Anybody here well-read on the Great War & want to discuss it?

[ArmchairSamurai]

Hello,

I am curious how many of you, if any, are well-read on the Great War, its theatre of politics, logistics and statistics, strategy and tactics, and technology. I am finding material here and there and amassing a bunch of papers to widen my understanding of the massive spider's web of interconnected events and people, yet it would be nice to discuss it all at length. Is anyone game?

 

[sienar]

Get "The sleepwalkers; how europe went to war in 1914" if you haven't already.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hello,

I am curious how many of you, if any, are well-read on the Great War, its theatre of politics, logistics and statistics, strategy and tactics, and technology. I am finding material here and there and amassing a bunch of papers to widen my understanding of the massive spider's web of interconnected events and people, yet it would be nice to discuss it all at length. Is anyone game?

My knowledge of the WWI is limited to the camouflage of the aircraft, the performance of the fighters and the development of the British night fighters.

I have quite a few photocopies of scale drawings of these aircraft but in my files they are not easy to find because I am not familiar with the shape of many models.

I am sorry that I cannot help in a high-level debate.

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

Get "The sleepwalkers; how europe went to war in 1914" if you haven't already.

I will, thanks for the suggestion. I am always looking for new material to read.

My knowledge of the WWI is limited to the camouflage of the aircraft, the performance of the fighters and the development of the British night fighters.

I have quite a few photocopies of scale drawings of these aircraft but in my files they are not easy to find because I am not familiar with the shape of many models.

I am sorry that I cannot help in a high-level debate.

It's ok Justo; I appreciate you nonetheless for saying so!

 

[Swan]

Hello,

I am curious how many of you, if any, are well-read on the Great War, its theatre of politics, logistics and statistics, strategy and tactics, and technology. I am finding material here and there and amassing a bunch of papers to widen my understanding of the massive spider's web of interconnected events and people, yet it would be nice to discuss it all at length. Is anyone game?

WW1 was not a great war, and WW2 was not the war to end all wars. Just saying

 

[uk 75]

I can remember as a kid growing up in the 60s we still had a few veterans of the First War going in our local pub. My late father who was in the Home Guard before volunteering for the Royal Engineers in WW2 used to chat with them and swap stories he had heard in the Home Guard.
Documentaries about the Great War are plentiful and it has been considered at length by historians.
Not sure there is much to discuss here though. The role of the Kaiser remains controversial. Historians are more critical of him than in the 60s "war by timetable" days.
Britain's decision to fight and its impact on our economy is another well trodden theme.
Between Waterloo and 1914 only the Crimean War and the Franco Prussian War had seen the principal European powers go to war. Although historians tend to focus on Germany and Russia the country involved in all the conflicts mentioned above was France.
The French Army and France's idea of itself are worth close examination.
The relationship between Charles De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer brought the struggle between France and Germany to a peaceful conclusion and broke a cycle of wars going back centuries.

 

[DWG]

I found Norman Friedman's Fighting the Great War at Sea particularly interesting for its takes on why Germany went to war - for fear of reform happening at home, and on Gallipoli - the Cabinet collectively was going for a landing on the flanks, whether Gallipoli or Fisher's Baltic Scheme was almost a coin toss, and Winston took the blame as the junior member, not because it was 'his' scheme; while Friedman's stuff on the importance of the 'informal Empire' to British strategy crops up not just here but in many of his books.

 

[Antonio]

WW1 was not a great war, and WW2 was not the war to end all wars. Just saying

WWI has important aspects on geopolitics/strategy, tactics and technology. From a historical point of view, the way it ended helped facilitate the outbreak of the WWII so many authors prefer to study both WW as a single war with a sort of peace interval in the middle.

WWI defined a new World Map because that was one of the ideas moving the contenders to War.
After Napoleonic Wars, new powers started to rise, both over decaying powers and contesting those then firmly stablished. Since dominion of maritime commerce was part of the conflict, it was preceded by a naval technology race but once the war was fought, naval strategy and warfare suffered a deep revision which was completed after WWII.

WWI was the first industrial and technological war seeing many inventions going into the battlefield and developing different ways to make use of it. Some succeed others not.

WWI is remembered by trenches because a specific interaction between offensive/defensive technologies resulted in the development of extensive static fronts for years. However WWI was the first war with generalised use of long range weapons and the normalization of deep fronts and the start of strategic bombing. It was the dawn for Aviation, Mechanised or Submarine arms.

Just to start with a few words...

 

[Swan]

WWI has important aspects on geopolitics/strategy, tactics and technology. From a historical point of view, the way it ended helped facilitate the outbreak of the WWII so many authors prefer to study both WW as a single war with a sort of peace interval in the middle.

