- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/7/15 at 9:44 am to WeeWee
why did Germany HAVE to go through Belgium to get to France when the two nations share so much of a common border? was it due to the mobilization schedule and the oncoming Russians?
if Germany does not step foot into Belgium, England may not have entered the war. Germany may have stood a much better chance at success.
if Germany does not step foot into Belgium, England may not have entered the war. Germany may have stood a much better chance at success.
Posted on 8/7/15 at 9:50 am to Rouge
quote:
why did Germany HAVE to go through Belgium to get to France when the two nations share so much of a common border? was it due to the mobilization schedule and the oncoming Russians?
Terrain is easier and why attack the French defenses head on when you can go around.
quote:
if Germany does not step foot into Belgium, England may not have entered the war. Germany may have stood a much better chance at success
False. The way that alliances were set up in pre-WWI europe it was war for all if one went to war.
Posted on 8/7/15 at 9:51 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Could they have done this in 1914? Or would the Germans have trapped the BEF and forced them to surrender?
First, man for man, battalion for battalion, the British Army was by far the best in the world in 1914. But, this "Army" was an army of just over TWO Corps. The German Army had almost 25 active duty Corps and, in addition, they mobilized their Reserve corps. But, yes, you are correct, when we look at the big picture, the German Army was the best. But remember, it was NOT the best because of the leadership at Army command and higher -- the excellence showed itself at lower command levels.
Second, the British Expeditionary Force would not have been trapped in France, had the German won at the Marne. They were prepared to evacuate from LeHarve. That's why the British commander was "slow walking" his entire army during the Battle of the Marne -- he wanted to ensure that they had the energy to force march to LeHarve had the Marne battle failed to stop the Germans.
This post was edited on 8/7/15 at 9:52 am
Posted on 8/7/15 at 9:51 am to fr33manator
quote:
isten to Dan Carlin's "Blueprint for Armageddon" and then spout off your gump mouth
On episode 3 now, I love his podcast
Posted on 8/7/15 at 9:57 am to WeeWee
quote:
False. The way that alliances were set up in pre-WWI europe it was war for all if one went to war.
Not so fast.
It's not accurate to say this with such conviction WRT British entry into WWI had Germany respected Belgium's sovereignty. There were powerful political figures in Great Britain that would have lobbied very vigorously against joining the war had Germany respected Belgium's borders.
Remember that Britain's army was all-volunteer in 1914, so, joining the war would have been a tough sell had Germany respected Belgium's neutrality.
BUT, that's not to say you're wrong, because it could have happened as you say. I say "not so fast" because it was not a "slam-dunk".
Posted on 8/7/15 at 9:57 am to Dire Wolf
On a positive note, if there really is one, WW's I and II ended the perpetual state of warfare the continent had been in since the dawn of man there. It was just a bunch of large tribes constantly trying to take each other's land until the threat of complete destruction became obvious.
Now we have the occasional localized stuff in the balkans and ukraine but all-out warfare is very unlikely again on the continent.
Now we have the occasional localized stuff in the balkans and ukraine but all-out warfare is very unlikely again on the continent.
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:03 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
It's an interesting notion that the German Army of 1914, widely regarded at that time as the best in the world, was too small.
I've seen that argued before, though. Part of the reason the trigger was pulled for war, so to speak, is German confidence in their plan and their subjective impression (largely correct, but with some long-term flaws) they were mobilizing faster than their opponents - the whole cost of unwinding and demobilizing would all be "sunk costs" and wasted in the economic analysis, they felt, "There will never be a better time than right now to do this." So, they did, thinking that it would be over in 18 to 24 months.
They even knew, kind of, that the army was a little too small, but with their mobilization speed and (flawed) analysis the war would be over in months, they viewed it as an acceptable risk. The other side of it was, if the war dragged on, they would have time to enlarge the army - as they did not foresee the actual casualties they would incur.
The British Army wasn't overly big, either - but they never relied on the army as their primary force. The French Army performed well, in the early going, but wilted as they continued to take casualties.
It's amazing that Russia gets knocked out of the war, and the Allies were still able to bring Germany to surrender at Versailles. Essentially the influx of U.S. troops, coupled with Italy beating Austria in the Fall of 1918 - that tipped the scales in favor of the Allies who had suffered setback after setback in 1917 (other than in the Balkans and against the Ottomans).
