The subject of how to commemorate the anniversary of the First World War is something that has dominated the British media recently, with various historians, politicians and media personalities weighing in on either side of the debate. Put simply, the two arguments are as follows:
A) We should celebrate the war to an extent, moving away from the 'Blackadder' view that the whole thing is a colossal waste of time and human life. Supporters of this view include Education minister Michael Gove and PM David Cameron. The former blasted the 'Blackadder myths' as being unpatriotic' while the latter called for 'street parties' to celebrate the war.
B) The Blackadder view: the war was a huge and futile waste of human life and should never have occurred, and as a nation we should be ashamed of our part in it. Supporters include former Blackadder star and labour supporter Tony Robinson, who argued that his former show, as well as the poetry of the likes of Wilfred Owen and visits to the battlefields were enough to suggest that the war was a futile event and one that was a mistake.
C) 'Quiet Reverence': The more moderate of the views, supporters of this argument suggest that there should at least be a recognition of the war, its nature and our role in it. To suggest it was futile would be to disrespect those that gave their lives, to celebrate it would be an over-glorification of what is undoubtedly a great human tragedy.
So, with that in mind, my question is this: what's your view on the subject? If not British, then how is your nation commemorating/remembering the war?
My own view on the matter falls broadly in line with the third viewpoint mentioned above. I think that to disregard the war as futile and pointless would be not only a hugely disrespectful act to those who died during the conflict, but also a blatant mistake. The war was, in my opinion, perfectly just, in that the dangers to democracy, freedom and world order were in essence as grievous as those posed by the Nazis in 1939; Germany and Austria-Hungary were being similarly expansionist and oppressing minorities.
I do not at all agree with glorifying the war, my visits to the battlefields and research on the subject area makes it pretty clear it was nowhere near as jingoistic and patriotic and 'glorious' as Gove/Cameron would have us believe. The conditions were appalling, the warfare was brutal, and the sacrifice on both sides massive. However, to be nationally ashamed of that sacrifice is simply a disrespect to it.
The whole thing was a enormous blunder caused by decrepit empires trying to maintain power in their respective spheres of influence while being utterly oblivious to the consequences of warfare being fought with state of the art killing machines combined with obsolete battlefield tactics.
Trying to paint it as some sort of fight for freedom and democracy is simply re-writing history. The biggest accomplishment to come out of WWI, was that it created the conditions and sort of paved the way for WWII and that isn't something that should be commemorated in any way...
AFAIK, commemorations in my country will be restricted to the usual ceremony of the President depositing some flowers in the memorial. As it should be, remember the soldier's sacrifices but don't celebrate anything else.
I quite enjoyed the BBC documentaries that Paxman has been presenting recently, apparently based around the format of the book that he has written.
In the final episode he put forward the opinion that the typically mocked upper classes, or landed gentry suffered the worst in the war. Many historic families ending due to their heirs dying in the conflict as they would most commonly be officers, which had significantly higher mortality rates.
I do enjoy a bit of Paxo and it's interesting to hear him not verbally bludgeoning a moronic MP.
A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.
I'm with Albatross when he says a little from all three.
In essence all war is tragic, but to act like its a waste of time is unrealistic and disrespectful. The war certainly mattered a lot and was not a waste of time for the people who had to live through it. Given that it set the stage and shaped the 20th century and its ramifications are still very much alive today. The B point of view strikes me as markedly inhuman.
There's nothing wrong with celebrating heroism and sacrifice, but overcelebrating it what gets us into conflicts like WWI/II in the first place. Reactions should be tempered with understanding of why it happened and what it meant to those who were there as well as appreciation for those who fought in a conflict they had no say in starting.
Easy E wrote:The correct reaction is to study it and understand its significance. Then you can decide how you as an individual want to react to it.
Have an exalt.
Regardless of one's view on the conflict, education is the key, hence why I vehemently disagree with those of the opinion we should just forget about the war and be ashamed or pretend it never happened. It's as much a part of our national history as Henry VIII, the formation of the C of E, the industrial revolution or the Battle of Hastings. To just brush it under the carpet (something that's become increasingly prevalent in the British education system- hardly anything is taught on the British Empire, for example) is to disrespect the sacrifice made and to risk forgetting both the horror and the nature of the war.
The war was an absolute tragedy as far as the human cost is concerned (I don't think anyone can argue with that irrespective of their stand on remembrance) and as soon as we as a nation/the human race reach a point where we forget that, we are one step closer to repeating it. Increased emphasis on WW1 is one of the few things I agree with Gove about, although I don't really agree with how he wants it presented.
there was a huge amount of wasted life (especially where failed battle plans were carried on and on by commanders on all sides who could not envisage being wrong) which should not be downplayed
there was a load of individual heroism on all sides which does deserve celebration
and too much celebration/chest thumping on how great your countries actions were helps pander to unhelpful nationalistic tendencies (which we see being so harmful in so many countries)
Medium of Death wrote: I quite enjoyed the BBC documentaries that Paxman has been presenting recently, apparently based around the format of the book that he has written.
In the final episode he put forward the opinion that the typically mocked upper classes, or landed gentry suffered the worst in the war. Many historic families ending due to their heirs dying in the conflict as they would most commonly be officers, which had significantly higher mortality rates.
While certainly true I think this goes more towards the 'older' establishment selling the war as a 'great adventure' which appealed most to those who saw themselves as natural leaders (which to be fair they probably were)
Albatross wrote: A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.
You must be confused, the Germans had a better track record than any other colonial government I can think of. Yes, there was the Herrero and Maji Maji rebellions (and resultant 'genocides') but these were much smaller in scale, and much more humane (if you can call it that) in their conduct than some of the things that the Belgians, French, and Brits did, and after those incidents the German government enacted reforms and the succeeding colonial administrations were humane and actually gave natives more rights, protection, and social welfare. They were actually more effective, efficient, and stable than most of the other colonies held by other European nations (with the principal exceptions being some of the British overseas holdings like India, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada).
Anyway, I would vote for C, but I'm from one of the participants least impacted by the war.
The fact that such a massive war began from something so small and pointless shows that Europe was a massive powder keg waiting for any reason to blow off some steam.
Should we be out in the street partying that we won the first world war? Probably not, but people only need half an excuse to get drunk these days.
In reality, this war is about as significant as the Napoleonic wars, and we don't celebrate them either. Everyone even remotely involved in the conflict has died by now, and the effects that it had are long gone.
Should we have a day where we commend the poor souls that had died in the thousands of wars that we have endured? Certainly. But it shouldn't be a celebration.
welshhoppo wrote: The fact that such a massive war began from something so small and pointless shows that Europe was a massive powder keg waiting for any reason to blow off some steam.
Should we be out in the street partying that we won the first world war? Probably not, but people only need half an excuse to get drunk these days.
In reality, this war is about as significant as the Napoleonic wars, and we don't celebrate them either. Everyone even remotely involved in the conflict has died by now, and the effects that it had are long gone.
Should we have a day where we commend the poor souls that had died in the thousands of wars that we have endured? Certainly. But it shouldn't be a celebration.
Don't celebrate the Napoleonic Wars? What about Trafalgar Day?
None of the above? Remember and mourn the pointless waste of life but don't celebrate it. Though being irish the feeling on the war and the empire may be aomewhat different. I feel any street party would be in poor taste.
welshhoppo wrote: The fact that such a massive war began from something so small and pointless shows that Europe was a massive powder keg waiting for any reason to blow off some steam.
Should we be out in the street partying that we won the first world war? Probably not, but people only need half an excuse to get drunk these days.
In reality, this war is about as significant as the Napoleonic wars, and we don't celebrate them either. Everyone even remotely involved in the conflict has died by now, and the effects that it had are long gone.
Should we have a day where we commend the poor souls that had died in the thousands of wars that we have endured? Certainly. But it shouldn't be a celebration.
Don't celebrate the Napoleonic Wars? What about Trafalgar Day?
That's not a really big thing here, in fact I can't remember anything about it except for the bi-centennial we had in 2005.
All of them have their merits, but I personally find myself seeing the Great War in the context of option C. I had relatives that fought in the War, and at least one that didn't come home, so it is an important part of history to me. It also saddens me that my country has no national memorial for men that gave their lives. I have visited the District of Columbia War Memorial (a memorial to the residents of DC that gave their lives during the war) and it was in a sad state is disrepair; luckily, it was restored in 2011.
Personally, I lean towards B. I don't wish to insult the heroism of the men on both sides who found themselves thrust into the hell of trench warfare and who died for something they believed in, but the fact is that the cause they were dying for wasn't worth anyone dying over. The war was a regional conflict that exploded into a much larger conflict. Every nation in Europe had a hand in that war ballooning out of proportion. It wasn't Germany's fault. It wasn't Britain's fault. It was everybody's fault. A lot of good people on both sides died and the only result was that we got to do it all over again twenty years later (at least in WWII, the cause was worth the blood spilled). To celebrate that war, in any way, would be a travesty. It would be saying that it is perfectly OK for governments to act like belligerent gak-heads and engage in penis-measuring contests that result in the deaths of millions of soldiers for absolutely no gain whatsoever, as long as you tell the poor bastiches getting shot that it's all for "freedom".
To honor the bravery of the dead, but not mention the fact that the war was pointless, misses the point of that war. WWI was a human tragedy. It was a greater human tragedy than WWII (hear me out before you throw things) because, even though far, far more people died in WWII, the fact remains that WWII had a positive outcome. The Nazis were toppled, the Holocaust was stopped, and the global balance of power was set up in such a way that no major wars were fought between major powers for a fifty year period (the Cold War, despite its tensions, was less violent than most other half-centuries in modern history). The only result of WWI was a lot of people died, then the survivors got the flu and a lot more of them died, then after two decades, their kids got to do it all over again.
As for how the U.S. remembers WWI, I think it's already been said that the President will lay a wreath or something on a memorial and then go home. WWI doesn't get a lot of air time in this country anymore. Not since we single-handedly won WWII (or at least, that's what our school books taught us during the Cold War). Talk about WWI to a non-wargaming crowd and you will likely get responses of:
"WWI? Yeah, we TOTALLY kicked Hitler's butt!"
or
"WWI? Yeah, we TOTALLY kicked... somebody's butt!"
or
"WWI? Were we even in that one?"
or, even worse
"WWI? Was that the one about slavery?"
Those last two were from my old high school history class...
"WWI? Were we even in that one?"
or, even worse
"WWI? Was that the one about slavery?"
Those last two were from my old high school history class...
You just want to make me cry, don't you?
Of course, America really didn't play much of a role in WWI. Compared to the second World War that followed, WWI was completely overshadowed. Far more men fought and died for us in that war, and the war was much more personal. In the 1920's and 1930's, WWI probably meant more to Americans. Today though it's completely overshadowed.
Albatross wrote: A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost.
Quite right, I'd say.
The problem with popular thinking about WW1 is popular thinking about WW2. Wars are not actually fought against bad guys to save the world, which is the story that Hollywood has always told us about WW2. (To be clear, I'm not saying the Nazis weren't bad guys or that the world would be just fine with them; just that them being bad and us altrustically saving the world were not our motivations for fighting WW2.)
It seems like contemporary people think the only reason a war is anything but a waste is if it could be a good guys versus bad guys save the world movie. But thinking about all wars in history, including WW2, people fought to advance and protect the interests of their group.
Now perhaps people don't want to celebrate that vision of war but that's different from singling out WW1 as paricularly futile.
I will say, WW1 was certainly not a fight to preserve good (us) versus evil (Germany). The sides were pretty equivalent. But again, that's pretty much how all wars are -- absent atrocity, which never actually causes the wars we fight anyhow.
For the Brits, I just recently read "The Somme: The Darkest Hour on the Western Front" by Peter Hart. Pretty great book, definitely pro-British, but in that "up and at 'em" type of national pride I find admirable / tear inducing. He also gives very worthy praise to the German defenders, but it's written with a lot of first hand accounts from the Tommies.
Still isn't as good as "The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916" by Sir Alistair Horne though. In my mind that book is the seminal piece of WW1 writing. Truly encapsulates the utter futility, utter horror, and ultimate "triumph of the human spirit" of the Great War.
Does the average American even know we were in WW1?
God I want a Springfield 1903. Not for 1500 bucks though. I can pick up an Enfield for ~6-700 but still, dunno if i will.
motyak wrote: I didn't attend any lectures after that funnily enough.
Smart man.
When I took my Recent US History class, my professor gave the entire class a day 1 pop quiz. The questions were very simple and clearly just a test to see if we actually knew anything about history. One of them was "Why did America enter World War 1?" To my expectation, only eight in a class of forty-two actually knew the correct answer.
I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I would venture to guess that the average American is aware that their country participated in the Great War, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they would the extent in which we were involved or any of the major dates (when the war started, when America entered, and when the war ended).
I would say that the average American definitely doesn't know that November 11 used to be called Armistice Day and what it originally was a tribute to.
Personally I feel a mix of B&C. The war was exceptionally stupid and horribly fought but we should still not disrespect the fallen: they may have not died for the noble cause ever but the hell they went through should not be forgotten nor disrespected. It is especially tragic when you consider how many young people caught up in patriotism signed up to fight despite being far to young to emotionally survive such a thing
Personally I feel having a street party or celebrating it in any way is to spit in the face of anyone who fought in that war and their descendants
We have ANZAC day once a year. We are meant to both mourn the loss and take notice of the changes the world saw because of it.
The change of world powers, civil rights sparking, technological innovations and so on. Its all basic stuff we learn in social studies. Everyone in NZ learns about the prelude and consequences of both the world wars.
So im in group A. But also partly B. Yes it was wasteful, but what wars arent? Mistakes where made and all but I dont think anyone in the world at the time really knew what was to come. "That escalated quickly" really comes to mind. Unfortunately we can only speculate how those in charge felt about the war afterwards but I wouldnt go as far to call it a giant mistake and waste of life. More of a learning mistake in which through a lot of pain and suffering brought much benefit and shaped the world we live in today.
Interesting discussion so far, and fascinating to hear some American views on it, which is something I've not really looked into before.
I would just ask, though: All those of you who are saying the war was 'pointless' or 'should never have happened' or 'was not for a good cause', are you saying that Britain should have just let Germany bully whoever it wanted into submission? Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded? In all honesty, with the notable exception of the holocaust, the acts of Germany in WW1 were very similar to those in WW2, an unprovoked and brutal expansionist policy with the sole aims of oppressing others and gaining territory. Are you saying that Britain should have just stood by and let that happen?
There seems to be a popular revisionist view that the Allies only went into WW2 to put an end to Hitler's humanitarian atrocities, which were in fact largely unknown to the West at the time war was declared. We declared war on Germany because they were being aggressive and expansionist, and guess what? So was Germany in 1914. I don't see how you can argue WW2 was just and WW1 wasn't, considering we entered both wars for practically identical reasons; the defence of an ally unable to effectively defend itself in the face of an aggressor.
Paradigm wrote: Interesting discussion so far, and fascinating to hear some American views on it, which is something I've not really looked into before.
I would just ask, though: All those of you who are saying the war was 'pointless' or 'should never have happened' or 'was not for a good cause', are you saying that Britain should have just let Germany bully whoever it wanted into submission? Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded? In all honesty, with the notable exception of the holocaust, the acts of Germany in WW1 were very similar to those in WW2, an unprovoked and brutal expansionist policy with the sole aims of oppressing others and gaining territory. Are you saying that Britain should have just stood by and let that happen?
There seems to be a popular revisionist view that the Allies only went into WW2 to put an end to Hitler's humanitarian atrocities, which were in fact largely unknown to the West at the time war was declared. We declared war on Germany because they were being aggressive and expansionist, and guess what? So was Germany in 1914. I don't see how you can argue WW2 was just and WW1 wasn't, considering we entered both wars for practically identical reasons; the defence of an ally unable to effectively defend itself in the face of an aggressor.
You are dismissing a lot of Britains role in starting the war. Germany was trying to create an empire just like britains really. So in effect what germany was doing, was exactly what britain had already done. Thats why the naval race was happening simply because germany was aspiring to be like her rivals France and britain. To put it very simply. It was a power struggle is another way to say it. No heroes and villains, not right and wrong. Just an empire or 2 clinging to its power against an ambitious empire. Japan needs mention here too. The story of japan is pretty important to seeing the views and actions of the time right up till the end of the second world war.
But ww2 is more complicated and you will have a lot more disagreements about when it started, how it started and why. There are far more political and emotional issues in regards to the second world war at play. But there are many differences between the two (in respects to how and why they started). I find it annoying to discuss in text so I wont go there.
As a Canadian, my fist reaction would be option B. Our motivations for going to war were "Britain told us to" and many Canadians died for politics we were not involved in. Just look up "the Blue Puttees".
But there are some things to celebrated about WW1 as a Canadian. The war helped forge much of Canada's identity and gave us both reputation and individuality. Before the war, Canada was just another colony. It was also during the war that the imagery of the maple leaf gained popularity, being carved into bunkers, trenches and buildings as Canadian regiments moved around.
So I'm not sure what section it should be in, we mostly just celebrate by building a bunch of statues of soldiers.
Paradigm wrote: Interesting discussion so far, and fascinating to hear some American views on it, which is something I've not really looked into before.
I would just ask, though: All those of you who are saying the war was 'pointless' or 'should never have happened' or 'was not for a good cause', are you saying that Britain should have just let Germany bully whoever it wanted into submission? Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded? In all honesty, with the notable exception of the holocaust, the acts of Germany in WW1 were very similar to those in WW2, an unprovoked and brutal expansionist policy with the sole aims of oppressing others and gaining territory. Are you saying that Britain should have just stood by and let that happen?
There seems to be a popular revisionist view that the Allies only went into WW2 to put an end to Hitler's humanitarian atrocities, which were in fact largely unknown to the West at the time war was declared. We declared war on Germany because they were being aggressive and expansionist, and guess what? So was Germany in 1914. I don't see how you can argue WW2 was just and WW1 wasn't, considering we entered both wars for practically identical reasons; the defence of an ally unable to effectively defend itself in the face of an aggressor.
You are dismissing a lot of Britains role in starting the war. Germany was trying to create an empire just like britains really. So in effect what germany was doing, was exactly what britain had already done. Thats why the naval race was happening simply because germany was aspiring to be like her rivals France and britain. To put it very simply. It was a power struggle is another way to say it. No heroes and villains, not right and wrong. Just an empire or 2 clinging to its power against an ambitious empire.
But ww2 is more complicated and you will have a lot more disagreements about when it started, how it started and why. There are far more political and emotional issues in regards to the second world war at play. But there are many differences between the two (in respects to how and why they started). I find it annoying to discuss in text so I wont go there.
Ah, I'm not trying to absolve Britain of blame on the imperialistic front, simply to point out that, regardless of later discoveries (The nature and extent of the holocaust was not fully realised until the allies started advancing across Europe) the final spark for both wars was a powerful nation (Germany) attacking without provocation a smaller and weaker nation (Belgium/Poland).
Of course, the alliance system didn't help, and I concede that there were tensions before both wars that made a conflict inevitable. I'm not trying to say it was cut-and-dried Good vs Evil (it wasn't), but for Britain both times the direct involvement in the war came about as a result of defending a nation that couldn't defend itself. In any war, it's hard to place a greater blame on the defender than the aggressor.
Paradigm wrote: Interesting discussion so far, and fascinating to hear some American views on it, which is something I've not really looked into before.
I would just ask, though: All those of you who are saying the war was 'pointless' or 'should never have happened' or 'was not for a good cause', are you saying that Britain should have just let Germany bully whoever it wanted into submission? Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded? In all honesty, with the notable exception of the holocaust, the acts of Germany in WW1 were very similar to those in WW2, an unprovoked and brutal expansionist policy with the sole aims of oppressing others and gaining territory. Are you saying that Britain should have just stood by and let that happen?
There seems to be a popular revisionist view that the Allies only went into WW2 to put an end to Hitler's humanitarian atrocities, which were in fact largely unknown to the West at the time war was declared. We declared war on Germany because they were being aggressive and expansionist, and guess what? So was Germany in 1914. I don't see how you can argue WW2 was just and WW1 wasn't, considering we entered both wars for practically identical reasons; the defence of an ally unable to effectively defend itself in the face of an aggressor.
You are dismissing a lot of Britains role in starting the war. Germany was trying to create an empire just like britains really. So in effect what germany was doing, was exactly what britain had already done. Thats why the naval race was happening simply because germany was aspiring to be like her rivals France and britain. To put it very simply. It was a power struggle is another way to say it. No heroes and villains, not right and wrong. Just an empire or 2 clinging to its power against an ambitious empire.
But ww2 is more complicated and you will have a lot more disagreements about when it started, how it started and why. There are far more political and emotional issues in regards to the second world war at play. But there are many differences between the two (in respects to how and why they started). I find it annoying to discuss in text so I wont go there.
Ah, I'm not trying to absolve Britain of blame on the imperialistic front, simply to point out that, regardless of later discoveries (The nature and extent of the holocaust was not fully realised until the allies started advancing across Europe) the final spark for both wars was a powerful nation (Germany) attacking without provocation a smaller and weaker nation (Belgium/Poland).
Of course, the alliance system didn't help, and I concede that there were tensions before both wars that made a conflict inevitable. I'm not trying to say it was cut-and-dried Good vs Evil (it wasn't), but for Britain both times the direct involvement in the war came about as a result of defending a nation that couldn't defend itself. In any war, it's hard to place a greater blame on the defender than the aggressor.
Yea sounds about right then. In the end it boils down to being the one to declare war with a good excuse. Defending a small nation from a large one looks better than declaring war to protect your small nations you conquered. So with that in mind it makes more sense to look at the intent over the action. But then thats where its complicated and for many its easier to just look at the action. Which you are right, paints the allies in a better light.
Mr Nobody wrote: As a Canadian, my fist reaction would be option A. Our motivations for going to war were "Britain told us to" and many Canadians died for politics we were not involved in. Just look up "the Blue Puttees".
But there are some things to celebrated about WW1 as a Canadian. The war helped forge much of Canada's identity and gave us both reputation and individuality. Before the war, Canada was just another colony. It was also during the war that the imagery of the maple leaf gained popularity, being carved into bunkers, trenches and buildings as Canadian regiments moved around.
So I'm not sure what section it should be in, we mostly just celebrate by building a bunch of statues of soldiers.
This is quite interesting. Having seen and read quite a bit about the role the Canadians played in the war, I can certainly see where you're coming from with regards to it being a part of the nation's identity. I have a huge deal or respect for the commonwealth troops that fought and died, given that they had no choice in joining the conflict and yet still served with great distinction, often bearing higher casualties and harsher conditions than many British troops. The fact that the Canadian, ANZAC, Indian and other Commonwealth troops gave so much even without a choice in their participation is truly remarkable.
What we need to remember is that millions of people died in the war. Many of them conscripts, people who had no choice but to be there. And let us not forget the Christmas truce and how it showed that the people on either side really had no malice between them and didn't really want to kill each other. Regardless of why the war started and what was being fought for, people who didn't want to kill each other killed each other. That is nothing to celebrate, and call it unpatriotic, my loyalty is to my fellow humans before my country.
Another great book on the outbreak of the war is "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchmann, probably my favorite history author honestly.
And to say Britain got involved to "protect Belgium" is sheer revisionism. The British govt wanted a fight, the populace wanted a fight, and this mentality was echoed across Europe. Hence there being a war. This wasn't like the recent Iraq War where the majority of the people were screaming "No!", they were screaming "Let's go get the Boche!"
Things had been more or less quiet on the Continent since the Franco-Prussian conflict of 1870, technology had vastly increased, and the people in charge were excited to see the new gizmos of war in action. They had no idea of the war it would become, they thought it would be over in months. The fact that the British govt didn't commit with a full army campaign till the summer of 1916, yet was adamant about boxing in German Imperialist naval action makes the "Belgian Protector" angle kinda thin.
It was a war of national egos, not a war of ideals.
Though the world fethed up by bending to France and passing the Versailles Treaty. It's hard to blame the poilus after losing so much, and the Siege of Paris and final reparations in 1871 were none too nice, but the rest of the world (America) should have stood firmer against it.
WWI was an important nation building war for Canada. It was a "good war" for Canada in many ways and I think it's just important to learn about it and remember it. Most Canadians have next to no knowledge of our military history.
