More 20th Century History

Wilber · March 13, 2011

Have to check this out. So far The Guns of August is the best thing I have read about the lead up to and beginning of WW1.

August1991 · March 15, 2011

That's why I have always felt that WW1 was just the beginning of a much larger conflict culminating with WW2...
The inconclusive nature of the end of WW1,coupled with the punishment(not peace) Treaty of Versailles,and everything that flowed out of that,lead to WW2....

It's hard not to see the period from 1789-1815 as somehow similar to 1914-1945. In both cases, Europe went through a Time of Troubles in which many innocent people died and its political elite emerged in a radically different state. In both cases, Europeans showed their violent nature and a tyrant tried to dominate all of Europe.

Me thinks China and The Philippines would not agree with that.

And?

I've always looked at WW1 as the beginning of a much larger conflict in Europe.It's really a culmination of hostilities going back at least 60 years previous.It was the last truly "Imperial War" as England,Russia,and,Germany were still ruled by Kings and royal families...

If the question is the conflict of WWI itself, I didn't begin to grasp it properly until I spent some time walking and driving around the battlefields of Ypres salient and in particular the remnants of the craters caused by mines exploded in June 1917. Edited March 15, 2011 by August1991

DogOnPorch · March 15, 2011

And?

Both BC-2004 and myself are saying that the War in the Pacific isn't really connected to WW1 like the European theater was.

If the question is the conflict of WWI itself, I didn't begin to grasp it properly until I spent some time walking and driving around the battlefields of Ypres salient and in particular the remnants of the craters caused by mines exploded in June 1917.

Indeed! In the book They Called It Passchendaele, the construction and detonation of these mines are explored in detail. Some never went off...some exploded well after the war was over.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

Confusion among the Cental Powers...

Part 1

Part 2

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

Part 3

Part 4

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

It's hard not to see the period from 1789-1815 as somehow similar to 1914-1945. In both cases, Europe went through a Time of Troubles in which many innocent people died and its political elite emerged in a radically different state. In both cases, Europeans showed their violent nature and a tyrant tried to dominate all of Europe.

It's possible that what happened in France during that time had an indirect effect on the motivations for the First World War.I say this because it is the French arrogance and insecurity that led to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-'71.They paid for their insolence by having German troops camped out on the Champs-Elysees.

However,beyond that,there is a case to be made that Europe has been in basic tribal conflict up until the end of WW 2,and in areas like the Balkans,probably forever...

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

I've been downloading this for almost a month.It's an old,but very in depth dissertation of the 1st World War.

I've always looked at WW1 as the beginning of a much larger conflict in Europe.It's really a culmination of hostilities going back at least 60 years previous.It was the last truly "Imperial War" as England,Russia,and,Germany were still ruled by Kings and royal families...

My problem with this description is that it wasn't the first Imperial War, and, in fact, it wasn't even the first world-wide war. Both of those descriptions have to go the Seven Years War. In North America, at least, it doesn't seem to take up too much time in the history books, though the French and Indian War, which was simply one theater of operation, is talked about in some detail.

WWI is special because it was the first wide-scale mechanized war, though it had its clear antecedents in the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War and the Boer War, those these were limited actions. Essentially, WWI was the Seven Years War re-fought with tanks, gatling guns and airplanes.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

My problem with this description is that it wasn't the first Imperial War, and, in fact, it wasn't even the first world-wide war. Both of those descriptions have to go the Seven Years War. In North America, at least, it doesn't seem to take up too much time in the history books, though the French and Indian War, which was simply one theater of operation, is talked about in some detail.

WWI is special because it was the first wide-scale mechanized war, though it had its clear antecedents in the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War and the Boer War, those these were limited actions. Essentially, WWI was the Seven Years War re-fought with tanks, gatling guns and airplanes.

Can't disagree with most of that...

I would say that it was the last Imperial War,not the first....

