The First World War

[Beirut]

I'm writing a (very) short "vanity press" book about WWI for my family's consumption. My grandfather was in France in WWI with the American Army and I have his documents from the war, including his daily journal. (Priceless!) The idea is to share and preserve those documents in book form with enough of my own text to explain the war, how it began, and how the US was brought into it. I think there is merit in preserving family history and having that same family pass on their thoughts on the matter. (God, I must be getting old.)

I'm going to keep it to about ten to fifteen-thousand words on my part. I don't want to bore anyone, but I do want it have substance. I'm still messing with the first two-thousand words right now. edit... edit... crap... edit... I think it will cost me about $400 - $500 for the books to be printed. I have a large family and I'd like about fifteen or twenty books.

I've spent a lot of time over the winter reading and studying the war in preparation for this humble effort (Amazon loves me) and would be very interested in hearing from anyone who has studied the war, read any books on the subject, or merely has an interest.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sounds like a nice project Beirut. I too have traceable relatives that served in both World Wars. :2thumbsup:

I would say the first conclusion one comes to upon researching the war in any detail is that it was far less static than it is represented to be in popular culture, especially in the East but also in the West.

One thing that I'd like to know more about would be the state of the Austrian military during this period, and their battles versus the Russians and Italians. I think Capo used to know a lot about them, where ever he's gone...

[Beirut]

Panzer,

Have you read Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger? I think you wouldn enjoy it. Excellent book. Very... earthy.

http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Steel-Penguin-Classics-J%C3%BCnger/dp/0142437905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239908800&sr=1-1#

[InsaneApache]

I think the Austrians wern't really up to a protracted war PJ. In fact didn't they try and sue for peace early in 1918? IMO that they were only slightly better allies for the Germans than the Turks.

I had both Grandads and my dads second wifes dad in the Great War. They didn't say much to me about it when I was a kid but my step-Grandad was training to become a priest when war broke out and as such was a consciencious objector. So they put him in the Royal Army Medical Corps. They had a terrible time of it. When he was evetually de-mobbed, he returned home a devout athiest. He simply couldn't believe that any God would allow such carnage and loss of life. Oh, and he used to cheat at cribbage as well. :beam:

[Ethelred Unread]

There's a tendency, in the UK at least to regard ww1 as a futile, terrible war that was fought by poorly qualified generals and a living hell for all troops involved. It's almost a folk memory really.

I've been reading a lot of revisionist texts on ww1 recently that debunk some of these myths, so I'd try to avoid these cliches in your work if you're going to talk about the rest of the allies' war prior to 1917.

Out of interest have you got an idea about chapter headings yet?

[Beirut]

There's a tendency, in the UK at least to regard ww1 as a futile, terrible war that was fought by poorly qualified generals and a living hell for all troops involved. It's almost a folk memory really.

I've been reading a lot of revisionist texts on ww1 recently that debunk some of these myths, so I'd try to avoid these cliches in your work if you're going to talk about the rest of the allies' war prior to 1917.

What have you been reading? Sounds interesting.



Out of interest have you got an idea about chapter headings yet?

That's where I am right now. There's an initial opening chapter outlying the purpose of the book and a very general view of the war as a whole. After that - right now actually - I'm trying to merge pre-war European history, say from the Franco-Prussian war, up to the initial declarations of war in 1914, and do it in a way that's both accurate and interesting for the lay person to read. No small task. At least not for me.

After that it would be how the initial confrontations in the west muddled into trench warfare. Then it gets busy and tougher for me to focus. There's explaining the industrial nature of the war, the new technologies, and an overview of the "classic" big battles of attrition that everyone associates with The Great War. Then there's the blockade of Germany, the Russians, the US involvement. And of course the Renault FT-17 tank hmy grandfather served in. The effort could go on well past my death if I don't focus.

My target audience is people who know little to nothing of the war and whose only interest in it would be that our grandfather was there, so I have to be careful not to go on any tangents about minutia. Mind you, at fifteen-thousanbd words there's not a lot of room for minutia.