Mix of B and C for me. Although Canada definitely developed as a nation through the war it still doesn't change the fact that it was a ridiculously needless slaughterfest that lead to the death of millions of people. It stays as a reminder of the foolishness of human nature and how power-mongering continues to cause suffering.
That aside, it does always give me a bit of pride to hear how fierce our soldiers were against the Germans, hell we even got the moniker of "storm troopers". I guess that if a Galactic Empire is ever established, Canadians will be the first ones in line to enforce it
Wow, that's interesting - I just read that 50% of the Canadian Expeditionary Force was British-born, and that Canadian conscription didn't start til 1918.
Albatross wrote: Wow, that's interesting - I just read that 50% of the Canadian Expeditionary Force was British-born, and that Canadian conscription didn't start til 1918.
Mate, half the world was British Born at that time. And that's kinda the point. Canada went in in many ways a British Colony (Foreign Policy was controlled by Britain, for example), but ended up emerging with a much stronger "Canadian" identity.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: All of them have their merits, but I personally find myself seeing the Great War in the context of option C. I had relatives that fought in the War, and at least one that didn't come home, so it is an important part of history to me. It also saddens me that my country has no national memorial for men that gave their lives. I have visited the District of Columbia War Memorial (a memorial to the residents of DC that gave their lives during the war) and it was in a sad state is disrepair; luckily, it was restored in 2011.
"WWI? Were we even in that one?"
or, even worse
"WWI? Was that the one about slavery?"
Those last two were from my old high school history class...
You just want to make me cry, don't you?
Of course, America really didn't play much of a role in WWI. Compared to the second World War that followed, WWI was completely overshadowed. Far more men fought and died for us in that war, and the war was much more personal. In the 1920's and 1930's, WWI probably meant more to Americans. Today though it's completely overshadowed.
Surely you jest. America was pivotal in the final stages of WWI. Germany had decisively defeated Russia in the east and launched an (admittedly indecisive) offensive in the west, driving deep into France. The United States was key in the Hundred Days offensive, providing 4 million men in manpower and large supply shipments.
In addition, you can hardly say that WWII "completely overshadows" WWI. Sure, 3 times as many people were killed and the scope was significantly larger, but the two conflicts are deeply linked and both of massive scale.
Surely you jest. America was pivotal in the final stages of WWI.
I don't. We played a big role in the outcome of several battles (Second Battle of the Marne) but in retrospect, by the time we arrived in 1918, the war was won. The Second Battle of the Marne has a lot of parallels to the Battle of the Buldge. It was the last offensive, ostensibly doomed to fail in the long run. Germany had already lost (arguably they lost the moment Austria-Hungry ceased to function as a state).
In addition, you can hardly say that WWII "completely overshadows" WWI.
You'd have a hard time arguing it doesn't, at least here in the US. Just compare the number of movies about WWII to the ones about WWI. The scales swing decisively one direction. Most Americans have an awareness of the events of WWII, but I think most wouldn't be able to name more than 1 or 2 battles from WWI.
LordofHats wrote: I'm with Albatross when he says a little from all three.
In essence all war is tragic, but to act like its a waste of time is unrealistic and disrespectful. The war certainly mattered a lot and was not a waste of time for the people who had to live through it. Given that it set the stage and shaped the 20th century and its ramifications are still very much alive today. The B point of view strikes me as markedly inhuman.
There's nothing wrong with celebrating heroism and sacrifice, but overcelebrating it what gets us into conflicts like WWI/II in the first place. Reactions should be tempered with understanding of why it happened and what it meant to those who were there as well as appreciation for those who fought in a conflict they had no say in starting.
It is out of respect for those who fought and died that I believe viewing WW1 as the monstrous and pointless slaughter in service of decrepit imperialism that it was is the only proper thing to do. "Celebrating" war is sickening, a tool used by "patriots" and governments to promote a simplistic and xenophobic national self-image in which we, the "goodies", went "over there" and showed those damn dirty fur'nurs who's boss dontcha know old boy. Much is made of "heroism" and "brave Tommies" etc etc, but everyone is so concerned with not appearing to "disrespect their sacrifice" that those stories completely overshadow the things about that war -and others, but that one especially- which we SHOULD be remembering; millions of working class young men with no democratic voice(they had no vote, remember) packed off to fight "for King & country", and slaughtered by the tens of thousands, and countless more maimed for life or driven mad by the horror of it. That isn't something to be celebrated, it's something to be solemnly observed and carefully learned from so we never repeat those events - THAT's how you "honour their sacrifice", not by marching military bands through the streets and having insincere politicians who've never known anything but safety and privilege spanking away on TV about how inspiring and noble the whole affair was.
The fact that this whole "celebration" is being used by the current government as an excuse for naked and cynical politicking by taking the opportunity to plaster the Butcher's Apron all over Glasgow right before the Independence referendum is just the twisted Tory icing on the despicable jingoistic cake.
Albatross wrote: A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.
Hilarious. "Not perfect", well yes, if "not perfect" means tramping across the world enslaving and pillaging, engaging in the genocidal massacre of native populations, and building concentration camps for women and children in South Africa. The idea that the British Empire was somehow superior to its contemporaries of the Imperialist era is revisionism on a spectacular scale. Hells bells, at least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed of the worst excesses of their history, instead of glorifying and justifying their atrocities like some Brits do.
Medium of Death wrote: I quite enjoyed the BBC documentaries that Paxman has been presenting recently, apparently based around the format of the book that he has written.
In the final episode he put forward the opinion that the typically mocked upper classes, or landed gentry suffered the worst in the war. Many historic families ending due to their heirs dying in the conflict as they would most commonly be officers, which had significantly higher mortality rates.
I do enjoy a bit of Paxo and it's interesting to hear him not verbally bludgeoning a moronic MP.
Oh my yes, those poor poor upper classes, such a shame that their own archaic system of inheritance worked against them for a change. All those brave Noble Scions, what scant comfort must their families have had mourning their passing in massive luxury. Tell me, did Paxo manage to spare a few lines in his Lament for the Landed to mention the towns and villages of ordinary people where entire generations were wiped out, the working-class couples who lost every single one of their children and not only had to live with that sorrow but did so destitute in their old age because they didn't have an estate's worth of servants to care for them? Christ I didn't think Paxman could crawl any further up his own arsehole than was already the case, but evidently I was wrong.
Albatross wrote: A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.
Hilarious. "Not perfect", well yes, if "not perfect" means tramping across the world enslaving and pillaging, engaging in the genocidal massacre of native populations, and building concentration camps for women and children in South Africa. The idea that the British Empire was somehow superior to its contemporaries of the Imperialist era is revisionism on a spectacular scale. Hells bells, at least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed of the worst excesses of their history, instead of glorifying and justifying their atrocities like some Brits do.
I'm glad self loathing of your own nation isn't uniquely an American thing.
Albatross wrote: A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.
Hilarious. "Not perfect", well yes, if "not perfect" means tramping across the world enslaving and pillaging, engaging in the genocidal massacre of native populations, and building concentration camps for women and children in South Africa. The idea that the British Empire was somehow superior to its contemporaries of the Imperialist era is revisionism on a spectacular scale. Hells bells, at least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed of the worst excesses of their history, instead of glorifying and justifying their atrocities like some Brits do.
I'm glad self loathing of your own nation isn't uniquely an American thing.
Acknowledging your mistakes isn't "self-loathing", last time I looked. And my nation is not Britain.
It is out of respect for those who fought and died that I believe viewing WW1 as the monstrous and pointless slaughter in service of decrepit imperialism that it was is the only proper thing to do. "Celebrating" war is sickening, a tool used by "patriots" and governments to promote a simplistic and xenophobic national self-image in which we, the "goodies", went "over there" and showed those damn dirty fur'nurs who's boss dontcha know old boy. Much is made of "heroism" and "brave Tommies" etc etc, but everyone is so concerned with not appearing to "disrespect their sacrifice" that those stories completely overshadow the things about that war -and others, but that one especially- which we SHOULD be remembering; millions of working class young men with no democratic voice(they had no vote, remember) packed off to fight "for King & country", and slaughtered by the tens of thousands, and countless more maimed for life or driven mad by the horror of it. That isn't something to be celebrated, it's something to be solemnly observed and carefully learned from so we never repeat those events - THAT's how you "honour their sacrifice", not by marching military bands through the streets and having insincere politicians who've never known anything but safety and privilege spanking away on TV about how inspiring and noble the whole affair was.
And this is what I mean when I say that B is dehumanizing. Its hard to catch because its hiding behind an illusion of clarity, but all you've really done is exactly what you're protesting. You've stripped everyone involved of their humanity and turned the experiences of politicians and soldiers into a talking point for you to rail about.
One of the most straight forward ways to deal with trauma is to celebrate it. To appreciate whatever little good things you can find in it to move past the horror. Perverse celebrating of war happens a lot, especially in the US I feel because we never really saw it like the rest of the world did, and its something to be upset about, but people aren't just celebrating the violence in itself. They're celebrating the man who threw himself onto a grenade to protect his friends and the man who dares incoming bullets to pull the injured to safety. Men who were treated as less than human by their own country who went into battle for it anyway. All the little moments between the battles where it's just a bunch of people getting by with very little.
Denying that and focusing only on the actions of a few men at the top is inhuman.
Does the average American even know we were in WW1?
Do those that do know, know that we were there earlier than 1917?? We were one of the key components of the "battle" of Fismet, or rather the Tragedy of Fismet.
We also sent some lads over a bit early for flying lessons.
From the choices presented, I'd go with B). None of the nations involved was in it for "democracy", "ending suppression of minorities" or any other justifiable reason. One has to remember that the war didn't start with the July Crisis - at that point, it was merely a forgeone conclusion.
I also do not understand the "saying the war was futile and monstrous disrespects the men who fought it" part that is brought up often in Anglo-Saxon countries. Heroism, or at least honourable behaviour in war, is an entirely individual trait that has nothing to do with the reasons the war is fought for.
Finally, I was convinced that the European consensus was that this war was a tragedy that left only losers. I'm kind of sad to see that the UK has apparently not come around to that consensus and its PM is instead suggesting to celebrate it in the streets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hmm, I want to add something to what I just said:
Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded?
No, of course you should have. But how I see it, this facet of the alliance system does not somehow give reason to a conflict that should not have begun in the first place and was "caused" by most involved parties, to a smaller or larger degree.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to answer the question in the OP:
Paradigm wrote: If not British, then how is your nation commemorating/remembering the war?
Like always:
1) What, we were involved? Nooo, that wasn't really us, it was the Habsburgs / the Evil Germans / Space Invaders from Mars.
2) Even if we had been involved (which isn't the case), we were totally not to blame.
3) Because of 1) and 2), there's nothing to commemorate. Here, have a 20 square meter exhibition in the city hall, that should suffice. (<- True story)
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: All of them have their merits, but I personally find myself seeing the Great War in the context of option C. I had relatives that fought in the War, and at least one that didn't come home, so it is an important part of history to me. It also saddens me that my country has no national memorial for men that gave their lives. I have visited the District of Columbia War Memorial (a memorial to the residents of DC that gave their lives during the war) and it was in a sad state is disrepair; luckily, it was restored in 2011.
I haven't been there, but it sounds interesting. You'd think there would be something in DC though...
The Liberty Memorial, though spectacular, is not a national memorial to World War I; it is a National Historic Landmark, which is nice. The museum there is the official national museum dedicated to WWI, but when it comes to national memorials for WWI, there should be one along the lines of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (the wall, which is breathtakingly somber), the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and National World War II Memorial.
It is out of respect for those who fought and died that I believe viewing WW1 as the monstrous and pointless slaughter in service of decrepit imperialism that it was is the only proper thing to do. "Celebrating" war is sickening, a tool used by "patriots" and governments to promote a simplistic and xenophobic national self-image in which we, the "goodies", went "over there" and showed those damn dirty fur'nurs who's boss dontcha know old boy. Much is made of "heroism" and "brave Tommies" etc etc, but everyone is so concerned with not appearing to "disrespect their sacrifice" that those stories completely overshadow the things about that war -and others, but that one especially- which we SHOULD be remembering; millions of working class young men with no democratic voice(they had no vote, remember) packed off to fight "for King & country", and slaughtered by the tens of thousands, and countless more maimed for life or driven mad by the horror of it. That isn't something to be celebrated, it's something to be solemnly observed and carefully learned from so we never repeat those events - THAT's how you "honour their sacrifice", not by marching military bands through the streets and having insincere politicians who've never known anything but safety and privilege spanking away on TV about how inspiring and noble the whole affair was.
And this is what I mean when I say that B is dehumanizing. Its hard to catch because its hiding behind an illusion of clarity, but all you've really done is exactly what you're protesting. You've stripped everyone involved of their humanity and turned the experiences of politicians and soldiers into a talking point for you to rail about.
One of the most straight forward ways to deal with trauma is to celebrate it. To appreciate whatever little good things you can find in it to move past the horror. Perverse celebrating of war happens a lot, especially in the US I feel because we never really saw it like the rest of the world did, and its something to be upset about, but people aren't just celebrating the violence in itself. They're celebrating the man who threw himself onto a grenade to protect his friends and the man who dares incoming bullets to pull the injured to safety. Men who were treated as less than human by their own country who went into battle for it anyway. All the little moments between the battles where it's just a bunch of people getting by with very little.
Denying that and focusing only on the actions of a few men at the top is inhuman.
Inhuman? Ludicrous. War is inhuman, celebrating the death of a generation with military pomp is inhuman, politicians using one of the world's greatest human tragedies to try and restore some vague sham of national pride(which their own self-serving troughing destroyed in the first place) based on hollow jingoism is inhuman. Believing that said tragedy should be marked with solemn respect and contemplation rather than a ing party could only be marked as inhuman using the most Orwellian of doublespeak.
When WW1 began my great-grandfather had seven brothers, by the time it finished he was an only child, so don't tell me I'm ing "inhuman" because I don't think that's a reason to throw a bloody party.
Wars should never be celebrated. Celebrating the deaths of millions of people is absolutely sick. But it is good to remember them and honour those who died in the first World War. Just do not turn it into a party. I would support option C.
I however strongly disagree with what the OP says about the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires. I would say that they were less opressive than the massive British Empire with its colonies. WW1 was the result of decades of imperialist struggle. There were no 'good' and 'bad' sides in it, all sides were equally bad.
Yodhrin wrote: Inhuman? Ludicrous. War is inhuman, celebrating the death of a generation with military pomp is inhuman, politicians using one of the world's greatest human tragedies to try and restore some vague sham of national pride(which their own self-serving troughing destroyed in the first place) based on hollow jingoism is inhuman. Believing that said tragedy should be marked with solemn respect and contemplation rather than a ing party could only be marked as inhuman using the most Orwellian of doublespeak.
War brings out the best and worst in people. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the best, while remembering the worst.
Although I think we might be on the way to recreating the first world war, starting with the Crimea...
Albatross wrote: Acting like you were even remotely affected by that makes you look a bit silly, Yodhrin...
Not at all.
Go visit the Southern United States where lots of people still are personally affected by a war that happened over a 150 years ago. Whether you agree with it or not, a war that has devastated a family (even in what you consider the distant past) can reverberate for generations.
Paradigm wrote: If not British, then how is your nation commemorating/remembering the war?
There will be several commemorative actions, but the main ones are a parade with 72 heads of states on July the 14th, making it the first truly international National Day. I'm fine with that.
There will also be a celebration on August the 3rd. Which sucks.
Paradigm wrote: So, with that in mind, my question is this: what's your view on the subject?
Why would someone want to celebrate the beginning of a war?
Would you ever celebrate september 1939?
Politics want to celebrate in 2014 because they may get fired before 2018. That's all. And that's sickening.
Even in 2018, there won't be much to celebrate, apart from the pointless sacrifice of so many people, and the treaty that paved the way to WWII.
WW1 was horrible. WW2 was horrible. All war is horrible.
There was nothing glorious about WW1, not even Belleau Wood and Smedley Butler or Dan Daly. It was an unnecessary war. It was a wonderful foothold into the world stage of globalization and provided a great outlet to try all the horrible weapons we had been diligently acquiring, but not wholly necessary at all.
Albatross wrote: Acting like you were even remotely affected by that makes you look a bit silly, Yodhrin...
Not at all.
Go visit the Southern United States where lots of people still are personally affected by a war that happened over a 150 years ago. Whether you agree with it or not, a war that has devastated a family (even in what you consider the distant past) can reverberate for generations.
Yeah, it wasn't like when slavery ended that it was like one big gak you didn't have to wipe afterwards, there was still gakky things happening to black people.
Yodhrin, it's ok to play working class hero every now and again but I don't think you actually have watched what I was talking about.
Paxman hardly put the landed gentry on a pedestal over everybody else. He merely suggested that they shouldn't be mocked in such venomous ways when they sacrificed just as much as anybody else.
Inhuman? Ludicrous. War is inhuman, celebrating the death of a generation with military pomp is inhuman, politicians using one of the world's greatest human tragedies to try and restore some vague sham of national pride(which their own self-serving troughing destroyed in the first place) based on hollow jingoism is inhuman. Believing that said tragedy should be marked with solemn respect and contemplation rather than a ing party could only be marked as inhuman using the most Orwellian of doublespeak.
When WW1 began my great-grandfather had seven brothers, by the time it finished he was an only child, so don't tell me I'm ing "inhuman" because I don't think that's a reason to throw a bloody party.
I didn't say you were inhuman. I said your position was inhuman and its hard to call it anything else when it at its core denies human agency. No one knew in 1914 what WWI was going to become. It's abundantly clear that by 1918, Europe and the world was at a loss for what happened. Honoring the deaths of millions by celebrating life is not the same thing as celebrating killing and disrespecting tragedy. You think these vets went to Iwo Jima to celebrate how they tried to kill each other?. They didn't They went there to honor those who were killed and remember that they are alive.
Treating tragedy like a crime against all human beings for all eternity on the other hand...
Are politicians using the event to pound their chests? Of course they are their politicians. Shame on them. But there's a couple million more people in your country who are not politicians, and maybe they have the right to celebrate the fallen and honor them in whatever way they see fit. If they want to do that by celebrating their lives rather than their deaths, you have no right to rail against them.
EDIT: And FYI, one side of my family has been in American since the Mayflower. I've had ancestors die in every American war and conflict (I'm kind of like Lieutenant Dan, but way sexier). Probably everyone in Europe is related to multiple people who died in WWI. You're not special and you have no special right to be outraged or upset. The British Government was not sitting behind its big nicely carved desk contemplating how it could kill a few million people. No one knew that was going to happen and demonizing them for it after the fact whether you like it or not is inhuman.
Not at all.
Go visit the Southern United States where lots of people still are personally affected by a war that happened over a 150 years ago. Whether you agree with it or not, a war that has devastated a family (even in what you consider the distant past) can reverberate for generations.
Which explains many of the Souths social ills, but a red neck sitting in his chair with a beer moaning about how the south lost the war and profoundly effected him in on a personal level in 2014 is a little childish.
Iron_Captain wrote: WW1 was the result of decades of imperialist struggle. There were no 'good' and 'bad' sides in it, all sides were equally bad.
I wouldn't call WW1 the result of any sort of imperialism. More that all the right ingredients were combined to create tragedy. What we saw was the industrialized world stockpiling new technological weapons that had not truly been tested, combined with Anarchist movements in many other countries (the Black Hand were one such group, as they were directly/indirectly the cause of the Archduke's death), combined with "old fashioned" or Napoleonic diplomacy, we also have the fact that most of the Ruling Class of Europe were inter-related and as such were playing family politics.
What ends up, as we know is one of the most horrifying wars the world has ever seen.
Go visit the Southern United States where lots of people still are personally affected by a war that happened over a 150 years ago. Whether you agree with it or not, a war that has devastated a family (even in what you consider the distant past) can reverberate for generations.
Which explains many of the Souths social ills, but a red neck sitting in his chair with a beer moaning about how the south lost the war and profoundly effected him in on a personal level in 2014 is a little childish.
I wasn't necessarily talking about the just beer swilling rednecks. Lots of Americans, North and South, were profoundly affected by the American Civil War and whether you think it's "childish" for the descendants of those people to harbor feelings and resentment about what happened, it exists and should be recognized and understood.
Which explains many of the Souths social ills, but a red neck sitting in his chair with a beer moaning about how the south lost the war and profoundly effected him in on a personal level in 2014 is a little childish.
the problem with that statement there, is that much, or most of those rednecks will never admit the south actually lost the war. There's a whole "historical movement" if you want to call them such, called Lost Causers, and many more who maintain that they were in the right the whole time, etc. etc.
I'm not sure how you could argue WW1 wasn't about Imperialism (or WWII for that matter).In the early 20th century, war and German thought On War (pun intended) was very much in line with Clauswitz's statement "war is politics through other means." Except they took that really literally. The entire war started as a means to inforce German and Austria-Hungry's positions in Europe by destroying Serbia. Of course, Russia couldn't abide by that, and if Russia wouldn't abide by it, France wouldn't abide by it so on and so forth. That has everything to do with Imperialism. The only sane man in the room was István Tisza who everyone promptly ignored. EDIT: Germany realized the whole thing was going to explode from the get go, which is why they didn't dick around when the war started while most everyone else was trying to resolve the conflict via negotiation. Austrian thought on the war before it started though seems markedly inept to the realities of European politics in 1914.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:Lots of Americans, North and South, were profoundly affected by the American Civil War and whether you think it's "childish" for the descendants of those people to harbor feelings and resentment about what happened, it exists and should be recognized and understood.
Just like families that were devastated by WWI.
It's one thing to note that your life has been heavily influenced by the lives of those before you, but after 100 years, its a little late for righteous rage on issue. That's not helpful in the slightest to anyone. Being resentful is normal, but it also needs to be recognized when normal behavior is taken to far into the irrational.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:the problem with that statement there, is that much, or most of those rednecks will never admit the south actually lost the war. There's a whole "historical movement" if you want to call them such, called Lost Causers, and many more who maintain that they were in the right the whole time, etc. etc.
Don't get me started on the War of Northern Aggression thing. I went to High School in North Carolina EDIT: And in North Carolina, Virginia wasn't 'south enough' to count as truely Southern
LordofHats wrote: I'm not sure how you could argue WW1 wasn't about Imperialism (or WWII for that matter).In the early 20th century, war and German thought On War (pun intended) was very much in line with Clauswitz's statement "war is politics through other means." Except they took that really literally. The entire war started as a means to inforce German and Austria-Hungry's positions in Europe by destroying Serbia. Of course, Russia couldn't abide by that, and if Russia wouldn't abide by it, France wouldn't abide by it so on and so forth. That has everything to do with Imperialism. The only sane man in the room was István Tisza who everyone promptly ignored. EDIT: Germany realized the whole thing was going to explode from the get go, which is why they didn't dick around when the war started while most everyone else was trying to resolve the conflict via negotiation. Austrian thought on the war before it started though seems markedly inept to the realities of European politics in 1914.
By my statement of WW1 wasn't about Imperialism, I meant that in their use of "Napoleonic diplomacy", they viewed war as merely an extension of diplomacy, as war was still run by "gentlemen" and diplomacy was a "gentlemen's game"... I think that post-WW1, we saw a shift in diplomatic thinking, and war became more of a "last resort" as opposed to a mere extension of politics.
By my statement of WW1 wasn't about Imperialism, I meant that in their use of "Napoleonic diplomacy", they viewed war as merely an extension of diplomacy, as war was still run by "gentlemen" and diplomacy was a "gentlemen's game"... I think that post-WW1, we saw a shift in diplomatic thinking, and war became more of a "last resort" as opposed to a mere extension of politics.
Ah okay. Apologies. I'd agree. If we can identify positives of WWI, its that western attitudes on war changed completely. Using war to advance dubious political goals ceased to be acceptable, even when those pursing conflict played the just cause game. We could also accept that the World Wars ended Imperialism in the west, which I guess is, sort of positive...
If we consider being tyrannically oppressed by your own leaders preferable to being tyrannically oppressed by someone else's a thousand miles away XD
Granted, other than Austria and Germany, I don't think everyone automatically wanted war. Many realized it was inevitable because Austria would never back down (Churchill was not one of these people ). The July Crisis showed a lot of hard work by many people to try and avert the conflict, even among those who knew it couldn't be averted. That's wasn't just a show for the sake of the people. There were many outside Austrian and Germany politics who hoped to avoid the war however narrow that hope may be.
