NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing that my "France in WW2" thread was quite popular for a while there, I reckon we might have a lot of people here who like discussing that sort of stuff.
So I thought to myself: "Why not a WW1 thread?"
There is a lot of misconceptions about what some call "the great war" and even more unfair things that happened during and after. Surely something worth a discussion.
Now, assuming everyone knows how the war started (if you don't: say it - I'll write it all out), why the insistence of the Allies to make Germany responsible? Is that belief still around?
Was a unified Germany a big enough threat for Europe maybe to justify going after it like that?

Then there is the thing with the Americans again. Did their involvement actually do much, or was it over by the time they came? Why did they join in the first place? War credits or Mexico?

What about the Lusitania? Was unrestricted U-Boat warfare justified? And was it okay to load a civilian ship with ammunition, and possibly even direct it towards the known position of a U-Boat, just to get the Americans to join in?
Was Churchill guilty of mass murder, or at least being an accomplice? I think so.

If you have any questions about anything that happened during the war, I'm sure they'd be answered as well.
But maybe the biggest question: Would it have been better if Germany won? What would have been so bad about it? Why was nothing but a complete Allied victory acceptable?

Haven't you learned anything?

They're the enemy! They HAVE TO lose! We're the good guys!

That can be interperted as either really ignorant or really knowledgable. Hopefully you would interpert it the correct way.

From the English speaking perspective Germany "started it" when it invaded belgium. That's why the British Empire became involved. If the french think this, I can't answer that. I imagine they claim it was because Germany invaded Russia. (Not that germany had much choice).

Certainly, the justification for the war in Britian was German "attrocities" in Belgium. (But they also claimed it would be over by christmas, which was an out and out lie).

I don't think anyone actually blames Germany today.

I don't think it would have made much difference if Germany had won. It would have gotten some North African Colonies, maybe some territory in Southern Africa, and reparations. Meh. No-one in Europe really "won." (US did well from it though).

Germany was given the war guilt principally because of their war plan. Here is the situation. Austria sends Serbia an ultimatum. Russia threatens to mobilize, and Austria asks for help from Germany. The German warplan requires that France be defeated before Russia is dealt with. Austria and Russia begin to mobilize, and so now Germany does. A major part of the German mobilization calls for it to unload troops literally on the frontier of France, Belgium and Luxembourg and to immediately enter their territory so that the next group of trains has room to unload.

Now at this point France wasn't really even involved in the dispute, but since the German warplan requires it to invade France, the Germans immediately begin to do so. Regardless of the fact that France, Belgium and Luxembourg aren't even part of the dispute between Serbia and Austria and now Germany and Russia. Now the Kaiser asks if there is any way to stop the mobilization and redirect it east, and the the German Generals say no, not without leaving them hopelessly confused. (the army that is).

So the invasion of Belgium begins, and fighting begins in the West even though the Russians and Germans haven't even exchanged shots, and the only activity in the Balkans is the Austrians shelling Belgrade with their river monitors.

Therefore, France and Belgium blame the fact that they were invaded on Germany, and the British do as well. Russia, at the end of the war, doesn't really count, as its government is different, and they already lost to Germany in 1917.

Truthfully the entire disaster is the fault of the Austrians and Serbs, but a more flexible war plan by Germany could have prevented the war from spreading so damn fast. There is definitely real blame to be laid on the Germans for that. Along with their pre war saber rattling (during the Moroccan Incident in 1907) and the poor policy that alienated Britian by creating an unneccessary naval arms race.

Source is Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman and The Great War, by Keegan.

Truthfully the entire disaster is the fault of the Austrians and Serbs, but a more flexible war plan by Germany could have prevented the war from spreading so damn fast. There is definitely real blame to be laid on the Germans for that. Along with their pre war saber rattling (during the Moroccan Incident in 1907) and the poor policy that alienated Britian by creating an unneccessary naval arms race.
Hmmm, well it's not exactly like the French were innocent.
The Schlieffen Plan was a stroke of genious, and absolutely necessary for a nation that is encircled by enemies who are all allied with each other.
The French did say that they would honour their alliance with Russia, and were quite eager to get back what they had lost in 1871.
The only time Germany had a chance of preventing the war was when Austria asked whether they would get German support. And Germany chose to honour its' alliance, just like England did.
Everything else was predestined to happen, a direct consequence of the alliance system of the time.

As for saberrattling, I think Bismarck was certainly much better at foreign policy, and Wilhelm II. wasn't exactly the diplomatic type, but expecting Germany to remain a second rate power despite everything they had achieved is unrealistic.

except the Schleiffen Plan could never have worked. Keegan, SLA Marshal and other historians have examined it and it simply wasn't possible for the plan as originally concieved to work as it required simply too many troops, wagons, and artillery pieces to move too quickly on too few roads in too brief a time. The modified plan, which is what the Germans actually used, failed because of dispersal of effort caused by those same time and distance and compression factors. The Battle of the Marne was won because of the seperation of two German armies forced to manuever out of touch because of the roads and their logistics.

In short, it wasn't the brilliant plan everyone thought. It took Panzers to make it work, and trucks, which is why Mansteins plan worked in 1940 and Schleiffens plan didn't work in 1914.

Now I have gamed it out, numerous times, using the game Operational Art of War. I have even given the Germans the maximum advantages and played the French with the maximum disadvantages and a reasonable defensive effort delays them (the Germans) just long enough to allow Allied Victory in the game when the Germans run out of time. Others I know have also tried it with similar results. Now I am not saying I am a great general, and the game may have built in assumptions that cause this, but it does seem to fit very well the analysis of those historians who are widely considered the best in their field.

Yes, the Austrians realized they were in trouble when the Russians mobilized and also according to Keegan and SLA Marshal flat out lied to the Germans. Who acted in good faith according to their alliance but it turns out acted very much against their interest in the long run. Even victory by Germany wouldn't have been worth the cost they paid by 1918, with millions dead, millions starving and massive economic costs.

Sadly almost no one forsaw how bad it would be except for Kitchener and a couple of others in Britian, and the British had no real choice either once the Germans rolled into Belgium. Britian simply couldn't allow Germany to dominate Europe, the certain result if France and Russia lost and Britian stayed out.