WWI defined a new World Map because that was one of the ideas moving the contenders to War.
After Napoleonic Wars, new powers started to rise, both over decaying powers and contesting those then firmly stablished. Since dominion of maritime commerce was part of the conflict, it was preceded by a naval technology race but once the war was fought, naval strategy and warfare suffered a deep revision which was completed after WWII.

WWI was the first industrial and technological war seeing many inventions going into the battlefield and developing different ways to make use of it. Some succeed others not.

WWI is remembered by trenches because a specific interaction between offensive/defensive technologies resulted in the development of extensive static fronts for years. However WWI was the first war with generalised use of long range weapons and the normalization of deep fronts and the start of strategic bombing. It was the dawn for Aviation, Mechanised or Submarine arms.

Just to start with a few words...

WW1 is the current equivalent of Neanderthals hitting each other with sticks next to current and future weapons. Sticks may hurt but they will not wipe out the food chain like nuclear winter will

 

[uk 75]

As in the 18th Century wars can be halted temporarily by Peace Accords and then resume.
With the benefit of hindsight the Armistice of 1918 was one such pause.
The unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan marked the emergence of two military superpowers in the US and Soviet Union.
Britain had paid a high price. Bankrupting its treasury and losing its overseas Empire (not apparent in 1945 but starting with India it dissolved rapidly over the next twenty years.)
France had suffered grievously compared with Britain but she seemed better equipped for the economic and industrial challenges of the postwar world.
Germany and Japan became the chief economic success stories of the post WW2 world. In part because they imported US technology and methods and then adapted them.
Central and Southern Europe were to live under the shadow of Soviet power until 1991.
The tensions that led to WW1 soon re emerged in the breakup of Yugoslavia. Slovenia and Croatia looked to Germany, while Serbia looked to France and Russia.
Czechoslovakia again divided into Czechs and Slovaks, but peacefully.
Some of the language used in the UK's referendum and departure from the European Union was familar from WW1 and 2.
Poland and Hungary have returned to some of their Interwar right wing attitudes and politics.
In Austria and Germany the right wing has regained ground lost between 1945 and 2000.
In 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine. The era of US/Russia stalemate in Europe was over. Battles in Ukraine have many features of WW1 from trench warfare to technical innovation.
Perhaps 1945 was only another pause in the struggle to dominate Europe. As in previous wars the USA will try to stay out of it. Trump is not the exception to US policy he is the norm. The EU and Putin's Russia will use Ukraine as Belgium was used.

 

[Swan]

As in the 18th Century wars can be halted temporarily by Peace Accords and then resume.
With the benefit of hindsight the Armistice of 1918 was one such pause.
The unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan marked the emergence of two military superpowers in the US and Soviet Union.
Britain had paid a high price. Bankrupting its treasury and losing its overseas Empire (not apparent in 1945 but starting with India it dissolved rapidly over the next twenty years.)
France had suffered grievously compared with Britain but she seemed better equipped for the economic and industrial challenges of the postwar world.
Germany and Japan became the chief economic success stories of the post WW2 world. In part because they imported US technology and methods and then adapted them.
Central and Southern Europe were to live under the shadow of Soviet power until 1991.
The tensions that led to WW1 soon re emerged in the breakup of Yugoslavia. Slovenia and Croatia looked to Germany, while Serbia looked to France and Russia.
Czechoslovakia again divided into Czechs and Slovaks, but peacefully.
Some of the language used in the UK's referendum and departure from the European Union was familar from WW1 and 2.
Poland and Hungary have returned to some of their Interwar right wing attitudes and politics.
In Austria and Germany the right wing has regained ground lost between 1945 and 2000.
In 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine. The era of US/Russia stalemate in Europe was over. Battles in Ukraine have many features of WW1 from trench warfare to technical innovation.
Perhaps 1945 was only another pause in the struggle to dominate Europe. As in previous wars the USA will try to stay out of it. Trump is not the exception to US policy he is the norm. The EU and Putin's Russia will use Ukraine as Belgium was used.

So how will history prevent the next chapter of history? LOL it won't, but no history professor will admit that their job is near pointless in the modern world

 

[Hood]

When I get up close to WW1 artefacts in museums they always make me feel uneasy. It was a strange war, partly technological, but that technology by our standards was very primitive with reliability being pretty low for most complicated machine and internal combustion, and partly ages-old barbarous warfare with spiked maces and steel body armour. It's just menacing stuff. And that's even before you look at the idiotic tactical and strategical decisions and sheer madness of wasting human life for what, it seems to me, was a completely pointless war with no aim from either side.