Austria honestly was brain dead thinking that the war would be limited to them, Germany, and Russia. Germany was probably the shrewdest of the bunch at the end of the month, barring the miscalculation that Britain would side with them early on.
World War One was probably the last war which was still fought in a 'shot and pike' type of attitude, except it was cannon and infantry.
I don't think anyone would have expected it to be the massive cluster-feth that it turned out too be. We had ships which could fire shells over the horizon at other ships who could do the same back. Yet they still tried to line up side by side and shoot the living hell out of each other.
Soldiers lined up on the field of battle and marched at each other over and over again, except rather than weapons which could only fire a few times a minute, you had machine guns which were equal to thousands of men.
It's a shame that it turned out the way it did, it doesn't have any relevance any more, partly because WWII had a definitive 'bad-guy' whereas no one really knows who is to blame for WWI. Sure we pinned it on the Germans at the end of it all (blame France for that, if we had listened to the Americans, it might have been a whole different story, but alas alternate realities and all that jazz) but it wasn't their fault, it was just a massive powder keg which was set off accidentally.
Well, who to blame for WWI isn't that hard (in the sense of, who principally agitated the conflict). Germany spent every waking moment from the second Ferdinand was killed to the start of the war ensuring the war happened. Now, Austria might have backed off in the end without German support, maybe, but Austria likewise really wanted that war. Britain at least tried to mediate to prevent the war. Germany sabotaged the mediation, they lied about knowing of Austria's Ultimatum before Austria issued it, they actively encouraged Austria to pursue the war knowing that Austria had no idea as to the storm on the horizon, and they actually laughed about Britains attempts to negotiate. Reading some of the personal papers of several German officials, most notably Gottlieb von Jagow* and key members of the German military paints an exceedingly abhorrent picture of what Germany knew they were doing.
For all the bitching Germany did after the Treaty of Versailles about how all the blame was put on them, a hefty amount of blame really does fall on them for knowing more than other countries what was coming and actively orchestrating its fruition (though like I said before, they initially thought Britain would remain neutral of tacitly support them and Jarow believed the war would be more localized than it became). The Treaty of Versailles was harsh and so vengeful as to be an anti-peace treaty more than anything, but Germany really did make the war happen.
*This is the same guy who was one of the principle planners of one of the greatest strategic blunders of human warfare; The Zimmerman Telegram.
It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.
LordofHats wrote: If we can identify positives of WWI, its that western attitudes on war changed completely. Using war to advance dubious political goals ceased to be acceptable, even when those pursing conflict played the just cause game.
Now we just use war to advance dubious economic goals. I fail to see how that's an improvement.
Now we just use war to advance dubious economic goals. I fail to see how that's an improvement.
When I say dubious political goals, I mean going to war for things like national pride, or to bring civilization to the savage, or to one up some other country by showing how powerful you were destroying some other third country. These excuses ceased to be acceptable after WWI, save a few countries who went on to agitate another world war later. In the US they already were kind of unacceptable, which is why Wilson had to paint the war as a war for democracy.
I have 0 doubt war will continue to be fought for other dubious reasons, just not the same ones we threw around in 1914.
There was another Empire that was destroyed at the end of WWI, the German Empire. Yet we still forced the treaty upon it's successor, the Weimar Republic. Turkey still remained, as did the USSR and Austria and Hungry, why did nothing as bad happen to them?
welshhoppo wrote: There was another Empire that was destroyed at the end of WWI, the German Empire. Yet we still forced the treaty upon it's successor, the Weimar Republic.
The German government during the war and immediately after was pretty much the same government. They had a small revolution and the royalty stepped down yes, but mostly the state lived on with many of the same people and system in control. The other three literally collapsed and disappeared which is why the Allies started cutting them up after the war but not so much with Germany. EDIT: It's kind of like the transition from the USSR to the Russian Federation. They repackaged the product but on the inside not much changed. Major changes wouldn't sweep the Weimar Republic until after Versailles passed in part as a response to Versailles.
Don't mistake me. The Treaty of Versailles was wrong, but Germany saying they were blamed for an inevitable war that wasn't their fault is a lie. The German government directly and purposefully took actions that lead to the war and they knew the war was going to happen.
Turkey still remained, as did the USSR and Austria and Hungry, why did nothing as bad happen to them?
Russia withdrew from the war because of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 which overthrew the Tsarist government and killed the royal family and many state officials. The USSR however would not come to be for a few more years in 1922. Russia at the end of the war was anarchy plunged in the Russian Civil War.
Austria-Hungry likewise completely collapsed overnight and literally ceased to exist which is why a single state became 10 in 1918. EDIT: In retrospect, one of America's greatest mistakes in the 20th century was helping to destroy Austria-Hungry rather than helping it stabilize itself. 1939 could have been a very different year.
The Ottoman Empire was finished and kind of limped about, but the Ottoman Government held little power before the war and afterwards held none, and France and Britain obligingly swooped in and cut up the cake for themselves.
Germany as a state still functioned (more or less, they weren't really what anyone would call well function, just sufficiently functioning), which is why none of these things happened to it and why it was easy to pass Versailles, when all the other 'bad guys' were dead and in pieces (not Russia so much. its just that you can't really deal with a lawless land).
As an academic who specialises in this exact period and subject, there's simply far too much in this thread in terms of information which is accurate and inaccurate for me to respond to, without taking up the rest of the night.
So I'll simply say that a) would be crass, b) inaccurate, and c) just about right.
Austria is hungry? Hungry for another World War? Just look at those Austrians, pretending to an innocent minor country, acting all cheerful with their Lederhosen and scenic mountain landscapes. They are just plotting the next World War! All World Wars until now were started by Austrians. I think it is safe to assume we won't have another World War until an Austrian gets involved.
Austria is hungry? Hungry for another World War? Just look at those Austrians, pretending to an innocent minor country, acting all cheerful with their Lederhosen and scenic mountain landscapes. They are just plotting the next World War!
All World Wars until now were started by Austrians. I think it is safe to assume we won't have another World War until an Austrian gets involved.
I remember a quote saying that Austria's greatest achievement was convincing the world was convincing the world that Beethoven was Austrian, and Hitler was German.
WWI is always a sticky point for me. It really kicked off a lot of world changing events that we are still dealing with today. I think an interesting question is what would the world be like if WWI didn't happen?
Conceivably a much higher global population. Without Empires falling does modernism ever really take place? Without war to drive technology where would we be?
I think that one issue that is very little known, or simply glossed over, and which I am only now beginning to read about and study, is just how bad off the Serbian situation was. From about 1890 til the start of the War in 1914, Serbia went through several bloody/violent coups to replace governments.. hell the same guy was king 2 or 3 times! There was this sort of pressure cooker situation going on where there were many militant attitudes towards a Serb state that was "pure".. By that I dont mean Hitler's sort of purity, but rather they wanted their borders to reflect where "true Serbs" inhabited the land. This meant carving a sizable chunk out of Austria-Hungary and a few other countries as well (but really they wanted the piece belonging to Austria)
There really is a ton to the whole situation. I mean, various elements of the military based in Sarajevo were actively training/recruiting/sending on missiions various guerrilla cells to operate in, and undermine the governments in the localities they were after, hoping to spark civil wars in which these areas would break away from their non-Serb "oppressors" and they could welcome these guys in with open arms, etc.
Yeah Serbia was a big mess (all the Balklands were really when the Ottomans got forced out). The Serbian King actually seems to me as an okay guy, but his government was really only behind him when they found it convenient. After all none of them really gave a damn about him, its just that everyone else had a King, so clearly they needed one too.
I've always found the debate about who was behind the assassination baffling. There's the Bosnia alone camp, which seems to ignore all evidence, the Black Hand camp, which everyone seems to know best, and the Serbian Military Intelligence conspiracy camp, which seems to just ignore that most members of the Black Hand were Serbian Military intelligence. To Serbia's credit, the rest of the government didn't seem to know what they were planning till it was too late, but they also didn't seem overtly concerned until the artillery shells were lining up on the other side of the border XD
LordofHats wrote: It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.
St. Germain and Trianon were just as harsh and arbitrary as Versailles, and explicitly assigned blame to Austria and Hungary, so how do you come to this conclusion?
LordofHats wrote: It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.
St. Germain and Trianon were just as harsh and arbitrary as Versailles, and explicitly assigned blame to Austria and Hungary, so how do you come to this conclusion?
The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).
I think there is a lot of truth in the concept that Germany made a small war a huge one. Austria-Hungary had little to no interest in going west, while Germany were ready to roll through Belgium and France, the former of which brought Britain and her empire/allies into the war and made it truly a World War. So while they didn't start it, Germany did escalate the conflict to the level it came to.
Paradigm wrote: The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).
Yes, I know that Versailles included a war guilt clause that stipulated reparation payments. Do you realize that everything you mentioned (war guilt clause, ludicrous reparation payments, being absolutely unable to pay those) equally applies to the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon?
Germany was not the only country to officially take the blame, and not the only one punished to the point of ruination. Relative to their post-war size and economic power, Austria and Hungary were hit even harder than Germany. So I'm kind of curious where this "Germany took all the blame" comes from, as the points presented so far are simply wrong.
Ketara wrote: As an academic who specialises in this exact period and subject, there's simply far too much in this thread in terms of information which is accurate and inaccurate for me to respond to, without taking up the rest of the night.
So I'll simply say that a) would be crass, b) inaccurate, and c) just about right.
Spot on, though I'm not wholly opposed to some of A
Also people lets get one thing straight, two things won WW1
A) The Royal Navy
B) The USA
In that order. I have no interest in debating causes but to say America's role was trivial is woefully misguided.
Paradigm wrote: The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).
Yes, I know that Versailles included a war guilt clause that stipulated reparation payments. Do you realize that everything you mentioned (war guilt clause, ludicrous reparation payments, being absolutely unable to pay those) equally applies to the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon?
Germany was not the only country to officially take the blame, and not the only one punished to the point of ruination. Relative to their post-war size and economic power, Austria and Hungary were hit even harder than Germany. So I'm kind of curious where this "Germany took all the blame" comes from, as the points presented so far are simply wrong.
Like I say, I recognise other nations were also implicated. The fact remains that, in the eyes of history today and the Allies in 1918, German is and was regarded as the primary aggressor. It's not some kind of modern revisionism or lack of information that makes people believe it, it's the fact that, right from 1918, the western world at large has regarded Germany as the prime instigator, aggressor and instigator of the conflict. They are forever remembered as the ones to blame, whether they were or not.
As the saying goes, history is written by the winners.
Paradigm wrote: The fact remains that, in the eyes of history today and the Allies in 1918, German is and was regarded as the primary aggressor. It's not some kind of modern revisionism or lack of information that makes people believe it, it's the fact that, right from 1918, the western world at large has regarded Germany as the prime instigator, aggressor and instigator of the conflict. They are forever remembered as the ones to blame, whether they were or not.
"In the eyes of history today" maybe was true when "Guns of August" was published, but that has been a while ago. And the treaties the allies penned do neither name nor imply a "primary aggressor".
Anyway, I wasn't contesting what e.g. the average Brit, today or back then, thought about the question of guilt, but the "fact" that Germany took all or even most of the blame in tangible terms. This wasn't the case.
LordofHats wrote: It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.
St. Germain and Trianon were just as harsh and arbitrary as Versailles, and explicitly assigned blame to Austria and Hungary, so how do you come to this conclusion?
The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).
I think there is a lot of truth in the concept that Germany made a small war a huge one. Austria-Hungary had little to no interest in going west, while Germany were ready to roll through Belgium and France, the former of which brought Britain and her empire/allies into the war and made it truly a World War. So while they didn't start it, Germany did escalate the conflict to the level it came to.
Even if Germany had a large hand in escalating the war, they were not solely responsible. That is a rather simplistic view. I find that people ignore the roles in the war of Austria and Hungary too much. And people often seem to forget entirely that the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria also fought on the Central side. The First World War had huge consequences for all those countries, with effects that last until today. They all had to pay huge reparations and they all lost a lot of territory. It also caused all those nations to side with the nazis in WW2. The first World War was not a mainly German affair, Austria is almost equal to blame. And of course the Allied powers were far from innocent themselves. Blaming Germany for everything is just wrong, even if they did play the largest role.
Asquith= British Prime Minister.
Lichnowski=German Ambassador to Britain
August 4th:- Declaration of War by Great Britain
'Dreadnought' by Robert Massie, The setting is Great Britain, August 1st, 1914 wrote:
Asquith's day had begun when, while he was still at breakfast, Lichnowski was announced. "He was very emotional," Asquith recorded, "and implored me not to side with France. He said that Germany, with her Army cut in two between France and Russia, was far more likely to be crushed than France. He was very agitated, the poor man, and wept. I told him that we had no desire to intervene and that it rested largely with Germany to make intervention impossible if she would 1) not invade Belgium and 2) not send her fleet into the Channel to attack the unprotected north coast of France......
There were two cabinet meetings on Sunday 2nd August, from eleven A.M. to two P.M., and again from six thirty P.M. to eight thirty P.M. At the second, the majority of the Cabinet agreed that if Belgian neutrality was violated AND Belgium resisted, Britain would intervene'. (emphasis mine)
In other words, had the Belgians sided with Germany or the Germans not invaded Belgium, and the German Fleet remained out of the Channel, Britain would not have entered the war.
LordofHats wrote: It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.
St. Germain and Trianon were just as harsh and arbitrary as Versailles, and explicitly assigned blame to Austria and Hungary, so how do you come to this conclusion?
The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).
I think there is a lot of truth in the concept that Germany made a small war a huge one. Austria-Hungary had little to no interest in going west, while Germany were ready to roll through Belgium and France, the former of which brought Britain and her empire/allies into the war and made it truly a World War. So while they didn't start it, Germany did escalate the conflict to the level it came to.
Even if Germany had a large hand in escalating the war, they were not solely responsible. That is a rather simplistic view. I find that people ignore the roles in the war of Austria and Hungary too much. And people often seem to forget entirely that the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria also fought on the Central side. The First World War had huge consequences for all those countries, with effects that last until today. They all had to pay huge reparations and they all lost a lot of territory. It also caused all those nations to side with the nazis in WW2. The first World War was not a mainly German affair, Austria is almost equal to blame. And of course the Allied powers were far from innocent themselves. Blaming Germany for everything is just wrong, even if they did play the largest role.
At no point did I state that Germany was the sole aggressor, and I am well aware that pretty much every nation involved had some impact on the war beginning, directly or otherwise. France and Britain's imperialism that prompted the Germans into competition, The Ottomans and Austria-Hungary's attempts to prop up floundering empires caused a lot of tension, Nicholas II of Russia was ready for a war he hoped would restore the people's flagging faith in him.
What I did say was that, in purely physical, military terms, most of the escalation of the conflict was down to Germany. Their decision to go west into Belgium brought Britain into the war (as the piece quoted above shows- No invasion and Britain, along with her empire, would have stayed out). No one is trying to excuse any other nation of blame, but I do think that stating Germany as the most significant escalator of the war is a fair assessment given their role in taking the conflict from a European one to an international one.
It was trivial compared to the French Army's role in the war.
France had an army in the war?
All joking aside, while our involvement was relatively brief, it cannot go understated that we did play a significant role at the end of the war. We came in with typical American Bravado, and forced things to move along. Many of the non-American military commanders hated or disliked us, because we didn't follow the "trend" and actually reverted tactics back to what they were in 1914-15, but we had the manpower to handle that sort of insanity.
I don't blame the Germans. I blame the French for always being such Juicy targets, talking big and then needing their friends to back them up. Every time I mean when you are the size of Texas, how does Montana keep one punch KOing your butt
Andrew1975 wrote: I don't blame the Germans. I blame the French for always being such Juicy targets, talking big and then needing their friends to back them up. Every time I mean when you are the size of Texas, how does Montana keep one punch KOing your butt
French soldiers actually fought really well and were stubborn enough to hold off the German Army hundreds of times, it's just that half the time their commanders had about as much command ability as a beret and a baguette stuck to a target dummy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Moral of the story, the French Army does best when lead by a non-Frenchman or a woman.
It was trivial compared to the French Army's role in the war.
France had an army in the war?
All joking aside, while our involvement was relatively brief, it cannot go understated that we did play a significant role at the end of the war. We came in with typical American Bravado, and forced things to move along. Many of the non-American military commanders hated or disliked us, because we didn't follow the "trend" and actually reverted tactics back to what they were in 1914-15, but we had the manpower to handle that sort of insanity.
The French did have an army, but it went on strike after the stockpile of white flags ran out
The US' role in the 1st World War may have been small, but it was very decisive. The US entry into the war gave the Allies the boost they needed to win. The huge manpower reserves of the US could not be matched by the Central Powers.
Andrew1975 wrote:I don't blame the Germans. I blame the French for always being such Juicy targets, talking big and then needing their friends to back them up. Every time I mean when you are the size of Texas, how does Montana keep one punch KOing your butt
And the French are also responsible for WW2 , because they had to act like they had won the war and be absolute dicks to Germany, despite the other Allies telling them that it would be bad and bite them in the ass later on. Oh la la France
Yeah America helped mop up the war, but without the French Army stubbornly fighting for 3 years, there would have been no war left for America to "save the day" with.
France lost something like 27% of its men aged 18-30 in the war. The Hundred Days Offensive was paltry compared to that.
France gets a lot of flak for having a distinctly less-than-stellar showing in the Second World War, but they did a lot of the heavy lifting in the Great War. They and the Brits held out for three years, before the Americans showed up to drive the nail in Germany's coffin. Truthfully, apart from the Franco-Prussian War and WWII, French military history shows them to be very adept at kicking other people's hoops.
The point I'm making is that the war wasn't won in the trenches. The fronts shifted very little for the amount of resources that it was consuming and no real breakthroughs were ever made.
The war was won in factories and in the north sea.
Another very important thing people are missing about the war (or maybe I have missed it) but considering the scale of the war civilians where relatively safe from harm for the most part. In contrast to almost all other wars after it where civilians deaths as a direct result of the war was horrifically high.
Although many died from other war related means this is in huge contrast to the second world war for example. I dont see how people find the war so offensive when it was defined by slaughter of soldiers, unlike newer "less offensive" wars that where defined by the slaughter of civilians. People arent wanting to party about WW1, they just think that due remembrance should be given.
Also something I always find interesting about the war was the amount of mutiny or refusal to fight from some nations soldiers. Such as France, Italy and Russia. Something that doesnt happen often in many wars and not on such a huge scale.
EmilCrane wrote: The point I'm making is that the war wasn't won in the trenches. The fronts shifted very little for the amount of resources that it was consuming and no real breakthroughs were ever made.
The war was won in factories and in the north sea.
Well, you could argue most wars are won in the factories.
EmilCrane wrote: The point I'm making is that the war wasn't won in the trenches. The fronts shifted very little for the amount of resources that it was consuming and no real breakthroughs were ever made.
The war was won in factories and in the north sea.
Well, you could argue most wars are won in the factories.
They all are. Logistics wins wars. You can have the best trained men in the world, but if you give them sticks and throw them up against a bunch of untrained guys with guns...
Also something I always find interesting about the war was the amount of mutiny or refusal to fight from some nations soldiers. Such as France, Italy and Russia. Something that doesnt happen often in many wars and not on such a huge scale.
I think it depends on the propaganda used to get the soldiers to fight. Most WWI soldiers were conscripts fighting to uphold empires that were oppressing the masses. Your average person really didn't care to die for those reasons. When Franz Ferdenand was Assassinated, most people really didn't care, only through a dedicated campaign were they able to get the average people riled up, and even then not so much.
You can see the difference in motivation in WW2.
I dont see how people find the war so offensive when it was defined by slaughter of soldiers,
I find that pretty offensive actually. Those soldiers were for the most part 100% conscripts AKA slaves, forced to fight for the egos of a few members of royal families. Seriously, these were basically armies of toy soldiers fielded by rich brats. Except that these were real people.
Iron_Captain wrote: Even if Germany had a large hand in escalating the war, they were not solely responsible. That is a rather simplistic view.
It depends on how you define blame. I clarified in my first post on the subject (Page 3 of thread I believe, near the top) that I was defining "who started the war" as who had the largest hand in escalating a small regional conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia into a global conflict. In that sense, Germany most definitely holds the largest share, as they purposefully took action to orchestrate a wide reaching war. Not a global one per se, but one that would encompass most of Europe via is two major rivals, Russia and France.
I find that people ignore the roles in the war of Austria and Hungary too much.
The reason is because Austria-Hungary was mixed in its opinions on how continue. Many major officials in the government (including the Monarch) didn't want to fight a war without German support. While Hungary would refuse to simple back down outright, the conflict could have been contained regionally if Germany hadn't taken a stance of goading everyone on to start a larger conflict.
And people often seem to forget entirely that the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria also fought on the Central side.
The Ottoman's were the Facist Italy of WWI. They were there, but they're role was limited both in the war and in starting it.
Blaming Germany for everything is just wrong, even if they did play the largest role.
Like I said. I think Versailles was too harsh, as was the destruction of Austria-Hungrary (and we're dealing with that whole Israel thing after all), but it's far from wrong to say Germany started the war.
Also something I always find interesting about the war was the amount of mutiny or refusal to fight from some nations soldiers. Such as France, Italy and Russia. Something that doesnt happen often in many wars and not on such a huge scale.
Not really to be honest. Especially in France and Russia the mutinies were about the terrible conditions of the conflict, not a completely alien thing prior to WWI, though standing armies made it far less frequent. It really says more about the relative weakness of the national governments of the countries than about the people or the war itself. Russia and France internally were very weak, especially Russia, and the war stretched that weakness like a rubber band and snapped it.
France and Britain's imperialism that prompted the Germans into competition, The Ottomans and Austria-Hungary's attempts to prop up floundering empires caused a lot of tension, Nicholas II of Russia was ready for a war he hoped would restore the people's flagging faith in him.
The pointing fingers "we only did it because you did" game can go back centuries, making it kind of pointless to the application of something like Just War Theory (my thought process here).
Anyway, I wasn't contesting what e.g. the average Brit, today or back then, thought about the question of guilt, but the "fact" that Germany took all or even most of the blame in tangible terms. This wasn't the case.
WWII probably clouds the issue abit, as we happily lay a lot of blame on Versailles for helping to lead that conflict. It's also though worth pointing out that it's largely the German narrative after the war and until about the late 50's that they were blamed by everyone for the war, and even today remains a popular narrative. Probably is worth reexamining that idea. Germany got dumped on, but then again, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans got dismantled entirely. In that sense, they probably got off pretty lightly XD
Versailles though I think still remains a very bad treaty. In the culture of the time, it ignored the 'it takes two to tango' aspect of war, pushing harsh military and economic punishments on an utterly crippled Germany that could never cope with its demands. Throw in the wounding of national pride in an age where national pride meant a lot, and you have a situation where the end of the war could have been handled with a little more tact.
The whole "Who to Blame for the War" has been going on in Academic circles since 1914. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that no one has come up with the answer as it is still an ongoing Academic debate.
I seriously doubt anyone in Dakka OT knows so let's not try to argue who to blame. That got old back in the Roaring 20's.
Easy E wrote: The whole "Who to Blame for the War" has been going on in Academic circles since 1914. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that no one has come up with the answer as it is still an ongoing Academic debate.
Lots of fairly established things are ongoing academic debates. Throw in historical debates deeply connected to politics (which WWI most definitely is) and see them drag on on for decades in the dumbest ways. There're still people throwing Ordinance Department histories around and saying McNair killed US troops by not producing the M27, in spite of how we know now that those histories are filled with lies. People are still debating whether Silas Dean was a traitor for god's sake. Even ignoring the very compelling story that the actual traitor framed and assassinated him, there's abundant evidence to prove Silas Dean didn't betray his country.
EDIT: As a further example, I read a paper from an expert on German politics who argued that the plan of the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler and seize control of the German government was always doomed to fail, which is probably true, but the weird part is when this expert started arguing Hermann Goring would take over, purge the SS from government, and sue for peace, which shows a remarkable lack of knowledge as to the character of Goring and Himmler for an expert to have.
Being an expert does not make one infalliable. History is a massive field, where it can be decades for information in a field to reach the wider community. WWI is debated across the entire planet. Thousands of pages are produced on it every year. Even experts in the field can find themselves devoid of knowledge of the findings of other experts just because there's so many of them in separate unconnected circles (with added language barriers).
