The First World War

[Dhimmi]

There's a plethora of books too, but I'm not sure how interested most folks are in those. Rather spoddy but the last time I was looking at books about Colditz there were over sixty, and despite it's reputation that's a tiny part of the whole thing.

Talking of books I got Hitler's Olympics: The 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, by Christopher Hilton recently, what a disappointment. Top of page two his first glaring, if minor, mistake. "... Hitler was driven through the Brandenburg Gate with it's statue of a horseman on top...". Well it's the goddess Victoria on a chariot behind four horses as most folk have noticed. Now I don't expect anyone to necessarily know that, nor that a chariot pulled by four horses abreast is called a quadriga, but you'd think a writer might. I think there's a clue on the cover which actually features a picture of Hitler's car just after it passed under the Brandenburg Gate".

Made up with my newly delivered Baedeker's Germany 1936 though, historically vital, well to me, and festooned with subtle propaganda.

Hmmm bit of a dethread me thinks...

 

[Yossarian]

At the time WWI was incredibly hi-tech of course, it represents the industrialisation of war as I see it.

I'm not surprised WWII gets a lot more in interest - that war seems a lot more than 21 years more advanced than WWI and the 'bad guys'/clashing ideologies are a lot more clear-cut.

For all its modern technology, WWI sometimes just sounds like a larger-scale version of bands of rival cavemen bashing each other over the head with clubs.

 

[Detroit City]

I think it is probably down to film, there's millions of hours of world war two footage, tons of movies and plenty of TV too. Aside from "Black Adder goes Forth" I can't think of a UK popular prog with WWI as it's theme.

After all if it wasn't filmed it probably never happened...

good observatioin Dhimmi, I never thought of that...

 

[Idris2002]

I remember watching a film called the Trench with Daniel Craig as a cantankerous seargant and his platoon (all of whom looked about 12) on the night before a big push.

In one scene an officer shows up and tells them that the shelling will be so heavy they'll be able to walk to Berlin.

From his armchair my grandfather says 'the stupid bastard'.

My other grandfather consistently said to me 'they were told there'd be 'homes fit for heroes' when they got back and of course there were no homes fit for heroes'.

Both my grandads were kids when the war ended. The loss of that living connection to the war is a major loss - especially now that we're getting revisionists histories of the war in the trenches that argue 'it wasn't that bad really'.

 

[Roadkill]

At the time WWI was incredibly hi-tech of course, it represents the industrialisation of war as I see it.

Certainly, it's the point when modern, 'industrial' warfare came to Europe. Parts of the world had already seen it the beginnings of it - European colonialists wiping out hordes of spear-toting locals in Africa with rifles and early machine guns, the Russian and Japanese battle fleets pounding away at each other at Tsushima in 1905. But yes, 1914 was the first time that European powers went to war with one another on this basis, and the consequences certainly came as a shock, in all sorts of ways...

My main interest in World War One is the war at sea, which IMO is largely the most under-appreciated part of the conflict. We tend to think of WW1 as a land war, but the conflict at sea was a crucial part of it, especially the war on trade.

 

[frogwoman]

Certainly, it's the point when modern, 'industrial' warfare came to Europe. Parts of the world had already seen it the beginnings of it - European colonialists wiping out hordes of spear-toting locals in Africa with rifles and early machine guns, the Russian and Japanese battle fleets pounding away at each other at Tsushima in 1905. But yes, 1914 was the first time that European powers went to war with one another on this basis, and the consequences certainly came as a shock, in all sorts of ways...

My main interest in World War One is the war at sea, which IMO is largely the most under-appreciated part of the conflict. We tend to think of WW1 as a land war, but the conflict at sea was a crucial part of it, especially the war on trade.

Interesting Roadkill. I didn't even know the sea war had been a major part of it !!! What actually happened?

 

[maomao]

Interesting Roadkill. I didn't even know the sea war had been a major part of it !!! What actually happened?

The germans had submarines and did all they could do sink supply ships coming into Britain. Thousands and thousands dead.

 

[mystic pyjamas]

There was one major naval conflict: the battle of jutland.
Ended as a stalemate. Similar to the course of the rest of the war till 1917/18.

 

[Dhimmi]

My main interest in World War One is the war at sea, which IMO is largely the most under-appreciated part of the conflict. We tend to think of WW1 as a land war, but the conflict at sea was a crucial part of it, especially the war on trade.

Sounds like an fascinating area of interest. Purely anecdotal, but my grandmother's brother was in the navy during WWI and was at the battle of Jutland.

 

[maomao]

There was one major naval conflict: the battle of jutland.

Well that was the only proper set piece naval battle of the war but Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare was far more significant to the course of the war and claimed more lives.

 

[frogwoman]

Well that was the only proper set piece naval battle of the war but Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare was far more significant to the course of the war and claimed more lives.

Did we do the same thing?

 

[maomao]

Did we do the same thing?

