Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

 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

 scarletsquig wrote:

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...

 scarletsquig wrote:

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.

I will go with C.

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 :

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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'.

 Ketara wrote:
Much I despise the fellow's work

Oh ? Why ?

 Ketara wrote:
if that sort of subject is your thing

Well, it is really depressing and oppressive, actually.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Much I despise the fellow's work

Oh ? Why ?

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.

 Da Boss wrote:


Ketara: It is aimed at you, from when you made the comment about the "blackadder" version of WW1, in reply to Scarletsquig.

Ah, I thought you meant SickSix, as his was the most recent reply with the initials SS.

Are you sure you want to get hit by another text wall? It's a fairly intricate subject.

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll add to this tale tomorrow, as I'm more than a little tired. I've set the scene for the decade running up to the First World War though.

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.

http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2014/01/05/1914-and-all-that/

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.

feth Gove and feth his call to patriotism.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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

A good write up from Ketara there.

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

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).

 sebster wrote:


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.

Can you expand on that? The over sea part.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Can you expand on that? The over sea part.

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.