NationStates Jolt Archive

Since World War I basically set the stage for its larger and more talked about successor, would not the most significant battle of World War I rank of equal importance with those of WWII?

Here is my list of the most significant battles, both from 1914

The Marne - Germany is stopped for the first time in a campaign since unification and it reversed the assumed equation that Prussians were invincible on the battlefield, held since 1870... It saved France and guarenteed a long war of attrition, which the central powers would not likely win.


Tannenberg- The German 8th Army saves East Prussia by descending upon and destroying the Russian 2nd Army in spectacular fashion. If the Germans had lost this battle or been taken by both invading Russian armies at once, Prussia would have been lost and it is possible that the Tsar's Army would have marched on Berlin at around the same time as the Marne. This battle helped destabilized the Tsarist regime and began the process of revolution through disgust...

What's your definition of "significant"? There are many different battles that could be classified as such... The Somme and Verdun come to mind, both because they demonstrated the courage and resolve of the British and French, respectively. The Somme also saw the end of Kitchener's New Army, and the beginning of conscription for the United Kingdom. Also, there were such battles as Passchendaele (Third Ypres) which showed the epitome of slaughter in trench warfare - even the end of the battle showed this; the objectives gained, but at disgusting cost.

I mean significant as causing political and social consequences and setting up future battles as solutions to issues caused by those battles. Also setting the trend of the war and momentum...

I'd say it doesn't come down to a battle, but rather the event where a U-boat sunk Lusitania

I mean significant as causing political and social consequences and setting up future battles as solutions to issues caused by those battles. Also setting the trend of the war and momentum...

The October revolution has to win hands down when measured by those criteria.

War and battles are still bad though and i refuse to condone armed conflict in any way.

I'd say it doesn't come down to a battle, but rather the event where a U-boat sunk Lusitania

that was not what started WW1.

For the Western Front I would have to go with Verdun, it led to a great change in the fighting and leadership of both the French and German armies. It set the star of Petain forward, and greatly dimmed Falkenhayn's, following the mutinies after the disastrous Nivelle offensives Petain would become the supreme French Commander.

The Italian Front would have to go to Caporetto, simply becuase it was the only battle that produced some results after 11 battles (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Isonzo Battles), the Vittorio Veneto campaign would produce greater results, but at that point the Austrian Army was without German help and utterly disorganized, it did not involve the same strategic implications Caporetto did.

For the Eastern Front, Tannenberg, Masurian Lakes (A similar number of Russians from the First Army were lost here as from the Second Army at Tannenberg), and Garlice Tarnow. All three were crushing defeats to the Russians, largely dealt by the Germans (Even at Garlice Tarnow) and these losses were a main cause of the revolutionary fervor boiling over in 1917.

In the extra-European world (Not counting the middle east) the Battle of Coronel was a humiliation for the Royal Navy, and led to the later Battle of the Falkland islands which eliminated the East Asian Squadron as a force leaving only the Hochesfleete as a major German surface force. Although Lettow-Voebeck's campaign was an outstanding string of victories, it never really had a major effect on the outcome of the war, but it deserves mention for it's sheer brilliance.

You know you've a stalemate when you get into more than three battles over the same piece of land or river...

The arguement in the East could also be made that the Brusilov offensive was very deceisive in that in effectively shattered the Austro-Hungarian army and very nearly knocked Austria-Hungary out of the war completely. Afterward, the Hapsburg monarchy was so destabilized that it was going to collapse no matter what. To counter the massive Russian success, the Germans had to pull divisions from the Western Front and had to end their offensive at Verdun. Also, unintentionally, this offensive caused the Russians to lose a few peasant conscripts too many (an impressive feat considering how much they put up with throughout the war) and caused the Tsar to lose the support of the peasantry...even in the 1917 revolution, it was the industrial workers, not the peasants that were revoltion. The peasants were fairly ambivilent, they just wanted the war to wrap up...