I seriously doubt anyone in Dakka OT knows so let's not try to argue who to blame.
One, there are people who know. I've been pointing it out for pages now. You can accept the evidence (which is abundant) that Germany was the only nation involved that took purposeful action to create a European war, the standard that I personally feel is sufficient to assign them the lion's share of blame for the immediate events leading to the war, or not. That has nothing to do with who knows what.
It takes two to tango (in this case it's like, twelve or something) but only one person needs to start up the band and Germany was plotting how to get the band going before Ferdinand's body hit the ground.
The bar fight quote was great. Reminded me how little i actually understand about what was going on during world war 1. Honestly, what i recall from high school about the was, there were trenches, there was mustard gas, and "Merica" kicked ass.
It takes two to tango (in this case it's like, twelve or something) but only one person needs to start up the band and Germany was plotting how to get the band going before Ferdinand's body hit the ground.
I agree with you Lord on the premise that Germany made the war worse than it needed to be.... As I've said previously, the conditions were ripe in Europe for an Ork Waaagh! to commence, and certain steps were definitely taken by Germany especially, to make it worse than it needed to be. They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands, and France for one thing, as keeping the focus to the east could have allowed France and England to remain neutral as a sort of "not my problem" kind of view (kind of how the US views the Falklands in regards to the UK, or at least did at one point). However, with the political climate, Germany for many reasons felt that, in order to "prevent" themselves from fighting a war on two fronts, they needed to blitz and destroy France and its allies... and... fight a war on two fronts
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rotary wrote: The bar fight quote was great. Reminded me how little i actually understand about what was going on during world war 1. Honestly, what i recall from high school about the was, there were trenches, there was mustard gas, and "Merica" kicked ass.
Honestly man, since leaving school, I have discovered on my own, that WW1 is probably the most fascinating "modern" conflict of all to study. The politics, military tactics/strategies, and even social life were all so greatly affected through the conflict that I absolutely love reading about it... I guess you could say that I'm a bit of a hipster when it comes to WW1 history
I agree with you Lord on the premise that Germany made the war worse than it needed to be.... As I've said previously, the conditions were ripe in Europe for an Ork Waaagh! to commence, and certain steps were definitely taken by Germany especially, to make it worse than it needed to be. They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands, and France for one thing, as keeping the focus to the east could have allowed France and England to remain neutral as a sort of "not my problem" kind of view (kind of how the US views the Falklands in regards to the UK, or at least did at one point). However, with the political climate, Germany for many reasons felt that, in order to "prevent" themselves from fighting a war on two fronts, they needed to blitz and destroy France and its allies... and... fight a war on two fronts
Well Russia was never going to stand there and let Austria attack Serbia. Tsar Nicholas while woefully incompetent for his duties, was at his heart a good man who took action because he honestly thought it was the right thing to do. He wanted peace (which is why he organized the Hague Conference) but he wasn't going to stand by a let Austria attack Serbia. When Austria would have invaded, Russia would have declared war, Germany would have declared war on Russia, and France would have declared war on Germany and Austria.
No matter how it spins, a war in Serbia was never going to stay regional. However, the war could have been prevented entirely by Germany. Had they simple gone up to Austria and slapped it across the face saying "Stop being stupid and man up damnit. You really want to fight a war on two fronts against Russia and France? I know I don't!" The answer to which is definitively no. It's highly unlikely that a war would have started in 1914 without Germany backing Austria-Hungary. Had Germany taken a stand, the situation would have been extremely tense but likely ended without a war. Whole thing might have even worked itself out in time, cause Serbia was never going to last as a state even with Russia backing it.
C.
1. It told us that 'butterfly effect' exists. but not without series of powerplays between higher ups and bluebloods. why mess with Balkans if Eastern Asia was ripe for the taking? It's not just about an infuriated teen who joined a serbian scion (or the said ordo fraternitus in question itself) can bring an entire world down by just splling a Habsburg blueblood (the clan that has been subjected to the hate for many generations by many races living in and around Balkans).
2. The war answer the question whether should an entire Europe belonged to a few giants (Empires) where few clans bossing around numerous tribals, or should Europe composed of many many many many many small nations representing every 'european races'--big or small, ? It is when the debates of of 'Imperialism VS Nationalism' aren't settled properly (nor the 'mediator' to settle the said dispuites exists yet...) Europe changed by this war. and by the end of this war. the 'Nationalism' ideology won. the effect is very profound even among the winners. Independency movements seen in French and British colonies began AFTER the first world war. and later finalized by the end of second worldwar.
Also the war had made French Revolutionary dreams a reality. It finalized what Napoleon Bonaparte began 100 years ago.
3. The War not only destroyed many empires (Germany, Austria, and Ottoman). it reformed one... Russia, and created two more... the United States of America, and Imperium Iaponia. Europe had been weakened by the end of it.
and
4. It make 'World Government' neccessity. the 'League of Nations' (and later the United Nations) are the direct results of this war.
Being Siamese myself. The war is a gamble in European casino. picking wrong side and an entire nation is doomed, choosing right side only yields a small prize. It doesn't make Siam a new global player (as its status was (and still) no greater than Latin America), the only spoils of war were renegotiations of many unequal treaties previously ratified in Victorian era.
The war... however, wasn't without any real change to Siam.
1. Industrialization effort kickoff. the Crown-own 'Siam Cement Group' was established, Initially intended to replace cement/concrete imports, it soon found out that the world demand was far greater than domestic ones.
2. Profound military changes. Siamese (late) entry to the war introduced new things to its armed forces. (usually the same thing seen elsewhere)
- Motorized warfare. including the experimental armored car created 'in house', and the imports of armored vehicles (mostly from Britain, the first 'tanks' shown up in 1930,)
- Helmets. Belgian-made Adrian helmet was chosen for Royal Siamese Armed Forces, replaced dress cap and pith helmets as fieldgear.
- Machine gun. Browning M1917 has been purchased in large numbers following the war.
- Air Force, Siam has an official 'Air Force' before the United States of America did. and thus many remote cities previously not accessed by rails have military airfields. and there were times the RSAF made 'in-house' aircraft (though engines, gauges and weapons were all imported, wooden frames and canvas was domestically made and engine installed where it should be.
For anyone that hasn't seen it, there was a docudrama on BBC2 (I think) over the last couple of weeks called 37 Days, with the final part next week, that covers the build-up to war. While parts are slightly embellished, it's worth a watch for anyone into this period. It also demonstrates rather nicely how easily Germany could have stopped/started the war.
I agree with you Lord on the premise that Germany made the war worse than it needed to be.... As I've said previously, the conditions were ripe in Europe for an Ork Waaagh! to commence, and certain steps were definitely taken by Germany especially, to make it worse than it needed to be. They could have kept it a regional thing by not attacking/invading The Netherlands, and France for one thing, as keeping the focus to the east could have allowed France and England to remain neutral as a sort of "not my problem" kind of view (kind of how the US views the Falklands in regards to the UK, or at least did at one point). However, with the political climate, Germany for many reasons felt that, in order to "prevent" themselves from fighting a war on two fronts, they needed to blitz and destroy France and its allies... and... fight a war on two fronts
Well Russia was never going to stand there and let Austria attack Serbia. Tsar Nicholas while woefully incompetent for his duties, was at his heart a good man who took action because he honestly thought it was the right thing to do. He wanted peace (which is why he organized the Hague Conference) but he wasn't going to stand by a let Austria attack Serbia. When Austria would have invaded, Russia would have declared war, Germany would have declared war on Russia, and France would have declared war on Germany and Austria.
No matter how it spins, a war in Serbia was never going to stay regional. However, the war could have been prevented entirely by Germany. Had they simple gone up to Austria and slapped it across the face saying "Stop being stupid and man up damnit. You really want to fight a war on two fronts against Russia and France? I know I don't!" The answer to which is definitively no. It's highly unlikely that a war would have started in 1914 without Germany backing Austria-Hungary. Had Germany taken a stand, the situation would have been extremely tense but likely ended without a war. Whole thing might have even worked itself out in time, cause Serbia was never going to last as a state even with Russia backing it.
So, your argument is tha tthe "blank check" is what causes German blame, yet it was Austria-Hungary that actually took the action. By your own reasoning, wouldn't the war than be the fault of Austro-Hungary? They were hell bent on using this opportunity to put an end to Serbian belligerence despite Russia's pro-Serbian/pan-slav stance?
There is pretty compelling evidence that the Kaiser did not want a war with Russia based on the infamous Willy and Nicky telegraphs/letters. Therefore, it is disingenous to believe that theGreat War was all a German plot to destabilize the European Status Quo and that they were actively agitating for the war.
Let's not forget, that Austro-Hungary was still considered a Great Power at the time. No matter what argument you make, there are plenty of scholars (and evidence) who can point to how it was Russia's fault, France's fault, heck even Britain's fault. The only thing we can agree on is that all the Nations involved felt like they had a vital interest in the actions they took.
I dont see how people find the war so offensive when it was defined by slaughter of soldiers,
I find that pretty offensive actually. Those soldiers were for the most part 100% conscripts AKA slaves, forced to fight for the egos of a few members of royal families. Seriously, these were basically armies of toy soldiers fielded by rich brats. Except that these were real people.
Not exactly true for the early part of the war. Kitchener's Army was mostly volunteers and not conscripts. The initial enthusiasm for the war was at every level of society. This was in all the European nations. However, I'm not as sure about the Eastern Fronts, but he Western Front countries the war was greeted with enthusiasm by the majority of the population.
So, your argument is tha tthe "blank check" is what causes German blame, yet it was Austria-Hungary that actually took the action. By your own reasoning, wouldn't the war than be the fault of Austro-Hungary?
Read my earlier posts in the thread. Germany purposely sabotaged attempts by Britain to mediate the dispute. They agitated Russia and France hoping one of the two would attack first. They egged Austria on by promising support in the 'upcoming' war. Heads of state in Germany were disappointed when it was first reported to them that Serbia had accepted the Ultimatum and then excited when they learned Serbia rejected a single point which they then used to ensure Austria remained dedicated to the conflict. They refused a request by Tsar Nicholas to negotiate, and wouldn't sit down with France either.
Internally, Germany took numerous actions to make the war happen and they wanted the war to happen. While there were many in Austria who wanted the war, there were also many who refused to support it without German support, including the monarch. Obviously that was never an issue as Germany was fully behind the war and unlike Austria knew and wanted a European conflict.
You can't spend the month leading to a war, orchestrating that war and goading everyone else into it, and then say after the fact that it totally wasn't you fault. Really, read up on the July Crisis.
They were hell bent on using this opportunity to put an end to Serbian belligerence despite Russia's pro-Serbian/pan-slav stance?
They didn't really give a damn about Serbia or Austria really. It was just a convenient excuse for them to pursue their own ends. EDIT: Namely, they feared the military build up in Tsarist Russia, and wanted to cripple Russia's power. France became a necessary target as well because of their alliance.
There is pretty compelling evidence that the Kaiser did not want a war with Russia based on the infamous Willy and Nicky telegraphs/letters
Uh, Wilhelm was lying in those letters as per internal correspondence in Germany. Initially Wilhelm indeed didn't want war (ironic as his removal of Bismark from power is what prompted the alliance of France and Russia) and he said as much in his diary and a few letters, but Wilhelm held very little power in Germany. He lost almost all of it after the Daily Telegraph incident and Germany was nominally controlled by the military and a few state heads. Eventually Wilhelm gave in and supported the push for war, taking advice from his advisors on how to keep members of his family in other countries in the dark on exactly what was going on in Germany.
Therefore, it is disingenous to believe that theGreat War was all a German plot to destabilize the European Status Quo and that they were actively agitating for the war.
Plot? I wouldn't describe it as such. I'm simply speaking that in the immediate events that led to the war, Germany did cause it. Saying they didn't is ignorant of reality. In a more grand aspect looking at European history, a lot of things caused WWI (like the removal of Bismark, the Boxer Rebellion, the Boer Wars, etc). Nicholas was as I said earlier an inept leader. A better head in Russia could have prevented Austria taking over Bosnia, preventing Serbia from coming into conflict with them at all. The failure of the Hague Conference to slow the arms race (though I must point out Germany was one of the most unhelpful countries there).
It's just that WWI really didn't have to happen. Had Germany not taken the stance it did, it might have never happened. Everyone gets blame, but Germany's actions were particularly egregious. The imperialist systems of politics created the environment that sparked WWI, those systems in themselves didn't make the war happen. Germany did a lot more than other countries to start WWI and they did so knowingly. I can't accept the idea that everyone was equally guilty in starting the war. It's just not true.
The only thing we can agree on is that all the Nations involved felt like they had a vital interest in the actions they took.
And yet, it's telling only one had 0 interest in negotiation; Germany. Nicholas and Serbia offered to negotiate, Britain offered mediation, and France was willing to sit back and not pick a fight which is why they pulled their army back from the German border hoping to show they didn't want a war. None of those things mattered because Germany was the sole country hell bent on fight a war.
Germany as a state had simply slipped into a position where it was being ruled by the hardest of nationalists and Wilhelm did much in his early rule to cripple any ability to reform German foreign policy.
He was born in Corsica, which naturally makes him 50% Italian EDIT: Honestly though he was born a year after France took over the island from the defunct Republic of Genoa.
I'm probably a mix of B and C, I feel that we shouldn't glorify the war and that it was a waste of innocent life. However we shouldn't forget those who died in it as would be disrespectful to those who died for their country.
We shouldn't glorify the war but we should honour those who were in it.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly though he was born a year after France took over the island from the defunct Republic of Genoa.
Yeah, I know. We actually learn about that during history lessons in high school. Hence the question.
Being born in a part of France however does not make Napoleon any more French than I am Ukrainian since I was born in a part of Ukraine. Napoleone was a Corsican, not a Frenchman.
Iron_Captain wrote: Being born in a part of France however does not make Napoleon any more French than I am Ukrainian since I was born in a part of Ukraine.
No, it does not. I did not say it did. What would make Napoleon a French would be if he considered himself a French more than a Corsican. I do not know what where his views on the matter, but those are what matters. Well, what would matter if we actually cared about whether or not Napoleon was French.
George Washington was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia when it was still a British Colony, therefore he's a damn Brit! Birthers unite! Burn your dollar bills and quarters in protest!
Iron_Captain wrote: Being born in a part of France however does not make Napoleon any more French than I am Ukrainian since I was born in a part of Ukraine.
No, it does not. I did not say it did. What would make Napoleon a French would be if he considered himself a French more than a Corsican. I do not know what where his views on the matter, but those are what matters. Well, what would matter if we actually cared about whether or not Napoleon was French.
Agreed. It doesn't really matter, since the whole "France only does well when not being led by a Frenchman" thing is ridiculous anyways, as WW1 also proves.
Easy E wrote: The whole "Who to Blame for the War" has been going on in Academic circles since 1914. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that no one has come up with the answer as it is still an ongoing Academic debate.
I seriously doubt anyone in Dakka OT knows so let's not try to argue who to blame.
One, there are people who know. I've been pointing it out for pages now. You can accept the evidence (which is abundant) that Germany was the only nation involved that took purposeful action to create a European war, the standard that I personally feel is sufficient to assign them the lion's share of blame for the immediate events leading to the war, or not. That has nothing to do with who knows what.
It takes two to tango (in this case it's like, twelve or something) but only one person needs to start up the band and Germany was plotting how to get the band going before Ferdinand's body hit the ground.
And there are plenty of scholars and authors who point to British belligerence, Russian Pan-slavism, and French revenge fantasies (in their respective governments and the public) all pining for War as well. There is all the evidence you need to damn all parties involved. All of them were plotting on how to capitalize on the July Crisis and this dance of "Who is to Blame" is tired and old. Everyone thought they had something to gain by going to war, and that's why a war eventually happened.
Anyway, people have been going around and around on this for a century now. You can believe it was all Germany if you want. That's fine by me. However, for everyone else I encourage you to reach out and learn for yourself, and make your own decision.
Barbara Tuchmann's "Guns of August" is a good start, but so is "A Distant Mirror" (Or was it called the Ivory Tower"?) as it talks a bit about the social constructs and assumptions around the outbreak of the war that helped guide the leadership to the decisions they made. Plus, there are literally thousands of books on the subject, some of them coming out recently with the anniversary. Don't take LordsofHats or myself at face value. Go find out for yourself. That is one of the best ways to remember World War 1.
Easy E wrote: And there are plenty of scholars and authors who point to British belligerence
A position that's never made much historical sense. The tension in Britain and Germany's relationship mostly came from Germany. See the disastrous Daily Telegraph incident.
All of them were plotting on how to capitalize on the July Crisis
No. They weren't. Britain and France in particular were dreading the outcome.
Everyone thought they had something to gain by going to war, and that's why a war eventually happened.
Broadly the war happened because of a mix of political obligations between nation states that dragged them all into a regional conflict one after the other whether they wanted to be there or not (This is what the Guns of August directly addresses). Narrowly, Germany orchestrated a major diplomatic incident into an international war (Any given specific history of the German state in the 20th century will point this out).
You can believe it was all Germany if you want.
I don't. If you bothered to read my posts instead of just ranting at thin air with my name on it, you might have noticed. I've made several metaphors, pointing out other things that led to the war, and said that I disagree with the Versailles treaty. At this point, you're just ranting at an argument no one is this thread is advocating while not even addressing the one I'm putting forward.
Barbara Tuchmann's "Guns of August" is a good start,
Her work is also from the 60's. We know things now she didn't know then. History does not stand still.
John C. G. Röhl in his own work (published not long after hers) tackles many of the faults in her narrative and addresses more specifically German culpability in starting the war (his position is far harsher than mine however). I suggest reading Fritz Fischer. For a very recent author, read Chris Clark. There are also several collections of German government documents (the oldest and most known is the collection made by Karl Kautsky not long after the war). Really. One woman didn't define WWI history for all time in a single book in 1962. As important and valuable as her work is, its not the end. The flaw of popular history is that after reading one or two books, people tend to just stop and 'popular' is in that phrase for a reason.
When you read Jagow laughing at Britains attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully and German military leaders discussing how to prevent Russia from negotiating a peaceful resolution with Austria, and are presumably aware of the political climates of Russia and Austria at this time, you have a really hard time indulging the fantasy that Germany didn't play a special role in starting the war.
Easy E wrote: And there are plenty of scholars and authors who point to British belligerence
A position that's never made much historical sense. The tension in Britain and Germany's relationship mostly came from Germany. See the disastrous Daily Telegraph incident.
Sorry, I couldn't resist this one. The First Lord of the Admiralty; Jackie Fischer was making claims about "Copenhagen"ing the entire German High Seas Fleet. Essentially, a surprise attack to sink the German fleet in port by the Royal Navy. This is the same guy that basically had the Dreadnaught designed and built to render the entire German High Seas Fleet obsolete. I can't imagine why Germany might feel like Britain had a thing against them as the Old Power vs. the New"er" Power.
Plus, Britain and France were "secretly" negotiating military assistance and essentially aligning with the Entente Powers agains the Central Powers. Again, I can't see why Germany might feel like they were being "encirlced" or contained. After all, everyone knew that in a Great Power diplomacy you need 3 friends out of the 5.
Easy E wrote: Everyone thought they had something to gain by going to war, and that's why a war eventually happened.
Broadly the war happened because of a mix of political obligations between nation states that dragged them all into a regional conflict one after the other whether they wanted to be there or not (This is what the Guns of August directly addresses). Narrowly, Germany orchestrated a major diplomatic incident into an international war (Any given specific history of the German state in the 20th century will point this out).
You can believe it was all Germany if you want.
True. However, at any point a nation could have made the political decision to severe those ties or break those obligations. They did not. Therefore, they must have thought the political calculus was worth the risk. All of them felt their interests would benefit.
Easy E wrote: [Barbara Tuchmann's "Guns of August" is a good start,
Her work is also from the 60's. We know things now she didn't know then. History does not stand still.
Very true, but is is still a nice accessible start for those who want to dip their toe into the waters. Since then their have been many, many, many books on the subject. More than any one person could probably read.
Easy E wrote: I hope I get all the quote blocks right. I'm not a master at this type of thing.
Meh. I mess um up and need to fix them all the time. Damn / thingies.
Sorry, I couldn't resist this one. The First Lord of the Admiralty; Jackie Fischer was making claims about "Copenhagen"ing the entire German High Seas Fleet. Essentially, a surprise attack to sink the German fleet in port by the Royal Navy. This is the same guy that basically had the Dreadnaught designed and built to render the entire German High Seas Fleet obsolete. I can't imagine why Germany might feel like Britain had a thing against them as the Old Power vs. the New"er" Power.
Plus, Britain and France were "secretly" negotiating military assistance and essentially aligning with the Entente Powers agains the Central Powers. Again, I can't see why Germany might feel like they were being "encirlced" or contained. After all, everyone knew that in a Great Power diplomacy you need 3 friends out of the 5.
Making plans for war isn't the same thing as wanting war. There's a difference between pragmatism and warmongering. Of course, the pragmatism lead to the arms race, which never eased anyone's sense of insecurity.
It would be silly for us now to say that Germany felt surrounded. Of course they did and they were. Problem is that that's kind of a mess Germany, and King Wilhelm in particular, had a major role in. Bismark might have hated socialism and the labor movement, but he was a man who understood international relations and worked extremely hard to prevent a European war and he did a good job. Wilhelm threw him out for petty reasons, increasing France and Russia's nervousness. They'd been at ease with Bismark, and confident he could maintain the peace. Because he was thrown out they got scared and formed their alliance, then Germany lamented that they were surrounded on all sides. Prior to losing power, Wilhelm was a pretty crazy guy. No one could predict him and it made everyone nervous even after he lost power (the rest of Europe wouldn't really realize it till after the war).
Granted, this isn't what I'm talking about when I assign special blame to Germany. I'm talking in the strictist sense possible; that in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of Ferdinand, Germany existed in a unique position in Europe and unlike other European countries, made no real overture's of peace. They pretended to indulge their rivals, but really they had no interest in anything less than a full European conflict in a general sense.
I don't say that to say it was all their fault or deny the other far reaching causes of the war, merely to point out the immediate chain of events that led to the war.
True. However, at any point a nation could have made the political decision to severe those ties or break those obligations. They did not. Therefore, they must have thought the political calculus was worth the risk. All of them felt their interests would benefit.
Yeah, but none of them were going to do that. I don't hold it against Germany for holding to their treaty obligation to support Austria-Hungary in war. Rather, I hold it against them that they existed in a unique position to convince Austria not to go to war, but instead sabotaged negotiation attempts and egged Austria on to make sure the war happened.
Very true, but is is still a nice accessible start for those who want to dip their toe into the waters. Since then their have been many, many, many books on the subject. More than any one person could probably read.
That's why I always advise delving into more recent authors first actually. Fischer, Ritter, and Rhol are among the ground breakers in WWI history, but their work is more obscure than Guns of August, which wasn't ground break so much as a concise well written work for the lay person written in a time when the aformentioned ground breaks were just coming out of the woodwork. Her work as a result is dated and lacks newer findings and points of view. I don't agree with Chris Clark completely, but newer books like his incorporate past works into themselves, meaning that they take a wider account of our present knowledge.
I'd always say someone should start new and then work their way back.* It makes it easier to keep note of who knew what and when they knew it. Simpler for verifying the accuracy of different narratives
Use the footnotes people You'll actually find funny stuff, like people attributing information and opinions to works that don't contain them!
For another (very) interesting read, check out a book called "Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914" (or something close to it... it does start with sleep walkers)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: For another (very) interesting read, check out a book called "Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914" (or something close to it... it does start with sleep walkers)
Also if you'd like to learn about the important (and forgotten) naval war, read Robert K Massie's Dreadnought and Castles of Steel. Seriously, the Royal Navy can't get enough credit for winning the war. While their record in protecting the convoys was patchy, they kept the german fleet bottled up and enforced a blockade that starved germany into submission.
Paradigm wrote: For anyone that hasn't seen it, there was a docudrama on BBC2 (I think) over the last couple of weeks called 37 Days, with the final part next week, that covers the build-up to war. While parts are slightly embellished, it's worth a watch for anyone into this period. It also demonstrates rather nicely how easily Germany could have stopped/started the war.
I'll check it out. It's very easy for Germany to prevent the war by using 'coercions' against Austria. (or use limited alliance policy not a full fledged ones)
Basically Germany entered the war when not really ready. Germany may need to include south american states into its fold before going to war.
