PDA

View Full Version : WWI paper



ICantSpellDawg
05-16-2005, 18:39
“Why was the First World War protracted and indecisive? Why did the Allies eventually win?”

5 pages on this using robert grave's book Goodbye To All That

oh yea

the US shouldnt have invaded iraq
abortion is a necessary evil
Christianity was created by the affluent for the subjugation of the weak

(just so this post is allowed to stay in the backroom)

Ser Clegane
05-16-2005, 18:43
(just so this post is allowed to stay in the backroom)

If you think that you will get more information in the Backroom than in the Monastery that's fine with me - I just wonder why you would think so?

Fragony
05-16-2005, 18:45
If you think that you will get more information in the Backroom than in the Monastery that's fine with me - I just wonder why you would think so?

Because of what I am going to say now, USA SUXORZZZZ OMGLOL!!!

ICantSpellDawg
05-16-2005, 19:30
USA SUXORZZZZ OMGLOL!!!

OMG you are so toooootaly right

Kaiser of Arabia
05-16-2005, 20:08
World War One was indecisive mainly due to the following reasons:
1. The strategies used by generals echoed the strategies used in the Napoleonic wars
2. In trench warefare, there is no decisive victory. Almost no assault is sucessful.
3. THE COMMANDERS WERE IDIOTS! I mean, read up on the Somme. Yeah.

And the allies won because:
1. Industrial support by the United States
2. They outnumbered the Austro-German-Turk-Bulgarians.
3. In 1917, both sides were tired. However, a fresh influx of American soldiers with new supplies gave the allies an obvious edge over the tired and battered Germans.

Sir Moody
05-16-2005, 20:13
and dont foget the Financial side as well - While the allies wernt very Rosy the Germans were totally bankrupt and couldnt continue to support the war effort

SwordsMaster
05-16-2005, 20:23
Oh, well, as usual, the americans won the war for us europeans. what your going to do...

Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 20:35
Well, I wouldn't say the US won the war singlehandedly. But Capo has a point. Both alliances had fought themselves to a standstill, and then one side got an infusion of new capital, weapons & manpower. That had to help.

SwordsMaster
05-16-2005, 20:39
Well, I wouldn't say the US won the war singlehandedly. But Capo has a point. Both alliances had fought themselves to a standstill, and then one side got an infusion of new capital, weapons & manpower. That had to help.


With the same success you could blame the allies winning on the Russian revolution or Brusilov's breakthrough. It is never 1 circumstance, and as TW players you should know, its the sum of all circumstances that forced the war to one side or the other.

As I said before, do you REALLY think that without american weapons the allies wouldnt have won eventually? They controlled the seas just as well, only it would have taken them maybe a bit longer.

Brenus
05-16-2005, 20:50
As I said before, do you REALLY think that without american weapons the allies wouldnt have won eventually? They controlled the seas just as well, only it would have taken them maybe a bit longer.[/QUOTE]

Which american weapons? The American troops had to be equiped by the French and the British. The arrival of the American on the Battle Field shows to the Germans an endless futur supply of men and material...

Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 21:07
I actually really don't think the Allies would have prevailed anyways. I'm not saying that out of Patriotism. But the Russians had withdrawn, leaving France & England fighting Germany, Turkey & Austria. I don't think they could have prevailed. It would have gone on a lot longer, and some territory would have been swapped, but there wouldn't have been a clear 'victor'. Based on how well the peace terms of the actual war turned out, perhaps this wouldn't have been such a bad thing.

SwordsMaster
05-16-2005, 22:01
Which american weapons? The American troops had to be equiped by the French and the British. The arrival of the American on the Battle Field shows to the Germans an endless futur supply of men and material...

And what does it matter to a fortified trenchline? Just another few thousand rounds of machine gun ammo and another few thousand km of barbed wire.


