17, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT
colossus Message #62
I have not read Keegan despite your recommendation. I will order him now.
But everything I have read, including Tuchman, confirms that German mobilisation meant war. Of course it could have been stopped. Anything can be stopped. But the armed forces would then be in a terrible disarray and Germany would have been exposed to attack.
74. Wombat - June 17, 1999 - 3:02 PM PT
Brest Litovsk allowed the Germans to free up troops for use on the Western Front. These contributed to the 1918 offensives that almost took the Germans to Paris.
US entry into the War:
There was a considerable pro-war party in the US (T. Roosevelt,etc.) The idea that the US could and should enter the world stage was a powerful one.
Spectacular German maladroitness: Lusitania, Zimmerman Telegram, decision to launch unrestricted submarine warfare.
British and French (and Italian) appeals for solidarity (and extremely adroit British diplomacy).
As in the Spanish-American War, the political pressure for war grew unbearable for the President. In 1915 the crisis over the Lusitania was averted by Secretary of State Bryan's pacific willingness to accept German regrets and promises not to do it again.
By 1916, Bryan was no longer Secretary of State, and the Germans re-started intensified their campaign against neutral shipping, ignoring Wilson's protests.
I find the economic argument highly dubious, by the way. The military crisis in the War came after the US was already in. The "merchants of death" were doing fine in the stalemate.
75. Raskolnikov - June 17, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
Wombat, my point was that the Bolsheviks stalled the Germans in signing the treaty. They refused to fight the Germans, but wouldn't give up the territory the Germans demanded. Germany marched further into Russian territory, and Lenin ordered Trotsky to surrender. If Germany hadn't wasted as much time in the East fighting an unconscious opponent, they could have moved their troops back to the west earlier.
76. pellenilsson - June 17, 1999 - 3:13 PM PT
jroth2
Yes, Britain was the only nation satisfied with its own situation, AH needed to impose itself in the Balkans. Russia needed to come to the rescue of the Serbs. Germany needed to challenge Britain and support AH in the hope of crushing Russia. France needed revenge.
"Still, I'm left wondering if there are not some major structural reasons for American participation. Since American territorial gains were minimal, what was the realpolitik basis for the decision?"
Very interesting. Was there indeed a realpolitik basis? You mentioned the Zimmermann telegram (excellent book by Barbara Tuchman with that very title). There is also the sinking of the Lusitania.
Is it possible, you think, that America entered the war (very late as you know) simply because Wilson wanted to be present at the peace conference?
77. pellenilsson - June 17, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
wombat
I substantially agree to your Message #74. But
"These contributed to the 1918
offensives that almost took the Germans to Paris"
Which offensives were these?
78. jroth2 - June 17, 1999 - 3:26 PM PT
Was it of Wilson that someone said; "The Will to Power, cloaked in idealism"? Perhaps, Pelle, Wilson was thinking that far ahead- but what a colossal ego that would take!
I've never really understood Wilson so his motives remain opaque. Perhaps Wombat is correct in identifying a substantial 'war lobby' that pressured Wilson. In any case, I've never heard of any quid pro quo offered Wilson in exchange for American entry. Perhaps there was, but I fail to see what anyone could have offered; America was still digesting its gains from the Spanish-American war and Britain had long ago tacitly conceded American hegemony strategic within the Americas. Certainly there was no appetite for American colonial acquistions in, say, Africa.
It is an interesting question because the period 1895-1915 represents such a major turning point in the American evolution into Empire. Could it have been simply that an Anglophile elite wanted a Europe that was congenial to American interests?
79. jroth2 - June 17, 1999 - 3:33 PM PT
I'm not sure how close the German offenses in 1918 came to Paris, but they certainly came close to breaking the Allied line. The Germans in 1917-18 basically anticipated WWII with some tactical innovations, including the formation of specialist assault groups aided with new artillery tactics. Had they been able to exploit initial breakthroughs, they might well have gone quite a bit further. Certainly Britain and France were exhausted at that point. The failure of the new storm tactics, coupled with the infusion of fresh American troops, helped cause a collapse of German morale.
80. pellenilsson - June 17, 1999 - 3:40 PM PT
jroth2
But by all accounts Wilson had a colossal ego.
I too am doubtful about the pressure group and financial interest theories. The US didn't start to ship troops until the autumn of 1917 and didn't join battle until April 1918.
81. jroth2 - June 17, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
You may be right, Pelle. But it is surely crediting Wilson with extraordinary cool to have played such a long game. Think of it; holding out of the War until the exact point that American entry would provide the greatest leverage in the post-war talks. And all for the sake of some 'idealistic' motive?
The only parallel I can think of is not a flattering one; think of Alexander's delusions of Russia's (and his) special role following the defeat of Napolean. Once again a wing power tried to impose its vision on the cynical Machiavellians of Europe.
82. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
Actually fortifications (defensive war) had the advantage over the offense for a number of centuries.
Right JarheadRoth2?
83. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
Yes Pelle, that is the conventional wisdom and without question the participants thought that "mobilization meant war".
By suggesting something else, albeit parroting my "buttboy" John Keegan, I violated my own maxim stated in my post about Serbia - "any option not actually raised among the participants did not exist and is not worth considering."
Keegan is great, on any number of points, including how he shows within its 4 corners (legal term of art) that the Schliffen Plan could not have worked - ever.
84. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Yes Pelle, that is the conventional wisdom and without question the participants thought that "mobilization meant war".
By suggesting something else, albeit parroting my "buttboy" John Keegan, I violated my own maxim stated in my post about Serbia - "any option not actually raised among the participants did not exist and is not worth considering."
Keegan is great, on any number of points, including how he shows within its 4 corners (legal term of art) that the Schliffen Plan could not have worked - ever.
85. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 4:55 PM PT
Offensives of 1918 -
Lost not because of lack of manpower. Lost because 1. Ludendorff changed his strategic goals 3 times 2. because his newly developed "shock" tactics (tried previously in the East and against Italy) could not be exploited because Germany did not follow England's lead and develop tanks
Paris was never really endangered at least as it was in 1914. The thrust against Paris was an after thought which Ludendorff tried after the main thrust - to cut Britain off at the Channel a la 1940 - failed due to lack of forward mobility.
WRT the swing of offense and defense in the war itself Keegan describes it well in discussing the Neuve-La-Chapelle offensive @p.186-192. There were "functional" and "structural" problems which repeated themselves throughout, the latter even persisted after the mass intro of the tank in 1917.
86. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 4:57 PM PT
That would be *John Keegan*, Defence Editor of the Daily Telegraph and "butt boy" to the Colossus formerly known as Jexster.
87. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
I didn't give it much of a chance, but it looks like this Thread might be fun.
It may even outlast the Chinese Espionage Chop Suey.
88. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 5:02 PM PT
Pelle:
In part I think American entry in the War was conditioned by a certain superiority that the US generally felt over the Europeans. It became overweaning as we watched you idiots beat yourselves silly. I think that though sympathies lay with the Entente, most Americans felt we just needed to correct you idiots.
Except for the US Marines however, we didn't have any troops worthy of the name. US influence was more in the realm of possibility than actuality.
89. colossus - June 17, 1999 - 5:05 PM PT
JarheadR2:The Germans in 1917-18 basically anticipated
WWII with some tactical innovations, including the
formation of specialist assault groups aided with new
artillery tactics. Had they been able to exploit initial
breakthroughs, they might well have gone quite a bit
further. "
Me:Lost not because of lack of manpower. Lost because 1.
Ludendorff changed his strategic goals 3 times 2. because
his newly developed "shock" tactics (tried previously in the
East and against Italy) could not be exploited because
Germany did not follow England's lead and develop tanks"
Me, ready for USA War College!
90. CIGARLAW - June 18, 1999 - 12:23 AM PT
the american civil was the 1st modern war, but europe ignored its lessons, largely because the considered both sides to be nothing more than armed rabble.
as for wargaming, both sides thought their plan would give a quick victory. the french through elan and the germans with the schliefen plan. germany probably would have taken paris and occupied france to the loire, except von molke the lesser lost his nerve and sent troops to the left wing and russia. they did not help, arriving in the east after tannenburg and the bef advanced into the gap created by the absence of the troops on the right.
tmachine--dangerfield taught historical writing at uc santa barbara 30 years ago. he was a pixie of a man and a wonderful teacher.
91. pellenilsson - June 18, 1999 - 1:48 AM PT
jroth2 - Message #81
"You may be right, Pelle. But it is surely crediting Wilson
with extraordinary cool to have played such a long game.
Think of it; holding out of the War until the exact point
that American entry would provide the greatest leverage
in the post-war talks. And all for the sake of some
'idealistic' motive?"
I didn't intend to go that far. There were two serious incidents that upset America and caused a swing in the public opinion: the sinking of Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram. Then the introduction of the convoy system in 1917 had led to a dramtic decrease in sunk tonnage in the Atlantic. This showed that it would be possible to get troops to Europe without heavy losses.
My hypothesis is that the above *plus* Wilson's desire to get a seat at the table swung the balance in favour of intervention.
There is another interesting question. With hindsight it is clear that the Germans were well on their way to defeat in early 1918. The arrival of the Americans determined *when* the war would end, not that it would end, eventually, in German defeat. The question is how obvious this was at the time.
Please note that I'm not trying to belittle the American effort. It is more than likely that it saved Europe from many months of further large-scale slaughter and suffering.
92. pellenilsson - June 18, 1999 - 1:51 AM PT
cigarlaw
Yes, it can be argued (and has been) that the Germans lost the war in its first two months when the (modified) Schlieffen plan failed. In a war based on the attrition of humans, Germany was at a demographic disadvantage.