Basically by 1914. none of Europeans really aware of the real potentials of the United States of America.
That would have potentially kept Great Britain out of the war, which would have been huge, but it still would have dragged France into the war via their alliance with Russia (and if Britain chose they could still enter the war via other treaties if they chose). At best, WWI could have been smaller, but still a general European war.
Speaking from my knowledge of the Imperial Navy, Japan would have gotten involved no matter what. No way the people in charge would have passed up a primo chance to take a few Pacific islands. They used Britain as their justification in WWI but really they didn't care at all. They'd have found another excuse or just attacked outright.
I think Britain's entry without an invasion of Belgium is hard to determine. I'm not an expert on internal British politics by far, but I've heard it both ways. They might have entered anyway or they might have stayed neutral. I wonder myself about unrestricted submarine warfare and how that might have played out in Britain. Britain kind of held the war together for a time on the western front. I question that Britain would have stood by and done nothing with Germany about to win and France tettering on toppling over, but then it might have happened far too quickly for Britain to react in time if events went that path.
LordofHats wrote: I think Britain's entry without an invasion of Belgium is hard to determine. I'm not an expert on internal British politics by far, but I've heard it both ways. They might have entered anyway or they might have stayed neutral. I wonder myself about unrestricted submarine warfare and how that might have played out in Britain. Britain kind of held the war together for a time on the western front. I question that Britain would have stood by and done nothing with Germany about to win and France tettering on toppling over, but then it might have happened far too quickly for Britain to react in time if events went that path.
Some would argue tha tif the BEF hadn't been on the continent for the Battle of the Marne, then the Schlieffen Plan might have actually worked and knocked France out of the war pretty early. I don't agree, but some writers feel that way.
Some would argue tha tif the BEF hadn't been on the continent for the Battle of the Marne, then the Schlieffen Plan might have actually worked and knocked France out of the war pretty early. I don't agree, but some writers feel that way.
There's also the Russian attack in the East which Germany wasn't prepared for and thought Russia wouldn't be ready to launch. Their redeployment of reserces intended for the final push of Schlieffen weakened the attack and improced France and Britain's chances.
I don't mean strictly the Marne but the war overall. There were time where the French army (espeically in late 1916 to mid 1917) was kind of on the edge of collapsing on itself and Britain held the defenses of the front in one piece while they tried to get their house in order. The inactivity of the Germany navy was also important. A Germany navy free to roam the seas would have been disasterous.
Just a timeline to add to the discussion on 'who was to blame'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 28th:- Assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
July 5th:- Count Szogyeny, Austrian Ambassador to Germany delivers a letter from Emperor Franz Josef to Kaiser Wilhelm II. The letter questions what German policy would be if Austria Hungary decided to 'punish' Serbia by 'isolating Serbia and reducing her size'. The Kaiser responds that Austria-Hungary could "rely on Germany's full support". The Kaiser then goes on holiday for three weeks.
July 7th:-Austrian Council of Ministers convenes to decide on peace or war.
July 23rd:- Austrian note of demands presented to Serbia. The note was deliberately designed to be rejected, involving conditions such as firing all army officers and schoolteachers critical of Austria-Hungary, and the arrest of a number of specifically named high ranking individuals. Serbia given exactly two days to respond.
July 24th:- Britain and Russia attempt to have the deadline extended. The Austrians refuse. Britain and Russia bring pressure to bear on Serbia to accept as many terms as possible. The Russian Foreign Minister suggests placing the matter before the International Court in the Hague.
July 25th:- Serbian officials declare they are prepared to accede to all demands except the one demanding that the Austrians would be able to participate in the judicial enquiry into the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, as this would violate their constitution and laws of criminal procedure. Austria refuses to accept this.
July 26th:- Britain tries to arrange a Four Power conference in London on the issue.
July 27th:- France and Italy accept, Germany declines, with the Kaiser stating upon return from his holiday that he would only participate on Austria-Hungary's explicit request for him to do so.
July 28th:- Paris informs Russia of France's full and active readiness faithfully to execute her responsibilities as ally'.
July 29th:- Austria declares war on Serbia. The Tsar telegraphs the Kaiser urging him to try and get the Austrians to show some restraint. The Kaiser refuses. Shortly afterwards, the Austrian artillery opens up on the Serbian capital. Upon receiving this news, the Tsar orders the mobilisation of four military districts. The Germans, having this telegraphed to them, formally demand a halt to any Russian mobilisation.
Meanwhile, the British propose to the German Ambassador that after occupying Belgrade, the Austrians cease hostilities and submit to mediation from Germany, Italy, France & Britain. Sir Edwyn Grey warns that, 'The British Government...could stand aside as long as the conflict remained confined to Austria and Russia. But if Germany and France should be involved, then the situation would immediately be altered and the British Government would be forced to make up it's mind quickly'.
German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg sends a message enquiring what the British response would be, if Germany assured that in the eventuality of war with France and success by Germany, Germany guaranteed the postwar territorial integrity of France and Belgium? The British refuse to even consider the question.
July 30th:-The German Chancellor is worried by the British responses thus far. He twice telegraphs the German ambassador (Tschirsky) in Vienna a recommendation that Austria agree to the previous British proposal of mediation. When informed, the Austrian Foreign Minister coolly responds that this would be 'out of the question'. The Austro-Hungarian Empire then announces full military mobilisation. Despite pressure from German generals to do so the same, the German Chancellor refuses to decide at that moment.
Meanwhile, The French President summons the British Ambassador, Sir Francis Bertie, and pushes for Britain to 'take a stand'.
July 31st:- Russia declares a full mobilisation. Germany demands that Russia stand down within twelve hours, or Germany will mobilise as well, and declare war. Germany also messages Paris, requiring them to state whether or not they will remain neutral in the event of conflict. If the answer was 'yes', Germany demanded that France surrender the fortresses of Toul and Verdun as security on her pledge of neutrality. Paris was told they had eighteen hours within which to reply.
Britain telegraphs both France and Germany urging both respond Belgian neutrality regardless of what happened, France immediately agrees, Germany declines to comment.
August 1st:- German ultimatum to Russia expires without reply. Germany mobilises and declares war on Russia. The French deadline then expires without reply.
August 2nd:- The British Cabinet decides that they would only intervene if Belgian neutrality was violated. Later on that day, Germany issues an ultimatum to Belgium demanding passage for troops and surrender of several fortresses.
August 3rd:- King Albert of Belgium appeals to Britain for support. Germany declares war on France. France responds in kind. Britain demands Germany withdraw their ultimatum/any trespassing forces from Belgium within 24 hours.
August 4th:- The German Army crosses the Belgian border. Britain waits out the end of their 24 hour demand, and then declares war on Germany.
August 6th:- Austria-Hungary breaks off ongoing negotiations with Russia under pressure from Germany, and declares war on Russia.
While I generally agree Ketara, I think Bethmann Hollweg actions require the additional clarification; He was pretty much Falkenhayn and Tirpitz's bottom bitch. They told him to stall for time and he stalled. Wilhim likewise, offered his support only after prompting from his cabinet who then advised him to go on his vacation as planned so as not to raise any alarms. He in conspiracy with German command and Jagow deleted the last line of a British mediation message that read;
Also, the whole world here is convinced, and I hear from my colleagues that the key to the situation lies in Berlin, and that if Berlin seriously wants peace, it will prevent Vienna from following a foolhardy policy
Before sending the message to Austria. This line would have been a clear message to Austria that the war would not remain local as they theorized it would. Bethmann Hollweg later trepidation seems to have been a change of heart as it started to dawn on him what was happening, but he had limited control as Wilhelm could easily remove him with prompting from Falkenhayn.
I also think Nicholas should be mentioned as his initial mobilization of Russian troops was a mistake he didn't mean to make. He wanted them put on standby not mobilized and for there to be a focus on Austria-Hungary's border rather than Germany so as not to agitate the Germans. Tsarist Russia being what it was, that message got a little lost XD
LordofHats wrote: While I generally agree Ketara, I think Bethmann Hollweg actions require the additional clarification; He was pretty much Falkenhayn and Tirpitz's bottom bitch. They told him to stall for time and he stalled. Wilhim likewise, offered his support only after prompting from his cabinet who then advised him to go on his vacation as planned so as not to raise any alarms. He in conspiracy with German command and Jagow deleted the last line of a British mediation message that read;
Bethmann-Hollweg wanted Austria to swallow Serbia, but wasn't so much in favour of a general European war. I don't know a huge amount about Falkenhayn, but you definitely overestimate Tirpitz's level of influence/power in the government by 1914.
He pretty much single handedly stalled Bethmann-Hollweg's attempts to scale back the German-British naval arms race. Bethmann-Hollweg was one of a number of German officials who really wanted to mend the tension with Britain and he probably got some general support on this cause I don't think anyone in Germany really wanted that much to pick a fight with Britain, even those who favored a wider war.
I don't think Tripitz held much sway with many of his peers but he had a good friend in Wilhelm (at least in terms of wanting to expand the German navy), who being half British envied the Royal Navy and wanted one of his own. This conflict between the two men would have been around 1910-1911. I can't remember the exact year. I bring it up merely because its an important event in showcasing the weakness of the position of the Chancellor in German government in the years leading to the war. He had very little say in what did or didn't happen.
I don't think Bethmann-Hollweg wanted a war but he had relatively little power. The role of Chancellor meant very little by 1914. He was in a camp of policy makers who wante da repeat of the Balklands War so as to shift the balance of power away from Russia and to stabilize their southern ally as Austria-Hungary was in a very tettering position in 1914. Never the less he was one of the principle actors of the events that directly led to WWI in the summer of 1914.
I have sympathy of Nicholas because he was an adorkable guy horribly out of his depth who meant well, less so for men like Jagow and bethmann-Hollweg, who while limited in their power, shouldn't have been so naive. They played right into the hands of the German military establishment.
LordofHats wrote: He pretty much single handedly stalled Bethmann-Hollweg's attempts to scale back the German-British naval arms race. Bethmann-Hollweg was one of a number of German officials who really wanted to mend the tension with Britain and he probably got some general support on this cause I don't think anyone in Germany really wanted that much to pick a fight with Britain, even those who favored a wider war.
I don't think Tripitz held much sway with many of his peers but he had a good friend in Wilhelm (at least in terms of wanting to expand the German navy), who being half British envied the Royal Navy and wanted one of his own. This conflict between the two men would have been around 1910-1911. I can't remember the exact year.
I don't think Bethmann-Hollweg wanted a war but he had relatively little power. The role of Chancellor meant very little by 1914. He was in a camp of policy makers who wante da repeat of the Balklands War so as to shift the balance of power away from Russia and to stabilize their southern ally as Austria-Hungary was in a very tettering position in 1914. Never the less he was one of the principle actors of the events that directly led to WWI in the summer of 1914.
I'm not denying that Tirpitz was influential in previous years. Just that by 1914, he'd had his influence severely curtailed. The Kaiser had switched back to focusing on the Army, he'd been promoted into more of an administrative position, and his popular support had waned somewhat. So when you said that Bethmann was his 'bottom bitch', I'd regard that as inaccurate in 1914. Like I said, I don't know about Falkenhayn, but I suspect that Bethmann wasn't his either. The Army was quite powerful at that stage in time, but Bethmann did still hold a fair bit of influence of his own.
Bethmann was a typical politician of the era in a lot of war. He was happy to have Austria-Hungary swallow Serbia, because that advanced his nation's interests. Standard geopolitics. And that's nothing much to condemn him for, we here in Britain used to conquer, buy and sell chunks of land like they were batteries at a boot fair for the past thirty years before that.
Curiously enough, even the Kaiser wasn't too keen on war with Britain. He was quite happy to scrap with France and Russia, but he was very fond of his Grandmama (Queen Victoria), and spent a lot of his time yachting around British waters and socialising. The main reason he wanted his own Navy was not so much to rival Britain so much as it was to elevate Germany. He simply couldn't understand why Britain kept trying to stop him acquiring new toys like theirs. He was a singularly naive, boorish, passionate, and not very intelligent man.
My great great uncles were twin brothers (strongmen and acrobats in a travelling circus), another was an artist. Their lives were perfectly happy until they were conscripted.
All died in WW1, along with my great grandfather who survived but died 2 years later due to the after-effects of mustard gas.
Horrible and pointless waste of life. Any attempt to state that it was anything other than worthless is an insult to those who died as it glorifies the idiots in power who started it in the first place. The entire male side of my family tree were forced into dying at a young age in agony in foreign mud, for no reason, on the whim of the ruling classes.
It was pointless slaughter for no reason on a par with the holocaust as far as I'm concerned and the ruling politicians of the time were just as evil as the Nazis.
scarletsquig wrote: My great great uncles were twin brothers (strongmen and acrobats in a travelling circus), another was an artist.
All died in WW1, along with my great grandfather who survived but died 2 years later due to the after-effects of mustard gas.
Horrible and pointless waste of life. Any attempt to state that it was anything other than worthless is an insult to those who died as it glorifies the idiots in power who started it in the first place.
So you subscribe to the historically inaccurate Blackadder inspired liberal school of thought then?
Curiously enough, even the Kaiser wasn't too keen on war with Britain. He was quite happy to scrap with France and Russia, but he was very fond of his Grandmama (Queen Victoria), and spent a lot of his time yachting around British waters and socialising. The main reason he wanted his own Navy was not so much to rival Britain so much as it was to elevate Germany. He simply couldn't understand why Britain kept trying to stop him acquiring new toys like theirs. He was a singularly naive, boorish, passionate, and not very intelligent man.
Oh definitely. Unfortunately, Germany had the wrong Kaiser at the wrong time (not too different from Nicholas really). I have no doubt there were many people across Europe who meant well and ended up doing things that did a lot more damage than good. I subscribe to the idea that outside some select groups (German military, French military, and Austria elites for example) very few people in EUrope really wanted a war, but they wanted to be stronger than everyone else around them, so they constantly escalated tensions in what was intended to be moves to assure their security and prestige. That envrionment exploded when the previously mentioned select groups all ended up crashing down on Bosnia crisis in 1914.
For Falkenhyn, I use him more as an example (like Tirpitz). The Chancellor's who followed Bismark learned quickly that the nature of the position, really only worked becauyse Bismark was standing in it. The Kaiser, Reichstag, and the military all found ways to circumvent the office when it suited them (eventually Wilhelm lost his own power due to the embarassment of the Daily Telegraph incident). He had influence, but in a practical sense little power to act against others within the government. Even with Bismark gone, the majority of power in Germany I feel remained in the hand sof the Junkers.
scarletsquig wrote: My great great uncles were twin brothers (strongmen and acrobats in a travelling circus), another was an artist.
All died in WW1, along with my great grandfather who survived but died 2 years later due to the after-effects of mustard gas.
Horrible and pointless waste of life. Any attempt to state that it was anything other than worthless is an insult to those who died as it glorifies the idiots in power who started it in the first place.
So you subscribe to the historically inaccurate Blackadder inspired liberal school of thought then?
I don't really subscribe to any of it. I hold the opinion that all war is a pointless waste of life which stunts the progress of the human race, either directly or indirectly. All the things we could do with that 10%-of-taxes military budget if we didn't spend it on potential killing power.
scarletsquig wrote: My great great uncles were twin brothers (strongmen and acrobats in a travelling circus), another was an artist.
All died in WW1, along with my great grandfather who survived but died 2 years later due to the after-effects of mustard gas.
Horrible and pointless waste of life. Any attempt to state that it was anything other than worthless is an insult to those who died as it glorifies the idiots in power who started it in the first place.
So you subscribe to the historically inaccurate Blackadder inspired liberal school of thought then?
To be honest, neither your's not LordofHats's analysis presented here make the case for WWI having been anything else but the work of bumbling idiots that really didn't knew what they were getting themselves into.
That's pretty much all of human history. No one really knows what they're getting themselves into until they're knee deep in the gak wondering wtf just happened
I don't really subscribe to any of it. I hold the opinion that all war is a pointless waste of life which stunts the progress of the human race, either directly or indirectly. All the things we could do with that 10%-of-taxes military budget if we didn't spend it on potential killing power.
And in this you are wrong. Both world wars, while having been tremendous wastes of human life, where probably the two biggest catalysts for our evolution as a species. There probably wasn't any other periods in history where science and technology evolved in such large leaps as during those two particular conflicts.
It seems that humans are at their best and brightest when they are trying to find new ways to kill each other...
I don't really subscribe to any of it. I hold the opinion that all war is a pointless waste of life which stunts the progress of the human race, either directly or indirectly. All the things we could do with that 10%-of-taxes military budget if we didn't spend it on potential killing power.
I see. So more the idealist/pacifist thing then? I don't think it's realistic, but fair enough.
To be honest, neither your's not LordofHats's analysis presented here make the case for WWI having been anything else but the work of bumbling idiots that really didn't knew what they were getting themselves into.
The analyses are more examinations of particular individual characters within a very specific time period of two weeks. They completely fail to mention the broader economical/geopolitical/military context, as well as most of the other relevant characters within the conflict.
I don't think it means a whole lot in the US.
1. Every one who remembers it is dead.
2. We were effectively dragged in kicking and screaming.
3. Are involvement was a nexus point for events that started the end, but our casualties were relatively light and the US was only beginning to ramp up a major commitment.
4. It wasn't on our soil.
5. Frankly we've had 6-7 more wars since, not counting minor military actions.
Frazzled wrote: I don't think it means a whole lot in the US.
1. Every one who remembers it is dead.
2. We were effectively dragged in kicking and screaming.
3. Are involvement was a nexus point for events that started the end, but our casualties were relatively light and the US was only beginning to ramp up a major commitment.
4. It wasn't on our soil.
5. Frankly we've had 6-7 more wars since, not counting minor military actions.
You're not alone there. Germany barely remembers it any more than they do the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, and the French aren't nearly as tied up about it as the Brits are. I don't think the Russians care to recall it at all except in the context of the overthrow of the Tsar, the Austro-Hungarian empire is non-existent now, and the Turks have no interest.
LordofHats wrote: I subscribe to the idea that outside some select groups (German military, French military, and Austria elites for example) very few people in EUrope really wanted a war, but they wanted to be stronger than everyone else around them, so they constantly escalated tensions in what was intended to be moves to assure their security and prestige. That envrionment exploded when the previously mentioned select groups all ended up crashing down on Bosnia crisis in 1914.
Yeah, pretty much. Plus, at the time, their was a rather "conservative" line of thinking that glorified war and bloodshed as necessary for the "evolution" of civilization and propelling boys to men. Some of it in Britain and Germany (perhaps other places as well, but I'm not as sure) was inspired by the education system. These factors helped romanticize the idea of the Great War at the beginning and partially helps explain the enthusiasm the people of Europe embraced the war effort.
The act of war should never be celebrated. The outcome? Maybe.
But even if wars are fought for the wrong reasons, I am not going to disrespect those that died by saying they died for nothing at all. If anything they died for their brethren in arms to their left and right.
Ketara wrote: and the French aren't nearly as tied up about it as the Brits are.
I do not know. I mean, I have seen a few people here stating that the Death Korp was linked to soldiers during WW1, notably because they were fearless. When I think of WW1, I think of this :
Spoiler:
It is about stuff like people cutting themselves with infected needle, in order to get amputated so that they can finally leave the trench and go home, and of those that tried this trick but actually died from it.
It really paints a horrible, horrible picture of WWI, and the life of soldiers in the trench.
WWI used to be called «La Der des Ders» (meaning “The very last one”), because people were so traumatized by it they really thought “Never again”. It explains why France did not attack Germany before, and only focused on defense. So, not only was it a huge trauma back then, but it is also a big factor for what happened next with WWII. Therefore we do quite talk about it.
Ketara wrote: and the French aren't nearly as tied up about it as the Brits are.
I do not know. I mean, I have seen a few people here stating that the Death Korp was linked to soldiers during WW1, notably because they were fearless. When I think of WW1, I think of this :
Spoiler:
It is about stuff like people cutting themselves with infected needle, in order to get amputated so that they can finally leave the trench and go home, and of those that tried this trick but actually died from it.
It really paints a horrible, horrible picture of WWI, and the life of soldiers in the trench.
WWI used to be called «La Der des Ders» (meaning “The very last one”), because people were so traumatized by it they really thought “Never again”. It explains why France did not attack Germany before, and only focused on defense. So, not only was it a huge trauma back then, but it is also a big factor for what happened next with WWII. Therefore we do quite talk about it.
Oh, I'm not saying that the French don't remember it. Simply that the British are the most obsessed with it out of all the various nations, both in methods of remembrance, and cultural memory.
Much I despise the fellow's work, if that sort of subject is your thing, I'd recommend Professor Jay Winter's 'Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History'.
I'd agree the British are fairly obsessed with World War 1 and also with World War 2, I reckon mostly because it allows them to cast their history in a more heroic light than much of the colonial stuff that comes before.
My German girlfriend finds the obsession with WW2 in particular highly aggravating
I reckon SS is pretty dead on in his assessment though, I'd like to be educated as to why it is incorrect with more than a dismissive one liner if you've got the time or inclination. An accessible source would also be much appreciated. (No snark intended, btw)
I don't see why something beyond what we do every year, during remembrance Sunday, wouldn't be enough for this year. There's no nationalistic chest bashing before or after. The most you see is people with charity tins and poppies.
Da Boss wrote: IMy German girlfriend finds the obsession with WW2 in particular highly aggravating
WW2 is the only consistently taught historical subject throughout schools, so it's no wonder it's still stuck in the UK mentality. That and we totally kicked Hitler's arse! In saying that I'd imagine it would be only be a certain type of person to say it to an actual German over in the UK. Kind of highlights that we don't have much to be proud of in modern historical terms. Except the NHS, but that's not nearly macho enough to be a gloating/pride point especially when our politicians are slowly dismantling it.
It would better suit Mr. Gove to have reforms that reinforce teaching about the radical social change across the UK during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Because cultural history has never been much of my thing. As a historian, it's a tool I needed to know how to use, but just because I know how to use it doesn't mean I have to like it. You see, I studied Jay Winter and several other similar fellows on the subject of the Great War for an entire module as an undergrad many years ago. I found his work to be mildly interesting for the first five minutes reading, but it slowly degraded over about the course of an hour until it became downright interminably dull and boring. When I then had to write a 6,000 word comparative essay using primarily texts written by him, I reached the point where I would have gladly shot the fellow just to never have to read another one of his books.
It actually became something of a running joke in my course year that we'd take any subject and write any essay, just so long as it never involved another Jay Winter book!
On a more professional note though, cultural history has always been far too much of a patchwork field for me to have much faith in. The way the primary source material is acquired is unreliable, inconclusive, and I've always thought it tends to confirm one's own suppositions depending on how one reads it.
For a good example, take the British reaction to the declaration of war in 1914. The first batches of cultural historians claimed that the British were enthusiastic about war with Germany. They used jingoistic newspaper articles, the official history of the war, some few interviews, and so on to substantiate that. Then the cultural revisionists (who one sometimes finds tended to have marxist leanings) came in and said that actually nobody was excited that the war started, it was a myth created by the upper classes who controlled the media. Lions led by donkeys, etc.
Then in come the counter-counter-revisionists, who have access to newly unclassified documents, and as they're further distanced from the event, start drawing in the prelude to war to say that actually people were somewhat xenophobic in general, and trying to set things in context. But they've lost access to the original telegraphs, and some of the archives have been fudged by this stage and whatnot, so they can't quite reference some of the original source material by the first batch of historians. Then in come the gender historians who start trying to break everything into phallic references and obsessions, the social historians who try and set it according to their own predispositions with regards to sociology, and a plethora of other cultural historians each with their own spin on events.
The result being that you have to try and read between the lines of all them, and end up realising that half of them omit evidence/source material that disagrees with them, and more still put way too much emphasis on particular types of source material because that's all that's available. Unfortunately, the hodgepodge and guesswork nature of available sources means that it could all be wrong anyway, and there will never be any way to know.
Cultural history is like E.H. Carr's wet dream when it comes to portraying history as nothing more than literature. I prefer my history to be something more tangible and measurable. For example, whilst one can never truly know what Churchill ever thought about something, one can read his private correspondence to many different people, his speeches in Hansard, his publications, the minutes of meetings he was at, and so on. Once you've done that for a large group of relevant people in a given time, one is in a genuine position to make an educated guess at what was going on. With a lot of cultural history (note I say 'a lot', not 'all', there are some out there I genuinely respect the work of), there tends to be more emphasis on the word 'guess'.