I lament the lack of history buffs!

I lament the lack of history buffs!

hello! :D

I lament the lack of history buffs!

Sorry; WW1 eludes my understanding. It was the shining example of horrific leadership in war. Both WW1 and the Civil War (US) just hurt to think about for me so I avoid their discussion sometimes.

However...come to think of it...Studying a victory is nowhere near as rewarding as studying a failure.

Can you possibly help me to understand some things about WW1?

1) What was the condition of the various officer corps in the world that the fighting was so ineptly commanded from the top levels? Were there significant numbers of GOOD officers that were denied access to the top levels of power? Was the training insufficent?

2) What was the grand strategy of the French and British armies, why did they choose to fight a war of attrition against so well-prepared a foe? From the German side; why did they go along with the attrition strategy as well? I've heard something about a "plan" that the German army was utilizing during WW2 that was based off of WW1, or something to that effect (it was the name of one of their officers I believe; the So-and-so plan).

3)I've often heard that the Eastern front was very different from the Western one; instead of being a trench war it was a war of strategic movement. What truth is there in this statement? How would you characterize the Eastern front throughout the war?

Anything else you care to mention would be appreciated as well. Thanks for the consideration.

The first battle and the last battle.

Since World War I basically set the stage for its larger and more talked about successor, would not the most significant battle of World War I rank of equal importance with those of WWII?

I'm going to say that there wasn't any battle of real significance of the sort I think you're asking about. I know for Canada Vimy Ridge has very high nationalistic significance.

1) What was the condition of the various officer corps in the world that the fighting was so ineptly commanded from the top levels? Were there significant numbers of GOOD officers that were denied access to the top levels of power? Was the training insufficent?

There were a number of abysmal officers in each army. The ones that come to mind include Kitchener and Haig for the British. There were also brilliant officers but none that reached the highest levels. I'd call the slaughter a failure of imagination rather than a lack of training.

2) What was the grand strategy of the French and British armies, why did they choose to fight a war of attrition against so well-prepared a foe? From the German side; why did they go along with the attrition strategy as well? I've heard something about a "plan" that the German army was utilizing during WW2 that was based off of WW1, or something to that effect (it was the name of one of their officers I believe; the So-and-so plan).
The Schlieffen Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan)

Attrition/exhaustion was the favoured philosophy of the prominent generals for Britain, France, and Germany. Its roots were in the interpretation of Clausewitz (or misinterpretation in the opinion of some), as well as the dominance of defensive weaponry including the machine gun and artillery.

Late in the war both sides attempted to break the stalement, with both sides experimenting with chemical warfare. Additionally the British innovated primarily with tanks, and the Germans with infiltration tactics.

3)I've often heard that the Eastern front was very different from the Western one; instead of being a trench war it was a war of strategic movement. What truth is there in this statement? How would you characterize the Eastern front throughout the war?
Basically true. The East never became a static front. The 1917 Russian Revolution ended the German-Russian conflict. I don't have any profound way of characterizing the theater.

Thing is tho, this war never ended w/a single battle. The Germans kinda just gave up

I'd say it doesn't come down to a battle, but rather the event where a U-boat sunk Lusitania

that was not what started WW1.

But the incident sparked growing tensions between the USA and Germany (where many applauded the murder of 1,198 people including 128 Americans).

What do I believe was the most significant battle of WW1? The battle of hunger. Churchill's blockade of Germany crippled a highly import dependent nation and in the end the Germans had no choice but to surrender.

Starvation and dissolution brought Germany to its knees - not a far off battle.

The battles most significant to the course of the war and its outcome were probably the Marne, and Tannenberg. The Marne resulted in the stalemate that would last for another three and a half years, until the last German offensive, in 1918, which ran out of steam and used up the last of its manpower and resources. Tannenberg removed any possibility of the Eastern Front contributing any pressure on Germany, and probably lengthened the war.