And I would say,as it related to the Western Front,the Schlieffen Plan,and,the Alsace-Lorraine region..It had mostly to do with the French humilaition at the hands of the Bismarck led pre-unified Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.The French dominated Treaty of Versailles pretty much lays that open for everyone to see...

I also agree on how the mechanization relates to the US Civil War.The reason the casualty rate was so high at places like Gettysburg,Fredricksburg,Antietam,Shiloh,Chickamauga etc. was because the technology and weaponry had outstripped the tactics used in the field.In fact,as it relates to trench warfare in WW1,Petersburg,Virgina was a dry run for what happened in WW1 (as mentioned by Shelby Foote in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary).The same can be said for the battles at Verdun,1st,2nd,and,3rd Ypres,The Somme

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

Can't disagree with most of that...

I would say that it was the last Imperial War,not the first....

And I would say,as it related to the Western Front,the Schlieffen Plan,and,the Alsace-Lorraine region..It had mostly to do with the French humilaition at the hands of the Bismarck led pre-unified Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.The French dominated Treaty of Versailles pretty much lays that open for everyone to see...

As Churchill stated in his history of WWII, no one in 1919 was going to deprive France of its revenge, even if Versailles became ludicrously onerous. The blood of an entire generation lay on the fields of France and Belgium, and a helluva lot of it was French blood.

There's no doubt that there is a line to be drawn between the Franco-Prussian War and WWI, but it is but one of the threads. I'm a firm believer that WWI was inevitable, one way or the other, that the diplomatic situation and the overlapping nature of the colonial expansions, and just basically the whole architecture of the Great Powers made it impossible to avoid. It didn't help having an overemotional buffoon like Wilhelm II, whose prejudices against just about everyone made war almost inevitable. Some historians even think his hatred and jealousy of his uncle Edward VI (who made little secret himself of his contempt for his nephew) played into the the Kaiser's massive inferiority complex.

I also agree on how the mechanization relates to the US Civil War.The reason the casualty rate was so high at places like Gettysburg,Fredricksburg,Antietam,Shiloh,Chickamauga etc. was because the technology and weaponry had outstripped the tactics used in the field.In fact,as it relates to trench warfare in WW1,Petersburg,Virgina was a dry run for what happened in WW1 (as mentioned by Shelby Foote in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary).The same can be said for the battles at Verdun,1st,2nd,and,3rd Ypres,The Somme

Absolutely. By the time of WWI, the General Staffs of the Great Powers were finally populated completely by men who had grown up in the new military reality. That being said, the first years of WWI demonstrated that the sort of static thinking that had dominated military planning for so long was still very much there.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

As Churchill stated in his history of WWII, no one in 1919 was going to deprive France of its revenge, even if Versailles became ludicrously onerous. The blood of an entire generation lay on the fields of France and Belgium, and a helluva lot of it was French blood.

There's no doubt that there is a line to be drawn between the Franco-Prussian War and WWI, but it is but one of the threads. I'm a firm believer that WWI was inevitable, one way or the other, that the diplomatic situation and the overlapping nature of the colonial expansions, and just basically the whole architecture of the Great Powers made it impossible to avoid. It didn't help having an overemotional buffoon like Wilhelm II, whose prejudices against just about everyone made war almost inevitable. Some historians even think his hatred and jealousy of his uncle Edward VI (who made little secret himself of his contempt for his nephew) played into the the Kaiser's massive inferiority complex.

Agreed...There is'nt a "One" thing that started the First World War.I also agree that it was probably ineveitable.We have an inferiortiy complex of Britain afraid it might lose it's marine superiority to the Germans.We have the French,jealous and insecure over the defeat at the hands of Germany in 1871 AND the inevitablity that it was being replaced as the economic power in Europe at the hands of a people it has always felt were inferior!We have a horrendous cascading effect of treaty's that tied superpowers of the day to small countries that would lamost guarantee a gigantic war.