[InsaneApache]

The final German offensive in 1918 is fascinating. I'd love to hear more info on that.

[Ethelred Unread]

What have you been reading? Sounds interesting.

Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front, Richard Holmes 978-0007137527

Looks at contemporary accounts of ww1 and looks at how the war was percieved from the twenties onwards as badly run, in contrast to contemporay accounts. Mainly from a British POV but some US, French & German viewpoints.

Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War, Gordan Corrigan 978-0304366590
Sets about tackling each "myth" of the Great War from soldiers drowning in mud, to innocents being shot at dawn. (both of which happened but not to the extent you'd think)

Both are unashamedly revisionist and tackle ww1 from different (and arguably more historically accurate) perspectives.

Your chapter headings sound good - to be honest the best layman accesible descriptions of the causes leading up to the war (and summaries of each year) can be found in:-

The Frightful First World War, Terry Deary, 978-1407103020

which is for high school kids but has this little gem to explain it all:-

Why did the Great War start?
Lots of big, thick history books have been written to answer that question. But, to put it simply, by 1914 the countries of Europe had formed themselves into two big gangs.......like street gangs.
The gang called the `Central Powers' were led by the Germans and
the gang we call the `Allies' were led by the French and British.
The two gangs started collecting weapons, making threats and swapping insults, the way gangs do.
All it needed was for one gang member to throw the first stone and a huge punch-up would follow.....'
So exactly HOW did the First World War start?
It's never one of the gang leaders that starts the fight, is it?
It's always one of the scruffy little kids that hangs around the edge.
In this case the scruffy little kid was called Bosnia in the Allies' gang.....'

Genious.

[A Very Super Market]

Although really, a German-British alliance was more likely than the one encountered in real life.

[Beirut]

Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front, Richard Holmes 978-0007137527

Looks at contemporary accounts of ww1 and looks at how the war was percieved from the twenties onwards as badly run, in contrast to contemporay accounts. Mainly from a British POV but some US, French & German viewpoints.

Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War, Gordan Corrigan 978-0304366590
Sets about tackling each "myth" of the Great War from soldiers drowning in mud, to innocents being shot at dawn. (both of which happened but not to the extent you'd think)

Both are unashamedly revisionist and tackle ww1 from different (and arguably more historically accurate) perspectives.

Your chapter headings sound good - to be honest the best layman accesible descriptions of the causes leading up to the war (and summaries of each year) can be found in:-

The Frightful First World War, Terry Deary, 978-1407103020



Nice list. I'm going to look at those books on Amazon.

These are some of what I've read over the last few months. (They're all the shelf two-feet from me.)

The Guns of August - Tuchman
The Zimmermann Telegram - Tuchman (This is a great little book!)
They Called it Pashendaele - MacDonald
Storm of Steel - Ernst Junger
The World Crisis 1911-1918 - Churchill
Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment - various authours
The Battle of the Somme - Gilbert

Some others on my shelf specific to WWI that I read before:

The First World War - Keegan
The Real War 1914 - 1919 - Liddell Hart
Lawrence of Arabia - Hart
Paris 1919 - Macmillan
Vimy - Pierre Berton

The Arms of Krupp - It isn't limited to WWI, but it's a goldmine of information, and a helluva good book.

I just started The Influence of Sea Power Upon History. It's said the Kaiser read it over and over prior to the war. Looking forward to reading a book called 11 VCs Before Breakfast about the Zeebrugge raid. I just saw a short clip on video about that raid and it looks fascinating.

There are about a dozen other books I'd like to get over the summer. One about the first tanks, another about Second Ypres, a set of two books about the Canadian Army in WWI, one about Verdun, and... and... and... Yep, Amazon loves me. :sunny:

[Lord Winter]

Although really, a German-British alliance was more likely than the one encountered in real life.

Yeah, before the naval build up. After that and a misguided German forigen policy, it was almost impossible.

[Oleander Ardens]

What I would be aware of is the danger of determinism - the first world war was not a natural consequence of the (changable) geopolitical situation.