About weapons, I just said it to make the point.


actually really don't think the Allies would have prevailed anyways. I'm not saying that out of Patriotism. But the Russians had withdrawn, leaving France & England fighting Germany, Turkey & Austria. I don't think they could have prevailed. It would have gone on a lot longer, and some territory would have been swapped, but there wouldn't have been a clear 'victor'. Based on how well the peace terms of the actual war turned out, perhaps this wouldn't have been such a bad thing.

Well, I think they would have. Both France and England had access to almost unlimited resources in the form of huge empires with nearly infinite manpower should they need it. Yeah, of course it would have taken a bit longer to train divisions in India or Vietnam and then ship them to Europe, but they would have done it if they were forced to.

The decomposition of the Russian army allowed the germans to march deep into russian territory thus stretching their supply lines and drawing more and more men to keep those supply lines viable. Even after peace was signed, the germans had a fair bit of new territotries to pacify, control, and exploit and that drew a good bit of resources too.

Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 22:11
Okay, well, you learn something new every day. America played an extraneous role in WWI and has no business talking about playing a role in it. I'm sure that'll make you feel better, now let's move on to other topics.

ShadesPanther
05-16-2005, 23:33
It's more that America gave the huge potential for the Germans to be crushed, they knew it so they decided to get out of the war before that and get favourable terms.

Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 23:46
Oh no, no, no Shades. Just ask Swords... the French and the Brittish already had the Germans ready to surrender. We just showed up, marched around in a few parades and took credit for essentially doing nothing.

ICantSpellDawg
05-16-2005, 23:46
With the same success you could blame the allies winning on the Russian revolution or Brusilov's breakthrough. It is never 1 circumstance, and as TW players you should know, its the sum of all circumstances that forced the war to one side or the other.

As I said before, do you REALLY think that without american weapons the allies wouldnt have won eventually? They controlled the seas just as well, only it would have taken them maybe a bit longer.


who knows, if the americans showed no sign of entering the war, maybe the later offensives of the germans wouldnt have happened as they wouldnt have seen themselves as running out of time (thus taking mind boggling chances)

the mistakes wouldnt have been as disasterous for them

and maybe the french army would have collapsed first

it is all speculative

the american arrival into the war most deffinately tipped the scale andwon the war



if someone throws a basketball from across the court when the score is 15-17 with 2 seconds left on the clock and wins the game by a point, they most definitely won the game

but they wouldnt have instantly won if the game wasnt so close already

LittleGrizzly
05-17-2005, 01:03
Oh no, no, no Shades. Just ask Swords... the French and the Brittish already had the Germans ready to surrender. We just showed up, marched around in a few parades and took credit for essentially doing nothing.

he didn't say you did nothing, infact he said you quickened victory, i happen to agree...

PanzerJaeger
05-17-2005, 01:03
As I said before, do you REALLY think that without american weapons the allies wouldnt have won eventually? They controlled the seas just as well, only it would have taken them maybe a bit longer.

I recently read an essay that basically said the Germans were planning on utilizing the vast farming regions they won from russia and the food shortages that were the main factor in German surrender would be alleviated.

I think the US made a huge impact on the outcome of WW1 - not so much the fighting, but the outcome.

Of course WW1 really isnt my forte, so who knows? :shrug:

SwordsMaster
05-17-2005, 10:09
Oh no, no, no Shades. Just ask Swords... the French and the Brittish already had the Germans ready to surrender. We just showed up, marched around in a few parades and took credit for essentially doing nothing.

Oh, sorry for having an opinion. I meant yeah, of course, the US saved the world again as they always do. Where would the world be without the US hand to guide us through the darkness, and I wonder how did the world survive without the US for thousands of years.

How will we ever pay you back for all the times you protected us, stupid and lowly non US peoples?


he didn't say you did nothing, infact he said you quickened victory, i happen to agree...

Exactly. Thanks.


I recently read an essay that basically said the Germans were planning on utilizing the vast farming regions they won from russia and the food shortages that were the main factor in German surrender would be alleviated.

Well, yes, but that wouldnt be possible immediately. It would have been years before the germans could establish a food supply to the front in France from the devastated russian lands. Im not saying the plans were not there, just that it wouldnt be a short term goal.