All the geopolitics leading up to the war is understandable, but the blood letting had no tangible rational reasoning to it. At least WW2 had objectives on all sides, whether it was to conqueror land or resources or to defeat the Fascist nations, but WW1 had no grand objectives, no particular goals in mind other that trying to destroy each other's military power or be perceived to be the 'top dog' of Europe. Most of the pre-1914 threats were bogeymen rather than real dangers (apart from the ever volatile Balkans). I've never seen any rational victory plan from either side. There was nothing to negotiate for an armistice for what could be bargained for? Only when the Central Powers collapsed was the end in sight. By 1919 it was no surprise the Allies were in a vindictive mood.

 

[uk 75]

Britain is a reluctant participant in both wars.
Control of the Channel ports by a hostile power was not acceptable so we send the BEF to Flanders in 1914.
For all the rhetoric (Churchill sensibly summed up his aim as being to defeat Hitler) Britain and France had failed to deter Germany from a special military operation in Poland.
In the age of air warfare it was even less possible for Britain to stand aside than in 1914.
Swan is correct that history cannot be used to predict the future. But there are aspects of conflict that do repeat themselves. The images from Ukraine in 2024 especially now Winter has come recall the mud and horror of the Western front

 

[uk 75]

Depressingly, Britain has never been well prepared for war.
Even at the height of our power in the Victorian age we could not intervene decisively on the Continent. The Crimean and Boer wars showed the limitations of the British Army.
The Royal Navy could starve the Kaiser's Europe as it had done Napoleon's, but only the French or Russian armies could beat him. In the end it took US troops

 

[DWG]

WW1 is the current equivalent of Neanderthals hitting each other with sticks next to current and future weapons. Sticks may hurt but they will not wipe out the food chain

Ironic considering blockade was a strategy on both sides.

 

[DWG]

Even at the height of our power in the Victorian age we could not intervene decisively on the Continent.

As a maritime power, we didn't need to. 'Fog in the Channel, Continent Isolated' and all that.

 

[Justo Miranda]

WWI has important aspects on geopolitics/strategy, tactics and technology. From a historical point of view, the way it ended helped facilitate the outbreak of the WWII so many authors prefer to study both WW as a single war with a sort of peace interval in the middle.

WWI defined a new World Map because that was one of the ideas moving the contenders to War.
After Napoleonic Wars, new powers started to rise, both over decaying powers and contesting those then firmly stablished. Since dominion of maritime commerce was part of the conflict, it was preceded by a naval technology race but once the war was fought, naval strategy and warfare suffered a deep revision which was completed after WWII.

WWI was the first industrial and technological war seeing many inventions going into the battlefield and developing different ways to make use of it. Some succeed others not.

WWI is remembered by trenches because a specific interaction between offensive/defensive technologies resulted in the development of extensive static fronts for years. However WWI was the first war with generalised use of long range weapons and the normalization of deep fronts and the start of strategic bombing. It was the dawn for Aviation, Mechanised or Submarine arms.

Just to start with a few words...

Paradoxically, wars also have some beneficial effects for posterity, the First World War ended the German empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Russian empire to the benefit of modern democracies and eroded the British and French empires to the point that they were no longer profitable.

During the Second World War most of the surviving monarchies were refugees in London and never recovered from their desertion. The Italian colonial empire ceased to exist and Japan also lost everything.

 

[Archibald]

WWI mindless carnage of ten million lives really sadden me and bothers me to no end.
Plus aircraft were kinda boring back then (they truly became of interest in the early 1930, when engines got cowls, undercarriages went retractable, and cockpit got canopies).

This said, below links are the best explanation of why and how the war bogged down in trench warfare, claiming lives in the million range.

Collections: No Man’s Land, Part I: The Trench Stalemate

This week (and next) I want to build a bit off of our discussion of Victoria II and talk a bit about World War I and in particular the trench stalemate on the Western Front. That trench stalemate i…

acoup.blog

Collections: No Man’s Land, Part II: Breaking the Stalemate

Last time, we introduced the factors that created the trench stalemate in the First World War and we also laid out why the popular ‘easy answer’ of simply going on the defensive and let…

acoup.blog

And there was nothing that could be done to break that technological deadend. The only way out in the end was that one of the side became exhausted and collapsed. Could have been France in 1914, could have happened to the Allies in 1917 either through a) the mutinies or b) losing the russians or c) the americans not entering the conflict. In the end it was Germany which ended exhausted and collapsed in merely 100 days (July 15, 1918 to November 11, 1918).

That really makes WWI very scary. Technology had failed to break the trench warfare deadlock. Achieving breakthroughs was impossible. And thus the mindless meat grinder could have carried on unabatted until, perhaps all males aged 18 to 45 went dead. Plus the Spanish Flu coming on top of that to finish the job.