...except the Schleiffen Plan could never have worked....
Well, his name was Alfred Graf von Schlieffen, rather than Schleiffen, but that's beside the point.
Point is, the Germans didn't actually go with the original plan either. On his deathbed, Schlieffen said: "Macht mir den rechten Flügel stark!" - keep my right flank strong.
But German generals (namely Moltke junior) in 1914 were scared, not ready to bet it all on one game, and left 11 divisions on the left flank.
Additionally, they left the Belgians in peace, who moved to Antwerp and it took an age and a half to get them later, binding more German forces. Now that has nothing to do with the Schlieffen plan, but it may help explain why the French could stop Germany.

Now I have gamed it out, numerous times, using the game Operational Art of War. I have even given the Germans the maximum advantages and played the French with the maximum disadvantages and a reasonable defensive effort delays them (the Germans) just long enough to allow Allied Victory in the game when the Germans run out of time. Others I know have also tried it with similar results. Now I am not saying I am a great general, and the game may have built in assumptions that cause this, but it does seem to fit very well the analysis of those historians who are widely considered the best in their field.


Did you delay the arrival of the BEF, and slow the mobalization of Russia so you could put the planned number of divisions through belgium?

The death knell for the Schlieffen Plan was the movement of two corps from the right flank to East Prussia were the Russians had mobilized and invaded faster than anyone expected. Ironically this force that might have made the difference at the Marne didn't even arrive in Prussia in time for the Battle of Tannenberg. Prittwitz and Moltke's lack of nerve combined with the Prussian aristocracy's desire to not have their country estates overrun were the final nails in the Schlieffen Plan's coffin.


Just an interesting fact, in both world wars it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany not the other way around.

I like learning about WWI much more than I did WWII. Between a whacky web of alliances and the outright lies perpetrated by the victors it the end seemed... wrong.

I contend that Germany acted within its rights throughout the war with its only real mistake being not contacting the Mexican government through more clandestine means. I also contend that Germany would have won had it not been for the interception of the telegram to Mexico. Had the British not intercepted it the American government would never have had reason to enter the war.

Unrestricted Submarine warfare was perhaps unecessarily aggressive but given that the charges of ammunition actually being on those civilian liners turned out to be true USW seems justified. The US was relatively split up until the Zimmerman note and until that time would never have been able to drum up support for a war. Even though US troops came in very late in the war and saw less action than did the British and French troops it was the introduction of American troops that gave allied forces a badly needed morale boost and had the opposite effect on Cetral Powers troops.

Although Britain was able to blackmale Italy into joining the Allied powers (Britain controlled Italy's coal resources and therefore would utterly cripple Italy's industry) the Austro Hungarian Empire was able to (with Germany's help) hold the lines agains allied powers on that front. Germany was able to hold off Russia long enough for the soviet revolution to take place and with the added support of the bulk of those troops to the Western front would have overtaken France if not for the coming of Amerian soldiers to plug holes in the French lines. With no American soldiers France would fall and I suspect Britain would at that time agree to a ceasefire at that time - with the Western front collapsed and submarines eating their supplies and fleet I believe they would have been forced to capitulate.

I don't think that Germany would have actually aided Mexico even if Germany had already defeated France and was closing for the kill on Britain. By that time I would think the German people would be exhausted of total war and the German military overstretched what with holding the conquered territory they got from Russsia France and keeping Britain in check while simultaneously aiding the defunct Ottoman empire to reconquer Greece and Austro Hungarian empire to take the Balkans and hold its own against Italy (who probably would have agreed to a ceasefire anyway at that point with Britain crippled).

....Austro Hungarian empire to take the Balkans and hold its own against Italy (who probably would have agreed to a ceasefire anyway at that point with Britain crippled).
Interesting note on the side:
Shortly before the end of the war the Austrians actually did break through the Italian lines and captured some vital North Italian cities.
Didn't last though.

I think Metzia underestimates the importance of the British fleet here. The First World War became a war of attrition and Britain was perfectly able to blockade Germany. Indeed, at the end of the war, German troops were still very much on foreign soil, it was internal pressures caused by the blockade that were the determining factor in the surrender.

I think Metzia underestimates the importance of the British fleet here. The First World War became a war of attrition and Britain was perfectly able to blockade Germany. Indeed, at the end of the war, German troops were still very much on foreign soil, it was internal pressures caused by the blockade that were the determining factor in the surrender.

Nah, I'm assuming that with France defeated Germany could shift its production almost entirely toward Navy and particularly to submarines. Granted Britain could technically make a similar shift but an island is ultimately easier to blockade - especially with submarines - than a continent.

But France wasn't defeated, and after the failure of the Schlieffen plan was never in any real danger of being. As soon as the armies began to dig in, it became inevitable that the war would be won by attrition and by sea power.

But France wasn't defeated, and after the failure of the Schlieffen plan was never in any real danger of being. As soon as the armies began to dig in, it became inevitable that the war would be won by attrition and by sea power.

I'm going with hypotheticals. Hypothetically, so far as I can see it, had American troops not joined the fight when they did to plug up the holes in the French lines I believe the Germans would have defeated France, having been able to reinforce its Western flank with troops from the already defeated Russian front.

I was not denying that France wasn't defeated XD

Germany lost WWI thanks to a serious miscalculation. When the one who was originally in charge of Germany's war plan was dying, he told them something. They did something else. That dead guy was right.

Plus, the "Great War"(it was the biggest at the time) started because of paranoia and military build-up. People were looking for an excuse to invade and attack. It reached a point in which war was impossible to avoid.

Did you delay the arrival of the BEF, and slow the mobalization of Russia so you could put the planned number of divisions through belgium?

I did delay the arrival of the BEF, but couldn't do anything about the Russians. I was able to keep the 2 corps that were sent East though (historically too late to influence things at Tannenberg, but too soon as it deprived the Germans of a vital reserve at a critical point)

The German attempt to draw in Mexico was a serious blunder. At the time that nation was in the midst of a bloody Civil War (I have run across figures of up to a million dead), and in no shape to be a threat to anyone, raids by Pancho Villa notwithstanding. The idea the Mexico in 1917 could have seriously placed military pressure on the US, even with the relatively small US Army and National Guard, was simply a pathetic dream by the Germans.