Besides, the main german problem, as in WWII was oil. They had no oil supply for tanks, planes and trucks, and thus were forced into a defensive war. The russian territories didnt have oil either.

English assassin
05-17-2005, 10:28
looking for the middle ground, once the USA was in the war germany was bound to lose (see if you can find anything on the offensives planned for 1919) but if you can find the statistics for the numbers of American troops actually in the line and fighting by the time the Germans were in retreat in 1918 its pretty modest compared to the French and the British (empire). But that wasn't the guy's question.

The reason the war went on so long was IMHO essentially technological. At that period defensive technology was simply in the ascendency. If you can get you hands on John Keegan's book "the face of battle", reading his account of the Somme will tell you all you need to know. Specifically, read his account of the British artillery fire programme (redleg this would interest you I imagine) which shows how even the largest barrage ever fired was wholly inadequate to neutralise well constructed trench lines. he is also good on machine guns and "industrial war" generally.

Add to this the fact that the railway network enabled the defender to concentrate troops behind a sector that was going to be attacked in hours (and the artillery fire needed to cut the wire, never mind try to destroy the bunkers, meant the defender had days of warning, not hours), whereas the attacker would have to move his second phase troops to exploit any bridgehead accross miles of shell-ploughed land, usually under artillery fire.

As for why the allies won, the effect of four years of blockade on germany was pretty severe IIRC. but essentially I think they simply had more men.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 16:18
Anyone who claims the allies would have won either WW1 or WW2 without US aid is is just in denial. Weve been over this a thousand times. No the US didnt win either war alone nor did it provide the majority of soldiers in either war. It was however the determining factor in both of these wars for the allies winning,.


but if you can find the statistics for the numbers of American troops actually in the line and fighting by the time the Germans were in retreat in 1918 its pretty modest compared to the French and the British (empire). But that wasn't the guy's question.

Ive posted these before but cant find them now. They in fact say just the opposite of what you do. It shows that the Germans had nore guns per mile than the allies until the US troops came online at which point the allies gained a huge advantage and that US troops held 25% of the line. Most likely the British would have starved before the Germans due to U boats if not for US help in that area of the war.

The Stranger
05-17-2005, 16:33
World War One was indecisive mainly due to the following reasons:
1. The strategies used by generals echoed the strategies used in the Napoleonic wars
2. In trench warefare, there is no decisive victory. Almost no assault is sucessful.
3. THE COMMANDERS WERE IDIOTS! I mean, read up on the Somme. Yeah.

And the allies won because:
1. Industrial support by the United States
2. They outnumbered the Austro-German-Turk-Bulgarians.
3. In 1917, both sides were tired. However, a fresh influx of American soldiers with new supplies gave the allies an obvious edge over the tired and battered Germans.
yup that's right. the germans were actually winning till the americans came in. and the generals were idiots indeed, best example is the somme

The Stranger
05-17-2005, 16:40
till 1917 it 0-0 with the germans winning. when russia withdrawed, the soldiers on the eastern front could go to the west. the german weapons were far more advanced so without the weapons of the americans the allies were already in a disadvantage. so if the americans didn't helped at all the germans would have crushed the allies. but because the advantage of no eastern front and better weapons couldn't be exp[loited cuz the americans came in with fresh and mobilized troops. while the german troops were tired. also the blockade helped the germans loosing the war. the citizens were starving and eventually turned against their kaiser. there was no destroyed house in germany cuz the war never got that far.