Although it never came to pass, I'd say that the assault on Constantinople was one of the more significant battles. The possibility to get British troops outflanking Germany would be most significant, and would almost certainly shorten the war. Aside from that, what Tactical and Thuthmose said. They were all very important factors.

I'd say it doesn't come down to a battle, but rather the event where a U-boat sunk Lusitania

You know im not a conspiracy theorist but alot of Evidence is coming to light that Chruchill (who was head of the admirality at the time) did this to get America into the War. I think they found fake intelligence documents that were planted in German occupied terroritories that said charted the Lusitania's expected course and mentioned there would be military equipment onboard.

Some facts about the Lusitania:

1. Woodrow Wilson and the US maintained a very hypocritical stance concerning the protection of merchant shipping. Wilson claimed that ships from neutral nations should be allowed to sail unharmed through a war zone even if they were carrying military supplies. The Germans prostested this policy because American ships carrying supplies to the Germans were seized by the British, their cargo confiscated, and their captains and crews jailed. (Yes, the US sold to both sides, especially early on.)

2. The Germans took out full page ads in every major newspaper in the US warning Americans note to sail on vessels entering the war zone.

3. The Lusitania was carrying military cargo.

4. The Lusitania did not directly cause the US to enter the war, but the newspaper accounts of the sinking did contribute to swaying American public opinion against Germany and therefore probably making it easier for Wilson to bring the US into the war.

Can you possibly help me to understand some things about WW1?

1) What was the condition of the various officer corps in the world that the fighting was so ineptly commanded from the top levels? Were there significant numbers of GOOD officers that were denied access to the top levels of power? Was the training insufficent?



It wasnt particularly bad leadership, just that there were no other options. All weaponary was geared towards defence, so every attack was pretty bloody and easy to stop.


Anyway, the battles made little difference, with no clear winners anytime. It was the surrender by the new German Government, on the basis of a promised fair peace which ended the war.

Can you possibly help me to understand some things about WW1?

1) What was the condition of the various officer corps in the world that the fighting was so ineptly commanded from the top levels? Were there significant numbers of GOOD officers that were denied access to the top levels of power? Was the training insufficent?



It wasnt particularly bad leadership, just that there were no other options. All weaponary was geared towards defence, so every attack was pretty bloody and easy to stop.


Anyway, the battles made little difference, with no clear winners anytime. It was the surrender by the new German Government, on the basis of a promised fair peace which ended the war.


Well, at times there was some brilliant leadership in the various armies, it was just basically the fact that technology had progressed favoring the defender to the point that almost no one could win as the attacker for much of the war unless they hit a weak point. Von Hindenberg and Ludendorff excelled as officers in the German command...The Russians had Brusilov who for once actually used modern open-formation tactics in addition to the masses of peasant conscripts and nearly knocked Austria-Hungary out of the War in 1916. The officer corps were hampered because the casualty rates of junior officers who could rise up and take the tactical helm, were so high in 1914, that the armies were seriously damaged. The small, but man for man, best army in Europe was the 1914 B.E.F sent by the British, this excellent army could whip anything of equivilent size that the Germans could send at it, but it was basically destroyed at 1st Ypres, so all the experience and professionalism was lost with it and the British volunteer armies afterward had to relearn all the same lessons.

The original French strategy was not one of attrition, but of elan and cran, the idea that attack and the general will would win the day. The French army launched an all along the front offensive in blue shirt uniforms with flaming red trousers against the Germans in August 1914...they suffered two-hundred thousand casualties in four days, and another one hundred thousand within a week and a half. Basically, the French were bled white quickly in the war and though they stopped the Germans at the Marne, they had lost so many officers and so many experienced men, that they realistically settled in for defence. Finally in 1917-1918, the British discovered the use of the creeping barrage, which favored the offense...a creeping barrage is a heavy artillery bombarment which moves gradually over no man's land and into the enemy entrenchments while the attacking forces moves slowly behind it in a screen. It worked quite well at several battles and at the final 1918 offensive which broke the German lines...