Most depressing part in the above links

1- "Breaking the front was impossible. Artillery rolling barrages could only smash the first, eventually the second lines of defenses. Ok then, no problem. Artillery max range is, what, 20 km ? then we will built additional defense lines beyond that range."

2 - Another depressing part "Once the artillery preliminary barrage had crushed the landscape into oblivion... the cratered, lunar-like fields became a liability for the attackers, slowing down their advance. It was either the craters, or worse: rain turning the whole place into an ocean of mud." Go moving the heavy, long range guns through the wrecked fields of mud.

These two salient points, to me, illustrates to absolute perfection WWI sheer stupidity and mindless carnage.

 

[Archibald]

Just think about it.
1-Poor soldiers in Verdun (French or German, it doesn't matter the direction), waiting for the barrage and assault, would have to cross the devastated landscape to reach the first, perhaps the second line of defenses. If all went well, best case.
2-And then they would lose the artillery barrage: out of range !
3-Only to run into a third or fourth line of defense, especially dug there... to be out of range of the artillery barrage (d'uh, facepalm).
4-Oh, and by the way, the bulk of the ennemy soldiers awaited exactly there.
5-Why ? knowing an offensive was coming, they had - wisely - retreated from the first and second lines, doomed to be crushed by the artillery barrage few million shells, poison gas included.
6-Then they just watched the barrage from a safe distance (30 km did the job) with the offensive behind it.
7-In the meantime they had quietly organized a formidable defense. They were in touch with the rear echelons of logistics, so: easy.
8-And now they just had to wait for the exhausted, crippled, demoralized, traumatized and very weakened ennemy offensive to come dying on their defensive line - the third, the fourth... whatever number it takes to be out of the artillery range.
9-No problem with strategic depth, in passing: they had the entirety of either France or Germany behind their backs.
10-Final point: technology is fully unable to find a solution to the above point. Tanks ? parachutists ? poison gas ? nothing works. Front still not breached.

This, in essence, is why WWI was a criminally stupid, mindless carnage that killed 10 millions poor souls - for exactly nothing. Since, by November 11, 1938 (+20 years) the mindless carnage was ready to start all over again: except multipled by 6 : 60 millions souls to be lost that time.

 

[Justo Miranda]

WWI has important aspects on geopolitics/strategy, tactics and technology. From a historical point of view, the way it ended helped facilitate the outbreak of the WWII so many authors prefer to study both WW as a single war with a sort of peace interval in the middle.

WWI defined a new World Map because that was one of the ideas moving the contenders to War.
After Napoleonic Wars, new powers started to rise, both over decaying powers and contesting those then firmly stablished. Since dominion of maritime commerce was part of the conflict, it was preceded by a naval technology race but once the war was fought, naval strategy and warfare suffered a deep revision which was completed after WWII.

WWI was the first industrial and technological war seeing many inventions going into the battlefield and developing different ways to make use of it. Some succeed others not.

WWI is remembered by trenches because a specific interaction between offensive/defensive technologies resulted in the development of extensive static fronts for years. However WWI was the first war with generalised use of long range weapons and the normalization of deep fronts and the start of strategic bombing. It was the dawn for Aviation, Mechanised or Submarine arms.

Just to start with a few words...

Not everything is destruction and suffering, wars also eliminate moribund social structures that we do not dare to absolve in times of peace. During the First World War, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire disappeared, the French and British Empires suffered from the overload of military expenditures and ceased to be profitable.

World War Two wiped out the Italian colonies and Japan lost everything, most of the small European monarchies fled to London and never recovered from their defection, modern democracies began to receive oxygen and colonies began to fall... as if a magic broom had passed through the World.

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

WW1 was not a great war, and WW2 was not the war to end all wars. Just saying

For what it is, the people alive then did not believe war could get any more brutal and barbaric than what had just transpired. We know better now with the benefit of hindsight, but that is irrelevant to the phrase. Things like that remind us we are human. That aside, I did not make this thread for it to devolve into what the nature of war is, and or a Hegelian Dialectic.

WWI mindless carnage of ten million lives really sadden me and bothers me to no end.
Plus aircraft were kinda boring back then (they truly became of interest in the early 1930, when engines got cowls, undercarriages went retractable, and cockpit got canopies).

This said, below links are the best explanation of why and how the war bogged down in trench warfare, claiming lives in the million range.