Well, we attacked German supply lines (or tried to, that was the idea behind the landings at the Dardanelles) but Germany didn't have significant naval supply lines so we didn't do it with submarines.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I'd really like to find out more on the other battles in WWI besides the western trenches, like Austria-Hungary vs Russia, Italy, also about the war in the near east.

 

[frogwoman]

So would I. Also, Japan got involved at one stage, didn't they?

 

[maomao]

So would I. Also, Japan got involved at one stage, didn't they?

Sort of. They took advantage of the fact that Russia and Germany were tied up elsewhere to start empire building in China (they invaded Qingdao in China, a former German colony) and SE Asia.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah...I can imagine ...

Which side were Japan "officially" on? Germany's?

 

[maomao]

Yeah...I can imagine ...

Which side were Japan "officially" on? Germany's?

No, ours. The British sent regiments from their bases in Tianjin to help the Japanese invade Qingdao.

 

[frogwoman]

No, ours. The British sent regiments from their bases in Tianjin to help the Japanese invade Qingdao.

Fucking hell

So why did Japan switch sides in the inter-war period?

And what's your take on why the war lasted for four years as opposed to the six months it was supposed to in 1914?

 

[chainsaw cat]

I was never that interested in WWI due to its low-tech. I much prefer WWII and have read much about it.

WWI never really interested me. WWII, on the other hand, put the U.S. on the map so maybe that's it

Apart from radar and nuclear bombs, there was no really significant technological innovation in WW2 over WW1 - a lot of equipment was of more advanced design, that's all.

The big thing (arguably) was radio, which enabled more rapid control at every level in battle.

I can go on about the nerdy stuff for hours. Big questions are why war starts, why it continues and why on earth people who have never seen a war zone seem to think it's all a big lot of fun?

 

[Malamud]

And what's your take on why the war lasted for four years as opposed to the six months it was supposed to in 1914?

The usual excessive optimism of warmongerers always has that kind of result.

 

[ajk]

I bet this thread is over by Christmas.

 

[EddyBlack]

I think that WW1 kind of started the 20th century. America rose to prominence and the European powers where weakened. The Soviet Union was born out of the ruins.

Why the animosity between GB –Germany?

The Franco-Prussian war was followed by a German unification and federation under Chancellor Bismark. France and Germany where not on good terms

Germany as a new power in Europe sought a navy and an empire, which I think made Britain feel threatened. It became important for Britain to have a larger and better navy than Germany, to protect itself and and its empire. So this lead to a naval arms race. Britain adopted the 2 power principle, where they had to have twice as big a navy as Germany. Relations with Kaiser Willhelm where never very good, was he belligerent?

Traditionally, Britain had viewed Russia as the threat. They fought the Crimean war and the Great Game for India. But Britain was becoming isolated in Europe and was looking for allies. The other powers where banding together. Germany, Aus-Hung (and Italy?), and Russia and France. Britain sided with Russia and France. I think the arms race and generally belligerent relations between Willhelmine Germany and the British pushed Britain into siding with France and Russia. So the lines where drawn. When the Austrian Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was assasinated in their Serbian colony, Sarajevo, Russia and Aus-Hung came to blows, and the two allied axis powers where at war.

It almost seem as if there was no reason to fight the war. It achieved nothing, yet dragged on for years in terrible attrition. What did they see as the aim, and why would they kill eachother?

 

[laptop]

The whole assassination of Franz Ferdinand wasn't the immediate cause of the war, which would probably have started anyway - there would have been something else. I know a bit about the Balkan stuff but why else was Europe on the edge in 1914?

Bizarrely, while checking a fruitloop poster's alleged source on peak oil, I came across a proposal I've not encountered before: that the simmering conflict was all over the Baghdad Railway.

 

[Dhimmi]

Bizarrely, while checking a fruitloop poster's alleged source on peak oil, I came across a proposal I've not encountered before: that the simmering conflict was all over the Baghdad Railway.

That's interesting, I've heard similar-ish over the planned Afghan railway and the Afghan War (19th Century). Threatened the Russians enough to fund the Afghan's fight against the British. Don't have a link for it though...

 

[frogwoman]

I think that WW1 kind of started the 20th century. America rose to prominence and the European powers where weakened. The Soviet Union was born out of the ruins.

Why the animosity between GB –Germany?

The Franco-Prussian war was followed by a German unification and federation under Chancellor Bismark. France and Germany where not on good terms

Germany as a new power in Europe sought a navy and an empire, which I think made Britain feel threatened. It became important for Britain to have a larger and better navy than Germany, to protect itself and and its empire. So this lead to a naval arms race. Britain adopted the 2 power principle, where they had to have twice as big a navy as Germany. Relations with Kaiser Willhelm where never very good, was he belligerent?

Interesting stuff cheers. Of course we often forget the fact that Germany only became a "proper country" relatively recently ...

I think Kaiser Wilhelm was pretty aggressive lol. It's weird though that they went to war, because the british royal family were basically the same people!