It was another example of European powers seriously misreading the actual situation in North America (history is full of examples of this).

The US Army really didn't commit more than four divisions to help stop the final German offensive to try and win the war. Although those divisions were huge (28,000 men, about the size of a French or German corps at the time), and they fought extremely well (although amateurly), they were important primarily for the morale effect they had on the Allies, particularly the French who had just suffered the year before a severe breakdown in discipline and order during the mutinies. In 1918, until the arrival of American divisions, the Germans actually had more divisions on the Western Front than the Allies did, and had better tactics.

Their logistics and supply was already collapsing because of the British blockade and it was literally do or die time for the Germans. There are numerous reports of the Germans breaking through Allied lines and reaching supply dumps only to stop so the soldiers could literally eat good food for a change.

The main effect the US had in 1917 was at sea. The arrival of US destroyers was extremely vital in enabling the Allies to set up convoys, and the efforts of US Admiral Sims to persuade the British to set up those convoys was the decisive edge that ended the threat of the U-Boats bringing about a collapse of seaborne supplies and the defeat of Great Britain.

Much more vital even than the arrival of American troops.

...

What about the Lusitania? Was unrestricted U-Boat warfare justified? And was it okay to load a civilian ship with ammunition, and possibly even direct it towards the known position of a U-Boat, just to get the Americans to join in?
Was Churchill guilty of mass murder, or at least being an accomplice? I think so.

...
The sinking of RMS Lusitania is, I think, one of those events which finally brought us to Auschwitz's ovens. The magnificent transatlantic liner, with hundreds of passengers aboard, was torpedoed in cold blood.

As for loading a civil ship with ammuntion. That fact could (or could not) turn the Lusitania into a legitimate military target, I don't know the laws of sea warfare whch were in force in 1915. But how on Earth did the submarine commander know that the Lusitania had explosives on board?

No, Mr Schwieger attacked a famous liner (claiming, however, that he had not identified it as one of British transatantic liners - by heaven, he was a professional sailor! There were only THREE such ships in the whole world.)

It is very much in doubt that those explosives did in fact explode, by the way. The expedition of Robert Ballard found no evidence of explosion in the bow of the ship. The ammunition had been placed in the bow.

My two cents:
The war would have been quite different if the Kaiser wasn't such an idiot and had heeded Bismarck's plans. Bismarck wanted a strong alliance between Russia and Germany (who's emperors were cousins) in order to prevent a two front war. The Schlieffen Plan was developed so that Germany could forsake Russia for stronger ties with Austria (which had been at odds with Russia over Serbia, greatly influenced by the idea of Panslavism, the union of all slavic peoples). Germany was the first to declare war, after sending Russia and France ultimatums. Russia was demanded to demobilize and not intervene in an Austro-Serbian conflict and France was demanded to remain neutral. When no answer came from the French, Germany declared war; the Schlieffen Plan requiring an element of surprize. They asked the Belgians for permission to pass through, which was denied by the King with the famous quote: "Belgium is a Kingdom, not a road!" The invasion of Belgium prompted the British to intervene.
Germany was allied to Austria and Italy at the time, but the Italians rightfully remained neutral at first, as the Germans had started the war. They were not required to intervene on the Germans' behalf according to the treaties. They decided to join the Allies because they secretly offered vast amounts of Austrian territory.
I believe that:
Germany is at fault for the war as much as the Austrians and the Russians, war being inevitable after a point of no return, so blaming Germany for declaring war first isn't really a sound argument. The other powers didn't care to prevent events from unfolding because they didn't want to and because they didn't expect things to turn out so badly.
The peace process was a complete failure, for which I blame Clemenceau's deep hatred and unwillingness to compromise as much as Wilson's diplomatic ineptitude. To be honest, the one thing Hitler did that no German minded was revoke the "Schandfrieden" of Versailles.
Stripping Germany of its colonies was uncalled for and mainly in the interest of Britain's colonies and the Japanese.
The Great War to end all wars managed to sow the seeds for WW2.

-snip-
Hmmm, I must disagree.
Germany had declared that the waters there were a war zone. The U-Boat Commanders had their orders to sink any ships that were on the way to the UK.
The Americans were informed, when passengers booked their trips, they could see German and American posters everywhere warning them of the danger. People apparently didn't take it seriously.
The fact that the British insisted on loading the ship with ammunition (whether exploded or not - I heard it did, we may have to do some research) further justifies sinking it, although the commander wouldn't have known at the time.
Churchill, head of admiralty, knew very well about the Lusitania. He also knew that the U-Boat was in the area. When the Lusitania asked whether there were any Germans about, he got answer to actually change his course to take the Southern route. That was towards the last known location of the U-Boat!
Highly suspect at least.

Serbia started it or at the very least it wasnt Germany's fault.
Tis irrelevant that Germany had BAttle plans drawn up one must always be prepared.
I dont blame them for also having invasion plans for New Zealand and Australia.

Lusitania quite probably did have munitions on it making it a legitimate target however America Nor Britain could admit this for obvious reasons the same goes for the Titanics sister ship Britanic(maybe Olympic) was it a mine or Torpedo? in any case their were armed men on board and possibly ammuntion so even though it was a Red Cross ship sink it.

German and British agression was largely to do with Trade Britain didnt want to share.
France was chummy with Russia Russia with Serbia
Britain backed up Belgium

Germany supported Austria/Hugary who wanted to sort out the serbs.

Russia didnt like this France chimes in.
Germany goes Bring it!
Goose Steps into France
Bleeds France dry at Verdun
France dosent want to attack anymore
Asks Britain to prove hher commitment response= The Somme

ANZAC's thump everyone Canada too
America comes in takes the Glory.

Italy gets little from the war-Mussolini resents this later on
Japan got a fair bit mainly Guandang?

I blame The Serbs!

ANZAC's thump everyone Canada too
Which brings us to Galipoli of course.
British idea (that Churchill chap again), British and Anzac operation, Turkish enemies, German commander.
And look how that turned out. What do you think? Was it a good idea to land there or not?
If it had worked, it would have been something, that's for sure. Would've taken Turkey out, restored a good connection to the Russians, allowed to support Serbia and opened yet another front for Germany to divert troops.

The Anzac beaches were intended to divert Turkish troops from the 'main' British assault one the turks got word to High command the counter-assault was furious.