[Beirut]

What I would be aware of is the danger of determinism - the first world war was not a natural consequence of the (changable) geopolitical situation.

It was certainly the natural consequence of human nature.

[Sarmatian]

What I would be aware of is the danger of determinism - the first world war was not a natural consequence of the (changable) geopolitical situation.

Would you mind expanding on that?

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer,

Have you read Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger? I think you wouldn enjoy it. Excellent book. Very... earthy.

http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Steel-Penguin-Classics-J%C3%BCnger/dp/0142437905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239908800&sr=1-1#

Yes, it is indeed a great read.


The final German offensive in 1918 is fascinating. I'd love to hear more info on that.

Orleander posted a nice peice on that in another thread, I'll try and find it.

Edit: Here it is...

German Doctrinal Changes Prior to the 1918 Offensive... (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Lupfer/lupfer.asp)

[Oleander Ardens]

It was certainly the natural consequence of human nature.

All I wanted to say is that there was no inevitable and deterministic one-way road to war. If you look at the processes leading to the nets of alliances and the ones in the days before the start of the war you can easily see how little things could have steered the world away from war.

BTW:I'm usually called Oleander and not Orleander. Oleander Ardens = The blossoming Oleander, or the burning Oleander. (The second one has a secundary meaning).

[PanzerJaeger]

BTW:I'm usually called Oleander and not Orleander. Oleander Ardens = The blossoming Oleander, or the burning Oleander. (The second one has a secundary meaning).

:oops:

[Beirut]

All I wanted to say is that there was no inevitable and deterministic one-way road to war. If you look at the processes leading to the nets of alliances and the ones in the days before the start of the war you can easily see how little things could have steered the world away from war.

Interesting. But I tend to go for the "proof is in the pudding" way of thinking. One event led to two more and those two to four more and so on. All these events were based on the people who took part in them and it was in their nature to have things turn out the way they did.

Was it a series of mistakes and misunderstandings that led to the war? Sure. But those mistakes and misunderstandings are as much a part of our nature as eating and excreting. The war was inevitable because human nature guided the events that made it inevitable.

As Keegan put it, "the continent was pregnant with war". Interesting choice of words. It does anthropomorphize the events nicely.

[CBR]

Interesting. But I tend to go for the "proof is in the pudding" way of thinking. One event led to two more and those two to four more and so on. All these events were based on the people who took part in them and it was in their nature to have things turn out the way they did.
One cannot look at the map of Europe and then say "OK nation X is there and nation Y is that strong so that means war"

We did after all spend 40+ years with two armed camps locked in a cold war and yet it did not turn hot.

A series of decisions coupled with random events led to the war and not some type of Tolstoy determinism.

Just one example:

The Central Powers were well aware that Russia was growing stronger with the reforms after the Russo-Japanese War. Some even argued it was better to have a war before it was too late. And yet it took a major diplomatic crisis to kick start it and yet earlier there had been diplomatic troubles that did not lead to a major war.


CBR

[Beirut]

One cannot look at the map of Europe and then say "OK nation X is there and nation Y is that strong so that means war"

A series of decisions coupled with random events led to the war and not some type of Tolstoy determinism.


CBR

Agreed. But there were enough factors in play to say that the war was highly probable, if not downright inevitable.

I can't speak to "Tolstoy determinism" - at least not until you explain it to me - but it's clear to see that people were acting like... people, and the outcome of the fear and mistrust and miscreancy was obvious. There was going to be war one way or another. The proof is that there was a war. I don't think the war was so much a mistake as it was simply stupid.

What was it Einstein said about human stupidity? ~;)

[Caius]

Any information on the freshly Soviet Russia is needed? I'm obsessed with Soviet History.

[Veho Nex]

HOLY HECK WHEN DID BEIRUT GET BACK!!

[Beirut]

HOLY HECK WHEN DID BEIRUT GET BACK!!

Kukri needed a drink so I came by to buy. :sunny:

The rumour that I came back just to look at Decker's pics of Alessandra in The Babe Thread are scandalous! True, but scandalous.