Collections: No Man’s Land, Part I: The Trench Stalemate

This week (and next) I want to build a bit off of our discussion of Victoria II and talk a bit about World War I and in particular the trench stalemate on the Western Front. That trench stalemate i…

acoup.blog

Collections: No Man’s Land, Part II: Breaking the Stalemate

Last time, we introduced the factors that created the trench stalemate in the First World War and we also laid out why the popular ‘easy answer’ of simply going on the defensive and let…

acoup.blog

And there was nothing that could be done to break that technological deadend. The only way out in the end was that one of the side became exhausted and collapsed. Could have been France in 1914, could have happened to the Allies in 1917 either through a) the mutinies or b) losing the russians or c) the americans not entering the conflict. In the end it was Germany which ended exhausted and collapsed in merely 100 days (July 15, 1918 to November 11, 1918).

That really makes WWI very scary. Technology had failed to break the trench warfare deadlock. Achieving breakthroughs was impossible. And thus the mindless meat grinder could have carried on unabatted until, perhaps all males aged 18 to 45 went dead. Plus the Spanish Flu coming on top of that to finish the job.

Most depressing part in the above links

1- "Breaking the front was impossible. Artillery rolling barrages could only smash the first, eventually the second lines of defenses. Ok then, no problem. Artillery max range is, what, 20 km ? then we will built additional defense lines beyond that range."

2 - Another depressing part "Once the artillery preliminary barrage had crushed the landscape into oblivion... the cratered, lunar-like fields became a liability for the attackers, slowing down their advance. It was either the craters, or worse: rain turning the whole place into an ocean of mud." Go moving the heavy, long range guns through the wrecked fields of mud.

These two salient points, to me, illustrates to absolute perfection WWI sheer stupidity and mindless carnage.

Thanks for the links Archibald! I will check them out. Very thought-provoking statement on your part.

Paradoxically, wars also have some beneficial effects for posterity, the First World War ended the German empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Russian empire to the benefit of modern democracies and eroded the British and French empires to the point that they were no longer profitable.

During the Second World War most of the surviving monarchies were refugees in London and never recovered from their desertion. The Italian colonial empire ceased to exist and Japan also lost everything.

Quite true.

I found Norman Friedman's Fighting the Great War at Sea particularly interesting for its takes on why Germany went to war - for fear of reform happening at home, and on Gallipoli - the Cabinet collectively was going for a landing on the flanks, whether Gallipoli or Fisher's Baltic Scheme was almost a coin toss, and Winston took the blame as the junior member, not because it was 'his' scheme; while Friedman's stuff on the importance of the 'informal Empire' to British strategy crops up not just here but in many of his books.

Interesting. Yes, I had heard about the Baltic Project. There is a channel on YouTube called Old Britannia. There is a video on that very topic, among other things. It's worth a watch, I highly recommend it.

When I get up close to WW1 artefacts in museums they always make me feel uneasy. It was a strange war, partly technological, but that technology by our standards was very primitive with reliability being pretty low for most complicated machine and internal combustion, and partly ages-old barbarous warfare with spiked maces and steel body armour. It's just menacing stuff. And that's even before you look at the idiotic tactical and strategical decisions and sheer madness of wasting human life for what, it seems to me, was a completely pointless war with no aim from either side.

All the geopolitics leading up to the war is understandable, but the blood letting had no tangible rational reasoning to it. At least WW2 had objectives on all sides, whether it was to conqueror land or resources or to defeat the Fascist nations, but WW1 had no grand objectives, no particular goals in mind other that trying to destroy each other's military power or be perceived to be the 'top dog' of Europe. Most of the pre-1914 threats were bogeymen rather than real dangers (apart from the ever volatile Balkans). I've never seen any rational victory plan from either side. There was nothing to negotiate for an armistice for what could be bargained for? Only when the Central Powers collapsed was the end in sight. By 1919 it was no surprise the Allies were in a vindictive mood.

I absolutely agree. I recall a quasi-dramatized documentary on the Treaty of Versailles years ago on YouTube that opened my eyes to how dysfunctional, unorganized, and at odds with each other the powers at be were when the war came to a close. Delegations and negotiations were nothing but stonewall after stonewall as everyone had their own vision of the future of Europe, or worse, were scrounging for bigger spoils--especially those who were promised certain conditions under the table, but were surprised to realize they were lied to. Italy, Japan, the Arabs, etc.