Da Boss wrote:I reckon SS is pretty dead on in his assessment though, I'd like to be educated as to why it is incorrect with more than a dismissive one liner if you've got the time or inclination. An accessible source would also be much appreciate
I'm not sure if that request was aimed at me? I don't think I've replied to SS's post.
The NHS and the civil service in general in the UK is very laudable. I reckon it's the best I've dealt with out of the three countries I've lived in- very citizen focused, provides a good service for a low cost, and easy to deal with. Teaching that properly might instil some appreciation in people for what they've got- the kids I worked with were extremely ungrateful for the stuff the state provided for them through other people's taxes.
On WW2 though, I do feel it is glorified excessively in the british media. The way it's taught isn't that bad, from my limited understanding of how history is taught. The Irish curriculum is much worse in many respects.
Ketara: It is aimed at you, from when you made the comment about the "blackadder" version of WW1, in reply to Scarletsquig.
Well, I would enjoy reading it (tomorrow morning, bed time here right now) if you're happy to post it, but I'd be equally happy with a reference to a book or article that could put me on track to understanding your perspective.
But if you feel like giving us a text wall, work away!
Da Boss wrote: The NHS and the civil service in general in the UK is very laudable. I reckon it's the best I've dealt with out of the three countries I've lived in- very citizen focused, provides a good service for a low cost, and easy to deal with. Teaching that properly might instil some appreciation in people for what they've got- the kids I worked with were extremely ungrateful for the stuff the state provided for them through other people's taxes.
On WW2 though, I do feel it is glorified excessively in the british media. The way it's taught isn't that bad, from my limited understanding of how history is taught. The Irish curriculum is much worse in many respects.
From how I remember it (the teaching of WW2), it's as if Germany was the source of all evil in the world. No mention of Russian atrocities or even our own. The fact that fascists were everywhere, even in our own country seems to be glossed over. I'm not talking about all levels of Historical study in schools but certainly the mandatory lessons before you choose your subjects.
I think that would be a great idea to teach people about our social services and the history behind them. You're spot on about the appreciation thing.
There's a nice bit in the MM Documentary "Sicko" that features the recently deceased Tony Benn that kind of sums up the beginning of the NHS/ideas behind it.
Public participation is perhaps part of the problem more generally, people generally don't feel as if they/their voice matters when in fact the opposite is true. More people need to realise they have ownership over their country if they'd just use their voices. That's swerving slightly off topic though.
Ketara wrote: Because cultural history has never been much of my thing.
Oh, sorry. I made some massive English mistake, and thought you were speaking about despising Tardi's work, and advocating Professor Jay Winter's book instead.
Now I understand. Thanks for all the other info anyway !
Da Boss wrote: Well, I would enjoy reading it (tomorrow morning, bed time here right now) if you're happy to post it, but I'd be equally happy with a reference to a book or article that could put me on track to understanding your perspective.
But if you feel like giving us a text wall, work away!
#
Alright then.
I'll have to split my answer into three parts though, pre-war context, actions taken during the war, and post-war historical revisionism and public memory.
Pre-war
So. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a lot of important stuff had happened (understatement). The Prussians had thrashed the supremely complacent French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and been formed into the German Second Reich a year later. Italy had been formed, the Americans were still recuperating from their bout of civil disorder (otherwise known as the civil war), China had been bullied into submission through two opium wars, and the scramble to slice Africa up between European powers began in earnest in the 1880's. It was very similar to the world as we know it today, yet different in many crucial ways.
To give an outline of the world position:- Britain controlled the lion's share of world trade through her vast merchant shipping fleet and the Royal Navy, and wielded tremendous economic power. France was desperate to reclaim some sort of status for herself after the thrashing she received by the Prussians, and began to colonise abroad aggressively. The Ottoman Empire had been on the decline for some considerable time, resulting in the Ottomans being propped up and then sliced apart slowly by the British and French. Austria-Hungary had begun to be overshadowed by their new neighbour of Germany before being formally bound in the Dual Alliance of 1879, and the newly emergent Italy took an interest in trying to control certain chunks of Africa. Russia remained relatively backwards and autocratic, with little industry. America remained insular.
That's roughly where the world was at the start of 1890. I know I'm skimming quite a lot here, but so much happened that it's frankly difficult to summarise in a paragraph or two. This is roughly where Pax Britannia began to fall apart though. To understand how we ended up in World War one, we need a bit more information on the geopolitics involved from this point on, so skip the next few paragraphs if you don't want World History summary 101.
So. By 1890 France and Russia had gradually become firmly partnered in opposition to Britain's dominance, with France having stood Russia a large loan to try and modernise its economy (unsuccessfully as it turned out). Britain had instigated their Naval Defence Act of 1889, formally adopting a policy of maintaining a Fleet superior to that of any other two world powers (the unspoken two world powers being France and Russia). Africa and Asia had more or less all been carved up into various spheres of European influence.
Meanwhile, after two decades of insularity at home to consolidate the new nation, the great German statesman and manipulator Bismarck had been pushed aside by the new Kaiser. Prior to this point, Bismarck had always used Germany as a wild card in international negotiations, playing the other Great Powers against each other for his own/Germany's benefit. But with the rise of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany began to aspire to be a Power in its own right. When the secret Russo-German Reinsurance Treaty came up for negotiation, Wilhelm chose not to renew it. As far as Wilhelm was concerned, Germany deserved its own colonies, a powerful military and navy, and its own 'place in the sun'.
Worried about this new European power bloc, and keen to solidify their advantage in contrast to British economic dominance globally, the French and Russians chose to solidify their friendship with the Franco-Russian Alliance over 1892-94. Military spending in all European nations began to creep up as all parties sought to gain advantage of each other, both abroad and within Europe. Over the following decade, there were to be several tension points between them, but war was rarely seriously considered by any of the powers against each other. Nonetheless, Britain began to feel somewhat isolated by the European blocs, and chose to cement an alliance with the newly emergent Japanese in 1902.
Should we be ashamed of the sacrifices and bravery of the soldiers of both sides? No.
Should we be ashamed and disgusted with the callous, out of touch national and military leaders who threw away lives by the thousands as though they were mere chess pieces? Yes. Hell, they're a source/inspiration for the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40K.
I think this blogpost I read a few months ago sums it up quite well.
1914 and All That by Longrider • January 5, 2014 • 18 Comments
We’ve barely got into the Centenary year and the political spats have started. I can’t say that I look upon either party with any great deal of respect, but instinctively, I’m with the “left-wing academics” on this one – which is unusual, but on this point, they are right and Gove is wrong.
Responding to an article in which the education secretary attacked what he sees as an unpatriotic, leftwing version of history that portrays 1914-18 as “a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite”,
That is precisely what it was. Who, in their right mind would authorise Napoleonic charges against the hail of machine-gun fire? This was the first mechanised war and with it came industrial scale slaughter – but the shadows were portended in the American Civil War, so they could and should have learned from that. The slaughter of tens of thousands for the gains of a few feet of no man’s land was not worth the sacrifice. It was an appalling waste of life and should be remembered as such. Indeed, the French do. If you spend time on the battlefields you won’t find many French people and if you try to engage them, they aren’t over keen to discuss it. As far as they are concerned it was a horror – a blight on their history, not something to look back upon with anything other than sadness and disgust. It was the classic example of an out of touch elite who willingly threw other people to their deaths; the last fling of the ruling houses of Europe before they fell.
In his article, Gove said dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War and satirical programmes such as Blackadder, combined with leftwing interpretations of the war, had allowed deeply unpatriotic myths to take hold, and had led some to denigrate the “patriotism, honour and courage” of those who served and died.
No one that I am aware of denigrates the sacrifice of those who fought and died – but we do look unkindly on the bastards who sent them to that death. Patriotism is being used here as Johnson so rightly and scathingly referred to, as the last refuge of the scoundrel. Gove is being disingenuous here – there is a clear difference between those who made the ultimate sacrifice and the cowardly scoundrels who sat safe at home letting others do the dying for them.
Even the Battle of the Somme, in which 20,000 British soldiers died on the first day in 1916, Gove said, had been reassessed by good historians and “recast as a precursor of allied victory”, challenging the traditional views that it was one of the biggest military catastrophes of modern times.
20,000 lives lost was a catastrophe and anyone who suggests that it wasn’t is particularly cold-blooded. The Somme was a dreadful waste of life, irrespective of whether it was a precursor to allied victory. Ultimately that victory was the result of two armies in stalemate – one eventually ran out of stamina. Or, to put it crudely, they ran out of young lives to throw at the enemy’s machine guns.
The Great War was a terrible waste of life. It was badly managed by an elite who were slow to respond to the changing times and the poor sods up to their necks in mud, blood and guts had to pick up the mess – as usual. There is nothing noble or patriotic about being up to your ankles in mud, suffering trench foot and the stench of your comrades’ rotting bodies filling your nostrils, constantly in fear of sudden death from the shells pounding your position and the withering machine guns when you go over the top in another useless and costly push – but the out of touch elite didn’t have to worry about such things. So Gove can take his patriotism and stick it where the sun don’t shine. I am not a patriot and never will be. I certainly would never lay down my life for Queen and country as neither deserves the sacrifice.
It is about stuff like people cutting themselves with infected needle, in order to get amputated so that they can finally leave the trench and go home, and of those that tried this trick but actually died from it.
It really paints a horrible, horrible picture of WWI, and the life of soldiers in the trench.
The thing is though, while I'm sitting here relatively comfortable, 100 years after the fact... the soldiers in the Trenches were actually rotated in and out, and to different parts... Usually only spending 2 weeks to a month actually in the trenches at a time.... There are also numerous accounts of soldiers adopting a "Live and let live" policy. Some German units may recognize an Irish or Canadian unit, and not attack, in return the Irish/Canadians wouldn't attack unless specifically ordered to... and then they'd usually warn them in some manner prior to the attack happening. On the flip side, there were apparently some regional units that absolutely HATED another unit.... Apparently putting the Scots and Prussians directly across the field from each other was a sure way to get some action going.
Of course, there are some who, depending on experience, just could not handle another minute or day in the trenches... Some had probably never set foot in a trench and were trying to malinger in order to not stay there, etc. But you get those sorts of soldier in basically every war
Austria-Hungary had begun to be overshadowed by their new neighbour of Germany before being formally bound in the Dual Alliance of 1879
Worthy of expansion here is an intricacy of the domestic situation in Austria-Hungary (I'm unsure of the years). Around the late 19th century, the German Austrian elites realized they were in danger of losing control of their empire. To try and maintain their position they elevated the Hungarian nobility to a position of higher political power (thus Austria became Austria-Hungary).
However this was a move made by the monarchy and a small group of supporters and upset the majority of Austrian nobles. As the years went on, they feared an increasingly vocal and powerful Hungarian nobility and wanted to check them to maintain their dominate position. Enter the Serbs and thus, Austria's interest in the Balklands. The theory was that by incorporating more serbs into their empire, they could play the Hungarians and the Serbs off one another, thus keeping themselves on top. They viewed conflicts abroad in part as a means of stabilizing the domestic situation within their own borders.
Obviously their attempt to secure a larger Serbian population didn't turn out as they expected XD
It was badly managed by an elite who were slow to respond to the changing times
I'd actually disagree with this statement. One of the reasons why military leaders adapted so slow was because there was no means to adapt. Firepower had become so massively overwhelming in this time period no one had the means to really counter it. Cavalry, long the fast moving force that removed concentrated blocks of power from a field in older wars, could no longer muster the ability to do so.
I'd argue that generals in the war had no choice by to fight while waiting for technological solutions to arrive in planes and tanks, technology that was either not fully developed at the start of the war, or extremely obscure (tanks).
They bungled in the war yes, but only because they really didn't know what to do. Weapons technology in WWI was in a peculiar place.
It's a common mistake for people to try and compare the Civil War to later wars and say 'they should have known better.' The American continent is geographically distinct from Europe such that what works in Europe doesn't work in America. Jominian theory in particular did work in Europe but utterly failed to be realistically applicable in the US (One of the reasons for Grants success as a general was that he ignored the conventional thought on warfare completely). Further, Europe was largely distracted during the civil war with their own problems, and lacking the internet, its not surprising that technological changes in combat the Civil War might have revealed went unnoticed. Even then, in terms of Sophistication the Franco-Prussian war was more advanced than the Civil War, and ushered in the appearance on combined arms warfare, which at best only 1 American general stumbled upon completely by accident.
It was badly managed by an elite who were slow to respond to the changing times
I'd actually disagree with this statement.
As would I, but for different reasons... In 1914, the Archduke was making moves and overtures of greater social equality, which would have ultimately greater served the people of Austria-Hungary, and allow better freedoms. This of course upset the ultra nationalists who were after a "pure" Serb state (ie, the Black Hand) and as his political positions would ultimately threaten their political bedrock, they needed to be rid of him. And from what little I've read, the Archduke was not alone in his views of what I would call a more "American style" freedom
DutchWinsAll wrote: Things had been more or less quiet on the Continent since the Franco-Prussian conflict of 1870, technology had vastly increased, and the people in charge were excited to see the new gizmos of war in action. They had no idea of the war it would become, they thought it would be over in months. The fact that the British govt didn't commit with a full army campaign till the summer of 1916, yet was adamant about boxing in German Imperialist naval action makes the "Belgian Protector" angle kinda thin.
Yep. Defence of Belgium was important to the British, but any claim that it was because they were a little country that couldn't look after themselves is fairly silly. German control of Belgium meant Germany massively expanded its coastal ports, and could no longer be reliably penned in by the British. Coupled with the naval arms race, and it was in direct British interest to prevent the German's occupying Belgium.
It was a war of national egos, not a war of ideals.
Not just egos, but national ambitions that could not be rectified. Germany wanted an empire to rival the British, one that reflected its domestic political power. The British couldn't tolerate a naval power that rivaled its own, certainly not from Germany who's industrial base could overwhelm the British. France saw the German empire as a direct existential threat. Russia had been looking for a means to reclaim it's position of power in Europe for about 50 years. Good luck figuring that out without a fight
That the fight wasn't limited in scope and duration like previous fights is basically the big learning experience, and marked the massive change in how society saw war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Ah okay. Apologies. I'd agree. If we can identify positives of WWI, its that western attitudes on war changed completely. Using war to advance dubious political goals ceased to be acceptable, even when those pursing conflict played the just cause game. We could also accept that the World Wars ended Imperialism in the west, which I guess is, sort of positive...
Thinking on war changed because war itself changed. We weren't looking at a campaign of a few months and letters to a few hundred or a few thousand grieving widows anymore.
Perhaps the tragedy is that if Europe had looked over the sea, they might have seen it all coming. But maybe a sea change like that really is something you have to experience before you really understand it. I mean hey, the Americans somehow managed to ignore the hard won lessons of WWI until they joined it as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Soldiers lined up on the field of battle and marched at each other over and over again, except rather than weapons which could only fire a few times a minute, you had machine guns which were equal to thousands of men.
Not really, and where troops were used in close formation the idea was a lot less foolish than is generally represented.
Thing is, about 80% of offensives reached the enemy trenches. About 50% of first wave assaults actually cleared the enemy trench. The problem came after that - as reinforcements still had to slog their way across no man's land. Meanwhile defensive reinforcements could be brought in much quicker. And on a larger strategic level, defensive reinforcements could be moved quickly via trains, while troops on the offensive had to walk. Then you've got problems of command & control, where commanders received very poor information about the success of various operations, and were left ultimately to guess as to whether offensives had been successful or not, leaving commanders feeding troops in to a meatgrinder of a failed operation, or risking the abandonment of an assault that was working well.
All of which led to the idea at the Somme that after you level the enemy position with artillery, you advance troops en masse, in great numbers, and then you don't let up. Proper decisive action. Which was a fairly famous disaster, because the artillery did nothing like the damage it was hoped to achieve, and the troops advancing steadily in formation were slaughtered. But the plan was very rapidly abandoned, and later British offensives reverted to more practical tactics (and it's worth noting that after the butchery of the first few days the British inflicted as many casualties on the Germans as they suffered, and the German troops were their best, the last of their peace trained soldiers).
LordofHats wrote: Ah okay. Apologies. I'd agree. If we can identify positives of WWI, its that western attitudes on war changed completely. Using war to advance dubious political goals ceased to be acceptable, even when those pursing conflict played the just cause game. We could also accept that the World Wars ended Imperialism in the west, which I guess is, sort of positive...
Thinking on war changed because war itself changed. We weren't looking at a campaign of a few months and letters to a few hundred or a few thousand grieving widows anymore.
Perhaps the tragedy is that if Europe had looked over the sea, they might have seen it all coming. But maybe a sea change like that really is something you have to experience before you really understand it. I mean hey, the Americans somehow managed to ignore the hard won lessons of WWI until they joined it as well.
LordofHats wrote: I'd actually disagree with this statement. One of the reasons why military leaders adapted so slow was because there was no means to adapt. Firepower had become so massively overwhelming in this time period no one had the means to really counter it. Cavalry, long the fast moving force that removed concentrated blocks of power from a field in older wars, could no longer muster the ability to do so.
And it is worth pointing out it wasn't just technology that was the issue. In the East the war was mobile and involved plenty of fairly typical encirclement, and functioned much like a normal war, while it was in the West where the race to the coast prevented any kind of flanking and ensured an attritional war. And then on top of that you add the scale of the war, producing command and control failures that made decent, well organised offensives near impossible.
That these issues are still poorly understood today indicates to me the way they all interated to produce the static nature of the Western Front was actually quite complex, and we shouldn't condemn the generals for failing to predict them ahead of time.
I'd argue that generals in the war had no choice by to fight while waiting for technological solutions to arrive in planes and tanks, technology that was either not fully developed at the start of the war, or extremely obscure (tanks).
They bungled in the war yes, but only because they really didn't know what to do.
And contrary to popular myth they improvised constantly. Small unit tactics and combined arms were experimented with throughout the war. By the end infiltration tactics, combined arms co-ordination and new technologies like tanks were evidence that far from common myth, generals were active in figuring out how to fight the war.
US Civil War. Like LordofHats, I'm of the opinion that people make too much of how much Europe should have learned from the Civil War, but there were some basic lessons they should have cottoned on to, and greatest among those was the scale of modern conscript armies, and how difficult it is for such large armies to achieve rapid victory over one another.
Worthy of expansion here is an intricacy of the domestic situation in Austria-Hungary (I'm unsure of the years). Around the late 19th century, the German Austrian elites realized they were in danger of losing control of their empire. To try and maintain their position they elevated the Hungarian nobility to a position of higher political power (thus Austria became Austria-Hungary).
However this was a move made by the monarchy and a small group of supporters and upset the majority of Austrian nobles. As the years went on, they feared an increasingly vocal and powerful Hungarian nobility and wanted to check them to maintain their dominate position. Enter the Serbs and thus, Austria's interest in the Balklands. The theory was that by incorporating more serbs into their empire, they could play the Hungarians and the Serbs off one another, thus keeping themselves on top. They viewed conflicts abroad in part as a means of stabilizing the domestic situation within their own borders.
Obviously their attempt to secure a larger Serbian population didn't turn out as they expected XD
This is all a little inaccurate.
You're talking about the Ausgleich of 1867. The Hungarian Uprising had been put down with Russian help and the Hungarian constitution revoked. After the lost wars in Italy and against Prussia, Austria was anxious to get Hungary on her side again in order to marshal additional strength for a revenge strike on Prussia (which never happened). Hungary's constitution was reinstated, but the Hungarians insisted that for full "reconciliation", they expected a return to the status quo of Maria Theresia's reign under the provisions of the pragmatic sanction. Everyone involved understood that this would give the Emperor LESS direct control over the realm, especially considering the proverbial stubbornness of the Hungarians, but it was thought that if the Hungarians again had a real stake in the Empire, they would be more useful than as reluctant subjects.
The core of the Serbian problem however, lay with its pursuit of "south-Slavism". This wasn't simply your run-of-the-mill irredentism as known from the Italians - it was a claim to empire, striving to incorporate all the different Slavic ethnicities of southern Europe. In reality, said minorities were less than enthusiastic about such union with their "brothers", whom they did not see as brothers at all. The problem was that the Croatians belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary and felt unfairly treated (which they were), the Slovenes were politically fighting to be even accepted as a seperate ethnicity, and Bosnia was for all intents and purposes run like a colony. So, some, or many (we can't really say for sure) felt that in a Serbian state, they would find more sympathetic rulers, and this really was dangerous for the integrity of the Empire.
Accordingly, when Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia, the goal was to "feth them up". After the eventual victory, they were quite clueless what to actually do, as highlighted brilliantly by the ministers' conference of 1916 (?) on the topic:
- giving Serbia to Croatia (the reverse of Serbia's own plans) would make Croatians a minority in their own country and lead to Serbification of the whole
- attaching Serbia to Hungary would either create a powderkeg more dangerous than Croatia or require giving Hungary leave to suppress and destroy Serbia's cultural identity
- for want of a legal base, incorporating it as a crown land was impossible
- taking it as another colony would in essence create a single colony of Serbia-Bosnia and strengthen the influence of south-Slavism
- leaving a Serbian rumpstate would just be a return to the undesirable status-quo-ante
Curiously, a decision was postponed.
At no point did any interest group or party entertain the idea of using Serbia, of all possible candidates, much less Serbia's unique idea of a "south Slavic" ethnicity, to balance out the monarchy's dualism. There HAD been plans to transform Austria-Hungary into a Federation of ethnically homogenous states, to at least dissolve the real unions with Croatia and Bohemia or to balance the duality by giving Poland its crown back under personal union, but all of these died with the deaths of Rudolf and Farnz Ferdinand - Emperor Franz Josef would have none of it, and Karl would have been too weak to hold the Empire together even if there had been no war.
Securing a larger Serbian population was the last thing they wanted; on the contrary, it was an additional road-bump on the way to a solution of the whole crux.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Of course, there are some who, depending on experience, just could not handle another minute or day in the trenches... Some had probably never set foot in a trench and were trying to malinger in order to not stay there, etc. But you get those sorts of soldier in basically every war
Enough to voluntarily inoculate themselves with gangrene ? I would not think so.
Seriously, as far as I can tell, the living conditions of soldiers were extremely miserable in the trench.
Proper decisive action. Which was a fairly famous disaster, because the artillery did nothing like the damage it was hoped to achieve, and the troops advancing steadily in formation were slaughtered
I think it was after the war that military leaders saw that infantry was quite reselient to artillery fire. Especially dug in, or even just on open ground, artillery fire might pin a block of infantry, but it's not going to kill a lot of them. This was recognized by WWII but in WWI we had guns capable of blasting dirt hundreds of feet into the air. The power was incapacitating but not particularly lethal.
Seriously, as far as I can tell, the living conditions of soldiers were extremely miserable in the trench.
Quite miserable. I mean, war conditions for soldiers are typically miserable, but the trench warfare created a situation more miserable than might be considered the norm for a war. The influenza outbreak during the middle(?) of the war never helped anything.
Securing a larger Serbian population was the last thing they wanted; on the contrary, it was an additional road-bump on the way to a solution of the whole crux.
Okay, that makes more sense that what I had going in my head.
Farnz Ferdinand
I do remember reading that there was an irony in Frans Ferdinands assassination, namely that he was willing to give many of the ethnicities in his country greater say in the running of the state?
I do remember reading that there was an irony in Frans Ferdinands assassination, namely that he was willing to give many of the ethnicities in his country greater say in the running of the state?
Even more than that. He not only championed Popovici's plans for a radical reconstruction of the Imperial Domain, which scrapped the old feudal borders and proposed 14 (?) states in their stead, but also envisioned re-founding the Empire as the, verbatim, "United States of Greater Austria", which would have copied the USA in every way except one - instead of an elected President, there would have been the Emperor.
Of the few historians who touched the subject, most agree that this would have been impossible to do against the opposition of certain circles in Austria and, more importantly, the Hungarian nobility. Personally, I'm not so sure, because I think that Franz Ferdinand was the only Habsburg who understood that if he brought the people on his side, the nobility would have to yield, and I doubt that the Hungarian people would have rejected democracy in favor of "keeping" Slovakia, for example, a place most Hungarians hadn't seen in their entire lifetime.