Back to the war!

I still want to hear about Tolstoy determinism. Sounds heady.

[Oleander Ardens]

While I have not the time to enlight you about Tolstoy and his determinism I can perhaps show the fallacy to state that because there was a war it was inevitable. If your logic would be valid I could start to point out that practically every action and show we can thinkk off was inevitable because it happened, going all the spectrum from an highly probable result to an highly inprobable one. Even a 99,9% chance doesn't mean it is inevitable, and what about a 96,7% or 91,8% one? At which percentage mark does the category "inevitable" end? You could also not allow human choice to play a part, because with an inevitable result all the choices of the actors in question are unable to influence the outcome. With such a doomed vision there it is also hard to argue about the guilt/sin of the actors. But I will stop here, too much of a Hegelian discourse to bear too long.

[Beirut]

While I have not the time to enlight you about Tolstoy and his determinism I can perhaps show the fallacy to state that because there was a war it was inevitable. If your logic would be valid I could start to point out that practically every action and show we can thinkk off was inevitable because it happened, going all the spectrum from an highly probable result to an highly inprobable one. Even a 99,9% chance doesn't mean it is inevitable, and what about a 96,7% or 91,8% one? At which percentage mark does the category "inevitable" end? You could also not allow human choice to play a part, because with an inevitable result all the choices of the actors in question are unable to influence the outcome. With such a doomed vision there it is also hard to argue about the guilt/sin of the actors. But I will stop here, too much of a Hegelian discourse to bear too long.

Yeah, I know. I don't mean to base my point on philosophical psychobabble. If you ever see me write the word "causation", you can come to my house and smack me.

I will stick to my point, however rounded, that the war was inevitable because people made it inevitable. Not so much that Event A + Event B must = Event C; but simply because there's an ******* in every crowd who's hellbent on making a bad situation worse.

[CBR]

Agreed. But there were enough factors in play to say that the war was highly probable, if not downright inevitable.
If one compares Europe and the chances of a great war happening then yes the lack of trust, alliances and leaders etc meant that there was a higher chance of war in 1909 than in 2009.

Inevitable you say but at what point? Summer of 1914, 1912 or 1900? Just remember that in 1914 the major European powers had not been at war with each other for 43 years which was unprecedented. We only broke that record in 1989.

It took a major event like the assassination of the Austrian Archduke to start the events that led to the war. What if that had happened a few years later. Would Austria be as tough if Russia was stronger? I'd have to look up the details so I'm writing from memory, but IIRC Russia had caved in on another issue just a months before which made Austria think they could play really tough on Serbia and get away with it.

If Russia had become stronger and problems with minorities had weakened Austria then what would have stopped Germany to pick Russia as an ally instead? We see some shifts in alliances up to then so in no way can we say that everything was set on a course that could not be turned.


I can't speak to "Tolstoy determinism" - at least not until you explain it to me - but it's clear to see that people were acting like... people, and the outcome of the fear and mistrust and miscreancy was obvious. There was going to be war one way or another. The proof is that there was a war. I don't think the war was so much a mistake as it was simply stupid.

To keep it short(and perhaps oversimplifying it) the essence of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is that history itself is the sum of the actions of countless people that makes the actions and decisions of individual leaders predetermined. As if history moves like a big wave and leaders are merely surfers, some look flashier than others but in the end the wave has a set direction.

A campaign or war can be decided by small random events like bad weather or a deserter that results in a lost battle. And wars have decided the fate of nations.

Tolstoy's idea neglects the fact that decision makers or advisors are not always skilled at their job just because they managed to get a position of power. Yes history involves the actions of many people, but in no way can one say it all goes in one direction as different priorities and mentallity of leaders acting on various events means just a few different factors could change what decisions were made.


CBR

[Beirut]

If one compares Europe and the chances of a great war happening then yes the lack of trust, alliances and leaders etc meant that there was a higher chance of war in 1909 than in 2009.