Depressingly, Britain has never been well prepared for war.
Even at the height of our power in the Victorian age we could not intervene decisively on the Continent. The Crimean and Boer wars showed the limitations of the British Army.
The Royal Navy could starve the Kaiser's Europe as it had done Napoleon's, but only the French or Russian armies could beat him. In the end it took US troops

I always found that strange too, because was it not the UK that traded Germany, Heglioland for Zanzibar? Was it not the UK that paid no heed to Germany digging the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Canal? Same goes for the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race which seemingly only encouraged Germany to continue its path to war rather than de-escalate the tension. No one intervened on behalf of Napoleon III--though I am sure that was merely out of "splendid isolation" rather than a diplomatic blunder. After all, it was the UK that threatened the Kaiser with war if he intervened in the Boer Wars. I believe it was a lack of transparency and consistency in foreign policy that allowed for these tensions to build. Everything was mired in empire and it was that jingoism that blinded all to the consequences of their actions abroad. The Fashoda Incident, the Boxer Rebellion, the Russo-Japanese War, the Tangier Crisis, the Adagir Crisis, the Balkan Wars, and the Risorgimento's conclusion in the Italo-Turkish War, just to name a few. There are so many more. It's a fascinating thing to put together as you reconstruct a complete timeline and see how interwoven the events that led to WWI were. It almost seems like the war was wholly inevitable, and from a historical perspective, that is a terrifying thing to ponder.

 

[DWG]

I always found that strange too, because was it not the UK that traded Germany, Heglioland for Zanzibar? Was it not the UK that paid no heed to Germany digging the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Canal? Same goes for the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race which seemingly only encouraged Germany to continue its path to war rather than de-escalate the tension. No one intervened on behalf of Napoleon III--though I am sure that was merely out of "splendid isolation" rather than a diplomatic blunder. After all, it was the UK that threatened the Kaiser with war if he intervened in the Boer Wars. I believe it was a lack of transparency and consistency in foreign policy that allowed for these tensions to build. Everything was mired in empire and it was that jingoism that blinded all to the consequences of their actions abroad. The Fashoda Incident, the Boxer Rebellion, the Russo-Japanese War, the Tangier Crisis, the Adagir Crisis, the Balkan Wars, and the Risorgimento's conclusion in the Italo-Turkish War, just to name a few. There are so many more. It's a fascinating thing to put together as you reconstruct a complete timeline and see how interwoven the events that led to WWI were. It almost seems like the war was wholly inevitable, and from a historical perspective, that is a terrifying thing to ponder.

Heligoland only had value as a fortress securing Heligoland, there's no intrinsic value to it, it's not even a decent anchorage, and supplying something on the wrong side of the North Sea commits a slice of your resources to it, whether you're going for a close blockade or not. The only First Sea Lord to propose close blockade in the run-up to WWI was promptly sacked as a dangerous fool.

Zanzibar, OTOH, has real value. Rather than being a German port threatening an otherwise British shore, it became a British port compromising the rest of German East Africa (Zanzibar + Tanganyika + Burundi + Rwanda).

The Kiel Canal was a force-multiplier for Germany, but not one we could do anything about. What were we supposed to do? Invade?

WRT the Naval Arms Race, that's completely irrelevant to the German path to war, it's importance to Germany was in internal empire building, not external confrontation. In fact the funding had been shifted to the German army several years before the outbreak of war. In the meantime the UK could comfortably outbuild Germany if needed - "We want eight!" - and did, but didn't particularly want to.

It seems you're criticising the UK for not taking action anywhere it didn't need to take action, and for taking action anywhere it successfully did.

 

[uk 75]

The UK had traditionally looked for allies on the Continent to confront its enemies, whether Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV or Napoleon.
Prussia had benefitted from this arrangement and Britain had allowed it to dominate Germany and destroy the French Second Empire.
This had been fine until Germany became the most modern economic, industrial and military state in Europe.
By the turn of the Century Britain is forced to rely on France as the other leading European democracy.
I think it is the political system and ambitions of Kaiser Wilhelm II's state that makes a European war inevitable.
Handling Germany then dominates the thoughts of Foreign Ministries in London and Paris.

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

Heligoland only had value as a fortress securing Heligoland, there's no intrinsic value to it, it's not even a decent anchorage, and supplying something on the wrong side of the North Sea commits a slice of your resources to it, whether you're going for a close blockade or not. The only First Sea Lord to propose close blockade in the run-up to WWI was promptly sacked as a dangerous fool.

Zanzibar, OTOH, has real value. Rather than being a German port threatening an otherwise British shore, it became a British port compromising the rest of German East Africa (Zanzibar + Tanganyika + Burundi + Rwanda).

The Kiel Canal was a force-multiplier for Germany, but not one we could do anything about. What were we supposed to do? Invade?

WRT the Naval Arms Race, that's completely irrelevant to the German path to war, it's importance to Germany was in internal empire building, not external confrontation. In fact the funding had been shifted to the German army several years before the outbreak of war. In the meantime the UK could comfortably outbuild Germany if needed - "We want eight!" - and did, but didn't particularly want to.