Just to make this read less like a declaration of love: Franz Ferdinand was an autocrat with every fibre of his being. Alas, he seemed to believe that by granting a maximum of democratic freedoms, not only would he stabilize his Empire (and possibly even allow it to grow), but secure more power for himself as beloved-by-all "President for life" than he ever had surrounded by court intrigues and noble rivalries.
EDIT: Considering what I just wrote I'm now pretty sure he would have met a bullet anyway.
Frazzled wrote: Thats a positive of the war. The power of royalty to control much of the globe was swept away.
WWII finished that by sweeping away the colonial system.
True. But personally I think I'd prefer that it was achieved through a peaceful democractic process than two world wars with a combined death toll of nearly 80 million.
So. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a lot of important stuff had happened (understatement). The Prussians had thrashed the supremely complacent French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and been formed into the German Second Reich a year later. Italy had been formed, the Americans were still recuperating from their bout of civil disorder (otherwise known as the civil war), China had been bullied into submission through two opium wars, and the scramble to slice Africa up between European powers began in earnest in the 1880's. It was very similar to the world as we know it today, yet different in many crucial ways.
To give an outline of the world position:- Britain controlled the lion's share of world trade through her vast merchant shipping fleet and the Royal Navy, and wielded tremendous economic power. France was desperate to reclaim some sort of status for herself after the thrashing she received by the Prussians, and began to colonise abroad aggressively. The Ottoman Empire had been on the decline for some considerable time, resulting in the Ottomans being propped up and then sliced apart slowly by the British and French. Austria-Hungary had begun to be overshadowed by their new neighbour of Germany before being formally bound in the Dual Alliance of 1879, and the newly emergent Italy took an interest in trying to control certain chunks of Africa. Russia remained relatively backwards and autocratic, with little industry. America remained insular.
That's roughly where the world was at the start of 1890. I know I'm skimming quite a lot here, but so much happened that it's frankly difficult to summarise in a paragraph or two. This is roughly where Pax Britannia began to fall apart though. To understand how we ended up in World War one, we need a bit more information on the geopolitics involved from this point on, so skip the next few paragraphs if you don't want World History summary 101.
So. By 1890 France and Russia had gradually become firmly partnered in opposition to Britain's dominance, with France having stood Russia a large loan to try and modernise its economy (unsuccessfully as it turned out). Britain had instigated their Naval Defence Act of 1889, formally adopting a policy of maintaining a Fleet superior to that of any other two world powers (the unspoken two world powers being France and Russia). Africa and Asia had more or less all been carved up into various spheres of European influence.
Meanwhile, after two decades of insularity at home to consolidate the new nation, the great German statesman and manipulator Bismarck had been pushed aside by the new Kaiser. Prior to this point, Bismarck had always used Germany as a wild card in international negotiations, playing the other Great Powers against each other for his own/Germany's benefit. But with the rise of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany began to aspire to be a Power in its own right. When the secret Russo-German Reinsurance Treaty came up for negotiation, Wilhelm chose not to renew it. As far as Wilhelm was concerned, Germany deserved its own colonies, a powerful military and navy, and its own 'place in the sun'.
Worried about this new European power bloc, and keen to solidify their advantage in contrast to British economic dominance globally, the French and Russians chose to solidify their friendship with the Franco-Russian Alliance over 1892-94. Military spending in all European nations began to creep up as all parties sought to gain advantage of each other, both abroad and within Europe. Over the following decade, there were to be several tension points between them, but war was rarely seriously considered by any of the powers against each other. Nonetheless, Britain began to feel somewhat isolated by the European blocs, and chose to cement an alliance with the newly emergent Japanese in 1902.
So. Having established a rough picture of the world at the start of 20th century, let's move swiftly on to the biggest question. What caused the war? Was it just a bunch of old men desperate to send young men to die for king and country for entirely selfish reasons? I don't believe so, and this is why.
The German perspective
The Argument from Economics
As I've already mentioned, Britain controlled the majority of world trade during the period of Pax Britannia. Most of the merchant shipping was built by the British, operated by the British, and taxed by the British. In 1870, Britain also had 35.3% of the world's manufacturing capacity thanks to their early industrialisation, and the best banking system in the world. In short, Britain dominated intercontinental trade, and took a heavy enough cut from what they didn't directly control to grow exceedingly rich off the proceeds.
Germany by contrast, industrialised exceedingly lately if rapidly. The fact that Germany had invested so heavily domestically whilst industrialising meant that it had had little liquidity to invest abroad to expand its influence abroad and little resulting opportunity to compete with the British. This was problematic in light of the Kaiser's intent to make Germany a premier world power. By 1910, Germany had overtaken Britain in terms of manufacturing capacity, but their ability to expand within domestic European markets was ultimately exceedinly limited, leaving areas outside of Europe as the only remaining choice for further economic expansion.When it came right down to it, Germany didn't actually want to oust Britain from their prime economic spot necessarily, but Germany [/b]did[b] want to have the freedom themselves to expand, and needed to be able to do so without the risk of British interference.
Germany was also aware of how Britain's economic muscle was derived from its colonial possessions, something which Germany was distinctly lacking in. Most of the world was already carved up according to British, French, Dutch, Portugese, and Belgian interests, leaving little meat behind to sustain a newcomer like themselves. Germany had few colonies to give it the raw materials it needed to continue expanding its domestic manufacturing capacity and economic growth. If Germany wanted to increase what they saw as their fair share of the world market, they'd have to somehow compel the British (the prime global power) to stay neutral in their affairs whilst they took what they could from the powers weaker than themselves. This led onto:
The Argument from Naval Might
British foreign and economic dominance was clearly derived from their naval strength. Germany might have the most powerful military, but like France and Russia, it was completely vulnerable to the Royal Navy if it wanted to build/maintain colonial possessions and international trade links. Germany did not want to maintain a fleet like Britain's. It was too big, too expensive, and the British were seen by the Kaiser as inevitable allies, not rivals. But equally, the British were unlikely to approve of Germany taking their fair share of world commerce, simply because it would disrupt the current order of things. So what to do?
The Germans settled on a novel strategy. By maintaining a fleet that would be just large enough to challenge British power in the North Sea, Britain would respect Germany. Britain would still be able to smash Germany navally if it really wanted to do so as it would have more ships worldwide. But the fact that Germany could disrupt trade to the mother country and possibly land a small invasion force would stay the British hand and guarantee British neutrality in other matters of foreign policy. Germany badly needed to ensure that British neutrality because of:
The Argument from European Encirclement
The French and the Russians had been closely allied since the early 1890's. Germany's expansion abroad was bound to tread on a few toes, as was the fact that they were coming to dominate European trade with their powerful manufacturing base. Germany was certain that it could defeat France or Russia if it really came down to the crunch, but knew it would have its hands full in a war with both of them. If the British intervened on the side of the French/Russia though, victory from military might would be unlikely.
Therefore by intimidating the British, the British would be more likely to fall into bed with Germany in the same manner as Austria-Hungary. The British were descended from Germanic roots, and the Kaiser was related to the British Royal Family. Britain and Germany clearly belonged on the same side. But if the British wouldn't intervene on Germany's side, they at least had to stay out of Germany's way and be neutral. Germany was already hemmed in by potentially hostile powers by land. It could not afford to be hemmed in by sea as well.
The Course of events
Germany had been set upon the above policy for some time before the First World War in its quest for international recognition and economic dominance. The Kaiser intervened in Morocco in both 1905 and 1911 in pursuit of these aims, as well as the Boxer Rebellion in China. Yet all that resulted from these occurrences were clear signals from their rivals that Germany would never be allowed to have her place in the sun. When their ally, Austria-Hungary came into conflict with Russia, Germany viewed this as an inevitable clash that had been coming for some decades, and something of an opportunity.
By smashing Russia back into the stone age, Germany would gain fresh territory in the East for settling and industrialising. It would gain a reputation for being a world class power, giving it a freer hand to acquire and cultivate colonial possessions. If France intervened, then so be it. By humbling the ever arrogant France, Germany could seize her colonial possessions. It could also take control of French border forts, ensuring future security of the Reich.
The desirable outcome? The German people would be secure from the constant threat of encirclement hanging over their heads, German business would have the opportunities it desperately needed to continue expanding overseas, and Britain and Germany could work hand in hand to civilise the globe, with German prestige and honour undimmed. What could possibly go wrong?
Now a number of you might regard the above as being intolerable nonsense, and no good reason to go to war in any scenario. But it should be understood that you are viewing events of a hundred years past with the eye of the 21st century. Germany entered hostilities to resolve the security of their people and their economy. They didn't do it specifically to oppress people and cause mayhem and destruction. They just wanted their fair share of the world pie, and unfortunately, they and everybody else had different ideas over what that fair share should be. You may recall that Germany offered French security if they would surrender their border forts to Germany as surety. Germany had no real interest in occupying or controlling France, any moreso than France did when they rather foolishly declared war on Prussia in 1870. It was just standard geopolitics, the likes of which we still regularly see today. Industrialised total war had never before been seen, and it was assumed that this would just be one more limited war over a year or so at most involving specific objectives and then peace.
I'll do the British view next, and then move onto the conduct of the war itself (and bust the daft view of lions led by donkeys that gets propped up so often).
Frazzled wrote: Thats a positive of the war. The power of royalty to control much of the globe was swept away.
WWII finished that by sweeping away the colonial system.
True. But personally I think I'd prefer that it was achieved through a peaceful democractic process than two world wars with a combined death toll of nearly 80 million.
I'm much more of the French Revolution kind of guy. Royalty is a sickness, and Dr. Guillotine has a cure!
Yeah, just posting to say, quality stuff so far mate, enjoying it but have little feedback except to say, so far you've not said anything I disagree with- I wonder if the disagreement will come down to a difference in values?
In any case, good stuff, looking forward to the next bits.
I suspect that the main difference between the "B" and "C" camps here lies in the degree of abstraction one applies to the question.
I (reluctantly, because I wasn't entirely happy with any choice) picked "B" because I think that the war in general wasn't "necessary"; Europe was fine, compared to any past era. The tensions that existed were - at least from the vantage point of the present, as Ketara noted - artificially created. The continent also wasn't much of a better place after the war. Dozens of millions of dead and wounded seems to me like a steep price for a result that can be summed up as "meh".
From what I gathered so far, the guys who picked "C" see the escalation of the aforementioned tensions by Germany and her allies at the heart of the question, and come to the correct conclusion that this aggression had to be stopped. It was stopped, and there you have your meaning, your purpose that was worth dying for.
Several pages into the thread, I still stick to my opinion, but I came round to see why one might choose the other option and be just as "right". A beautiful discussion.
Also, @ Ketara: You wrote nothing that was new to me, but so far it's hands down one of the, if not THE, best primer/summary on the subject I've ever seen.
Ketara, this is great stuff man. Your last post especially vindicates the belief I've held since doing my undergrad (most of my courses were focused on Germany) that the political turbulence of the early 20th century owes a lot to German unification. You simply can't maintain the status quo on the continent after the creation of an economic and military powerhouse smack dab in the middle of said continent. Not that the Germans could help the unification of their own country of course
So. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a lot of important stuff had happened (understatement). The Prussians had thrashed the supremely complacent French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and been formed into the German Second Reich a year later. Italy had been formed, the Americans were still recuperating from their bout of civil disorder (otherwise known as the civil war), China had been bullied into submission through two opium wars, and the scramble to slice Africa up between European powers began in earnest in the 1880's. It was very similar to the world as we know it today, yet different in many crucial ways.
To give an outline of the world position:- Britain controlled the lion's share of world trade through her vast merchant shipping fleet and the Royal Navy, and wielded tremendous economic power. France was desperate to reclaim some sort of status for herself after the thrashing she received by the Prussians, and began to colonise abroad aggressively. The Ottoman Empire had been on the decline for some considerable time, resulting in the Ottomans being propped up and then sliced apart slowly by the British and French. Austria-Hungary had begun to be overshadowed by their new neighbour of Germany before being formally bound in the Dual Alliance of 1879, and the newly emergent Italy took an interest in trying to control certain chunks of Africa. Russia remained relatively backwards and autocratic, with little industry. America remained insular.
That's roughly where the world was at the start of 1890. I know I'm skimming quite a lot here, but so much happened that it's frankly difficult to summarise in a paragraph or two. This is roughly where Pax Britannia began to fall apart though. To understand how we ended up in World War one, we need a bit more information on the geopolitics involved from this point on, so skip the next few paragraphs if you don't want World History summary 101.
So. By 1890 France and Russia had gradually become firmly partnered in opposition to Britain's dominance, with France having stood Russia a large loan to try and modernise its economy (unsuccessfully as it turned out). Britain had instigated their Naval Defence Act of 1889, formally adopting a policy of maintaining a Fleet superior to that of any other two world powers (the unspoken two world powers being France and Russia). Africa and Asia had more or less all been carved up into various spheres of European influence.
Meanwhile, after two decades of insularity at home to consolidate the new nation, the great German statesman and manipulator Bismarck had been pushed aside by the new Kaiser. Prior to this point, Bismarck had always used Germany as a wild card in international negotiations, playing the other Great Powers against each other for his own/Germany's benefit. But with the rise of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany began to aspire to be a Power in its own right. When the secret Russo-German Reinsurance Treaty came up for negotiation, Wilhelm chose not to renew it. As far as Wilhelm was concerned, Germany deserved its own colonies, a powerful military and navy, and its own 'place in the sun'.
Worried about this new European power bloc, and keen to solidify their advantage in contrast to British economic dominance globally, the French and Russians chose to solidify their friendship with the Franco-Russian Alliance over 1892-94. Military spending in all European nations began to creep up as all parties sought to gain advantage of each other, both abroad and within Europe. Over the following decade, there were to be several tension points between them, but war was rarely seriously considered by any of the powers against each other. Nonetheless, Britain began to feel somewhat isolated by the European blocs, and chose to cement an alliance with the newly emergent Japanese in 1902.
The German perspective
Spoiler:
So. Having established a rough picture of the world at the start of 20th century, let's move swiftly on to the biggest question. What caused the war? Was it just a bunch of old men desperate to send young men to die for king and country for entirely selfish reasons? I don't believe so, and this is why.
The Argument from Economics
As I've already mentioned, Britain controlled the majority of world trade during the period of Pax Britannia. Most of the merchant shipping was built by the British, operated by the British, and taxed by the British. In 1870, Britain also had 35.3% of the world's manufacturing capacity thanks to their early industrialisation, and the best banking system in the world. In short, Britain dominated intercontinental trade, and took a heavy enough cut from what they didn't directly control to grow exceedingly rich off the proceeds.
Germany by contrast, industrialised exceedingly lately if rapidly. The fact that Germany had invested so heavily domestically whilst industrialising meant that it had had little liquidity to invest abroad to expand its influence abroad and little resulting opportunity to compete with the British. This was problematic in light of the Kaiser's intent to make Germany a premier world power. By 1910, Germany had overtaken Britain in terms of manufacturing capacity, but their ability to expand within domestic European markets was ultimately exceedinly limited, leaving areas outside of Europe as the only remaining choice for further economic expansion.When it came right down to it, Germany didn't actually want to oust Britain from their prime economic spot necessarily, but Germany did want to have the freedom themselves to expand, and needed to be able to do so without the risk of British interference.
Germany was also aware of how Britain's economic muscle was derived from its colonial possessions, something which Germany was distinctly lacking in. Most of the world was already carved up according to British, French, Dutch, Portugese, and Belgian interests, leaving little meat behind to sustain a newcomer like themselves. Germany had few colonies to give it the raw materials it needed to continue expanding its domestic manufacturing capacity and economic growth. If Germany wanted to increase what they saw as their fair share of the world market, they'd have to somehow compel the British (the prime global power) to stay neutral in their affairs whilst they took what they could from the powers weaker than themselves. This led onto:
The Argument from Naval Might
British foreign and economic dominance was clearly derived from their naval strength. Germany might have the most powerful military, but like France and Russia, it was completely vulnerable to the Royal Navy if it wanted to build/maintain colonial possessions and international trade links. Germany did not want to maintain a fleet like Britain's. It was too big, too expensive, and the British were seen by the Kaiser as inevitable allies, not rivals. But equally, the British were unlikely to approve of Germany taking their fair share of world commerce, simply because it would disrupt the current order of things. So what to do?
The Germans settled on a novel strategy. By maintaining a fleet that would be just large enough to challenge British power in the North Sea, Britain would respect Germany. Britain would still be able to smash Germany navally if it really wanted to do so as it would have more ships worldwide. But the fact that Germany could disrupt trade to the mother country and possibly land a small invasion force would stay the British hand and guarantee British neutrality in other matters of foreign policy. Germany badly needed to ensure that British neutrality because of:
The Argument from European Encirclement
The French and the Russians had been closely allied since the early 1890's. Germany's expansion abroad was bound to tread on a few toes, as was the fact that they were coming to dominate European trade with their powerful manufacturing base. Germany was certain that it could defeat France or Russia if it really came down to the crunch, but knew it would have its hands full in a war with both of them. If the British intervened on the side of the French/Russia though, victory from military might would be unlikely.
Therefore by intimidating the British, the British would be more likely to fall into bed with Germany in the same manner as Austria-Hungary. The British were descended from Germanic roots, and the Kaiser was related to the British Royal Family. Britain and Germany clearly belonged on the same side. But if the British wouldn't intervene on Germany's side, they at least had to stay out of Germany's way and be neutral. Germany was already hemmed in by potentially hostile powers by land. It could not afford to be hemmed in by sea as well.
The Course of events
Germany had been set upon the above policy for some time before the First World War in its quest for international recognition and economic dominance. The Kaiser intervened in Morocco in both 1905 and 1911 in pursuit of these aims, as well as the Boxer Rebellion in China. Yet all that resulted from these occurrences were clear signals from their rivals that Germany would never be allowed to have her place in the sun. When their ally, Austria-Hungary came into conflict with Russia, Germany viewed this as an inevitable clash that had been coming for some decades, and something of an opportunity.
By smashing Russia back into the stone age, Germany would gain fresh territory in the East for settling and industrialising. It would gain a reputation for being a world class power, giving it a freer hand to acquire and cultivate colonial possessions. If France intervened, then so be it. By humbling the ever arrogant France, Germany could seize her colonial possessions. It could also take control of French border forts, ensuring future security of the Reich.
The desirable outcome? The German people would be secure from the constant threat of encirclement hanging over their heads, German business would have the opportunities it desperately needed to continue expanding overseas, and Britain and Germany could work hand in hand to civilise the globe, with German prestige and honour undimmed. What could possibly go wrong?
Now a number of you might regard the above as being intolerable nonsense, and no good reason to go to war in any scenario. But it should be understood that you are viewing events of a hundred years past with the eye of the 21st century. Germany entered hostilities to resolve the security of their people and their economy. They didn't do it specifically to oppress people and cause mayhem and destruction. They just wanted their fair share of the world pie, and unfortunately, they and everybody else had different ideas over what that fair share should be. You may recall that Germany offered French security if they would surrender their border forts to Germany as surety. Germany had no real interest in occupying or controlling France, any moreso than France did when they rather foolishly declared war on Prussia in 1870. It was just standard geopolitics, the likes of which we still regularly see today. Industrialised total war had never before been seen, and it was assumed that this would just be one more limited war over a year or so at most involving specific objectives and then peace.
I'll do the British view next, and then move onto the conduct of the war itself (and bust the daft view of lions led by donkeys that gets propped up so often).
The British Perspective
So. Pax Britannia.
Britain kind of fell into Empire slightly as a bad habit in a lot of cases. India was conquered under Royal Charter, Africa was seized to stop other European powers nabbing it, etc. Often they'd end up in minor wars more to save face and 'show the natives who's boss' more than out of any genuine desire to conquer them. They were quite happy with their premier spot once they had it, but the British Enpire's sheer size often meant that colonies were considered to be unprofitable, and thus undesirable business. In 1890 where we last left them, Britain was relatively happy with the status quo, and a potentially allied grouping of France and Russia was their biggest concern.
Britain had by this stage gained the wonderful nickname of 'perfidious Albion'. In other words, we had a bad habit of changing political position mid-way, and playing both sides against the middle to suit ourselves diplomatically. She had no allies because she didn't need them. With the supremacy of the Royal Navy, Britain was untouchable by any other power, which bestowed an unwillingness to get involved in continental affairs and wars, which seemed to occur with alarming regularity. Instead, Britain could just sit back, reap the profits of dominating the world trade system, and watch Europe with something of a detached bemusement.
As the Continent began to rearm towards the end of the nineteenth century though, Britain began to feel somewhat more alarmed and less complacent. Whilst the French Jeune Ecole strategy of countering Britain's Navy ended up being nothing more than so much hogwash, the British ended up adopting their two power standard in a very British fashion. In other words, half-heartedly, unwillingly, and much uhm-and ahing. Much like the colonies, a goodly number of politicians of the time saw the whole business as unprofitable and a waste of everybody's time, but sadly necessary for the continuation of Empire. (the two power standard was a policy whereby Britain committed to maintaining a Navy equal to size to the next two largest powers combined, for those unfamiliar with the period).
By the turn of the twentieth century however, Britain was beginning to feel very much alone in the world. Empire and the Navy had always made mutual defence treaties unnecessary and very much a Continental sort of thing from their perspective. But in Germany, Tirpitz's new construction programme was beginning to cause some raised eyebrows. Whilst Germany was still seen as more of an ally than potential enemy, the number of ships being built in the North Sea constituted something of a mild threat to the Home Isles. This made the British sufficiently uneasy so as to conclude a defence pact with the Japanese to help them meet their commitment of defence in the Far East, whilst being able to shift sufficient ships back home to counter the growing German naval equality in the region.
In 1905, 'Radical Jack Fisher', the controversial naval genius, instigated the construction of the first British Dreadnought battleship. A new type of Battleship worth five of any pre-Dreadnought battleship, it immediately rendered every single other battleship/Navy in the world obsolete at a stroke. Convinced that this was the best way to stop Germany's would be rivalry, he crowed that the Dreadnought would 'stump their building programme for the next two years in one fell swoop!'. He also reformed the British Navy itself from the inside out, scrapping countless older ships and committing the Navy to a new and technologically up to date force.
HMS Dreadnought
Within a few years however, affairs on the Continent had begun to change (as they were ever wont to do). France and Russia had closed ranks to focus on the burgeoning threat of Germany, and as a result, signed an agreement with Britain to finally close some of their ongoing colonial disputes. Germany didn't see this budding peace as a positive sign for world development though, and more as a threat. The seeming accord reached by France, Russia, and Britain meant that Britain needed to be broken off at the source, and the best way to do that was intimidation. Fisher's new Dreadnought might have left Germany in the dust technology-wise, but numbers-wise it left Germany a lot closer to being able to gain parity with Britain.
Determined to force Britain back onto the sidelines (not realising Britain had never particularly left them).Germany stepped up their construction of new battleships at an alarming rate. By the start of 1909, Britain was genuinely facing a dilemma. The number of battleships required to outnumber the German North Seas Fleet had become so large that countering it would mean stripping the rest of the Empire of protection. The financial costs were beginning to weigh heavily on Britain as well, with economic troubles cropping up, and battleships growing ever more expensive. But what to do? As far as Germany was concerned, this was the point at which Britain should have no choice but to concede, and settle into some form of arrangement with Imperial Germany.
Unfortunately, Germany had miscalculated the British priorities. Germany had the strongest army in existence. Were they able to force the North Sea, the British Isles and people themselves would be in genuine peril, and that was simply not an option the British were willing to concede to Germany. Despite a government unwilling to re-arm unnecessarily, their hand was forced, and a two pronged strategy was taken. Rather than come to an accord with Germany, Britain decided to rotate the majority of the new battleships to the Home Fleet, and outbuild Germany. Britain had the largest shipbuilding capacity in the world at that point in time, and pledged to lay two battleship keels for every German one. Reasoning that Germany would soon abandon this madcap scheme, Britain approached Germany several times over the next few years, offering to cancel the construction of their warships if Germany would do the same. Germany, falsely scenting weakness in these approaches, and convinced that they evidenced the British reaching breaking point and the success of their strategy, refused to parley.
But by 1912, Germany began to realise that this was not a race that they were able to compete in. Britain had kept building according to their pledge, and despite Germany's industrial might, they simply could not hope to afford to maintain both the strongest Army and Navy. The Army was baying for the funding being diverted to the Imperial Navy, and with no sign of the British flagging and coming to heel, German priorities reluctantly switched to focus on a potential land war against France and Germany. Britain was safe, for the time being.
