How Europe Went to War in 1914

[redcoat]

. The manpower of Imperial Germany and Britain and the Commonwealth did quite well, though the boorish leadership of the british was a big let down.

I actually think the British military leadership did reasonably well, if not better than most. They certainly took a great deal of care in the wellfare of their troops in the periods between attacks, far better than any of the other major nations
It also must be remembered that the very small British and Commonwealth armies were built up to a massive size in a very short space of time, a lot of their commanders were as inexperienced as their troops.

 

[Marcel]

I actually think the British military leadership did reasonably well, if not better than most. They certainly took a great deal of care in the wellfare of their troops in the periods between attacks, far better than any of the other major nations

Oh come on, Battle of the Somme, Gallipoli, Passendale? Bunch of cockups, unimaginative leadership many casulties for questionable goals which in the end did not gain anything. Leaders were not involved, thus giving orderes that only made the bloodbath worse. Don't see any great leadership in there, but as the Germans and the French were no better (Verdun, Marne etc) I would all give them very low marks.

At least the Germans won something, they beat the Russians fair and square, although one could question wether the germans were so good or that the Russians were so bad.

The worst thing of WW1 is the sheer stupidity of it all. Generals who were not in touch with reality did not learn anything of the experience of earlier battles and caring more about their own ego than about their troops kept on feeding bodies to the big meatgrinder. I always get tears in my eyes when I read about it.:
- Ieper around 1,000,000
- Gallipoli 500,0000
- Verdun 600,000
- Somme 1,200,000
-Isonso 200,000
The list goes on and on.

 

[redcoat]

At least the Germans won something,.

They actually lost. As for winning and the British army of WW1, I suggest you read up on the Hundred Days Offensive.

 

[Readie]

Don't forget to include the Commonwealth men in the 'British Army' title Redcoat. The Canadians and Aussie's took a real beating....

 

[Marcel]

They actually lost. As for winning and the British army of WW1, I suggest you read up on the Hundred Days Offensive.

My remark was meant as cynical, clearly did not land. I don't think anyone won anything in ww1. Don't fool yourself. The allies only 'won' in the end because they got help from their cross-atlantic cousins. These were 'fresh' while al other were tired and bored with 4 years of pointlessness. The Germans just trew the towel.

 

[redcoat]

Don't forget to include the Commonwealth men in the 'British Army' title Redcoat. The Canadians and Aussie's took a real beating....

And they gave out a real beating as well,

You are quite right, I should have written British and Commonwealth, not just British.

 

[Marcel]

What about the French? After all the 100 days offensive was led by Foch.
For me the most underpraised army in ww1 are the Belgians. They played a keyrole at the IJzer and fought valliantly with the sparse means they had. Yet they are hardly ever mentioned.

 

[redcoat]

My remark was meant as cynical, clearly did not land. I don't think anyone won anything in ww1. Don't fool yourself. The allies only 'won' in the end because they got help from their cross-atlantic cousins.

The United States main effect on the battlefield was to force the Germans to throw everything into their spring offensive before they arrived. The failure of this offensive along with it's huge casualties played a major part in the collapse of the German army later in the year

These were 'fresh' while al other were tired and bored with 4 years of pointlessness.

In the Hundred Days campaign, it was the British and Commonwealth forces which took the lead role, ably supported by the French.The US forces played their part but it was mainly in a supporting role.

The Germans just trew the towel.

In other words they admitted they were defeated.

http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/general-interest/193-final-one-hun.html

 

[yulzari]

For my money the best book on the British army in WW1 is 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' by Gordon Corrigan.

He does a brilliant job of setting things in a real context and not rehashing 1930's intellectual myths.

Buy it, borrow it but you must read it.

 

[redcoat]

For me the most underpraised army in ww1 are the Belgians. They played a keyrole at the IJzer and fought valiantly with the sparse means they had. Yet they are hardly ever mentioned.

Indeed, their contribution to the Allied victory is often overlooked, yet as you point out they did fight valiantly and are fully deserving of praise.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh come on, Battle of the Somme, Gallipoli, Passendale? Bunch of cockups, unimaginative leadership many casulties for questionable goals which in the end did not gain anything. Leaders were not involved, thus giving orderes that only made the bloodbath worse. Don't see any great leadership in there, but as the Germans and the French were no better (Verdun, Marne etc) I would all give them very low marks.