ShadesPanther
05-17-2005, 16:51
http://home.versatel.nl/rene.brouwer/
stats on men mobilised and casulties

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWcosts.htm
Shows Costs in Dollars

http://users.tibus.com/the-great-war/figures.htm
Shows British Army (interesting that cavalry numbers increased in 1918 compared to 1914)


http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us32.cfm

scroll down to bottom of page for stats

English assassin
05-17-2005, 17:05
Ive posted these before but cant find them now. They in fact say just the opposite of what you do. It shows that the Germans had nore guns per mile than the allies until the US troops came online at which point the allies gained a huge advantage and that US troops held 25% of the line. Most likely the British would have starved before the Germans due to U boats if not for US help in that area of the war

I'll see if I can turn anything up on the troop numbers off line tonight at home. A brief trawl of the web showed that the Americans were holding six miles in total of the line at the time of the last serious German offensive in March 1918, (and not the six miles that were attacked either) with all the American other troops in France still in training, but it was an Australian regimental website and whilst I've no reason to suppose it is inaccurate I'd like to find something a bit less obscure.

The U Boat war was won by introducing convoys and rationing in 1917, not by the USN.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 17:23
The U Boat war was won by introducing convoys and rationing in 1917, not by the USN.


At the time the United States entered the war the enormous toll of shipping gathered by the U-boat in the East Atlantic and the boast of von Hindenburg that the submarine blockade of England would starve her out and win the war, indicate the seriousness of the naval situation in those waters at that time.

Inasmuch as the principal field of British naval activities was the North Sea and English Channel, the task of breaking the U-boat blockade in the Atlantic naturally became the immediate mission of the United States Navy. The prompt dispatching of destroyers, yachts, and all other available craft of a type useful against the submarine to the East Atlantic, and the splendid work these vessels and others later sent to augment their strength have done in cleaning up these waters of U-boat devastation is a matter of record, the importance of which in winning the war is conceded from all quarters. This was the first step in preparation for sending the United States Army overseas.

LINK (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usnavy_gill.htm)



I'll see if I can turn anything up on the troop numbers off line tonight at home. A brief trawl of the web showed that the Americans were holding six miles in total of the line at the time of the last serious German offensive in March 1918, (and not the six miles that were attacked either) with all the American other troops in France still in training, but it was an Australian regimental website and whilst I've no reason to suppose it is inaccurate I'd like to find something a bit less obscure.


Well I found mine on a WW! website but I cnat remember how. It was about how in 1916 the russians were out of the war and the germans were sending the armies from the east west. The Germans were making their largest advances since the start of the war. The French had routed and the British were exahusted. Only the US forces stopped the Germans and allowed the French to rally. It went on to give statistics on the effect of the AEF on the final battles of WW1.

English assassin
05-17-2005, 18:06
well I never thought I would say it but I think that's maybe unfair on the French. As best i can make out for now French and Empire troops defeated the last offensives, although its true American forces then came into the line in increasing numbers in the counterattacks.

I've done a bit better now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/world_war_i/206154.stm
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/overview_1918.html
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/cont_american_2.html

This seems to me to be glory enough for the US surely:


The United States' entry into the war made ultimate Allied victory certain. America's contribution to the Allies' success was not the direct result of anything it did on the battlefield, but lay in its vast potential. Following the failure of the 'Michael Offensive', which drained the already depleted German resources, the prospect of endless supplies of American men, money and munitions flooding into Europe completely obliterated all hopes of a German victory


The U-boat successes increased steadily in March (560,000 tons) and in April 1917, when the USA finally declared war on Germany, reached its peak with 860,000 tons. In May, however, the numbers of the sunk tonnage dropped to 616,000 tons, because the British Admiralty was finally able to convince itself to introduce the only really working counter measure against the U-boat threat: the convoy system. Of the 16,693 merchant vessels being escorted from May 1917 to November 1918 in one of the 1,134 convoys, 99% safely reached their destination. Although sinkings in June increased again to 696,000 tons, the drooping numbers of July (555,000 tons) were already foreshadowing the final outcome. It was the convoy system, which finally rendered the unrestricted campaign as unsuccessful and led to the defeat of Germany.

Article: http://uboat.net/history/wwi/part5.htm

Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 18:09
It was the convoy system, which finally rendered the unrestricted campaign as unsuccessful and led to the defeat of Germany.

Guess who escorted most of the convoys after 1917? Ill give you a hint it wasnt Britain.