I don't know what the most significant was, to be honest. The East front was a German turkey shoot, and the West front moved a few feet once a year. Also, action against the Ottomans was a disaster.
I'd have to say that there were two significant battles. One was in Kut, in present day Iraq. The British were finally able to penetrate the Ottoman Empire. The other was the Argonne offensive. It had no real military value, as the Germans were already worn down. But it did scare the hell out of them. However, I do believe that if the war was a year longer, the Allies would have reached Berlin, as that battle essentially broke through the German lines.

The Ottoman's; other than their excellent showing at Gallipoli; were badly beaten on most fronts throughout the war. The Russians crushed them in the Caucases and had the Tsar not abdicated after the revolution, it is possible that the Russians would have marched on Constantinople themselves...they had taken Ezererum and we're well on their way to great succes...

The Ottoman's; other than their excellent showing at Gallipoli; were badly beaten on most fronts throughout the war. The Russians crushed them in the Caucases and had the Tsar not abdicated after the revolution, it is possible that the Russians would have marched on Constantinople themselves...they had taken Ezererum and we're well on their way to great succes...

So you're saying that the war, on several fronts at least, was stopped just before large victories/defeats? The loss of the Ottoman capital, or the attacking of Berlin would have been major events in the war, and would likely have shown the the techniques used in the later part of the war to be much more effective than I've heard.

Could you go a bit further into detail about the Ezererum battle and the final victories against the German trenches? Pull no punches please.

wow. No mention of the Battle of Jutland so far.

To me it is easily the most important battle of WW1

wow. No mention of the Battle of Jutland so far.

To me it is easily the most important battle of WW1

Jutland achieved nothing. It was the only naval engagement worth mentioning and neither side claimed victory - with few losses and the status quo remaining unchanged.

I can tell you this....

It really IS a long, long way to Tipperary.

wow. No mention of the Battle of Jutland so far.

To me it is easily the most important battle of WW1

Jutland achieved nothing. It was the only naval engagement worth mentioning and neither side claimed victory - with few losses and the status quo remaining unchanged.

I beg to differ. The losses suffered by the Germans kept the German command from ever sending their battleships out to sea for the rest of the war. After that battle, it was obvious that the economic blockade of Germany by the Royal Navy would not be broken, and eventually lead to an Allied victory.

You said neither side claimed victory. In reality, the UK claimed Jutland as a strategic victory and the Germans claimed Jutland as a tactical victory. There were also heavy losses on both sides. The British lost fourteen ships of 111,000 tons total and 6,784 men. The Germans lost eleven ships of 62,000 tons total and 3,058 men. Several other ships were badly damaged, such as HMS Lion and SMS Seydlitz.

Another thing, the status-quo of the command changed on both sides after the battle. Jellicoe was promoted to First Sea Lord after the battle, and the German command was hailed as victors at home, but were never allowed to sail again.

wow. No mention of the Battle of Jutland so far.

To me it is easily the most important battle of WW1

Jutland achieved nothing. It was the only naval engagement worth mentioning and neither side claimed victory - with few losses and the status quo remaining unchanged.

I beg to differ. The losses suffered by the Germans kept the German command from ever sending their battleships out to sea for the rest of the war. After that battle, it was obvious that the economic blockade of Germany by the Royal Navy would not be broken, and eventually lead to an Allied victory.

You said neither side claimed victory. In reality, the UK claimed Jutland as a strategic victory and the Germans claimed Jutland as a tactical victory. There were also heavy losses on both sides. The British lost fourteen ships of 111,000 tons total and 6,784 men. The Germans lost eleven ships of 62,000 tons total and 3,058 men. Several other ships were badly damaged, such as HMS Lion and SMS Seydlitz.

