- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Great War | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 6 2014, 12:34 AM (1,397 Views) | |
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 6 2014, 12:34 AM Post #1 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
This year sees the centenary of the Great War, which will lead to a fair bit of discussion. To start off: Who was to blame for the Great War? |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 6 2014, 09:57 AM Post #2 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Austria-Hungary and Germany, with Princip thrown in for good measure. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Jan 6 2014, 10:30 AM Post #3 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 09:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 6 2014, 10:43 AM Post #4 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I suppose the question is whether Austria-Hungary would have acted had it not been for the blank check given by Germany. I could see how ultimate responsibility might be attributed to Germany in that case. That said, it was clear the Austrians had no intention of being reasonable in their demands. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Jan 6 2014, 10:43 AM Post #5 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 09:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jan 6 2014, 03:55 PM Post #6 |
|
An abnormally dividing cell in the throat of Frederick III. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jan 6 2014, 05:19 PM Post #7 |
![]()
The General
|
I will be put in front of a wall and shot for what I am going to say now, but I do not think that A-H is responsible for kicking off the Great War, at least not alone with Germany. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 6 2014, 05:59 PM Post #8 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Well, I do not think anyone here is going to mount a firing squad. ![]() What do you attribute it to? |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jan 6 2014, 06:03 PM Post #9 |
![]()
The General
|
Lucky me. ![]() General attitude of European nations at the time. It's not that Austria-Hungary and Germany were alone in wishing for a war - the levels of distrust among European countries simply grew too large for any negotiations to succeed. Hell, it failed even in WE where there were much stronger attempts to preserve peace. Also, people tend to underestimate the drastic effect the assassination of FF had on Austria-Hungary. It's not just another nobleman dead - it was the death of the Empire, without any exaggeration. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 6 2014, 07:03 PM Post #10 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Germany planned and executed aggressive war, engaged in increasing brinksmanship, built a fleet that could only be perceived as a direct challenge to Britain, pushed for the Sarajevo Crisis to become a full blown European war and invaded neutral countries. Frederick III may have been able to ride the tiger for a while, but not geld it. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jan 6 2014, 07:11 PM Post #11 |
![]()
The General
|
While the brunt of the blame does lay on Germany, and I am not contesting that, I really think every nation could've done more on its part to preserve peace - especially Germany, but also Russia as the other major player in the matter. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 6 2014, 08:05 PM Post #12 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
What about France? |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jan 6 2014, 08:08 PM Post #13 |
![]()
The General
|
France had to act on German mobilisation, for that I can't really blame them. Sure, they could've attempted to moderate things first, but their window of opportunity was very, very small indeed. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 6 2014, 08:25 PM Post #14 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I meant more in the context of French revenge after 1870, which motivated the Germans to seek alliances to isolate it, which led to the Franco-Russian alliance. Of course, that in turn was caused by the Germans annexing Alsace-Lorraine. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 6 2014, 08:32 PM Post #15 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Slightly different topic: Could the Germans have won the war without invading Belgium? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 6 2014, 08:41 PM Post #16 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
No, they could not have won. France was not to blame for the build up or the outbreak of war, but was part of the European system. They did build up their military in an unavoidable reaction. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jan 6 2014, 11:04 PM Post #17 |
|
I think that a problem with the war was that really that nobody could grasp just how terrible it would be. In the years leading up there seemed to be no real desire to prevent the outbreak of a war. Was the destruction of the war inevitable given the large scale mobilisation of the respective nations, or could the conflict have been resolved much quicker? The only I could see that would be somehow a quick knockout of France. If that were to happen, what would be the consequences for the United Kingdom. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 6 2014, 11:42 PM Post #18 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
A quick knockout of France is much easier said than done. If the Russian offensive into East Prussia was carried out effectively, then that changes everything. Furthermore, if the Russian warplan calls for a more defensive stance in Galicia and throws a further two armies against Germany, then a strong force will need to be redirected from the Western Front. The flow-on effects of that would be quite significant. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 7 2014, 08:02 AM Post #19 |
|
War is a consequence of the adolescence of man.