English assassin
05-17-2005, 18:16
Well, you are just messing with me now, ~:) you KNOW its not going to be easy to find statistics showing who escorted what ships.

Anyway I am not trying to say the USN did nothing I am taking issue with the claim that Britain would most likely have starved but for American action in the U boat war.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 18:19
Anyway I am not trying to say the USN did nothing I am taking issue with the claim that Britain would most likely have starved but for American action in the U boat war.


Maybe not in WW1 but most likely in WW2

Nelson
05-17-2005, 18:28
On a somewhat related note, WWI set the stage for the US to send the influenza virus to Europe. You know, the big 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak. The greatest pandemic in history. I think it started at an army depot in Kansas. The plague may have gotten across the Atlantic later anyway but sending a million doughboys over helped it a lot.

Brenus
05-17-2005, 21:26
Emperor Emeu 1: The Germans were winning on the Somme, on the Marne, in Verdun. They took Paris and cut the French from the British, obliging the British to embark and the King of England to seek an armistice with the Kaiser. And the French capitulated in Amiens… Right… You should read other books…
The only German success was the initial offensive in 1914, stopped during the First Battle of The Marne 5th to 11th September 1914, preventing the German of a swift and decisive victory. On the 21st of February 1916, the Crown Prince launched an offensive with 1,000,000 troops against 200 000 French. The French hold firm and after a long and bloody battle Douaumont and the Fort de Vaux were recaptured in November and the Germans gave-up. And after they just went from defeat to defeat for every offensive they launched, even after initial successes.
The US arrived in the 27 of June1917, the French and the British had defeated the German during 4 years before the first US soldier was ready to fight…
The first battle where the US troops were engaged was the 2nd Battle of the Marne, 15th of July 1918. The 1st full deployment of the US army happened (300,000 Americans and 110,000 French) at St Mihiel, the 12th of September 1918.

Gawain of Orkeny: The French were routed? Where? When?

SwordsMaster, yes, it matters. When the Germans attacked, their initial successes were because they had more machine guns and heavy artillery than the French and the British… The breakthrough come when the Allies, having gaining time with blood, built an equivalent arsenal, plus tanks, and used them properly. The well prepared Hindenburg Line didn’t held and Germany asked for an armistice.

Don Corleone, the Russian defeat didn’t really improve the German situation, because they were obliged to keep most of their divisions as occupation forces in Poland, Ukraine and Bella Russia. When they finally bring their divisions on the Western Front they started the Ludendorff Offensive (15th of July 1918), and failed…

TuffStuffMcGruff, the Germans had to attack, US or not. The economy was collapsing because the blockade imposed by the Royal Navy. The German fleet never went to sea… And why the French Army, better equipped, better trained and having better moral would had collapsed in 1918 when it didn’t in 1914 or 1915?

And yes, the US involvement definitively tipped the scale.

SwordsMaster
05-17-2005, 21:28
From the links provided:

US only sustained 8% of its mobilized troops as casualties. Which means they didnt have a really active participation in the war when compared to the 40%+ of other countries. Therefore it wasnt american warpower what won the war.

As of escorting convoys. Of course the US had commercial interests. And it was in their interest to sell supplies to the Allies and I would suspect that also to the Central empires before entering the war. I do not have proof, but this is what usually happens. Spain did that in WWII...

Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 21:48
Gawain of Orkeny: The French were routed? Where? When?


27 May-4 June
The Aisne Offensive by the Germans was the third major effort to win before the Americans became too great an influence. The German First and Seventh Armies struck the French Sixth Army in the Chemin des Dames where the French trenches were lightly held and not strongly prepared. The Germans, in three days fighting reached the Marne River, the first time since 1914.

28 May
The US 1st Division launched the first successful American offensive action of the war in the Battle of Cantigny, against the 18th Army (Hutier) with substantial success; a purely tactical victory, but a boost to Allied morale.

30 May-17 June
Battles of Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood in which the US 2nd and 3rd Divisions reached the French Sixth Army on the Marne, and checked the German drive, which Ludendorff terminated on 4 June. Allied counterattacks continued until 17 June.

