Thoughts on World War I

It's also worth viewing WW1 as the last great scramble for Empire and not just a European conflict. Japan, for instance, attacked (at the request of their British allies and with around 4000 British troops in tow along with 70000 Japanese) and took German held Tsingtao. This gave them a foothold in China and the impetus to go for more.

It could be argued that this involvement encouraged imperialist Japanese ambitions and led (eventually) to Pearl Harbour.

Turkey was another area looking to expand and retake previously lost territories (encouraged by the Germans).

Even South Africa had ambitions of expansion and fought in German South west Africa.

So, while the blame cannot be laid solely at Germany's feet, they were pretty near the epicentre of the conflict.

There was also the fact that lots of military pundits had this really naïve view of the "benefits" of war, this idea that it was all great fun and made the youth more patriotic and disciplined. This wasn't an entirely German idea but my understanding is that many of their military leaders, particularly von Ludendorff, were the ones who pushed it the hardest. This would account for some particularly hard feelings by the French, I would think, who were bled so white of young men in WWI that they hadn't recovered by WWII.

Germany went into the war with a policy of terrorising populations and was also guilty of atrocities that you would normally associate with WW2 - executions and deportation of men women and children. This was mainly fuelled by fears of francotirador - civilian snipers which were prevailant in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. it was thought that such an action may happen again. Terrorising populations was seen as a method of stopping this.


The Kaiser at one point suggested herding 90000 slav prisoners on to a peninsula in the Baltic and starving them to death. Some allied units were also guilty of crimes such as the mass shooting of German prisoners who had already surrendered.

I think that the leaders were far from naive when it came to this war but perhaps used the naivete of their own populations to create the manpower reserves needed to fight the war.

Brian Turner said:

IMO it's more complicated than that - Europe was a bubbling sea of rivalries, and the industrial revolution brought competition to a head - not least to be the industrial market leader of Europe.

That's why so many countries rushed in to "honour" their treaties - a dashing victory would ensure the dominance of a single industrial power, not simply in Europe, but also the world.

Of course, industrialisation meant it would never go the way everyone might initially imagine.

I'm not sure it would be fair to blame it all on Germany, especially when the country had not long been unified by Bismark. Great Britain still had its imperial mindset, too.

Click to expand...

Before WWI there a few of indications that all was not well in the British Empire. The Second Boer War 1899 to 1901 , The ever growing strife and conflict in Ireland . The end of of WWI was a at best a pyrrhic victory for the Empire, They got Germany colonies, but that couldn't offset the cost of fighting that war nor the loss of men and materials. Didn't decline of the British empire begin around the end of of World War I?

Coming up on Armistice day

The Christmas Truce of 1914. The cease fire , troops from opposing sides fraternizing celebrating Christmas together, the next day back to killing each other. They could agree to stop the shooting and killing for one day but not the war.

BAYLOR said:

The Christmas Truce of 1914. The cease fire , troops from opposing sides fraternizing celebrating Christmas together, the next day back to killing each other. They could agree to stop the shooting and killing for one day but not the war.

Click to expand...

This event was the source for something that caused massive disgust and disgrace for an advertising company and its client, Cadburys in the UK during Xmas 2014.

They used an advert set during the legendary football game of Xmas day 1914 to advertise a chocolate bar!!!

Absolutely disgraceful.

10 years ago, I lived and worked in Normandie and Flanders. I was at a British run châteaux with its barns converted into accomodation blocks, and we hosted and accompanied UK school groups doing either french language/cultural tours in Normandie, and History tours around the Somme and the Ieper Salient in Flanders. And I saw the most magnificent thing!

We were at the Menin Gate in Ieper waiting for the Last Post. A "know it all" middle class Brit was braying to his companions loudly that the "last post" was a Flemish gesture to "all the soldiers and victims of all wars"

A little old Flemish lady went absolutely nuts at him, and even came close to giving him a slap, pointing out that no, it was a Flemish gesture to the dead of Britain and its Empire who came to protect little Belgium from German aggression in 1914. She was proper furious at his misrepresentation of what the daily last Post and the Menin Gate is about.

Caledfwlch said:

This event was the source for something that caused massive disgust and disgrace for an advertising company and its client, Cadburys in the UK during Xmas 2014.

They used an advert set during the legendary football game of Xmas day 1914 to advertise a chocolate bar!!!

Absolutely disgraceful.

10 years ago, I lived and worked in Normandie and Flanders. I was at a British run châteaux with its barns converted into accomodation blocks, and we hosted and accompanied UK school groups doing either french language/cultural tours in Normandie, and History tours around the Somme and the Ieper Salient in Flanders. And I saw the most magnificent thing!

We were at the Menin Gate in Ieper waiting for the Last Post. A "know it all" middle class Brit was braying to his companions loudly that the "last post" was a Flemish gesture to "all the soldiers and victims of all wars"

A little old Flemish lady went absolutely nuts at him, and even came close to giving him a slap, pointing out that no, it was a Flemish gesture to the dead of Britain and its Empire who came to protect little Belgium from German aggression in 1914. She was proper furious at his misrepresentation of what the daily last Post and the Menin Gate is about.