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:07 am to Darth_Vader
LINK
This post was edited on 8/7/15 at 10:10 am
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:13 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
This is true, especially in the opening phase of the war. But having said that, there's been a myth grow out of WWI that for year after year of the war, the generals just lined up ranks of troops and had them March shoulder to shoulder into barb wire, machine guns, and artillery fire. And their only answer was to have the men dig trenches and attack the other side's trenches over and over, marching in closed ranks like you'd see on the parade ground. This view is a gross oversimplification of what happened in WWI. The truth of the matter though is some of the most bloody phases of the war were in the opening months and then again in the closing months when the war was largely fought outside the trenches in a more mobile manner. The truth of the matter is the trenches actually kept casualty rates down. Furthermore, almost as soon as the western front settled into stalemate at the end of "the race to the sea", generals on both sides began innovating and looking for ways to break the stalemate. Things like chemical warfare, mine warfare, and the creeping barrage were early examples. Later on in the war the Germans for all intents and purposes invented modern infantry tactics with their "storm trooper" battalions. And those tactics are used worldwide today. The allies pioneered first tank warfare and by the final phase of the war were using early versions of combined arms (tanks & infantry working together) and even invented close air support. So yes, mistakes were made and it took a while to find a solution that could break the stalemate and end the war. But it was not like some would have you believe where stupid generals sat miles behind the front sipping champaign while sending millions to a pointless death year after year. In fact if you look at the casualty rates among general officers on both sides, you'll see there was a large number of them who were killed and wounded. And when you consider what the generals of WWI faced, a totally new war that literally nobody had ever seen before with weapons and technology that were totally new and not well understood, you've got to give them at least some credit for being able to adapt and learn on their feet and come up with ideas on how to master this new form of war. Bottom line is that when it comes to judging thd leaders of WWI, you've got to resist of looking at the war with the benefit of hindsight and instead look at the matter as the men of that time had to face it. You've got to put yourself in their shoes if you want to get a better understanding of the Great War.
got this a little late but I knew Id find you in here. took the words right out of my mouth
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:18 am to WeeWee
Prince Wilhelm was a grandchild of Queen Victoria, that made him first cousin to British Empire's King George V, as well as of Queens Marie of Romania, Maud of Norway, and Victoria Eugenie of Spain, and of the Empress Alexandra of Russia.
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:19 am to Rouge
quote:
why did Germany HAVE to go through Belgium to get to France when the two nations share so much of a common border? was it due to the mobilization schedule and the oncoming Russians?
The French had fortified the shared border with France and had their largest concentration of troops there. The German line of thought was that instead of battering against this force head on, it would be better to swing around their northern flank. By doing this flanking move, they would have made the French army's position untenable and also placed the German army between the French army and Paris. Basically, they were going for the quick "checkmate" to knock France out of the war before the Russians could finish the ponderous mobilization of their army. Germany had to win in France quickly to have any hope of winning a general European war. They knew that having to fight France in the west and Russia in the east was a recipe for disaster.
quote:
if Germany does not step foot into Belgium, England may not have entered the war. Germany may have stood a much better chance at success.
The Germans were gambling that Britain would stay out of the war. And to be honest, Britain really did not have to enter the war and despite their claims of "defending the neutrality of Belgium". The real reason they entered the war was they saw Germany as the main threat to their dominance on the world stage and understood that had Germany emerged from a General European as victor over both France & Russia, they'd be an even bigger threat. So really it all boiled down to Britain wanting to take Germany down a peg or two.
Had Britain stayed out of the war, it most likely would have only lasted a few months and ended in a negotiated a peace with some minor adjustments made to the map of Europe but nothing like the massive upheaval of the entire power structure in not just Europe but the whole world that was the result of WWI. Germany would have emerged as the undisputed major power in Europe, France & Russia would have been relegated to 2nd tier status.
There's a chance that the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary may have both eventually collapsed. Both already had internal issues before the war. But if the war had been short, it's doubtful they would have gone down like they did and when they did. Basically the monarchist system in Europe would have survived longer and may have still been in place today. Things like communism & Fascism would have never been anything like we saw in the 20th century.
Another thing to consider is the Middle East. Had the war of 1914 been limited to a short war between France & Russia on one side and Germany & Austria-Hungary on the other, the Ottoman Empire would have probably never been pulled into the war and thus drug down to collapse. Yeah it was already viewed as the "sick old man of Europe", so there's a chance it would have eventually collapsed on it's own. What that would have looked like is anyone's guess.
I'd say that Britain's decision to enter the war was one of the biggest and most important events of not just the war, but the entire century. Because without Britain in the war, it would have most like never have morphed and grown into what we know as World War I.
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:24 am to RollTide1987
Hardcore History
edit: Welp I see others are all over it too.
edit: Welp I see others are all over it too.
This post was edited on 8/7/15 at 10:25 am
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:25 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
Old tactics + new weapons = disaster
We all know that. The OP wants to know how stupid this war was, i.e. How avoidable was it. And WWI was retarded. There's a lot of knowledgeable posts in this thread discussing it, but essentially this war was a waste that could've been avoided if cooler heads had just stepped back and thought about things for a half second.