Now,as it relates to Kaiser Wilhelm...It's no secret that the Hapsburg's/Hohenzollern's/Sachs-Coburg Goethe's are all inbred.It's also no secret that King George,the Kaiser,and,Czar Nicholas were all related.It's also no secret that at least two of them were'nt the sharpest knives in the drawer....It's also no secret that Bismarck thought Wilhelm II was easily distracted by people who appealed to his simplistic sense of Germanic Nationalism and that that would lead to huge problems for Germany.

However...I think he gets a bit of a bad rap,historically speaking...There is a fair amount of evidence that after the Gavarilo Princep did what he did in Sarajevo,the Kaiser tried to did alot of behind the scene things to try to avert a war because he knew what the score was,as it related to treaty's with the Austro-Hungarian Empire.Now,it night have had less to do with avoiding war than being ties to the dying A-H empire,but there is evidence out there that shows he did try to smooth things over in Vienna behind the scenes...

Edited March 23, 2011 by Jack Weber

DogOnPorch · March 25, 2011

The weapon that made WW1 different from those other wars, previous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdU2erseKSc

The LMG, too, made its first appearance. The British Lewis gun and the French Chauchat vastly increased a regiment's firepower. The Germans didn't really get into LMGs during the Great War. I suppose it was from playing the defensive rather than offensive strategy.

Jack Weber · March 25, 2011

The Schlieffen Plan...

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0kvczF1p04

Part 2

Jack Weber · March 25, 2011

Part 3

Part 4

Jack Weber · March 25, 2011

The weapon that made WW1 different from those other wars, previous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdU2erseKSc

The LMG, too, made its first appearance. The British Lewis gun and the French Chauchat vastly increased a regiment's firepower. The Germans didn't really get into LMGs during the Great War. I suppose it was from playing the defensive rather than offensive strategy.

I thought the standard French gun was the Hotchkiss??

DogOnPorch · March 25, 2011

Then there was the French Plan 17 which basically called for head-on attacks even at poor odds. Nearly a million French casualties during the Summer of 1914. Many wearing bright blue and red uniforms.

DogOnPorch · March 25, 2011

I thought the standard French gun was the Hotchkiss??

HMG, yes...the Chauchat is a LMG. Not very reliable...but there were lots of them like the Lewis.

Edited March 25, 2011 by DogOnPorch

Jack Weber · March 25, 2011

Then there was the French Plan 17 which basically called for head-on attacks even at poor odds. Nearly a million French casualties during the Summer of 1914. Many wearing bright blue and red uniforms.

The failing of Plan 17 was that it was never designed to actually attack Greater Germany.It was simply designed to regain the Alsace-Lorraine region taken in the Franco-Prussian War.The Schlieffen Plan was designed to simply smash France out of extistence...

DogOnPorch · March 25, 2011

The failing of Plan 17 was that it was never designed to actually attack Greater Germany.It was simply designed to regain the Alsace-Lorraine region taken in the Franco-Prussian War.The Schlieffen Plan was designed to simply smash France out of extistence...

The Schlieffen Plan was at least an attempt at a huge flanking maneuver. Plan 17 was akin to Stalin's 'No Retreat' in terms of creativity.

Step #1. Fix bayonets.

Step #2. CHARGE!!!!

Step #3. See step #2.

DogOnPorch · March 25, 2011

Then there was this invention. Combined with the first invention (the machine gun), it changed warfare forever. Here's Britain's first dedicated fighter aircraft from late 1915, the Airco DH.2. It carried a single fixed forward firing Lewis gun in the nose. Each drum carried only 47 .303 rounds. Lots of reloading needed. The pusher design was needed in 1915 as the Allies had yet to develop synchronizer/interrupter gear...unlike the Germans with their Fokker Eindecker. By late spring 1916, it and a few other aircraft like the Nieuport 11 put an end to the 'Fokker Scourge'.