Click to expand...

They actually used it for an advertising for a Candy bar ? That is despicable. But then again , so was the whole concept of Christmas Truce. Peace on Earth Goodwill to men followed the next day by slaughter and War . I can find nothing to admire about any of that. It would have been A wonderful thing if the truce could have lead to an ending the war at that point . Imagine how many lives might have been saved and how much suffering could have been averted ? But, given the reality of the whole situation , that was never happening.

The truce was an unofficial agreement between the ordinary soldiers and only covered parts of the front. It had nothing to do with the chain of command on either side. There were reports that many high-ranking officers were furious at the lack of fighting.

A young Charles de Gaulle, for example, wrote of the lamentable desire of French Infantrymen to leave the enemy in peace

To those doing the actual fighting, it was simply a chance to forget about killing for a little while. I don't think we should begrudge the ordinary soldier that.

Foxbat said:

The truce was an unofficial agreement between the ordinary soldiers and only covered parts of the front. It had nothing to do with the chain of command on either side. There were reports that many high-ranking officers were furious at the lack of fighting.

A young Charles de Gaulle, for example, wrote of the lamentable desire of French Infantrymen to leave the enemy in peace

To those doing the actual fighting, it was simply a chance to forget about killing for a little while. I don't think we should begrudge the ordinary soldier that.

Click to expand...

It's a sad commentary that so many soldiers died in a war that was caused by a few selfish and otherwise useless political leaders.

As for Charles de Gaulle, he had no patience for pacifists. So it's not really surprising he felt the way he did.

There is a concerted effort by some Historians to "rehabilitate" the Generals of WW1, especially the British/Empire ones. They take a lot of umbrage at what they call the "Lions led by Donkeys Myth" What do you guys think?

They claim that the tactics which had such shocking casualty figures were the only usable ones. I have stood at the Irish Peace Park near Messen, standing in the approx position of the British lines, up towards the higher german positions on the ridge just before the village.

Not a tactical expert, but it was clearly an awful position to assault, uphill against dug in german machine gun emplacements. There was no getting around the fact that those Irish Lads had to go uphil and take the german positions.

But one phrase stands out, as it always does in ww1 battles. Those brave lads were made by their Officers, to WALK.

I can accept an argument for the massed charges against enemy trenches, but to make them walk? That was not a valid tactic, that was organised slaughter by your own side. That was Generals so out of touch and date with the realities of modern warfare, they were using essentially, Napoleonic era foot soldier tactics in a war that deployed 20th century mechanised warfare, albeit in a more primitive form.

The same happens in every war. Strategy and Tactics doctrines struggle to keep up with new technology. The mass attacks of previous wars were ineffective against the likes of the machine gun and artillery became much more lethal in WW1 than before.

It was well into the war before the Germans developed units by smaller squad-based actions and away from mass attacks. These then became the staple tactic for WW2.

Just a note the advert was made by Sainsburys for their chocolate bar, not Cadburys. It was made in conjuction with the British Legion, all the profits from the bar was given to the Legion. It was part of the poppy appeal 2014.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...istmas-advert-recreates-first-world-war-truce

Caledfwlch said:

There is a concerted effort by some Historians to "rehabilitate" the Generals of WW1, especially the British/Empire ones. They take a lot of umbrage at what they call the "Lions led by Donkeys Myth" What do you guys think?

They claim that the tactics which had such shocking casualty figures were the only usable ones. I have stood at the Irish Peace Park near Messen, standing in the approx position of the British lines, up towards the higher german positions on the ridge just before the village.

Not a tactical expert, but it was clearly an awful position to assault, uphill against dug in german machine gun emplacements. There was no getting around the fact that those Irish Lads had to go uphil and take the german positions.

But one phrase stands out, as it always does in ww1 battles. Those brave lads were made by their Officers, to WALK.

I can accept an argument for the massed charges against enemy trenches, but to make them walk? That was not a valid tactic, that was organised slaughter by your own side. That was Generals so out of touch and date with the realities of modern warfare, they were using essentially, Napoleonic era foot soldier tactics in a war that deployed 20th century mechanised warfare, albeit in a more primitive form.

Click to expand...

Verdun 1,250,000 casualties and The Somme another 500,000. They're still finding bodies and unexploded ordinance from those two battles alone.

Then there's Gallipoli 240,000 - 250,000 casualties there. That one should be filed under category of what were they thinking when they planed that debacle.

Caledfwlch said:

But one phrase stands out, as it always does in ww1 battles. Those brave lads were made by their Officers, to WALK.