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:26 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I'd say that Britain's decision to enter the war was one of the biggest and most important events of not just the war, but the entire century. Because without Britain in the war, it would have most like never have morphed and grown into what we know as World War I.
Good analysis - and, without Britain in the War, I cut the chance that we enter in half. Yeah, "Lafayette, we are here!" - and all of that jazz, but without Britain, it is not certain we entered the war - as it is, we waited until 1917 - and, as you suggest, the war might have been over by the time we overcame isolationist opposition.
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:29 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
Old tactics + new weapons = disaster
Don't forget old, inflexible, commanders.
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:33 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The French Army performed well, in the early going, but wilted as they continued to take casualties.
IMHO, it is a prejudiced/biased opinion to come away from WWI with this impression, when it's solely applied to the French Army.
There were instances during WWI in which British and German army Soldiers "wilted as they continued to take casualties".
The French army experiences have been better documented and were on a larger scale, but, French units were not the only ones to degrade in combat effectiveness.
At the Marne, the British commander felt that his own troops had had enough. That's a form of "wilting", IMHO.
On the Black Day of the German Army in August of 1918, German units under attack collapsed into headlong rout. This was certainly "wilting".
So, IMHO, "wilting" under sustained combat is a threat to any unit in any army at any time. The Commander's task is to manage his units so that such wilting or collapse is avoided. It's a problem that's shared by every army at all historical times.
Link to August, 1918, and the Black Day of the German Army
LINK
This post was edited on 8/7/15 at 10:41 am
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:39 am to Champagne
quote:
IMHO, it is a prejudiced/biased opinion to come away from WWI with this impression, when it's solely applied to the French Army.
Fair enough - there is little question they were the backbone of the allied forces on the Western Front. The somewhat fair impression is they needed a boost from British, and later, British and U.S. troops for any major offensive. They held their own, over time, and the German army couldn't have been defeated without them.
German leadership, particularly higher levels, is overrated in this war and French contributions to victory, particularly at the individual soldier level, are probably underrated.
The U.S. probably gets too much credit, considering how late we got to the front, and how few casualties we took, but it is impossible to ignore that the big turnaround in France occurred when we approaching full deployment.
This post was edited on 8/7/15 at 10:42 am
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:43 am to 68wDoc68w
quote:
Prince Wilhelm was a grandchild of Queen Victoria, that made him first cousin to British Empire's King George V
They, along with their cousin the Czar Nicholas of Russia were actually very close before the war. Here's some pictures to give you an idea of what I'm talking about...
The picture on the left is King George V of GB and Czar Nicholas of Russia. King George is wearing a Russian Field Marshal uniform while the Czar is wearing a British Admiral uniform. The picture on the right you'll find Kaiser Wilhelm is wearing the uniform of a Russian Field Marshal while the Russian Czar is wearing the uniform of a German Field Marshal. And this was not just them playing a prank and swapping clothes. Each one of them literally held those honorary ranks in the other's respective military.
And here's a picture of the Kaiser with King George V. In this picture the British monarch is wearing a German cavalry uniform...
Posted on 8/7/15 at 10:48 am to Ace Midnight
Yes, I agree with you.
That said:
Almost all of what the military history student in the USA knows about WWI is from what has been written in English.
Most sources written in English are, to varying degrees, biased in favor of the British. British authors have written much more about WWI than have authors from the USA.
So, it's natural to observe a slight pro-British bias in the history of WWI, and a corresponding bias against French achievements.
For example, of all of the military history written in English after WW2 about the September 1914 Battle of the Marne, very little if any of it will detail the behavior and state of the British Expeditionary Force in France in September of 1914. Very little of that written history will accuse the British of "slow walking" their offensive and declining aggressive prosecution of the offensive.
IMHO, this is an example of the bias to which I refer, and it's just another great reason to read Tyng's Campaign of the Marne, written around 1934.
That said:
Almost all of what the military history student in the USA knows about WWI is from what has been written in English.
Most sources written in English are, to varying degrees, biased in favor of the British. British authors have written much more about WWI than have authors from the USA.
So, it's natural to observe a slight pro-British bias in the history of WWI, and a corresponding bias against French achievements.
For example, of all of the military history written in English after WW2 about the September 1914 Battle of the Marne, very little if any of it will detail the behavior and state of the British Expeditionary Force in France in September of 1914. Very little of that written history will accuse the British of "slow walking" their offensive and declining aggressive prosecution of the offensive.
IMHO, this is an example of the bias to which I refer, and it's just another great reason to read Tyng's Campaign of the Marne, written around 1934.
This post was edited on 8/7/15 at 10:51 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News