Quinns Post is a sad story.

The greatest concern was the logistical situation its amazing what little suppies they could get each day and the sickness.

7000+ New Zealanders of the New Zealand contingent(Possibly another 7000 were in British or Australian units) whent there of these only 70 or so were not Dead,wounded, or seriously ill from Cholera etc

WWI is a war with neither side having any appreciable moral superiority when viewed after the fact.

As far as the Lusitania, it was in fact loaded with ammunition, making it a legal target for raiding. However, the rules of the sea were that you had to board it, find proof that the ship was supplying a belligerant nation, load all people onboard onto your ship, then sink it. This was pushed by the US and Great Britain because it would give them an advantage in a fleet war with Germany, which relied less on large ships and more on submarines.

Germany attacking without warning was clearly a violation of international law, as was Great Britain blockading Germany and preventing food from being shipped there. The international laws prohibited such a blockade. From the perspective of international law, neither one was fighting the war legally.

The chronology leading up to the war, as I understand it, was this:

Franz Ferdinand assassinated
Austria sends ultimatum to Serbia
Serbia accepts 16 of the 17 demands. The last demand being that the trial of Princip and his conspirators take place in Austria.
Serbia requests help from Russia
Russia sends warning to Austria against invasion
Austria asks Germany for help
Germany accpets request
Russia asks France and England to help
England and France agree
Germany asks Italy for help
Italy refuses on the grounds that they do not believe this was a defensive war
Germany implements the Schleiffen plan

As I said, that's a general outline. As far as specifics it could very well be off, but Great Britain and France were both mobilizing for war before Germany invaded.

Hmmm, I must disagree.
Germany had declared that the waters there were a war zone. The U-Boat Commanders had their orders to sink any ships that were on the way to the UK.
The Americans were informed, when passengers booked their trips, they could see German and American posters everywhere warning them of the danger. People apparently didn't take it seriously.

That's true. Still, Schwieger had to understand that he was attacking one of the three great transatlantics - Olympic, Mauretania, or Lusitania - and kill a thousand or so passengers. He knew hothing about the explosives. But Schwieger was 'quick with his fists', he had attacked even a hospital ship before.

The fact that the British insisted on loading the ship with ammunition (whether exploded or not - I heard it did, we may have to do some research) further justifies sinking it, although the commander wouldn't have known at the time.
Churchill, head of admiralty, knew very well about the Lusitania. He also knew that the U-Boat was in the area. When the Lusitania asked whether there were any Germans about, he got answer to actually change his course to take the Southern route. That was towards the last known location of the U-Boat!
Highly suspect at least.
Mmm... that raises a question whether it was stupidity or treason. I am inclined to think that it was the former, the Admiralty having not understood particular qualities of the submarine warfare. How the obsolete cruiser Juno was supposed to protect the Southern route from U-Boats? I am at a loss.

That's true. Still, Schwieger had to understand that he was attacking one of the three great transatlantics - Olympic, Mauretania, or Lusitania - and kill a thousand or so passengers. He knew hothing about the explosives. But Schwieger was 'quick with his fists', he had attacked even a hospital ship before.
Hmmm, that's the "beauty" of unrestricted U-Boat warfare. You shoot at anything that moves. Without warning.
Not nice, sure, but necessary. Britain was blockading Germany (which was against international law too), the British fleet was stronger than the German (although German ships were better designed) and this was the one and only thing left to do, especially since Allied ships had started to pose as unamerd freighters and when U-Boats got up and tried to board as was the deal, those freighters got out their guns and sunk the U-Boats.

But as I said, those passengers knew about the danger. They chose to ignore the danger and paid for it. The ship really should've been empty.

hmmm...bump. Is that what they call it??? :)

Hmmm, that's the "beauty" of unrestricted U-Boat warfare. You shoot at anything that moves. Without warning.
Attacking hospital ships is over the top. In WWII, if I remember correctly, Hitler's submariners did not do it. And Scwieger tried to hush the fact that he had torpedoed some great four-funneller, the submarine journal log was vague.

Not nice, sure, but necessary. Britain was blockading Germany (which was against international law too), the British fleet was stronger than the German (although German ships were better designed) and this was the one and only thing left to do, especially since Allied ships had started to pose as unamerd freighters and when U-Boats got up and tried to board as was the deal, those freighters got out their guns and sunk the U-Boats.
I cannot imagine the Q-ship Lusitania... :)

But as I said, those passengers knew about the danger. They chose to ignore the danger and paid for it. The ship really should've been empty.
It was year of our Lord 1915, not 2005. People were not used then to total wars, attacks without warning, torpedoes coming in the starboard side... The sinking of the Lusitania put an end to that blissful innocence.

I cannot imagine the Q-ship Lusitania... :)
True, although there were a number of big passenger ships like that fitted with guns and used for that purpose.
Nonetheless, as the crew of a U-Boat, once the other side shoots at me when I try to follow the rules, I'm not left with much of a choice.

And I maintain that unrestricted U-Boat warfare was the only option left for Germany on the sea. Britain was more dependent on its' colonies than any other European nation, had the U-Boats succeeded, the war would've been over.

True, although there were a number of big passenger ships like that fitted with guns and used for that purpose.
Nonetheless, as the crew of a U-Boat, once the other side shoots at me when I try to follow the rules, I'm not left with much of a choice.

And I maintain that unrestricted U-Boat warfare was the only option left for Germany on the sea. Britain was more dependent on its' colonies than any other European nation, had the U-Boats succeeded, the war would've been over.
The British liners served as auxilliary merchant cruisers, and they weren't hunting submarines. Their main purpose was weeding the seas of their German counterparts.

Germany had another option - a pitched battle with the Grand Fleet. Jutland/Skagerrak cannot be classified as such, I think. The High Sees Fleet would've lost it, though.

BTW, the nascent British Q-ships were yet unknown to the Germans as of May 1915.

It's always been a wonder to me that General Sir Douglas Haig was never court martialed for being a incompetent that caused the slaughter of millions of British troops.