If the US wasnt coming into the war they wouldnt even have been in a rush now would they?

I still cant find the original article I posted a year ago. To bad because it totally shoots down your whole position.

Brenus
05-17-2005, 23:39
I don’t think you proved your case: It is the 2nd Battle of the Marne the Germans launched an offensive on a point of the Front, had initial success, took 15 km (not enough, I afraid) and failed to breakthrough. We are far from a routed army.
The counter offensive was made with 85,000 Americans. The French was so much routed that they were able to deployed 24 divisions to regain the lost territory and by the 3rd of August the Germans were back from where they started (3rd battle of the Marne).

Papewaio
05-18-2005, 00:54
This makes interesting reading:

"Diggers" and "Doughboys": Australian and American troop interaction on the Western Front, 1918 (http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j35/blair.htm)

----

Monash wanted to move away from what he considered to be outdated British tactics, believing that:



the true role of infantry was not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.


----

General Sir John Monash (http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/Generals/monash.html)


The best known and most revered Australian general of the Great War, John Monash was born in Melbourne, the eldest child and only son of Louis and Bertha Monash, immigrants of Prussian-Jewish origin.


On 31 May 1918, Monash assumed command of the Australian Corps and was promoted to lieutenant general. His appointment was recommended by Haig, and supported by the Australian government, against the opposition of correspondents Bean and Murdoch in "perhaps the most outstanding case of sheer irresponsibility by pressmen in Australian history". With a strength of 166,000 men, the Australian Corps was the largest of the 20 corps in the BEF, and the largest field force in Australian history. As Monash noted, it was larger than the either Wellington's or Napoleon's armies at Waterloo.


The role of the Australian Corps in 1918 was indeed a remarkable one. Comprising only 9.5% of the BEF, it captured 18.5% of the German prisoners, 21.5% of the territory and 14% of the guns captured. This represented an effectiveness 1.95, 2.23 and 1.47 times that of the British Army average. These victories came at a cost, but this was still considerably less than that of the Somme fighting of 1916, or the Passchendaele fighting of 1917 or even the fighting at Bullecourt and Messines in mid 1917, and the results were immensely greater. The casualties were more or less matched by the 25,000 German prisoners taken; that many more Germans were killed or wounded is certain but their numbers are not known. Some 623 square kilometres of France was recaptured from the enemy

The Stranger
05-18-2005, 03:34
If the US wasnt coming into the war they wouldnt even have been in a rush now would they?

I still cant find the original article I posted a year ago. To bad because it totally shoots down your whole position.

yup i agree with GoO here, cuz i a trenchwar the attacker almost always becomes the loser due casualties even if he breaktrhough a couple of kilometres. if they didn't had to attack, they could have waited to a better point. but ofcourse the royal navy was doing a great job. if the Americans didn't came the war woud have laste a lot longer. without american money and weapons, germany could have won the war sooner.

i did heared of a part of the french army routing and rebelling agianst there generals, but i thought i didn't took long before they were dead or on the front

LittleGrizzly
05-18-2005, 03:44
i did heared of a part of the french army routing and rebelling agianst there generals, but i thought i didn't took long before they were dead or on the front

they were sick of thier generals stupidity but agreed in the end they wouldn't attack but they would defend.

The Stranger
05-18-2005, 16:01
yeah it was sumthing like that. but still it took some time before they were ready to fight once more

Brenus
05-19-2005, 21:09
Bearing in mind that 17% of the mobilised were killed on the French side (900 men per day), 15% of the Germans (1,300 men per day) someone could be surprised they waited so long to revolt against the fact to be sent to butchery. On top of that you have to add the injured, 3,500,000.

