Thoughts on World War I

[BAYLOR]

About 20 million died, changed whole map of Europe, several ruling dynasties, The Hapsburg's, The Hohenzollerns, Rominovs, and the Ottoman Empire were all swept away, The League of nation without American participation came into being .

So do you think that after 100 years we are any wiser about this particular conflict ?

 

[BAYLOR]

It's seems that when the whole mess started every thought it be over in a short , a month 3 month 6 months. None of the powers involved figured it would stretch into 4 years.

 

[Null_Zone]

Europes assorted militaries certainly considered the war to be long term. Haig considered was with Germany would last at least five years when writing some time before the war, in 1914 he expected it to last until 1919 with US involvement.

The "over by Christmas" was politician talking rubbish and having no clue what they had started.

 

[Dave]

It was the first real mechanised war - tanks, battleships and submarines, aircraft and balloons, tunnels and trenches, automatic weapons, poison gas and flamethrowers. TPTB believed all that new technology would speed it up, but it instead it caused stalemate.

I think the saddest thing is the Pals Battalions which meant that a whole rural village, or a school year group, or a church choir often lost most of their men in a single battle.

 

[Mirannan]

One of the saddest things about WWI, and often not mentioned, is that after the carnage most of the surviving young men returned home, thinking that at last they were safe - only for more of them than died in the trenches to die of influenza. Which was probably helped to spread by the chaos of war.

 

[Susan Boulton]

I think the saddest thing is the Pals Battalions which meant that a whole rural village, or a school year group, or a church choir often lost most of their men in a single battle.

After WWI it became policy not to allow men from the same area or family to serve together. My father-in-law first served in the North Staffs (WWII) before being transferred to the Royal Engineers. He said there were fellas from all over the country in his company.

Had family in the Leeds Pals. Three brothers and one to be brother-in-law. One vanished in the hell of the first day of the Somme, one lost a leg, two survived. My grandfather was a regular, served all the way through the war and died in 1954 from his wounds (He had been gassed and his lungs badly damaged)

 

[J-Sun]

As far as WWI, on being wiser about this particular conflict, I don't know what you mean. As far as I know, scholarship has long and continuously held that a stupid alliance system, a bunch of dying monarchies shambling around, and a crazy kid shooting a guy all sparked it and away everybody went. If you mean being wiser from the conflict, we obviously grew no wiser at all in that it didn't "end all wars". But whereas the League of Nations was a near-total failure, the UN has been an less-total failure and where the victorious powers vengefully crushed the losers the first time and practically necessitated a second round, the victorious powers rebuilt the losers the second time so that no third of the same kind directly followed. Or so the books tell me and, if true, then some things were learned.

It was the first real mechanised war - tanks, battleships and submarines, aircraft and balloons, tunnels and trenches, automatic weapons, poison gas and flamethrowers. TPTB believed all that new technology would speed it up, but it instead it caused stalemate.

I'd disagree with that and nominate the American Civil War. And that, too, lasted four years, which gave a good hint.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Sad really that so many people died because nations couldn't get on with each other. There was no evil empire to battle, no great cause that was being fought over. The greatest thing that came out of the war for the British was something that it wasn't about - social equality. For the first time different classes of people who wouldn't have acknowledged each other in the street now lived, fought and died side by side. Women came out of the kitchen into factories and hospitals and proved that they could do just as good jobs as the men - soon after they got the vote.

So yes there were great triumphs as a result of the war, and British culture was changed (for the better) irrevocably. But as I said , the war was fought, and millions died, because a few leaders (some of them related!) couldn't sit down and talk to each other. Very sad.

 

[JoanDrake]

Most historians regard WWI as truly catastrophic and most wars since as being continuations. In a sense we don't have to wonder what it would be like to live in a post-apocalyptic scenario as we have been, since 1914

 

[BAYLOR]

Most historians regard WWI as truly catastrophic and most wars since as being continuations. In a sense we don't have to wonder what it would be like to live in a post-apocalyptic scenario as we have been, since 1914

Self inflicted, by all the major powers. Woodrow Wilson, LLoyd George , George Clemenceau and Vittorio Orlando could have crafted a peace treaty that might have helped prevent a future world war II. They blew it big time. They let personal vendettas, self interests and plain stupidity rule their thinking.