Another thing, the status-quo of the command changed on both sides after the battle. Jellicoe was promoted to First Sea Lord after the battle, and the German command was hailed as victors at home, but were never allowed to sail again.

Yet this still did not impact upon the outcome of WW1. What you describe is a skirmish and micro changes of command. The Germans knew they could never defeat the Royal Navy. Jutland was not about ending the war.

In fact, the Kaiser sent his ships out because what choice did he have? It was more a propaganda exercise - one which did nothing to lengthen or shorten the war.

wow. No mention of the Battle of Jutland so far.

To me it is easily the most important battle of WW1

Jutland achieved nothing. It was the only naval engagement worth mentioning and neither side claimed victory - with few losses and the status quo remaining unchanged.

I beg to differ. The losses suffered by the Germans kept the German command from ever sending their battleships out to sea for the rest of the war. After that battle, it was obvious that the economic blockade of Germany by the Royal Navy would not be broken, and eventually lead to an Allied victory.

You said neither side claimed victory. In reality, the UK claimed Jutland as a strategic victory and the Germans claimed Jutland as a tactical victory. There were also heavy losses on both sides. The British lost fourteen ships of 111,000 tons total and 6,784 men. The Germans lost eleven ships of 62,000 tons total and 3,058 men. Several other ships were badly damaged, such as HMS Lion and SMS Seydlitz.

Another thing, the status-quo of the command changed on both sides after the battle. Jellicoe was promoted to First Sea Lord after the battle, and the German command was hailed as victors at home, but were never allowed to sail again.

Yet this still did not impact upon the outcome of WW1. What you describe is a skirmish and micro changes of command. The Germans knew they could never defeat the Royal Navy. Jutland was not about ending the war.

In fact, the Kaiser sent his ships out because what choice did he have? It was more a propaganda exercise - one which did nothing to lengthen or shorten the war.


Well, Jutland did generate one of my favorite quotes of all time...

I believe Admiral Jellicoe said it after watching two British battlecruisers literally explode after a shell pierced their decks...

"Something seems to be wrong with our bloody ships today..."

I'd say it doesn't come down to a battle, but rather the event where a U-boat sunk Lusitania

that was not what started WW1.

It contributed greatly to the US entering and breaking the stalemate

Somme or Verdun, simply for the sheer amount of dead. The loss of almost an entire generation of the youth of Mother Europe.


Battle of Cambrai (first use of tanks). Had great implications for the future of warfare.

Lusitania was 1915.

Zimmermann Note was 1917.

The USA entered the war because in 1917 Kaiser Wilhelm ordered the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare.

Battle of Cambrai (first use of tanks). Had great implications for the future of warfare.

But for the purpose of ending WW1, tanks achieved very little. They played a major role in the battles of WW2 though.

Battle of Cambrai (first use of tanks). Had great implications for the future of warfare.

But for the purpose of ending WW1, tanks achieved very little. They played a major role in the battles of WW2 though.


Which is why I said "future warfare". It was significant because it revolutionized the way wars would be fought in the future.

I would say that the advance of the allied cavalry in the levant against the ottomans ,namely bersheeba (sp?) had a great effect on the history of the middle east.

It lead to british and french control over great parts of the arabic world and was the basis for the modern arabic states (and israel though it would take until after WWII to see that country formed). It also garaunteed the suez canal remained in friendly powers for the british.

The western front was too static after the first few weeks of the war. This was important in its own way too. the most important battle of the western front would have to be the initial german advance through belgium as this brought in the british. i doubt that france could have held the germans alone and it is also doubtful that america would have entered the war to help the french.

I say that it is doubtful because (supposedly) it was the german attacks on merchant shipping on the atlantic that brought the yanks in. there would have been no great merchant shipping attacks if britain was not in the war.

if britain (and therefore her empire) had not entered the war then serbia would have been another austro-hungarian province, great swathes of ukrain, belorus, the baltic states would have been german. germany would have won therefore WWII would never have happened.