Traditionally, Britain had viewed Russia as the threat. They fought the Crimean war and the Great Game for India. But Britain was becoming isolated in Europe and was looking for allies. The other powers where banding together. Germany, Aus-Hung (and Italy?), and Russia and France. Britain sided with Russia and France. I think the arms race and generally belligerent relations between Willhelmine Germany and the British pushed Britain into siding with France and Russia. So the lines where drawn. When the Austrian Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was assasinated in their Serbian colony, Sarajevo, Russia and Aus-Hung came to blows, and the two allied axis powers where at war.

Interesting analysis

Italy actually switched sides during the war several times tho didn't it?

I always find it really weird that Austria and Hungary had an empire together - I mean, wtf?

And was the Ottoman Empire involved in this at all? I know that it used to control most of the Balkan Peninsula - so when did the Austrians/Hungarians come into it?

It almost seem as if there was no reason to fight the war. It achieved nothing, yet dragged on for years in terrible attrition. What did they see as the aim, and why would they kill eachother?

Exactly ...

 

[frogwoman]

Bizarrely, while checking a fruitloop poster's alleged source on peak oil, I came across a proposal I've not encountered before: that the simmering conflict was all over the Baghdad Railway.

Iraq's always kinda been a battleground in the Great game hasn't it ...

 

[frogwoman]

I bet this thread is over by Christmas.

 

[Idris2002]

>Italy actually switched sides during the war several times tho didn't it?

No. Italy was in a formal alliance with the central powers, but declared itself neutral in 1914, and then joined in on the Allied side in 1915.

 

[butchersapron]

The Baghdad Railway theme is a favourite of the hard right and conspiracy loons and people loking to project todays conflicts onto the past (and garf). I don't think there's much in it myself - certainly not enough to carry the weight of being the main cause of WW1. At best the diplomatic wrangling over it was mrely a particular expression of the wider general conflict which was clearly based on developing economic conflict (the hunt for resources, markets, cheap labour, military positions to safeguard all this etc) between Germany and the old powers.

That really is the crux of the matter. Germany had reached the stage where it's continued growth led to it being in a position where it was necesarily challenging Britians economic dominance - or it was felt by significant sections of the ruling class that if it was to continue its developement then this challenge had to come at some point.

There's substantial diplomatic evidence of these elements of the ruling class seeking to provoke this challenge through war for many years before WW1 and that it was a settled long term aim of the unified state. They were willing to provoke a local war with all the risks and potential for it to develop into a massive conflagration (two collapsing empires losing countol of their populations, growth of nationalisms, global economic blockades etc). And pretty much every single potential limiting factor came down on the side of extending the war.

That challenge, when it came, was always going to lead to a war on an extended scale - when you have the worlds leading economies fighting each other in a context of massive interdependence (not to forget the alliance system) it was inevitable.

 

[Roadkill]

There was one major naval conflict: the battle of jutland.
Ended as a stalemate. Similar to the course of the rest of the war till 1917/18.

There were a couple of set-piece battles early in the war in distant waters where German naval squadrons were operating when war broke out. A cruiser squadron under Von Spee defeated a British force at Coronel in late 1914, and then in turn beaten the following year by a British fleet off the Falkland Islands. The German squadrons and single ships were mainly commerce-raiders. They were a threat early in the war, but once they were defeated no more were sent out.

The point about the war in the North Sea is that a stalemate was pretty much what Britain wanted. As long as the High Seas Fleet was bottled up at Wilhelmshaven, it wasn't a threat. Both sides did make sorties which resulted in a few battles, Jutland being by far the largest. A lot of people in Britain expected - and were disappointed when they didn't get - another Trafalgar, but that wasn't realistic. Capital ships were much more vulnerable than they had been a century before. During the Napoleonic wars, a battleship was pretty much secure from anything other than another ship of equal force, but by 1914 even a small vessel could sink one with torpedoes and mines. That's really why the main fleets spent so much time in port.

The British strategy was to contain the German surface fleet, and to blockade Germany, cutting off its sea trade routes. It was no longer feasible to do that simply by stationing ships outside the main seaports, again because of the threat from torpedoes and mines. What they did instead was to close off the entry points to the North Sea - the English Channel and what's now known as the 'Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. By and large the strategy worked, and the blockade did a lot of damage to Germany.

The German response, of course, was the U-boat. Obviously, being an island Britain was very dependent on seaborne trade, and submarines could play havoc with it. The problem was that the msot effective way to use submarine was simply to sink ships with no warning, but that threatened to bring the Americans into the war. The first period of 'unrestricted U-boat warfare' was halted after the passenger steamer Lusitania was sunk in May 1915, with 1,200 dead. For long periods, then, the U-boats stopped ships and gave their crews time to abandon ship before sinking them. They did revert to unrestricted action a couple more times, because it was seen as the only real way to put pressure on the UK.