 

[J-Sun]

Self inflicted, by all the major powers. Woodrow Wilson, LLoyd George , George Clemenceau and Vittorio Orlando could have crafted a peace treaty that might have helped prevent a future world war II. They blew it big time. They let personal vendettas, self interests and plain stupidity rule their thinking.

Generally agreed, of course, but I was thinking Wilson was against the harsh terms and, not that I'd trust wikipedia by itself, but it confirms what I was thinking.

 

[BAYLOR]

Generally agreed, of course, but I was thinking Wilson was against the harsh terms and, not that I'd trust wikipedia by itself, but it confirms what I was thinking.

Wilson was incredibly naive in understanding the motivations of his various partners in peace. Lloyd George wanted Germany's african colonial possession for the British empire and he had made promises to punish Germany which he couldn't go back on politically. George Clemenceau wanted revenge on Germany for it's defeat in the Franco Prussian wars of which he was a solider in. He wanted back and got Alsace and Lorraine which germany took from France at the end of that war and Saar Valley thrown in to the deal. If Clemenceau had died in the Franco/Prussian war, He would have rendered a far more useful service to the world . Vittorio Orlando was looking spoils.

 

[J-Sun]

Wilson was incredibly naive in understanding the motivations of his various partners in peace.

No dispute there. He was incredibly naive in a lot of things.

 

[BAYLOR]

No dispute there. He was incredibly naive in a lot of things.

Woodrow Wilson was a brilliant man with very high ideals and good intentions. But, was not a great president. He thought that he alone knew what was best for the country, Which rendered him incapable of compromise on anything . Wilson simply couldn't work with people that didn't agree with him , like the Republican party and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge in particular. His going to Europe with his 14 points and no prominent republican in his entourage ended up further alienating them. So, not surpassingly, he failed to get ratification of the Versailles Treaty and America in the the League of Nations.

 

[J-Sun]

Woodrow Wilson was a brilliant man with very high ideals and good intentions. But, was not a great president.

No dispute with either of those characterizations either.

 

[BAYLOR]

Today is the 100th anniversary of the start of World war I.

 

[HareBrain]

The recent BBC drama mini-series 37 Days made the case that the war was inevitable largely because Germany (and more specifically chief of staff Moltke) foresaw Russia becoming much more powerful than them as their industry got going, and, fearing a future attack from Russia, believed they needed to strike whilst Russia was beatable. It's not an idea I'd seen presented previously (and to be honest it wasn't played up much in the series) but if true, it means it would have been almost impossible to prevent the war because Germany (or, again, Moltke) believed it was necessary to its very survival.

Does this accord with anyone else's understanding?

 

[BAYLOR]

The recent BBC drama mini-series 37 Days made the case that the war was inevitable largely because Germany (and more specifically chief of staff Moltke) foresaw Russia becoming much more powerful than them as their industry got going, and, fearing a future attack from Russia, believed they needed to strike whilst Russia was beatable. It's not an idea I'd seen presented previously (and to be honest it wasn't played up much in the series) but if true, it means it would have been almost impossible to prevent the war because Germany (or, again, Moltke) believed it was necessary to its very survival.

Does this accord with anyone else's understanding?

At one point Germany had an alliance with Russia established by Otto Von Bismark. But Kaiser Wilhelm II broke it off because it conflicted with it's alliance with Austria/Hungry, a huge blunder on his part. If that had still been in place, perhaps that might have diminished to chances of a world war or delayed it a few years?

 

[Foxbat]

At one point Germany had an alliance with Russia established by Otto Von Bismark. But Kaiser Wilhelm II broke it off because it conflicted with it's alliance with Austria/Hungry, a huge blunder on his part. If that had still been in place, perhaps that might have diminished to chances of a world war or delayed it a few years?

War between Russia and Austria-Hungary (which ultimatelty started the chain reaction of WWI when Russia came in on the side of Serbia) was almost inevitable and it's surprising that it didn't start earlier (1908). Russia showed itself to be severely lacking miltarily (1905) when it fought Japan and was humiliated by Austria-Hungary in the balkans three years later when the Central Power annexed Bosnia. Germany was a prime mover in the ultimate backing down of Russia (by demanding a clear yes or no on a treaty amendment - forcing the Tsar to capitulate) so, even back then, I don't think there was likely to be anything but eventual conflict between Russia and Germany.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Does this accord with anyone else's understanding?

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.