At least the Germans won something, they beat the Russians fair and square, although one could question wether the germans were so good or that the Russians were so bad.

The worst thing of WW1 is the sheer stupidity of it all. Generals who were not in touch with reality did not learn anything of the experience of earlier battles and caring more about their own ego than about their troops kept on feeding bodies to the big meatgrinder. I always get tears in my eyes when I read about it.:
- Ieper around 1,000,000
- Gallipoli 500,0000
- Verdun 600,000
- Somme 1,200,000
-Isonso 200,000
The list goes on and on.

Just go to Verdun and visit the battle fields as well as the Douaumont ossuary there. Absolutely amazing the utter pointless loss of life by both sides.

 

[parsifal]

In terms of outcome, the allies were the eventual clear winners, in the sense they could outlast an utterly exhausted and disintegrating Germany. One only has to read the German transcripts from various sources to understand that. Germany was imploding as a result of a number of issues....the effects of the blockade, a crisis in morale in the army, but also clear evidence of a collapsing frontline as the allies finally got the better of the heavy German defences at the frontier. in relation to the military operations, whilst the newly arriving Americans were having some effect, as evidenced by their efforts at Meuse Argonne, they actually had not really had a decisive effect. Meuse Argonne was perhaps the most expensive, and least successful of the great offensives that combined to be the 100 days. If the fighting had continued I have no doubts the Americans would have become a decisive factor with the fresh troops and rapidly increasing knowledge of the new techniques of warfare now so vital for successful operations.

The war ended however, with an unsatisfactory negotiated peace. A number of people have argued that it was necessary for the Allies to accept the unsatisfactory peace because they too were reaching the limits of endurance within their societies. Certain elements and units of the allied armies were also showing signs of cracking under pressure, but allied problems, both inside their military, and also in society as a whole, paled into nothing compared to what was happening to Germany.

Perhaps the allied armies might have cracked, perhaps the Germans may have rallied, but certain officers did not think so. Pershing was all for continuingt, until Berlin was captured and unconditional surrender secured. He was supported by both Monash and Currie. The armies delivering the hammer blows on the Germans were showing no signs of cracking or losing steam. in the case of the Australians, after more than a month of rest and reinforcement, I Aus Corps was moving up to the front line to recommence and maintain the pressure on the retreating Germans. I understand that the Canadians were pulling up for some much needed rest. There were several Corps of British Troops, that might be described as "assault troops" moving up to relieve the Canadians, and the Americans, having won a hard fought victory at Meuse Argonne were arriving in decisive numbers to continue the pressure. There was no rest for the Germans, and they knew it. Germany was not stabbed in the back, they were not robbed of victory, or tricked into defeat. They were facing annihilation, and their leadership knew it . They surrendered under the best possible conditions that they could. What happened however, is that the 14 points they thought they were going to work under were essentially hijacked and altered during the 1919 negotiations. By then Germany was already starting to come apart at the seams

 

[Marcel]

Yup that's true. I admit the Germans were in the end defeated. One wonder if that also means that the Allies won or maybe all sides lost in the end.
German civilans finally realised that all their suffering was only for the Kaiser's ego and decided it was enough. Much unrest was the result and there was a great rise in communism and the German leaders realised they needed their army in their own country. This unrest also spread into the ranks of the soldiers on the front. After 4 years of all this, who could blame them?
I think the Amercans were important psychological as it showed the Germans they could not win. The americans had not suffered 4 years of massacre. It also boosted the moral of the allies which had been very low during the spring offensive. The 100 days however although won by the Allies was not a glorious victory. Casualties remained very high and the whole offensive was very costly in human lives to both sides. On the whole, the 100 days caused 2,000,000 casualties, rougly equally shared between both parties. The fact that some wanted to fight on until Berlin only shows that the Allied commanders were willing to sacrifice another million soldiers in this pointless battle.

In my eyes that the peace was unsatisfactory and ineffective can be blamed on the french. Instead of realising that they needed an end to all the competition and hate between the European countries, they tried to get their revenche and tried to break Germany economically. The clearer thinking of the Americans and to some extend the British were brushed aside and we all know what happened. Germany remained full of unrest en feelings of revench and unjustice. It was a perfect breedingground for ultra-nationalists, especially the NAZI's and led to another even more gruwesome war.