Edited by John, Jan 7 2014, 08:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Jan 8 2014, 12:47 AM Post #20 |
|
Honestly I think the Germans could have won the war without invading Belgium, after all a lot of people forget that the United Kingdom went to war to defend Belgium not France. Also you half to remember that the British contributed the Royal Navy, and the Royal Army went from a army of about 80,000 to a army of about 4 million men, had 600,000 plus kia, and 1.6 Million wounded in action If the United Kingdom is out of the fight then chances are those causalities become French KIA, and wounded in action. Thus the question becomes can France afford to have another two million soldiers killed or wounded in action? If Germany had avoided Belgium and just gone for France then the 1918 Alliance with the United Kingdom would have never happened, and millions of British and Empire troops, and thousands of aircraft would have been absent from the battlefields which would have resulted in France and Russia against Germany, Austria-Hungary, and possibly Italy. With no real need for the U-boat's unrestricted submarine warfare, and supplies continuing to reach Germany without a absolute Allied naval blockade there would have also been no Lusitania which means no US entering the war. Edited by Vonar Roberts, Jan 8 2014, 01:06 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 8 2014, 01:49 AM Post #21 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Britain would have still gone to war without Belgium and a reason would be found; allowing German domination of the Continent was against British interests and policy. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jan 8 2014, 05:26 AM Post #22 |
|
There simply wasn't enough room under the sun for another empire of Britain's rank in Europe. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 8 2014, 01:32 PM Post #23 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25619822 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25635311 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25576645 Three articles on Paris, Berlin, and Vienna on the eve of the Great War. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jan 8 2014, 02:02 PM Post #24 |
|
Belgium was an element, but there was also the guarantees Grey had made to the Fench over Anglo-French cooperation which were important. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jan 8 2014, 02:08 PM Post #25 |
![]()
The General
|
The depiction of the situation in Vienna is... rather wrong and misinformed, if idealised to a degree. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 8 2014, 02:33 PM Post #26 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I found the articles a bit heavy on certain stereotypes and a bit light in other areas. The socialist section of the French one, for instance. |
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Jan 10 2014, 03:54 AM Post #27 |
|
If your talking about the Entente cordiale there's no mention in the Entente cordiale anywhere of Britain coming to Frances aid in the event of the war, or vice versa. It certainly paved the way for closer Anglo-French cooperation, BUT if push came to shove and France were clearly loosing a war with Germany I'm certain the British would have moved to size as much of the former French Empire for themselves as possible, and make certain that the French fleet was inoperable to the Germans rather then get involved themselves in a long and bloody fight if they didn't half to. You've also got to remember the British foreign policy towards alliances and relationships with Europe was often defined as splendid isolation up until the signing of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Entente_Cordiale_Between_The_United_Kingdom_and_France Edited by Vonar Roberts, Jan 10 2014, 03:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 10 2014, 05:11 AM Post #28 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The initial Entente was just the beginning of Anglo-French cooperation and strategic alignment; the latter is what Matt is referring to and he has done a fair bit of work on the issue. It wasn't a question of whether or not Britain would go in, but what would be the excuse. There wouldn't be a dive on the French Empire or Catapult 25 years early. That does nothing for British strategic interests. Splendid isolation was neither splendid nor isolation. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 10 2014, 01:27 PM Post #29 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
It would not make sense for the British to allow one power to grow to the point where it could dominate the continent, or to potentially seize bases along the Pas-de-Calais following a defeat of France that could in turn be used as a staging area against England. That would go against British strategic policy for the last 200-300 years. When I posed the question about Belgium, I didn't intend to ignite a debate over British entry. Rather, I meant to pose a question about a much narrower frontline extending only through A-L and what that would mean for the German campaign in Russia, the Western Front, and the industrial war. Without Belgian resources, the Germans would experience larger shortcomings in shells, equipment, and steel. Whether that would offset the smaller trench lines is open to speculation. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jan 10 2014, 02:47 PM Post #30 |
![]()
The General
|
I think that the smaller trench lines would even furtherly exacerbate the issue of trench warfare, by cramming the same amount of troops on an even smaller space, which is much more fortified from the very beginning. It would be something like the Isonzo. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jan 10 2014, 04:12 PM Post #31 |
|
The Anglo French division of naval responsibilities honour bound Britain to defend France's Channel and Atlantic coasts. There was also unofficial talks between Grey and the French regarding cooperation in case of war with Germany, though not even the entire cabinet, let alone parliament, was aware of these guarantees at the time. Edit: It's also worth noting that the outbreak of war with Germany was after the Anglo-Japanese alliance and the end of Splendid Isolation. Edited by Matthew, Jan 10 2014, 04:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 10 2014, 06:34 PM Post #32 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I'm not sure any of the alliances explicitly specified that another power had to get involved over the Austro-Serbian crisis. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jan 10 2014, 06:52 PM Post #33 |