Inevitable you say but at what point? Summer of 1914, 1912 or 1900? Just remember that in 1914 the major European powers had not been at war with each other for 43 years which was unprecedented.

Agreed. No war, but huge tensions. Something was going to pop. Wasn't it Bismark who said it would be "some fool thing in the Balkans"?



It took a major event like the assassination of the Austrian Archduke to start the events that led to the war. What if that had happened a few years later. Would Austria be as tough if Russia was stronger? I'd have to look up the details so I'm writing from memory, but IIRC Russia had caved in on another issue just a months before which made Austria think they could play really tough on Serbia and get away with it.

Austria wouldn't have played tough without the German blank check.


If Russia had become stronger and problems with minorities had weakened Austria then what would have stopped Germany to pick Russia as an ally instead? We see some shifts in alliances up to then so in no way can we say that everything was set on a course that could not be turned.

The alliances and treaties were flowing like the tides. Each one had its advantages and disadvantages with regards to European peace. But it was the alliances in play at that time that coloured the moment and led to things happening as they did.



To keep it short(and perhaps oversimplifying it)

Not possible. I'd get you to draw pictures in crayon if you had the patience.


the essence of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is that history itself is the sum of the actions of countless people that makes the actions and decisions of individual leaders predetermined. As if history moves like a big wave and leaders are merely surfers, some look flashier than others but in the end the wave has a set direction.

A campaign or war can be decided by small random events like bad weather or a deserter that results in a lost battle. And wars have decided the fate of nations.

Tolstoy's idea neglects the fact that decision makers or advisors are not always skilled at their job just because they managed to get a position of power. Yes history involves the actions of many people, but in no way can one say it all goes in one direction as different priorities and mentallity of leaders acting on various events means just a few different factors could change what decisions were made.


CBR

Hmmm. That deserves thought. Thank you.

[Oleander Ardens]

CBR pretty much said what I thought. I might add that Tolstoy ridiculed the "German" approach to war as perfectionist and out of touch with reality, among them an officer named Clausewitz. The "Russian" approach of letting the war follow its course and the cudgel of the people to the work was based on his determinism. It is of course greatly ironic that "On war" of Clausewitz and the "German" school of military thought would become perhaps the overall most influential streams of military thinking for the next 200 years. :book:

[DisruptorX]

CBR pretty much said what I thought. I might add that Tolstoy ridiculed the "German" approach to war as perfectionist and out of touch with reality, among them an officer named Clausewitz. The "Russian" approach of letting the war follow its course and the cudgel of the people to the work was based on his determinism. It is of course greatly ironic that "On war" of Clausewitz and the "German" school of military thought would become perhaps the overall most influential streams of military thinking for the next 200 years. :book:

So, according to Tolstoy's idea, Russia could not have won WW1 because it was falling apart, regardless of the personal ability or lack thereof, of the Tsar, but likewise, Germany could not have won WW2 because Russia's people and industry were on the rise and it simply repeated its tactics of the Napoleonic wars? Regardless of whether Stalin was an effective leader?

In any event, I've never heard of Tolstoy being considered a great military thinker. Fantastic writer, of course. My favorite, in fact, aside from my sig there.

[Sarmatian]

From what I remember Tolstoy didn't ridicule "German" approach to war, but Napoleon's. Ridicule is actually too strong a word. Napoleon was a perfectionist, true, but his style of warfare involved too much micromanagement, if I'm allowed to use strategy games term. Napoleon tried to control every aspect of the battle, no matter how small or insignificant, while Kutuzov employed more of a "hands off" approach after the initial orders were given. One must also keep in mind that this was all before modern ways of communication existed. So Napoleon would send orders on all sides during the battle constantly but by the time he sees what's happening in a sector, send runners with orders and taking into consideration the time needed for orders to be delivered, situation may change greatly and render that order meaningless. Kutuzov, on the other hand, seemed more relaxed, had trust in the ability of his subordinates and allow battle to take its course, intervening very rarely. Now, I'd disagree with Oleander Ardens, I'd say that Tolstoy's opinion proved correct. For example, what made Wehrmacht so great in the first years of the war was precisely the "hands off" approach. Lower officers were given great training and were trusted to take the initiative when needed, to take into account the situation in front of them and act on it, not to call back to the overall commander and wait for orders what to do. German generals didn't try to control every little skirmish. Instead they've given initial orders and trusted their subordinates to adapt it according the situation, interfering rarely. Of course, modern communication changed all that, giving overall commander better grasp of the situation and allowing him to adapt his strategy in very short amount of time but overall the principle remained the same.