It seems you're criticising the UK for not taking action anywhere it didn't need to take action, and for taking action anywhere it successfully did.

Your statement on the Naval Arms Race being irrelevant does not piece together the larger picture of the sheer build-up to war. The essence of Imperial Germany was expansion. Where there is expansion, there is confrontation because of competition. That is what an empire is--and Europe was practically all empire at this time. The UK had been competing with other empires for hundreds of years by that point. Most recently it was the 1st and 2nd French Empires and the Russian Empire ala the Great Game. After the Danish War, the Austrian War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Boxer Rebellion (in that order) Germany was expanding not just its borders, but its military prowess and its influence abroad. You see this greatly with the Pork War, the Venezuelan Crisis, the Samoan Crisis, and the German-Spanish Treaty, not to mention hosting the Berlin Conference itself. In addition the Kaiser's diplomatic aggression in North Africa (e.g. Tangier / Adagir Crisis) plus diplomatic maneuvering in the Levant (with the Orient Voyage) and with Russia / Austro-Hungary / Italy (League of Three Emperors / Triple Alliance). Of course, I will point out such diplomacy failed Germany with Bismarck's dismissal and the expiration of the League.

Your statement on the UK being able to "comfortably outbuild Germany" and that they "did, but did not particularly want to" is exactly what I mean regarding escalation. I was not criticizing the UK for taking action where needed, I only highlighted the instance of the Boer War as a contrast to where it mattered. Yes, in Germany the Heglioland-Zanzibar Treaty was poorly received. As you rightfully point out the strategic value of Zanzibar outweighed Heglioland in terms of immediate gain, but from the standpoint of keeping Germany in check on the continent, I think handing it over to Germany only emboldened them in the sense of its growing naval presence in the North Sea. Why else would the trade commence? My point goes back to escalation. Heglioland sits right at the mouth of the Kiel Canal.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Are the British worse off or better off than the Germans, the Japanese, and the Italians after winning two horrific world wars and losing most of their empire?

It is not a political critique, but a philosophical reflection on a situation that does not seem to obey logic.

 

[klem]

First of all, the topic is historic, it is therefore a topic with several intertwined vectors. To be clearer, the debate is likely to be endless, as long as it is a historical material. However, the points to approach are legion which more complicates the entry into matters. For my part a debate must Being useful and not conflicting because everyone has a different point of view on this war, some say that it is the negative result of the colonial policies of the dominant states, some will say that it is a war between European royal families, others will say that it is Germany and its call to a conference in Berlin in 1885 concerning Africa that I think more plausible.The school version of the assassination of François-Ferdinand of Austria is a historical bullshit.The real causes of WW1, are not found in contemporary history books, we have to go back further in time, at the time of the "explorations" of the new regions conquered in several continents. As I said at the beginning, there are several endless readings and interpretations on the topic.

 

[Justo Miranda]

First of all, the topic is historic, it is therefore a topic with several intertwined vectors. To be clearer, the debate is likely to be endless, as long as it is a historical material. However, the points to approach are legion which more complicates the entry into matters. For my part a debate must Being useful and not conflicting because everyone has a different point of view on this war, some say that it is the negative result of the colonial policies of the dominant states, some will say that it is a war between European royal families, others will say that it is Germany and its call to a conference in Berlin in 1885 concerning Africa that I think more plausible.The school version of the assassination of François-Ferdinand of Austria is a historical bullshit.The real causes of WW1, are not found in contemporary history books, we have to go back further in time, at the time of the "explorations" of the new regions conquered in several continents. As I said at the beginning, there are several endless readings and interpretations on the topic.

I remember reading something about the fact that one of the causes of the war was the development of the Russian railways, facilitated by the French, which would have allowed the rapid transport of the huge and poorly equipped Russian army.

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

I remember reading something about the fact that one of the causes of the war was the development of the Russian railways, facilitated by the French, which would have allowed the rapid transport of the huge and poorly equipped Russian army.

You don't mean the Trans-Siberian Railway do you? The only other major railway I am familiar with is the Balkanzug from Berlin to Constantinople (Istanbul).

First of all, the topic is historic, it is therefore a topic with several intertwined vectors. To be clearer, the debate is likely to be endless, as long as it is a historical material. However, the points to approach are legion which more complicates the entry into matters. For my part a debate must Being useful and not conflicting because everyone has a different point of view on this war, some say that it is the negative result of the colonial policies of the dominant states, some will say that it is a war between European royal families, others will say that it is Germany and its call to a conference in Berlin in 1885 concerning Africa that I think more plausible.The school version of the assassination of François-Ferdinand of Austria is a historical bullshit.The real causes of WW1, are not found in contemporary history books, we have to go back further in time, at the time of the "explorations" of the new regions conquered in several continents. As I said at the beginning, there are several endless readings and interpretations on the topic.