93. ranheim - June 18, 1999 - 5:27 AM PT
The timing of various events has always bothered me; and has been questioned by many others prior to me.
1) In March, 1916 Pershing leads the "Punitive Expedition" into Mexico (against Pancho Villa). They don't arrive back in the USA until Feb 1917!
2) Still in March, 1916 Wilson sends the Kaiser a warning about his submarine attacks (The Sussex and a French passenger ship : both leading to loss of USA lives).
3) June, 1916 is the Democratic National Convention. Although Wilson wanted to get rid of Bryan, he could not. He needed Bryan to help him win in the Midwest and states west of the Mississippi River. As it was, Wilson 2nd win was paper thin and a lot to do with California.In this election Wilson had to overcome the opposition of the "big city machines"; the small "Negro vote"; and the Catholic vote (Pancho Villa and other reasons). The election was quite close. And the Demo Convention was reported at the time as being "Pacifistic". A lot of the nation was pacifistic; not the elite or the big business crowd.
There were food riots in the poorer sections of New York City in Feb, 1917. This was as a result of the gradual increase in the cost of food (blamed on the submarine warfare + the British "blacklist" and "bunkering" {read coal} positions).
March, 1917 was FULL of events that were of great import. Franncis Joseph of AH finally dies. The Bolshevik Revolution ended the period of Romanov rule. Germany reinstitutes unrestricted submaring warfare; three ships are sunk in rapid succession; and Wilson severs diplomatic relations with Germany.
And the USA declares war in April, 1917. The huge majority of the country is still isolationist and mostly not aware of events in Europe. What then is the source of "pressure" on Wilson that forces him into war? Certainly, the elite and business class carried more weight with him than the great un-washed.
94. Wombat - June 18, 1999 - 6:28 AM PT
JRoth:
They don't call it the second battle of the Marne for nothing. Agree with Jester that the German move toward Paris was an afterthought, although it concerned the Allies enough that Pershing was persuaded to put some of his trained units (Marines and 1st Division) under French command to help stop them.
It is another example of the conundrum of WWI trench warfare after 1915. The combination of attrition and the failure of the logistical train to follow up the advancing forces almost always negated whatever gains were initially made. The latter failure was often due to the conditions of the ground that the reserves had to pass over to reach the forward positions.
The failure of Ludendorff's offensives weakened the best German units, and the cumulative effects of the blockade sapped the health and morale of the civilian population, making them and units stationed in the rear susceptible to Boshlevik propaganda that the Germans had so thoughtfully allowed to go to Russia earlier in the war.
Pelle is right: it was a matter of time before Germany would have been defeated. The advent of the Americans hastened it.
95. colossus - June 18, 1999 - 9:34 AM PT
"With hindsight it is
clear that the Germans were well on their way to defeat in
early 1918."
I don't think so. The French army was basically not functioning because of the 1917 mutinies. The British had hit the bottom of the manpower barrel and faced serious food shortages.
The better image is that of 2 heavyweight boxers beaten to death. Europe may well have been swept by socialist revolution had the US not intervened and brought the war to an end.
96. colossus - June 18, 1999 - 9:36 AM PT
"With hindsight it is
clear that the Germans were well on their way to defeat in
early 1918."
I don't think so. The French army was basically not functioning because of the 1917 mutinies. The British had hit the bottom of the manpower barrel and faced serious food shortages.
The better image is that of 2 heavyweight boxers beaten to death. Europe may well have been swept by socialist revolution had the US not intervened and brought the war to an end. In fact, it was the prospect of 1,000,000 dougboys that forced the Germans to undertake their ill-fated offensive of 1918 .
97. colossus - June 18, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
"With hindsight it is
clear that the Germans were well on their way to defeat in
early 1918."
I don't think so. The French army was basically not functioning because of the 1917 mutinies. The British had hit the bottom of the manpower barrel and faced serious food shortages.
The better image is that of 2 heavyweight boxers beaten to death. Europe may well have been swept by socialist revolution had the US not intervened and brought the war to an end. In fact, it was the prospect of 1,000,000 doughboys that forced the Germans to undertake their ill-fated offensive of 1918.
The Germans were well entrenched in France and no one was going to throw them out. They had just begun to occupy the Ukraine and the Rumanian oil fields. Had they not acted precipitously out of fear of the US Army, they may well have "won" the war.
98. colossus - June 18, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
"In a war based on the attrition of
humans, Germany was at a demographic disadvantage"
Only if you count the Russians.
99. colossus - June 18, 1999 - 9:42 AM PT
"In a war based on the attrition of
humans, Germany was at a demographic disadvantage"
Only if you count the Russians.
100. Wombat - June 18, 1999 - 9:47 AM PT
Petain had restored the French Army's morale and fighting ability by the time the Ludendorff offensives began. Had General Mangin not ignored Petain's prescriptions for a defense in depth at the Chemin des Dames, the last German breakthrough would not have occurred.
Even without US support, the Germans and their allies were starting to come apart around the edges by the end of 1917.