That's my impression of what Tolstoy tried to say, although Tolstoy's theories on war aren't something you'd study if you try to make a career in the army, so it's not really important...

[DisruptorX]

Its been a few years since I last read War and Peace, but I don't remember so much of a critique of Napoleon's methods, but rather on his cult of personality. He turns out to not be such a great hero of enlightenment, but rather just another man, like any other.

[Oleander Ardens]

@Sarmantian: I think you should read once again War&Peace before we discuss again :yes:

There are clear passages in which Tolstoy presented many allied officers and leaders in a ridiculous fashion and contrasted them with the wise Kutozov who's family was intertwined with his own.

But before you reread his work you can sadly not judge :shame:

Anyway we should return to the topic.

[Sarmatian]

Yes, you're right. It's been almost 10 years since I've read it. I'll do it when I have a few months off, probably when I retire...

Anyway, it doesn't have anything to do with this thread, just a small OT...

[rotorgun]

Beirut,

I realize that it is a rather specialized part of the war, but I read an interesting story called No Parachute, by Arthur G. Lee, which is an excellent narrative about what it was like for the average RFC Pilots during the war. He describes how that although parachutes were available, the high command prohibited their use by pilots because they thought it would encourage cowardice among the aircrews, who might attempt to bail out rather than stay and fight-a rather ridiculous notion. There was a tendency for these non-aviator Generals to adopt a " a Captain should go down with his ship" attitude that was rather easy to arrive at from the comfort of a French chateau. From the cockpit of a WWI fighter, I'm sure that it was a bit more problematical.

I remember his account of watching one of his mates standing up to jump from his burning cockpit and noticing tears streaming from his horrified face. It deeply saddened him for days afterwords. His recollection of the free for all dogfights involving many planes is hair raising. Collisions were frequent-let alone the fact that people were trying to to each shoot at each other as well. It is a wonder that any one would ever try to fly again after just one such experience.

Mon Dieu!

[King Henry V]

Ah, the first world war, one of the most fascinating periods of history, I find. I've just finished reading Michael Howard's masterful account of the Franco-Prussian War, the main preliminary to the Great War, and my opinion is that a war between France and Germany was inevitable, no matter what the peace terms of 1871 would have been. France had been used to the position of continental pre-eminence since Louis XIV, and would have wanted to redeem the military humiliations of 1870 even if she had not ceded Alsace-Lorraine. That the war was delayed for so long is a testament to Bismarck's skill in isolating France diplomatically, though ironically, I think the war would have been favourable to Germany if it had come sooner, before Wilhelm II's misguided naval policy had ruined relations with Great Britain, and the Franco-Russian rapprochement.

One matter I do find curious is the German plan to invade France in August 1914 in the first place. True, the opinion among the German High Command was that Great Britain would not honour the terms of the Treaty of London by declaring war for Belgium's sake, but in view of Anglo-German naval rivalry in the preceding decade or so, this view was somewhat risky. However, why did Germany not adopt a defensive stance on the Western Front, and an offensive stance on the Eastern one in the beginning. Unlike the long Russo-German border, the Franco-German was relatively short, chosen because of its defensive capabilities (as Bismarck knew that war would have to come one day) and heavily fortified. A few hundred thousand men should have been able to defend the border whilst the rest of the German forces dealt with Russia.