It's always been a wonder to me that General Sir Douglas Haig was never court martialed for being a incompetent that caused the slaughter of millions of British troops.
I suppose he was a military 'luminary' as compared to many other British generals. :rolleyes:

WW1 was probably one of the most ridiculous and pointless wars ever fought

It's always been a wonder to me that General Sir Douglas Haig was never court martialed for being a incompetent that caused the slaughter of millions of British troops.
Probably because he managed to kill millions of Germans while doing it...

Probably because he managed to kill millions of Germans while doing it...

During any attack phase by any of Haig's forces under his command, he NEVER killed as many Germans as he lost troops. And he virtually never gained any ground.

Under any reasonable military standard of conduct, he should have been court martialed and then shot for his conduct during the Battle of the Somme. That was incompetence and wanton ignorance that has never been matched since.

-snip-
:D
Don't get too excited. I don't think he managed to do anything right either. But neither did anyone else between 1914 and 1918.
---------------
But now to more important issues:
- Should Germany have won? What would've been so bad about that?
- Should the Allies have accepted Germany's numerous peace offers?

The sinking of RMS Lusitania is, I think, one of those events which finally brought us to Auschwitz's ovens. The magnificent transatlantic liner, with hundreds of passengers aboard, was torpedoed in cold blood.

As for loading a civil ship with ammuntion. That fact could (or could not) turn the Lusitania into a legitimate military target, I don't know the laws of sea warfare whch were in force in 1915. But how on Earth did the submarine commander know that the Lusitania had explosives on board?

No, Mr Schwieger attacked a famous liner (claiming, however, that he had not identified it as one of British transatantic liners - by heaven, he was a professional sailor! There were only THREE such ships in the whole world.)

It is very much in doubt that those explosives did in fact explode, by the way. The expedition of Robert Ballard found no evidence of explosion in the bow of the ship. The ammunition had been placed in the bow.
If anyone is to blame it's the captain of the Lusitania. Warnings where issued for those lanes before they left New York. That the waters around the British isles were a warzone. And all ships could be considerd targets. So he was warned. But he choose to laugh it off and go there anyway.

If anyone is to blame it's the captain of the Lusitania. Warnings where issued for those lanes before they left New York. That the waters around the British isles were a warzone. And all ships could be considerd targets. So he was warned. But he choose to laugh it off and go there anyway.

He was probably acting under the idiotic assumption that there are rules in war.

Russia and Germany (who's emperors were cousins) .
Thats realy of no importance. Queen Victoria was Wilhelms grandmother. All the monarchs where related to some degree.

He was probably acting under the idiotic assumption that there are rules in war.
Rules which where all broken by Britain before the unlimited submarine war.

Rules which where all broken by Britain before the unlimited submarine war.
What rules do you have in mind? Naval blockade was legal under the 1909 London Conference's decisions, IIRC.

True, although there were a number of big passenger ships like that fitted with guns and used for that purpose.
Nonetheless, as the crew of a U-Boat, once the other side shoots at me when I try to follow the rules, I'm not left with much of a choice.

And I maintain that unrestricted U-Boat warfare was the only option left for Germany on the sea. Britain was more dependent on its' colonies than any other European nation, had the U-Boats succeeded, the war would've been over.
Germany was just as dependant on imports as Britain was. The RN's blockade policy was implemented with the goal to starve the civilian population. Germany was very reliant on food imports. Which was against the treaty of Paris which was also ratified by the UK.

Rules which where all broken by Britain before the unlimited submarine war.

Oh, like someone is going to hand out speeding tickets at an F1 race...

During any attack phase by any of Haig's forces under his command, he NEVER killed as many Germans as he lost troops. And he virtually never gained any ground.

Under any reasonable military standard of conduct, he should have been court martialed and then shot for his conduct during the Battle of the Somme. That was incompetence and wanton ignorance that has never been matched since.

But the Americans under Perishing followed similar tactics when they began their operations.

But the Americans under Perishing followed similar tactics when they began their operations.

It's funny though. Pershing never managed to lose as many men as the French and British did in any single area.

And he did question the tactics. Pershing was under considerable political pressure just to do whatever the British and French wanted him to do. Take the Chauchat machinegun for instance. We already had a great gun - the BAR - but French political pressure forced us to buy and try to use the most worthless machinegun ever invented.

Pershing never managed to lose as many men as the French and British did in any single area.
Pershing never had to fight in the Somme, or Verdun either. What's your point?

Pershing never had to fight in the Somme, or Verdun either. What's your point?

Even Pershing knew that you couldn't count on "fighting spirit" or "elan" to get your men across open terrain against machineguns.

It's funny though. Pershing never managed to lose as many men as the French and British did in any single area.

And he did question the tactics. Pershing was under considerable political pressure just to do whatever the British and French wanted him to do. Take the Chauchat machinegun for instance. We already had a great gun - the BAR - but French political pressure forced us to buy and try to use the most worthless machinegun ever invented.

I'm unsure of that as he was known for direct assualts and close support shelling. Also I'm assuming that the American's never had as many man in the field of operations compared to the French or British, thus less casulaties.

I'm unfamilar with WWI equipment, but I'll take your word on it.

Even Pershing knew that you couldn't count on "fighting spirit" or "elan" to get your men across open terrain against machineguns.
Yeah, but really, I don't think he could've done any different if he had been a General in some of those battles.
Fighting Spirit was just a phrase which they used rather than "They have to run out of people and guns eventually. Let's hope it's before we do!"

But American involvement in WW1 really wasn't all that decisive, so back to the questions that really bug me (ie those that can be seen in my previous posts)

a few points...

The British followed the conventional rules of the blockade initially, and allowed food to reach Germany via Dutch ports until the end of March 1915. Germany however declared the waters around Britian to be a war zone in early February 1915 and began unrestricted submarine warfare at that time.

http://www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Chronology.html

the Lusitiana was sunk in May, and another liner carrying Americans was sunk in August. US pressure forces the Germans to reconsider unrestricted submarine warfare which does not occur again until 1917, bringing the US into the war at that time.

Information on British Q-Ships can be found here

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyBritishQships.htm

the first German U-Boat actually engaged and sunk did not occur until August ... after the loss of the Lusitainia. Nearly all of the initial Q Ships were fishing trawlers converted into warships... a significant size disparity between that type of vessel and a large ocean liner.