I can accept an argument for the massed charges against enemy trenches, but to make them walk? That was not a valid tactic, that was organised slaughter by your own side. That was Generals so out of touch and date with the realities of modern warfare, they were using essentially, Napoleonic era foot soldier tactics in a war that deployed 20th century mechanised warfare, albeit in a more primitive form.

Click to expand...

This is a bit of a myth - actually some battalions decided to run, others walked. But there was reason for walking and it probably would have depended on the bit of no-mans land that they had to traverse. The reason was a great many of the waves of assault were hauling large amounts of stuff on their backs, everything they thought they would need when they got there - so running a long distance over lumpy terrain with an extra 50kg, or whatever, on your back (on top of your standard kit btw) would have likely exhausted everyone and if there were Germans to fight at the other end, you don't want to be needing a breather. (In fact this was a common feature of battles throughout the ages - unless you had a horse or a chariot, or were wearing practically nothing, then charges that got to sprint or running speed involving heavily armoured men on foot would only occur when you got very close to the enemy. It was why the bow and especially the horse+bow was such a devastating weapon system against massed ranks of spearmen/hoplites)

My guess is (and I don't have any evidence for this assertion, other than commonsense) is that if the German lines were relatively close, then I suspect running towards the lines would probably have been allowed as the impact of a short 'dash' would have been less tiring (and I do know running did take place.)

Of course in theory the vast artillery barrages were supposed to clear out the first lines of Germans, remove all the barbed wire etc..., so they were told there would only be a few dazed survivors, hence walking was deemed acceptable. With hindsight of course this was total bunk, although how could one tell until they tried it?

Another reason is, especially for the battles of 1916 - starting with the Somme, the British Conscript Army was very inexperienced and there just wasn't enough time to train them properly (and I mean both officers and men - chain of command and communications was probably one of the biggest failings in the Somme) as the French were screaming for pressure to be taken off Verdun. To coordinate safer and more devastating attacks (such as slipping into no mans land at night during the barrage and waiting much closer to the German front lines, or to do a walking barrage) required experience and discipline that the British Army had no time to give these men. So they put their faith in a plan with the 'big guns' hoping that they'd smash the enemy and this would protect their green troops.

As far as I understand it, walking was part of the precaution taken to avoid becoming a victim of the 'walking' or 'creeping' barrage which was ceveloped in WW1. The idea was that before the enemy had time to recover from the artillery, the infantry was upon them. The soldiers had to stay slightly behind this wall of fire for their own protection.

Foxbat said:

As far as I understand it, walking was part of the precaution taken to avoid becoming a victim of the 'walking' or 'creeping' barrage which was ceveloped in WW1. The idea was that before the enemy had time to recover from the artillery, the infantry was upon them. The soldiers had to stay slightly behind this wall of fire for their own protection.

Click to expand...

Which was a skill in itself to try and do - otherwise you could well be shelled by your own side if you mixed up your times and where you were supposed to be, or if you were unexpectedly delayed the barrage would creep off without you and you would be potentially caught out in no-mans land unprotected. (Which unfortunately did happen.) Hence with inexperienced troops at first, where trying a creeping barrage was a likely to fail, they tried the 'pound the hell out of the Bosche and hope that works' strategy.

What they really needed was someone to invent a portable radio set so that it could all be coordinated in real time...

...although fundamentally what everyone really needed was to not to have fought this utterly pointless war.

Venusian Broon said:

...although fundamentally what everyone really needed was to not to have fought this utterly pointless war.

Click to expand...

I agree.
Unfortunately, looking at the history and arms race leading up to the conflict makes it look like war was inevitable.

Venusian Broon said:

What they really needed was someone to invent a portable radio set so that it could all be coordinated in real time...

Click to expand...

The French did, based on improved version of a valve they got from USA
The UK copied that valve and it was basis of first radios for Broadcast Radio from 1921

The Marconi Co. Supplied UK with portable wagon mounted radio systems for the Boer War!
http://www.r-type.org/articles/art-020.htm

By 1916 The UK was making their own R-Type for the war effort.

In the Russian-Japanese War (8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905), the Japanese used Radio very well, but the Russians foolishly kept radio silence on their ships and sacrificed control. They lost most of their navy. It was the first war covered in real time by a Journalist/Radio Expert. An American on a Chinese Junk, permitted to accompany the Japanese, with a shore based station.

Ray McCarthy said:

The French did, based on improved version of a valve they got from USA
The UK copied that valve and it was basis of first radios for Broadcast Radio from 1921

Click to expand...

Way off topic Ray, but seeing as we've managed to arrive here - but I just read an article in Fortean Times yesterday on 'Rogue Oscillators' on how the first radio services were prone to heterodyning - causing peoples radio sets to squeal and howl a bit like off-key theremins (At least that's what I took from the article!) Seemed to cause a great deal of harrumphing and anguish from the British radio listening public at the time. Perhaps the first form of electronic trolling was involved too!

Unfortunately the article is not in electronic form - at least not in free electronic form. You'd have to buy the magazine (FT 327 in case you are desperate).