But the fears that Germany had provoked in Britain remained nonetheless. Britain might still remain on the sidelines in Europe, but the concerns Germany had raised? They were well remembered on the eve of war in 1914.
So. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a lot of important stuff had happened (understatement). The Prussians had thrashed the supremely complacent French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and been formed into the German Second Reich a year later. Italy had been formed, the Americans were still recuperating from their bout of civil disorder (otherwise known as the civil war), China had been bullied into submission through two opium wars, and the scramble to slice Africa up between European powers began in earnest in the 1880's. It was very similar to the world as we know it today, yet different in many crucial ways.
To give an outline of the world position:- Britain controlled the lion's share of world trade through her vast merchant shipping fleet and the Royal Navy, and wielded tremendous economic power. France was desperate to reclaim some sort of status for herself after the thrashing she received by the Prussians, and began to colonise abroad aggressively. The Ottoman Empire had been on the decline for some considerable time, resulting in the Ottomans being propped up and then sliced apart slowly by the British and French. Austria-Hungary had begun to be overshadowed by their new neighbour of Germany before being formally bound in the Dual Alliance of 1879, and the newly emergent Italy took an interest in trying to control certain chunks of Africa. Russia remained relatively backwards and autocratic, with little industry. America remained insular.
That's roughly where the world was at the start of 1890. I know I'm skimming quite a lot here, but so much happened that it's frankly difficult to summarise in a paragraph or two. This is roughly where Pax Britannia began to fall apart though. To understand how we ended up in World War one, we need a bit more information on the geopolitics involved from this point on, so skip the next few paragraphs if you don't want World History summary 101.
So. By 1890 France and Russia had gradually become firmly partnered in opposition to Britain's dominance, with France having stood Russia a large loan to try and modernise its economy (unsuccessfully as it turned out). Britain had instigated their Naval Defence Act of 1889, formally adopting a policy of maintaining a Fleet superior to that of any other two world powers (the unspoken two world powers being France and Russia). Africa and Asia had more or less all been carved up into various spheres of European influence.
Meanwhile, after two decades of insularity at home to consolidate the new nation, the great German statesman and manipulator Bismarck had been pushed aside by the new Kaiser. Prior to this point, Bismarck had always used Germany as a wild card in international negotiations, playing the other Great Powers against each other for his own/Germany's benefit. But with the rise of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany began to aspire to be a Power in its own right. When the secret Russo-German Reinsurance Treaty came up for negotiation, Wilhelm chose not to renew it. As far as Wilhelm was concerned, Germany deserved its own colonies, a powerful military and navy, and its own 'place in the sun'.
Worried about this new European power bloc, and keen to solidify their advantage in contrast to British economic dominance globally, the French and Russians chose to solidify their friendship with the Franco-Russian Alliance over 1892-94. Military spending in all European nations began to creep up as all parties sought to gain advantage of each other, both abroad and within Europe. Over the following decade, there were to be several tension points between them, but war was rarely seriously considered by any of the powers against each other. Nonetheless, Britain began to feel somewhat isolated by the European blocs, and chose to cement an alliance with the newly emergent Japanese in 1902.
The German perspective
Spoiler:
So. Having established a rough picture of the world at the start of 20th century, let's move swiftly on to the biggest question. What caused the war? Was it just a bunch of old men desperate to send young men to die for king and country for entirely selfish reasons? I don't believe so, and this is why.
The Argument from Economics
As I've already mentioned, Britain controlled the majority of world trade during the period of Pax Britannia. Most of the merchant shipping was built by the British, operated by the British, and taxed by the British. In 1870, Britain also had 35.3% of the world's manufacturing capacity thanks to their early industrialisation, and the best banking system in the world. In short, Britain dominated intercontinental trade, and took a heavy enough cut from what they didn't directly control to grow exceedingly rich off the proceeds.
Germany by contrast, industrialised exceedingly lately if rapidly. The fact that Germany had invested so heavily domestically whilst industrialising meant that it had had little liquidity to invest abroad to expand its influence abroad and little resulting opportunity to compete with the British. This was problematic in light of the Kaiser's intent to make Germany a premier world power. By 1910, Germany had overtaken Britain in terms of manufacturing capacity, but their ability to expand within domestic European markets was ultimately exceedinly limited, leaving areas outside of Europe as the only remaining choice for further economic expansion.When it came right down to it, Germany didn't actually want to oust Britain from their prime economic spot necessarily, but Germany did want to have the freedom themselves to expand, and needed to be able to do so without the risk of British interference.
Germany was also aware of how Britain's economic muscle was derived from its colonial possessions, something which Germany was distinctly lacking in. Most of the world was already carved up according to British, French, Dutch, Portugese, and Belgian interests, leaving little meat behind to sustain a newcomer like themselves. Germany had few colonies to give it the raw materials it needed to continue expanding its domestic manufacturing capacity and economic growth. If Germany wanted to increase what they saw as their fair share of the world market, they'd have to somehow compel the British (the prime global power) to stay neutral in their affairs whilst they took what they could from the powers weaker than themselves. This led onto:
The Argument from Naval Might
British foreign and economic dominance was clearly derived from their naval strength. Germany might have the most powerful military, but like France and Russia, it was completely vulnerable to the Royal Navy if it wanted to build/maintain colonial possessions and international trade links. Germany did not want to maintain a fleet like Britain's. It was too big, too expensive, and the British were seen by the Kaiser as inevitable allies, not rivals. But equally, the British were unlikely to approve of Germany taking their fair share of world commerce, simply because it would disrupt the current order of things. So what to do?
The Germans settled on a novel strategy. By maintaining a fleet that would be just large enough to challenge British power in the North Sea, Britain would respect Germany. Britain would still be able to smash Germany navally if it really wanted to do so as it would have more ships worldwide. But the fact that Germany could disrupt trade to the mother country and possibly land a small invasion force would stay the British hand and guarantee British neutrality in other matters of foreign policy. Germany badly needed to ensure that British neutrality because of:
The Argument from European Encirclement
The French and the Russians had been closely allied since the early 1890's. Germany's expansion abroad was bound to tread on a few toes, as was the fact that they were coming to dominate European trade with their powerful manufacturing base. Germany was certain that it could defeat France or Russia if it really came down to the crunch, but knew it would have its hands full in a war with both of them. If the British intervened on the side of the French/Russia though, victory from military might would be unlikely.
Therefore by intimidating the British, the British would be more likely to fall into bed with Germany in the same manner as Austria-Hungary. The British were descended from Germanic roots, and the Kaiser was related to the British Royal Family. Britain and Germany clearly belonged on the same side. But if the British wouldn't intervene on Germany's side, they at least had to stay out of Germany's way and be neutral. Germany was already hemmed in by potentially hostile powers by land. It could not afford to be hemmed in by sea as well.
The Course of events
Germany had been set upon the above policy for some time before the First World War in its quest for international recognition and economic dominance. The Kaiser intervened in Morocco in both 1905 and 1911 in pursuit of these aims, as well as the Boxer Rebellion in China. Yet all that resulted from these occurrences were clear signals from their rivals that Germany would never be allowed to have her place in the sun. When their ally, Austria-Hungary came into conflict with Russia, Germany viewed this as an inevitable clash that had been coming for some decades, and something of an opportunity.
By smashing Russia back into the stone age, Germany would gain fresh territory in the East for settling and industrialising. It would gain a reputation for being a world class power, giving it a freer hand to acquire and cultivate colonial possessions. If France intervened, then so be it. By humbling the ever arrogant France, Germany could seize her colonial possessions. It could also take control of French border forts, ensuring future security of the Reich.
The desirable outcome? The German people would be secure from the constant threat of encirclement hanging over their heads, German business would have the opportunities it desperately needed to continue expanding overseas, and Britain and Germany could work hand in hand to civilise the globe, with German prestige and honour undimmed. What could possibly go wrong?
Now a number of you might regard the above as being intolerable nonsense, and no good reason to go to war in any scenario. But it should be understood that you are viewing events of a hundred years past with the eye of the 21st century. Germany entered hostilities to resolve the security of their people and their economy. They didn't do it specifically to oppress people and cause mayhem and destruction. They just wanted their fair share of the world pie, and unfortunately, they and everybody else had different ideas over what that fair share should be. You may recall that Germany offered French security if they would surrender their border forts to Germany as surety. Germany had no real interest in occupying or controlling France, any moreso than France did when they rather foolishly declared war on Prussia in 1870. It was just standard geopolitics, the likes of which we still regularly see today. Industrialised total war had never before been seen, and it was assumed that this would just be one more limited war over a year or so at most involving specific objectives and then peace.
I'll do the British view next, and then move onto the conduct of the war itself (and bust the daft view of lions led by donkeys that gets propped up so often).
The British Perspective
Spoiler:
So. Pax Britannia.
Britain kind of fell into Empire slightly as a bad habit in a lot of cases. India was conquered under Royal Charter, Africa was seized to stop other European powers nabbing it, etc. Often they'd end up in minor wars more to save face and 'show the natives who's boss' more than out of any genuine desire to conquer them. They were quite happy with their premier spot once they had it, but the British Enpire's sheer size often meant that colonies were considered to be unprofitable, and thus undesirable business. In 1890 where we last left them, Britain was relatively happy with the status quo, and a potentially allied grouping of France and Russia was their biggest concern.
Britain had by this stage gained the wonderful nickname of 'perfidious Albion'. In other words, we had a bad habit of changing political position mid-way, and playing both sides against the middle to suit ourselves diplomatically. She had no allies because she didn't need them. With the supremacy of the Royal Navy, Britain was untouchable by any other power, which bestowed an unwillingness to get involved in continental affairs and wars, which seemed to occur with alarming regularity. Instead, Britain could just sit back, reap the profits of dominating the world trade system, and watch Europe with something of a detached bemusement.
As the Continent began to rearm towards the end of the nineteenth century though, Britain began to feel somewhat more alarmed and less complacent. Whilst the French Jeune Ecole strategy of countering Britain's Navy ended up being nothing more than so much hogwash, the British ended up adopting their two power standard in a very British fashion. In other words, half-heartedly, unwillingly, and much uhm-and ahing. Much like the colonies, a goodly number of politicians of the time saw the whole business as unprofitable and a waste of everybody's time, but sadly necessary for the continuation of Empire. (the two power standard was a policy whereby Britain committed to maintaining a Navy equal to size to the next two largest powers combined, for those unfamiliar with the period).
By the turn of the twentieth century however, Britain was beginning to feel very much alone in the world. Empire and the Navy had always made mutual defence treaties unnecessary and very much a Continental sort of thing from their perspective. But in Germany, Tirpitz's new construction programme was beginning to cause some raised eyebrows. Whilst Germany was still seen as more of an ally than potential enemy, the number of ships being built in the North Sea constituted something of a mild threat to the Home Isles. This made the British sufficiently uneasy so as to conclude a defence pact with the Japanese to help them meet their commitment of defence in the Far East, whilst being able to shift sufficient ships back home to counter the growing German naval equality in the region.
In 1905, 'Radical Jack Fisher', the controversial naval genius, instigated the construction of the first British Dreadnought battleship. A new type of Battleship worth five of any pre-Dreadnought battleship, it immediately rendered every single other battleship/Navy in the world obsolete at a stroke. Convinced that this was the best way to stop Germany's would be rivalry, he crowed that the Dreadnought would 'stump their building programme for the next two years in one fell swoop!'. He also reformed the British Navy itself from the inside out, scrapping countless older ships and committing the Navy to a new and technologically up to date force.
HMS Dreadnought
Within a few years however, affairs on the Continent had begun to change (as they were ever wont to do). France and Russia had closed ranks to focus on the burgeoning threat of Germany, and as a result, signed an agreement with Britain to finally close some of their ongoing colonial disputes. Germany didn't see this budding peace as a positive sign for world development though, and more as a threat. The seeming accord reached by France, Russia, and Britain meant that Britain needed to be broken off at the source, and the best way to do that was intimidation. Fisher's new Dreadnought might have left Germany in the dust technology-wise, but numbers-wise it left Germany a lot closer to being able to gain parity with Britain.
Determined to force Britain back onto the sidelines (not realising Britain had never particularly left them).Germany stepped up their construction of new battleships at an alarming rate. By the start of 1909, Britain was genuinely facing a dilemma. The number of battleships required to outnumber the German North Seas Fleet had become so large that countering it would mean stripping the rest of the Empire of protection. The financial costs were beginning to weigh heavily on Britain as well, with economic troubles cropping up, and battleships growing ever more expensive. But what to do? As far as Germany was concerned, this was the point at which Britain should have no choice but to concede, and settle into some form of arrangement with Imperial Germany.
Unfortunately, Germany had miscalculated the British priorities. Germany had the strongest army in existence. Were they able to force the North Sea, the British Isles and people themselves would be in genuine peril, and that was simply not an option the British were willing to concede to Germany. Despite a government unwilling to re-arm unnecessarily, their hand was forced, and a two pronged strategy was taken. Rather than come to an accord with Germany, Britain decided to rotate the majority of the new battleships to the Home Fleet, and outbuild Germany. Britain had the largest shipbuilding capacity in the world at that point in time, and pledged to lay two battleship keels for every German one. Reasoning that Germany would soon abandon this madcap scheme, Britain approached Germany several times over the next few years, offering to cancel the construction of their warships if Germany would do the same. Germany, falsely scenting weakness in these approaches, and convinced that they evidenced the British reaching breaking point and the success of their strategy, refused to parley.
But by 1912, Germany began to realise that this was not a race that they were able to compete in. Britain had kept building according to their pledge, and despite Germany's industrial might, they simply could not hope to afford to maintain both the strongest Army and Navy. The Army was baying for the funding being diverted to the Imperial Navy, and with no sign of the British flagging and coming to heel, German priorities reluctantly switched to focus on a potential land war against France and Germany. Britain was safe, for the time being.
But the fears that Germany had provoked in Britain remained nonetheless. Britain might still remain on the sidelines in Europe, but the concerns Germany had raised? They were well remembered on the eve of war in 1914.
So was entering the war a foolish, rash, and unconsidered decision by British politicians?
As we saw in the timeline I posted earlier, Britain was far from interested in engaging in a general European war, and indeed, did absolutely everything that they could do to stay out of it. When the issues in Serbia first kicked off, the British encouraged the Serbians to fold to Austrian pressure. When Austria invaded, the British Government championed mediation, and attempted to get Germany to discuss the whole affair with them. When Germany looked to be about to go to war with Russia, Britain telegraphed Germany to encourage them not to involve France in the dispute. And then, when it seemed inevitable that France would be drawn in, the British Government had still decided that Britain would not intervene.
These are not the actions of statemen rushing to engage in war to buff their foreign policy credentials. In fact, one could even say that the British Government were the most reluctant to engage in hostilities out of all the powers involved. When drawing a line under Belgium as a final point at which they would have to become involved, even then they left a slight get out clause in which Belgium would have to be actively resisting the Germans for them to intervene. So that more or less discredits the notion that the British Government were a bunch of old men eager to send off the youth of the day to die.
Cartoon by F.H. Townsend, Punch, 12th August 1914
I'm sure a number of you are thinking, 'But why did they have to intervene when Belgium was invaded? Why not just stay neutral?' Well, firstly, it is important to remember that no-one quite expected the carnage that was the ensue. Secondly, the facts I mentioned earlier over the German naval buildup should be remembered. From the British perspective, staying neutral and allowing France/Russia to be defeated and Belgium more or less absorbed would result in the Germans holding the whip hand in Europe. The consequences of that would have a profound effect on what little remained of Pax Britannia, and the security of the British homeland.
Had the Germans won, their economic power on the continent would be phenomenal. They would hold ports dangerously close to Britain, and have the money and power to build a Navy to rival/exceed the capabilities of the British Navy. British products would be muscled out by German products, and with the German seizure of French colonies, the whole Empire would be at risk. What's more, there would be no easy of counterbalancing Germany. With Russia smashed and France humbled, the only other remaining power capable of opposing Germany would be America. And with a high proportion of German descended immigrants and a high level of insularity, there would be no guarantee that America would be interested in any alliance with Britain.
The result being that when British politicians were backed into a corner by the aggressiveness of Germany, they elected to stand and fight in order to protect the interests and safety of the British Empire. Certainly, they were in no rush to do so, but ultimately to have done otherwise would have been folly. The ramifications of Germany's triumph were so vast that to not attempt to delay or prevent them would have been pure negligence. The British Government did not blindly wander into war as is so often portrayed. They were simply forced to conclude that it was the best option remaining to them after Europe gradually descended into chaos, despite their best efforts to prevent it.
The British military adaptation to new technology and total war
When the BEF landed in France in 1914 under Sir John French, they possessed a mere twenty four five inch guns in terms of artillery. Each battalion had just two maxim machine guns, and a few units were sporadically armed with ineffectual (and dangerous) No.1 Grenades. That was it. They were completely deficient in heavy artillery, mortars, and even most medicines. The recent British experiences in the Boer War had indicated that whilst artillery and machine guns were to be feared, any war in Europe would still ultimately be a mobile one decided by the traditional methods of rifle accuracy and discipline. Proof of this can be found by examining the the Standard Infantry Training Manual for 1914 (copies can be viewed at the Imperial War Museum). A quick skim will show such sections as 'Marching Under Fire, 'Fire and Formations in Battle', and 'Artillery Escorts'.
The British No.1 Grenade
To their credit, the British quickly became aware of the necessity of heavier guns though, and Sir John French immediately ordered the transportation of an obsolete pile of ex-Boer War 6-inch howitzers to the Continent. Those had begun arriving by late September, and Sir French was justified in that decision, later noting in October that, 'Our experiences in this campaign seem to point to the employment of more heavy guns of a larger calibre in the great battles which last for several days'. After seeing the German mortars in action, he quickly placed the first specifications for British production of similar weapons, and was supported in that decision by most of the British General Staff.
Like artillery, the British were also deficient in aeroplanes from quite early on in the war. The RFC took four squadrons of 48 craft with them across to Europe with the BEF at the outbreak of hostilities, but almost forty of these were lost in the British retreat to the Marne in October that year. This was because prior to the war, the RFC was considered to be totally optional to the war effort, and there had been absolutely no procedures put in place to integrate the RFC with the standard Army structure. Aeroplane usefulness in directing artillery fire was quickly utlised though (the first recorded time being on the Aisne as early as September 14th 1914), and by November, French was again pushing to acquire as many aircraft from home as possible. Byt the end of the year, the British Government had ordered another 418 aircraft, a massive increase on the pre-war construction levels.
A portrait of Sir John French
As can be deduced from above, the British Army, whilst totally unprepared, was not immune to learning from the conduct of the war in the early stages. Despite landing with not a single motorised ambulance in September, the BEF had 250 of the things working in France by the end of 1914. The British Army were generally reluctant to adopt new technologies and tactics until they proved their worth, but once that had been done, they would be seized upon and applied across the Front with alacrity.
A good example of this is the Battle of Neuve Chapelle in March 1915. Designed as a breakthrough operation to start a general advance, it brought together the accumulated knowledge of the British Army thus far, and combined it with as much new technology in support as could be mustered. Maps were made of German trenches from aerial photographs, an experimental line of telephone communications laid to try and rectify the serious communication issues that had plagued the British so far, and every single artillery piece that could be mustered was brought to focus on one area.
Unfortunately, it failed due to the shortness of the British artillery barrage (thirty five minutes, mainly due to ammunition shortages), the failure of a large number of British shells to explode (bad fuses), the German barbed wire remaining uncut, and an underestimation of the German machine gun posts. But despite being a failure, the British did take away lessons from the battle. By the Battle of Loos in September 1915, the pre-assault bombardment time had reached a duration of four days! The British were also now utilising gas, within four months of having the Germans deploy it against them. The fact that gas was developed and produced in sufficient quantities for battlefield use within four months should again highlight how the British Army could very much adapt to new circumstances and technology.
The Stokes mortar, the Lewis and Vickers machine guns, new grenades, battlefield telephone lines, aircraft with continuous wave transmitters all were instituted, produced, and wheeled out to battlefield en masse by the end of 1915. What's more, a constant stream of fresh tactical manuals and treatises flowed out from the General Staff, attempting to retrain their men to utilise the new technologies to their greatest advantage. The Blackadder view of British soldiers all going over the top in endless waves to mowed down and move Haig's drinks cabinet five centimetres closer to Berlin is a total myth. But we'll explore that perception of the war later on.
The British innovation did not end in 1915 though. In 1916? Tanks. Buzzers. The Fullerphone. Wireless sets. Supply railways. The institution of the British Signal Service. Air combat between newer models of aircraft. Bombercraft. The adoption of the creeping barrage artillery strategy. Microphone sound rangers to detect enemy artillery and help direct British artillery. The adoption of flash spotting. Endless improvements, tactical reshuffles, everything and anything that the General Staff could devise to try and break the stalemate was utilised. The problem was, the Germans were doing exactly the same thing. Until 1916, the British were just playing catch-up to the Germans, and once they'd reached the same level, the Germans continued to innovate alongside them.
But ultimately the problem was that the numbers of men and economies involved were so vast, that a 'decisive battle', as envisaged by all sides before the war, was impossible. The general academic opinion of the British General Staff? They did an alright job, considering the circumstances they found themselves in. Sure, sometimes they missed things that seemed blindingly obvious in hindsight. But other times, they were downright cunning and innovative. Overall, they did the best they could for their men and their country.
WW1 had always been something that had passed me by much, really.
Though, I have always had the tradition of watching the final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth on Remembrance Sunday. In saying that, I never really did subscribe to belief B, aside from the simple fact of, "an extremely large amount of people died and my Great Grandfather got his hand blown off, which is a bad thing."
In any case, I'm finding Ketara's writing incredibly interesting as well.
British TV show featuring Rowan Atkinson. Each season was set at a different time period, one was set in the trenches during WWI. It was very anti-war and portrayed the top brass as a bunch of fools.
Although each series is set in a different era, all follow the "misfortunes" of Edmund Blackadder (played by Atkinson), who in each is a member of a British family dynasty present at many significant periods and places in British history. It is implied in each series that the Blackadder character is a descendant of the previous one (the end theme lyrics of series 2, episode "Heads", specify that he is the great-grandson of the previous), although it is never specified how or when any of the Blackadders (who are usually single and not in a relationship) managed to father children.[2]
As the generations progress, each Blackadder becomes increasingly clever and perceptive, while the family's social status steadily erodes. However, each Blackadder remains a cynical, cowardly opportunist, maintaining and increasing his own status and fortunes, regardless of his surroundings.
The life of each Blackadder is also entwined with his servant, each from the Baldrick family line (played by Tony Robinson). Each generation acts as the dogsbody to his respective Blackadder. They decrease in intelligence (and in personal-hygiene standards) as their masters' intellect increases. Each Blackadder and Baldrick is also saddled with tolerating the presence of a dim-witted aristocrat. This role was taken in the first two series by Lord Percy Percy, played by Tim McInnerny; with Hugh Laurie playing the role in the third and fourth series, as Prince George, Prince Regent; and Lieutenant George, respectively.
Each series was set in a different period of British history, beginning in 1485 and ending in 1917, and comprised 6 half-hour episodes. The first series, made in 1983, was called The Black Adder and set in the fictional reign of "Richard IV". The second series, Blackadder II (1986), was set during the reign of Elizabeth I. Blackadder the Third (1987) was set during the late 18th and early 19th centuries in the reign of George III, and Blackadder Goes Forth (1989) was set in 1917 in the trenches of the Great War.
Blackadder is one of the greatest British comedies of all time, and features 4 generations of the Blackadder family (medieval, Elizabethan, Georgian and First World War) getting up to general misdeedery. The WW1 series in particular is very much a social commentary and focuses on the view that the war was entirely pointless.
I think this scene sums up the show quite well (and is also hugely hilarious):
You should definitely check it out. The cast includes Rowan Atkinson, Tony Robinson, Tim McInnery and Stephen Fry (series 1+2) and in Hugh Laurie replaces McInnery in Series 3. In the fourth series, they're all in it. It's genuinely great stuff.
Ninja'd twice. Oh well, still watch the clip. It's brilliant.
ing party could only be marked as inhuman using the most Orwellian of doublespeak.
EDIT: And in North Carolina, Virginia wasn't 'south enough' to count as truely Southern 
Patiently waits for more of Ketara's excelent dissertation _profile_drawing.png)