|
Well, France had to get involved if Germany mobilized vs Russia. I'm not certain how the German-Austrian alliance worked, but at any rate, Germany was keen to be involved, so it would have made little difference. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 10 2014, 11:02 PM Post #34 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
With a shorter front line in Alsace Lorraine, force concentration is going to be immense. The French would eventually grind through to the Saar River, which makes an excellent defensive line for Germany. A deadlock will evolve until such time as one side has the firepower to blow a hole through the other's trench line 10 miles wide and 5 miles deep and exploit it in force, whilst preventing reserves from moving up. It would give France a distinct advantage and deprive Germany of important resources; Germany would be further disadvantage by losing the full potential of Alsace-Lorraine and the Saar, as they would be under fire. France would have enough forces to cover the entire front in depth by itself. Britain would be particularly interested in an Eastern option that could outflank the German strategic position. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jan 11 2014, 03:35 AM Post #35 |
|
Does anybody have an interesting read on the impact of the Spanish Flu towards the of the war? I've found it fascinating that while our societies still carry the scars of the First World War (and rightly so), this pandemic has largely been forgotten in the wake of more visible devastation. Given its outbreak in early 1918, what influence might it have had in the timetable of the outcome? Edited by Lewington, Jan 11 2014, 03:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Feb 22 2014, 06:23 PM Post #36 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26277732 English expressions coined in WW1. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 3 2014, 08:15 PM Post #37 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26368633 On the war anniversary being largely ignored in Germany. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | May 11 2014, 02:21 PM Post #38 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
What was the original reasoning behind the expanded Schlieffen Plan, which included an invasion of the Netherlands? What force would it take to pull off such an operation, and what would be the wider strategic impact? I've come across this in various readings about the plan but never quite understood the rationale. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | May 11 2014, 03:16 PM Post #39 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I'll have to dig out some of my books, but the general intent was to ensure clear lines of supply and that the invasion could not be outflanked. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | May 12 2014, 08:05 PM Post #40 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27142836 A rather curious notion. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | May 12 2014, 10:49 PM Post #41 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It has a great deal of merit to it and some of the imagery is quite striking. It isn't quite on the level of WW1 era Japanese troops in samurai armour, but it largely draws on the facts that would have seemed incredible at the time. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jun 14 2014, 08:26 AM Post #42 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
What would have happened had the German army captured Paris in September 1914? |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jun 14 2014, 03:24 PM Post #43 |
![]()
The General
|
The French would continue fighting, perhaps with an even greater zeal. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jun 14 2014, 04:23 PM Post #44 |
|
Yeah, I think we were well past the point in war history where if you capture my capital, I surrender magnanimously. |
![]() |
|
| Jacapo | Jun 14 2014, 04:59 PM Post #45 |
![]()
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France |
![]() |
|
| Jacapo | Jun 14 2014, 05:02 PM Post #46 |
![]()
|
But really, a German army that isnt stopped in front of Paris has nothing left stopping it because that leaves the rest of the country able to be split up and the British never have a chance to forma cohesive enough battle line with the French to reverse the flow.
Edited by Jacapo, Jun 14 2014, 05:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| John | Jun 14 2014, 07:39 PM Post #47 |
|
The surrender of France had very much less to do with the actual fall of Paris than the fact that it took only 35 days. France surrendered because their armies had been utterly whipped and there was no chance of victory even had they continued fighting. If Paris was located on the Atlantic coast, given the same circumstances, France would have surrendered well before Germany captured it. Entire French armies were surrendering at a time. In a war like the First World War where gains are measured in feet and inches, I guarantee that the fighting would not have ended with the capture of Paris. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jun 14 2014, 07:44 PM Post #48 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
While I generally agree with John, the feet-and-inches part didn't dawn on everybody until well after the immediate threat to Paris was gone. That knowledge, in turn, helped color the defeatism of 1940. It took a number of months to capture Paris in 1871. Might not a speedy victory have had a similar effect as in June 1940? We can only speculate. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jun 14 2014, 09:14 PM Post #49 |
|
If capturing Paris in 1914 means that the French have no realistic chance of continuing to fight on and achieve better results than that of a complete surrender, then yes. That was/is the key: Can France continue to fight after the loss of Paris. In 1914, I think the answer is, 'Yes.'
Edited by John, Jun 14 2014, 09:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jacapo | Jun 14 2014, 09:22 PM Post #50 |
![]()
|
Yes they can continue to fight after 1914 but it will be such a huge morale and strategic loss that they will be either completely occupied or surrendered by the same day a year later. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









2:39 PM Jul 11