Although many liners were converted into auxiliary cruisers or transports, it was well known the Lusitiania had not been, nor had her sister ship.

this site ( http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1914-18.htm) by the way is pretty damn good, and is an excellent companion to the book "The Great War at Sea" which is pretty exhaustively researched and covers everything that happened on every ocean, sea and even on the Danube River.

But American involvement in WW1 really wasn't all that decisive, so back to the questions that really bug me (ie those that can be seen in my previous posts)

Keegan, SLA Marshal, Hough (Great War at Sea) would not agree with you at all

Sims, an American Admiral, convinced the British to institute the convoy system, and American escorts were critical to carrying that off. The convoy system saved Britian from defeat at sea in 1917 by sharply reducing the U Boat threat and losses.

The US Army started the war with less than 300,000 men (including the barely trained National Guard) in February 1917. By November 1918, 1 million American troops were on the line, another 1 million were either in transit, in France, or getting ready to depart the US for service in France.

The critical impact on Allied morale is something nearly all historians agree on. With the collapse of Russia in 1917, and the initial heavy losses caused by the German U Boats that same year, and the French Army mutinys, the only bright spot was American entry into the war, and that promise of help, along with the arrival of significant numbers of American troops even as the Germans launched their offensives in 1918 prevented war weariness from bringing about an Allied defeat.

1. By November 1918, 1 million American troops were on the line, another 1 million were either in transit, in France, or getting ready to depart the US for service in France.
But in November 1918 the war was over. And even if a million had been there in Spring/Summer when Ludendorff went for it, that wouldn't have been enough. The Brits and the French did the fighting, and they were supported by the Americans, just like by the Canadians, Australians and Indians.

But still: What did we actually gain from the Allies winning?

But in November 1918 the war was over. And even if a million had been there in Spring/Summer when Ludendorff went for it, that wouldn't have been enough. The Brits and the French did the fighting, and they were supported by the Americans, just like by the Canadians, Australians and Indians.

But still: What did we actually gain from the Allies winning?

actually it wasn't over until November 11, and there was no reason to assume it was going to end sooner until it actually did. Major American offensives in 1918 include St. Michel and the Meuse Argonne offensives, both of which were conducted by the 1st American Army (12 divisions, all twice or three times the size of French or German divisions at the time).

What we gained for the Allies winning? Good question. A really good question. I am not sure we (as in Western Civilization) really gained anything because the war was so costly, and so inconclusive in some ways. France was crippled, the British were too (economically), Germany was prostrate, Austria Hungary disintegrated and so did Russia, and so did the Ottoman Empire.

I guess you could say the war did bring about an end to Monarchial Absolutism, but since it opened the way for Fascism and Communism I wouldn't call that a really good trade.

I guess you could say the war did bring about an end to Monarchial Absolutism, but since it opened the way for Fascism and Communism I wouldn't call that a really good trade.

Looking at the situation later, it would seem that Monarchies such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans weren't as bad as what replaced them. The period following WWI in Europe was a political digression. Possibly if Germany had won and spread its monarchy across Europe, could Communism and the Fascists that caused WWII have been stopped?

Take the Chauchat machinegun for instance. We already had a great gun - the BAR - but French political pressure forced us to buy and try to use the most worthless machinegun ever invented.

As much of a POS the Chauchat was, the BAR wasn't ready until February 1918, and even then in small numbers until about May. So the US until then was stuck with the POS. :(

Looking at the situation later, it would seem that Monarchies such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans weren't as bad as what replaced them. The period following WWI in Europe was a political digression. Possibly if Germany had won and spread its monarchy across Europe, could Communism and the Fascists that caused WWII have been stopped?

Gotta disagree here. The pre-WW2 states of Czechoslovakia, Hungary & Poland were quite stable. Jugoslavia was a bit messy, true.

But in November 1918 the war was over. And even if a million had been there in Spring/Summer when Ludendorff went for it, that wouldn't have been enough. The Brits and the French did the fighting, and they were supported by the Americans, just like by the Canadians, Australians and Indians.

But still: What did we actually gain from the Allies winning?

The entire French strategy for 1917 was to wait for the Americans. The Allies needed the men to balance out the 50+ divisions coming from the East.

As to what was won: twenty years of peace, and an end of Monarchy as a form of government on the Continent.

As to what was won: twenty years of peace, and an end of Monarchy as a form of government on the Continent.
People then would probably not have called it "peace" as such. Not the French and not the Germans anyways. With so many French soldiers occupied with taking what they could out of German industries and mines, as well the Economic Strife inflicted on Germany all made for a less than pleasant time.
And I'm not sure what your problem with monarchy is. It's not like these were absolutists. They had parliaments to keep them in check and so on, and people voted for these parliaments.
It was actually reasonably close to today's Britain. You might have gotten to vote for the Emperor, but you did get to vote on those that controlled him.
Certainly better than Facism.

Looking at the situation later, it would seem that Monarchies such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans weren't as bad as what replaced them. The period following WWI in Europe was a political digression. Possibly if Germany had won and spread its monarchy across Europe, could Communism and the Fascists that caused WWII have been stopped?

not sure about the Ottomans as I think they were already toast even before the war (I believe the 1912 Balkan War brought them down), but Austria Hungary was actually a fairly liberal monarchy as far as that goes. Germany too had a lot of potential as far as developing into a constitutional monarchy.

World War I set back Europe for nearly a century, with its effects still to be seen to this day.

All because of some "damned fool thing in the balkans"

Something I've always wondered about...

Now granted, I have the advantage of hindsight, but there's always been something about the German battle-plan that bugged me.

Nobody predicted the Western Front would become the defensive stalemate that it was...but considering trench warfare was already an obvious defensive advantage, it seems extremely stupid to start a two front conflict.

It seems to me that, since Russia was defeated with relative ease...it would have made a lot more sense for Germany to set up a defensive line to hold off the French, and then defeat the Russians. With luck, when that was done, Germany and Austria could then focus on Italy and then invade France from the south.

Does this not sound like a more sound strategy than trying to launch offensive operations against both France and Russia?

Oh, like someone is going to hand out speeding tickets at an F1 race...

That sounds like something out of Apocalypse Now...

People then would probably not have called it "peace" as such. Not the French and not the Germans anyways. With so many French soldiers occupied with taking what they could out of German industries and mines, as well the Economic Strife inflicted on Germany all made for a less than pleasant time.