 

[DonL]

If there is a german General to honor at WWI, I would pick

Otto Liman von Sanders

I think he was the real man behind the defense success of Gallipoli and also he prevented at his command area any genocide at the Armenian people.

 

[fastmongrel]

For my money the best book on the British army in WW1 is 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' by Gordon Corrigan.

He does a brilliant job of setting things in a real context and not rehashing 1930's intellectual myths.

Buy it, borrow it but you must read it.

An excellent book that shoots down many of the myths of Britains (Includes all Commonwealth and Empire forces) WWI campaigns. British generals and politicians made mistakes but name a general who never made a mistake.

 

[redcoat]

I'll try to make a list of possible motives to go to war as I see it as a kind of summary.

A bit simplistic, but here goes:
- France: revenge for 1870 and to get The Elzas back
- Russia: Getting more influence in the Balkan and get free passage to the Mediterranean
- UK: Setting the balance of power in Europe favorable for them, stem the German economical threat.
- Austria-Hungary: Maintain their superpower status, keeping grip on the Balkan and deny the Russians expansion of influence in the Balkan
- Germany: Becoming an imperial power and trying to compete with the UK. Keeping the Elzas. Edit: survival: war before Russia becomes too strong.
- Italia: trying to get parts of Austria-Hungary territory.
- Serbia: trying to get a pan-slavic country on the Balkan, in which Serbia would be the main power..

I've just realised something.
We've all forgotten about Turkey, what were her motives for getting involved.

 

[silence]

I've just realised something.
We've all forgotten about Turkey, what were her motives for getting involved.

After the Breslau and Goeben were donated to the Turkish Navy, the Breslau bombarded Theodosia (Oct 21). The Turks apologized (Nov 2) and blamed the attack on German officers still on the Breslau, but Russia claimed it was too late and the bombardment was an act of war, declaring war on that same day. The Allies demanded reparations, removal of the German officers, and interment of the German ships until the war ended. But before the Turks could even reply the UK and France declared war (Nov 5). Turkey had originally declared Neutrality on Aug 18. They had also secretly forged an alliance with Germany on Aug 2.

That's the crux of it. In Sept 1911 Italy had taken Triploi from Turkey, apparently because of the formation of the Triple Entente. As well, Russia had long coveted the Dardanelles as a route to the Med. Seems like things were just looking to blow eventually (which sadly seems to be the general state of the Balkans).

 

[Readie]

Just go to Verdun and visit the battle fields as well as the Douaumont ossuary there. Absolutely amazing the utter pointless loss of life by both sides.

Totally agree Chris, I have been to the Somme,Ypres and Cambrai.... The battle ground, endless cemeteries and history speak volumes about the human race.

 

[Readie]

General Erich Ludendorff praised the British for their bravery and remembered hearing first hand the following statement from the German General Headquarters. "The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys."

The phrase Lions Led by Donkeys was used as a title for a book published in 1927 by Captain P.A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes."

I'm not saying that this book is a historical reference piece, but as a book about WW1 it warrants the time to read it.

 

[Marcel]

I've just realised something.
We've all forgotten about Turkey, what were her motives for getting involved.

you're absolutely right, how could I forget?

I think the Turkish motive is a little obscure. They had been fighting the Russians in the Krim war in the 1850'ies and the British had been their major friend since then. They even had a British admiral to run their navy. But the public opinion in the UK turned against the Turks because of the way they treated minorities in their country. Then the UK and Russia got a treaty together and the friendship was over. It became worse when France and the UK refused to lend money and the Germans stepped in to help out.When France and the UK also stopped the military cooperation (turkish officers were trained there), Germany also helped out. This drove the Turks into the arms of the Germans. It helped that they had a common enemy, being Russia. However, when the war broke out, the Turks were still neutral. Then the British made one final mistake. They ceased 2 Turkish warships that were being build in the UK without warning or negotiations. Again the Germans stepped in and offered the Turks 2 ships, the Goeben and the Beslau. This finally brought the Turks in the camp of the central powers. These two ships, still fully manned with German crew started to shoot at Russian ports in the Black sea, which caused Russia to declare war on the Turks.

Now the question of their motive. I believe they were afraid that if Russia would win this war, they would be next. After all one of Russia's motives was to get a passage to the Mediterranean. Germany, their only ally, would have been beaten already and no help could be expected from the Western powers, who would probably openly support the Russians. In order to prevent such a situation, they had to side with the Germans in this war in the hope that side would win.