I agree. I have been working on a timeline starting with the Belgian Revolution in 1830 (for literary purposes) and even that far back one can see the beginnings of the avalanche to WW1. That is to say, there is no singular cause of the war.

There are several topics though I would like to touch on, to see what people think.

1. What role to play did Belgium have in the UK's resolution to enter the war? Suffice it to say, did the UK already commit itself to war and used the old 1839 Treatise of London as a pretense for war, or did it really amount to just a violation of Belgium's neutrality to change everything?

2. Was the Rigismento to blame for Italy's shifting political alliance against the Central Powers and was the piecemeal addition to that goal by war's end ultimately what spurred the rise of Mussolini?

3. Was the Allied Intervention in Russia killed by weak leadership abroad, the lack of supplies, peace-time weariness and complacency, or a much stronger and determined Red Army? A combination of all of them? Would the Intervention succeed if the Entente wanted it to? Would Japan have played a greater role in that and would the Entente have had the power to stop them realistically from keeping their spoils?

4. Was the Schlifflien Plan inherently flawed or was it a matter of unexpected circumstances that prevented it from executing as expected? Would going East first have been a better alternative? Is Russia's loss to Japan a factor in why the Schlifflien Plan was chosen?

5. If Germany violating Belgium's neutrality was enough for the UK to go to war, would France doing the same in the case of Plan H being executed against Switzerland change the UK's perspective?

6. Do you think the Asians and Africans who participated in the war, whether on the continent or elsewhere, got enough recognition for their part? How would you change that?

7. Do you agree with Wilson or Clemenceau regarding the Treaty of Versailles? Was the US right to not ratify the treaty? Were the Treaty of Sevres and the Treaty of Trianon too harsh?

8. Do you think the Sykes-Picot Agreement / Balfour Declaration severely undermined the efforts of T.E. Lawrence and set the stage for future conflict in the Middle East? Was the Levant better off under the Ottomans?

9. Were the Armenian, Syrian, and Greek Genocides perpetrated by the Ottomans justifiable to the Ottoman Empire? Why do you think these atrocities are not as culturally engrained in remembrance as the Shoah?

10. It is common knowledge that Germany sponsored militant activity in Ireland, India, and even Afghanistan. Given his journey through Germany on the "sealed" train, whereby he and his party's diplomatic immunity was never of question, do you think Germany sponsored, or at least turned a blind eye to, the return of Lenin to Russia to expedite the end of hostilities on the Eastern Front? Even the SIS acknowledged Lenin's return as problematic and questionable.

 

[DWG]

Heglioland sits right at the mouth of the Kiel Canal.

And as I noted, it isn't a good anchorage, it's essentially completely exposed to the weather and dependent on external supplies. It's close enough to the Jade Estuary to be put under threat by a day cruise with a late start, it's not close enough to British ports to be quickly reinforced.

The High Seas Fleet spend the entire war trying to lure a bite-sized portion of the Grand Fleet in range, Heligoland would have handed them that on a daily basis.

 

[Antonio]

have been working on a timeline starting with the Belgian Revolution in 1830

I didn't knew about that one.
However, if one of the main causes of WWI was the emergence of Imperial Germany, establishing competence with existing powers, why not start the timeline from the Napoleonic Wars?
A weakened Hasburg Empire and Napoleonic devastation in Northern Europe resulted in the German Unification giving birth to Imperial Germany.

 

[uk 75]

I think Belgium"s importance to London predates its existence as a sovereign nation. The geography of the English Channel and the Thames Estuary's approach to Britain's political and economic hub make it impossible to be relaxed about a hostile power controling the ports and estuaries opposite.
As our biggest neighbour immediately across the Channel France plays a key role in this control of the Channel.
In both World Wars Britain could not allow control to pass to an aggressive and expansionist power whether the Second or the Third German Reich.
Further proof can be found in the various treaties and agreements which lead to the Western European (WEU) the precursor to NATO . This includes Britain for the first time agreeing to station its forces on the Continent in peacetime.

 

[Hood]

6. Do you think the Asians and Africans who participated in the war, whether on the continent or elsewhere, got enough recognition for their part? How would you change that?

Push for black and Asian soldiers’ input in world wars to be taught in UK schools

Exclusive: Awareness of contribution of black and Asian soldiers could help tackle racism, say leading minority ethnic voices

www.theguardian.com

 

[Archibald]

I do know that the Senegalese and North African soldiers having fought for France in both wars only got miserable pensions for the rest of their lives.