But no actual bullets being fired. In fact, aside from the USSR/Poland scuffle in the early 20s, I don't think there was any war in Europe until Spain? (I'm pretty sure, please let me know if I'm wrong.)

And I'm not sure what your problem with monarchy is. It's not like these were absolutists. They had parliaments to keep them in check and so on, and people voted for these parliaments.

Franz Joseph, Kaiser Bill & Tsar Nicky WERE absolutists. (Mind you, I have studied WW1 in great detail, and have a thing for the K.u.K period of Habsburge affairs...) Their parliaments were rubber stamps.

It was actually reasonably close to today's Britain. You might have gotten to vote for the Emperor, but you did get to vote on those that controlled him.
Certainly better than Facism.

Better than Facism or Communism, yes. Better than just about anything else? Nope... ;)

That sounds like something out of Apocalypse Now...

You get a prize for being the only person awake on the forum...

Something I've always wondered about...

Now granted, I have the advantage of hindsight, but there's always been something about the German battle-plan that bugged me.

Nobody predicted the Western Front would become the defensive stalemate that it was...but considering trench warfare was already an obvious defensive advantage, it seems extremely stupid to start a two front conflict.

It seems to me that, since Russia was defeated with relative ease...it would have made a lot more sense for Germany to set up a defensive line to hold off the French, and then defeat the Russians. With luck, when that was done, Germany and Austria could then focus on Italy and then invade France from the south.

Does this not sound like a more sound strategy than trying to launch offensive operations against both France and Russia?

Ah, but the von Shliefen (sp?) plan was to defeat France QUICKLY to AVOID a drawn out campaign, since Russia would take at least 6-8 weeks to fully mobilize. (Which did actually happen...)

Recall also that in 1914, no one was really heeding the Boer War, which showed defense was gaining the upper hand. (Barbed wire, machine guns, etc). The generals were still using slightly evolved Napoleonic tactics.

It also needs to be remembered that France was none too reluctant to go to war with Germany. Ever since the losses of Alsace and Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War, France had developed an actual battle plan should war with Germany erupt again. When you combine this with the fact that France and Russia were allies and had some informal claims to mutual defense, it seems likely that France would have invaded Germany if it had invaded Russia first, thus creating the same stalemate on the Western Front. In terms of territory and supplies, France was also of greater tactical advantage for Germany to acquire than Russia, which had a very inept transportation system.

Does this not sound like a more sound strategy than trying to launch offensive operations against both France and Russia?
Well there wasn't much of a choice. France and Russia were allied, so they'd both fight Germany at once.
Schlieffen was a smart fellow, and his plan was pretty good at least.
Russia had a bigger army than France, its' population was huge and it was certainly seen as a big threat. But because it was so big, and its' infrastructure so weak, it took time to get its' masses mobilised. So in order not to have to fight with both of them, the idea was to crush France quickly, which could have been done, it certainly was close.
The Germans weren't stopped at the Marne because of all the great trench warfare stuff. Much of that hadn't been developed very much just yet. They were stopped because the supply lines got too long (as did communication), but in my opinion mainly because they took forces from the right wing (which was the main German attack), and put them in the Ruhr, and in the East, where Russia attacked faster than had been anticipated.

But no actual bullets being fired.
Yes, but there was the French occupation (on and off) of the Saar and the Ruhr. So people (at least in Germany) probably didn't feel very peaceful.


Franz Joseph, Kaiser Bill & Tsar Nicky WERE absolutists. Their parliaments were rubber stamps.
Nicolas, yes. Franz Joseph maybe (I don't know much about the old man), but Wilhelm had a functioning parliament with which he had clashed violently before the war (he did kick out Bismarck, who was something like a British Prime Minister at the time).
He was the ruler of the state, yes, but he wasn't an absolute ruler by any means. He had to go to the parliament and ask for a budget to make war in 1914 afterall. It was then that the parties set aside their issues for a while.
"I do not see parties anymore, I only see Germans!"

Something I've always wondered about...

Now granted, I have the advantage of hindsight, but there's always been something about the German battle-plan that bugged me.

Nobody predicted the Western Front would become the defensive stalemate that it was...but considering trench warfare was already an obvious defensive advantage, it seems extremely stupid to start a two front conflict.

It seems to me that, since Russia was defeated with relative ease...it would have made a lot more sense for Germany to set up a defensive line to hold off the French, and then defeat the Russians. With luck, when that was done, Germany and Austria could then focus on Italy and then invade France from the south.

Does this not sound like a more sound strategy than trying to launch offensive operations against both France and Russia?

Seeing as how everyone else has already your post down (not that there isn't some good content) I'll just make one more point.

The geography of the French-Italian border lends itself even more to defensive warfare then the fields of Flanders. Supposing Germany and Austria-Hungary had invaded Italy (or even convinced it to enter the war on their side) the only difference would be that the soldiers on both sides would have been afflicted with more frost bite and less trench foot in the Alps.


As for the political systems of the time, I'm pretty sure that the monarchies of Russia, Austria and probably Germany were pretty much doomed. At least in their traditional sense. Speaking of the first two: although the the war certainly exacerbated the economic and racial issues that tore both entities apart it was generally a question of when not if. In my opinion (and this isn't really my field, but it's fairly close) the monarchy of Austro-Hungarian Empire was beyond reform, as was that of Russia.

As for Germany, although on the surface it appeared to be a very stable nation, there were increasing tensions between the relatively newly urbanized working class, the established gentry and quite significantly the rapidly emerging middle class and the nouveau rich. I'm sure most people involved with this thread know about the insurrections of 1918 so I won't go into a lot of detail with them. The point is this turmoil was brewing under the Imperial facade long before the outbreak of war. Without fairly radical reform Germany would have suffered the same fate as the other empires of central and eastern Europe, although considerably later.

Well there wasn't much of a choice. France and Russia were allied, so they'd both fight Germany at once.
Schlieffen was a smart fellow, and his plan was pretty good at least.
Russia had a bigger army than France, its' population was huge and it was certainly seen as a big threat. But because it was so big, and its' infrastructure so weak, it took time to get its' masses mobilised. So in order not to have to fight with both of them, the idea was to crush France quickly, which could have been done, it certainly was close.