The “rebels” didn’t refuse to fight, their refused to be killed for few square meters of land (20,000 killed in one day during the Marne).
The mutinies affected 30 to 40,000 men on 2,700,000 mobilised men and never on the front line itself (no desertion).
The soldiers asked for permission to go back to see their families (after 3 years on the front…), a minimum of comfort in the resting area, a better food. They didn’t accept a war of endless heroism. They accepted to stay and defend the trenches. It wasn’t a refusal to fight but a refusal how to do it
The repression was swift by (relatively) soft: 3,724 penalties (554 to death, 55 executed) and the generals stopped their senseless offensives. “War is too serious a matter to be left to the generals.” G. Clemenceau, PM of France latter nicknamed “the Father of the Victory”.

The question is: why did they wait so long?

So, no routing French, sorry to disappoint you…

I would like to add one sentence for a captain named Conan (yeah yeah, I know). He was in the French equivalent of the Sturmtroopers in the Oriental front: There are two sorts of people in a war: Those who do it and those who win it (loose translation).

The Stranger
05-20-2005, 15:44
aight

KafirChobee
05-20-2005, 19:44
A number of books come to mind, in both explaining how WWI occurred, the initial gains of Germany, and the final outcome.

"The Longest Fuse", which traces the origins of the conflict from the late 19th century (Bosnia, Serbia - the "Porkbelly War"), and explains the hows and whys of the alliances that formed.

"The Guns of August", which explains the order of battle for the armies, their complexities (especially Imperial Russia's) and why Germany failed to take out France, but slowed the Russians (who really slowed themselves by the simple volume of troops and the complexity of its command).

A Professor (History of WWI) of mine philosophized that the reason neither side was able to take advantage of their "victories", was a simple matter that once they punched a hole in the oppossitions lines - they were inaffect surrounded on 3 sides. That is, they still had an army to their front, but also had them to their sides as well. It made for a good turket shoot. Ergo, to move forward meant risking complete encompassment by the foe, and holding the gains was tantamount to turning their troops into "fish-in-a-barrell (which didn't seem to truely concern either sides commanders - losses were to be expected, and the increadible numbers of casualties simply a sign of the day. Acceptable.)

The US Army's entry had margin affect on the outcome. It was already determined, but it did force Germany and its allies to the conclusion that they had lost the war of attrition and production (manufacturing). It was simply senseless to go on.

The real shame (or sham) of that war is that neither side could conceed their ineptness, or the follies that had brought them into it - before annihilating a generation of Euro-men. Both sides seemed intent to use their armys' as diplomatic tools, rather than confess to the follies that brought them there. Pride won the day, and was paid in millions of lives during that war and the one that followed it.

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 04:21
Man, after reading this thread and by numerous other members that post here makes me realise we fought on the wrong side!!! ~D

LittleGrizzly
05-21-2005, 04:26
really think you could beat us without the french ~;)

KafirChobee
05-24-2005, 06:26
"and when they ask why we died, tell them that our fathers lied."

How much more eloquent can one explain WWI? And, that from the man that wrote "Charge of the Light Brigade" - afte his boy died.

There never was or will be a reason for an intelligent person to die in war - unless, they accept the dogmas of their nation's political leaders. The proposal that they are doing it for you (and you must do for your nation) and not their for political supporters (the ones' that paid for their possition of power - even Hitler owed favors, and so do others today). After all, "if one does not have an enemy - then one must be created. Least the people know the truth "(Lenin).
:balloon2:

Papewaio
05-24-2005, 06:34
"and when they ask why we died, tell them that our fathers lied."

How much more eloquent can one explain WWI? And, that from the man that wrote "Charge of the Light Brigade" - afte his boy died.

There never was or will be a reason for an intelligent person to die in war - unless, they accept the dogmas of their nation's political leaders. The proposal that they are doing it for you (and you must do for your nation) and not their for political supporters (the ones' that paid for their possition of power - even Hitler owed favors, and so do others today). After all, "if one does not have an enemy - then one must be created. Least the people know the truth "(Lenin).
:balloon2:

So by extenstion downwards if someone breaks into your house and kills your family you should stand back because it would be unintelligent thing to defend your family...

The Stranger
05-24-2005, 16:48
no, but what if it was a magical criminal, and he had a unbreakable powershield around him. ~D