Yep.

The Germans weren't stopped at the Marne because of all the great trench warfare stuff. Much of that hadn't been developed very much just yet. They were stopped because the supply lines got too long (as did communication), but in my opinion mainly because they took forces from the right wing (which was the main German attack), and put them in the Ruhr, and in the East, where Russia attacked faster than had been anticipated.

The horrible communications problems are mostly to blame, I think.


Yes, but there was the French occupation (on and off) of the Saar and the Ruhr. So people (at least in Germany) probably didn't feel very peaceful.

Hey, peace is peace. It doesn't have to be comfortable. Consider the Quebecois. Mostly, they dislike their situation, but they're still living peaceably in Canada. It's not like their the Karen or the Basques...

Nicolas, yes. Franz Joseph maybe (I don't know much about the old man), but Wilhelm had a functioning parliament with which he had clashed violently before the war (he did kick out Bismarck, who was something like a British Prime Minister at the time).

Ah, Bismarck. Recall, however, the "Big B" resigned in 1890 (though he was asked to), which was way before WW1... and he was 75 at the time.

As to how functional the Kaiser Bill's government was is questionable. The game of "musical chairs" for Chancellor, the Tirpitz Plan and the basic rubber stamping of the Reichstag...

He was the ruler of the state, yes, but he wasn't an absolute ruler by any means. He had to go to the parliament and ask for a budget to make war in 1914 afterall. It was then that the parties set aside their issues for a while.
"I do not see parties anymore, I only see Germans!"

It's a constituional monarchy, yes, but he was still the "first among equals"... In reality, the Kaiser really didn't have too many checks on him.

We were fighting a two front war my friends. We were fighting the confederates in the south, the canadians up north. Our great friends in Germany are fighting the Britsh; the allies of the damn confederates and the canadians. The quadrouple alliance won the war. One thing i didnt understand about that war was the damn reds down south(who repelled against the slave owners and threw the area into caose), why didnt they join the alliance and fight along side of the us yankis? Ah...in the end it didn't matter.

We all live on Tesov 3 btw.

We were fighting a two front war my friends. We were fighting the confederates in the south, the canadians up north. Our great friends in Germany are fighting the Britsh; the allies of the damn confederates and the canadians. The quadrouple alliance won the war. One thing i didnt understand about that war was the damn reds down south(who repelled against the slave owners and threw the area into caose), why didnt they join the alliance and fight along side of the us yankis? Ah...in the end it didn't matter.

We all live on Tesov 3 btw.

Please keep figments of your imagination to threads designed for it. Thanks.

Now at this point France wasn't really even involved in the dispute


Yes, it was, becuase of the alliance system of the time which meant any dispute with Russia (France's ally) was a dispute with France also

Please keep figments of your imagination to threads designed for it. Thanks.

Those were damn good books. No problem.

-snip-
According to his biography he felt rather unhappy about his dismissal. Actually, the whole thing reads like an ad for him coming back for the post.
And by 1890 he certainly was the most powerful man in Germany. The old Emperor was gone (the middle one lasted what, 90 days?) and the young fellow wasn't known all that well. It came down to a big arm wrestling, and the one without the crown came out second best...bad luck, he could've prevented the war as such.
And in reality, the checks the British PM had weren't that great either. Point is that it wasn't a dictatorship like people often seem to assume.
----------------------------
I just pulled out the Goals Germany had in the war (interestingly enough only in the German version of Wikipedia, it seems like English-speaking folks couldn't give a shit):

Political and Economic control of Belgium by annexing Lüttich-Antwerp, the flandres coast and the area of Briey.
An Economic Union in central Europe, with bufferstates (like Poland) and economic "spheres of influence" (like Romania).
Enlargement of Germany's colonies.
Breaking British domination by supporting revolts in Marocco and India.
A seperate peace with Russia.

Those were the official ones, in reality there were calls for all kinds of annexations (although the public debate about it was outlawed by Bethmann-Hollweg). All in all it was all about making dependent buffer states all over Europe and as far as the Middle East.
If you do speak German...http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erster_Weltkrieg
So maybe it's time for some alternate history?

According to his biography he felt rather unhappy about his dismissal. Actually, the whole thing reads like an ad for him coming back for the post.
And by 1890 he certainly was the most powerful man in Germany. The old Emperor was gone (the middle one lasted what, 90 days?) and the young fellow wasn't known all that well.


Ayep. I assume you're talking about the AJP Taylor book?

It came down to a big arm wrestling, and the one without the crown came out second best...bad luck, he could've prevented the war as such.


Er... no. Not really. He was dead 20 years before WW1 started. Odds are it'd happened anyway.

And in reality, the checks the British PM had weren't that great either. Point is that it wasn't a dictatorship like people often seem to assume.


The only beligerent that wasn't a Monarchy in 1914 was France... and while 1914 Germany or Britain or Austria wasn't like Napoleonic France, none of them were that far removed from it. Some more than others, of course.

I just pulled out the Goals Germany had in the war (interestingly enough only in the German version of Wikipedia, it seems like English-speaking folks couldn't give a shit):

Political and Economic control of Belgium by annexing Lüttich-Antwerp, the flandres coast and the area of Briey.
An Economic Union in central Europe, with bufferstates (like Poland) and economic "spheres of influence" (like Romania).
Enlargement of Germany's colonies.
Breaking British domination by supporting revolts in Marocco and India.
A seperate peace with Russia.



All true, but the "buffer states" idea was not really a war aim. It was something to "bargain down to" if necessary if Russia wasn't soundly defeated and/or Austria-Hungary broke up (a spectre that had been about since at least 1905).

Those were the official ones, in reality there were calls for all kinds of annexations (although the public debate about it was outlawed by Bethmann-Hollweg). All in all it was all about making dependent buffer states all over Europe and as far as the Middle East.
If you do speak German...http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erster_Weltkrieg
So maybe it's time for some alternate history?

It's not really alternate history so much as it's history from a different perspective. That's why (for example) "Enemy at the Gates" was such a weird movie for Hollywood to make... WW2 from the Soviet angle.
I've studied (albeit 10 years ago now) WW1 from the Austrian, Ottoman, Russian and American point of views, as well as the French/English/Belgian in passing...