[Beirut]

My Liege,

Wonderful to be in your company again. And a fine post worthy of reflection. :sunny:

I'll take this opportunity to brag a touch; I was in Montreal yesterday at a literary festival and attended a lecture by Margaret Macmillan, the authour of Paris 1919. I wish the lecture had been on that book and period, but it was about her new book The Uses and Abuses of History. She's an excellent speaker, and during the question period after, the moderator had to limit her answers to five-thousand words. My Lord, but the woman can talk... But she's fascinating to listen to. After the lecture I paid my $16, bought her new book and had it signed, best wishes, to me. What a lovely treat. I'm just sorry I didn't bring my copy of Paris 1919 to have signed as well. (I very nearly bought the book again just to have her sign it. I kind of wish I had.)

I will reread your post and see if I have an opinion to share.

[Oleander Ardens]

However, why did Germany not adopt a defensive stance on the Western Front, and an offensive stance on the Eastern one in the beginning. Unlike the long Russo-German border, the Franco-German was relatively short, chosen because of its defensive capabilities (as Bismarck knew that war would have to come one day) and heavily fortified. A few hundred thousand men should have been able to defend the border whilst the rest of the German forces dealt with Russia.

a) Russia has traditionally been a slowly accelerating military steamroller with usually rather limited political goals toward the states of Prussia and the Austrian Empire. Chances were far higher than war would be limited on the eastern front and an agreement found.

b) The industrial heartlands and populations centers of Germany are generally far closer to the French borders. Even a limited offensive would have brought far greater harm than a similar Russian one in the east.

c) Although defence is the stronger form it was difficult to appreciate just how it would be strenghened by tactical and technological developments.

Without the necessary background it is hard to evaluate the choices made by the various actors.

[King Henry V]

a) Russia has traditionally been a slowly accelerating military steamroller with usually rather limited political goals toward the states of Prussia and the Austrian Empire. Chances were far higher than war would be limited on the eastern front and an agreement found.

True, though the speed of the Russian mobilisation and offensive surprised the German High Command, and might have got dangerously close to Berlin had it not been for Tannenberg.



b) The industrial heartlands and populations centers of Germany are generally far closer to the French borders. Even a limited offensive would have brought far greater harm than a similar Russian one in the east.

However, one of the provisions of the original Schlieffen plan before it was modified by the younger Moltke was that the French Army should be allowed to advance into Elsaß, thus drawing the French further away from Paris and allowing it to be encircled once the German armies had swept through Belgium. Furthermore, Upper Silesia, which was right on the Russian border and which could easily have been cut off from the rest of Germany by a Russian south-westerly offensive through Posen and Lower Silesia, held valuable coalfields and much industry, which was one of the reasons why the Great Frederick conquered it in 1740, and why its partial amputation from Germany at Versailles exarcebated her economic woes even more.



Without the necessary background it is hard to evaluate the choices made by the various actors.

True, but it's fun to speculate.~;)

[Oleander Ardens]

However, one of the provisions of the original Schlieffen plan before it was modified by the younger Moltke was that the French Army should be allowed to advance into Elsaß, thus drawing the French further away from Paris and allowing it to be encircled once the German armies had swept through Belgium. Furthermore, Upper Silesia, which was right on the Russian border and which could easily have been cut off from the rest of Germany by a Russian south-westerly offensive through Posen and Lower Silesia, held valuable coalfields and much industry, which was one of the reasons why the Great Frederick conquered it in 1740, and why its partial amputation from Germany at Versailles exarcebated her economic woes even more.

I see, you are also quite informed :2thumbsup:

With the great concentration of the forces in the west a strategic delaying actions in the Elsaß would not have been risky as the inner lines and the trains would have allowed for a rapid shift of forces in case of a French breakthrough.


Overall with all the hindsight it would have possbily been better to

a) defend with a flexible defense in depth the west with sufficient forces to hold the French in check, perhaps even use local attacks as a mean to disguise the limited mission of your forces.
b) concentrate the available Austrian forces against Russia and use a limited strategic offense to induce the Russians to built up against this front
c) concentrate the available German forces in the east, defending lightly against the invading Russians everywhere expect in the south. Hammer them through skilled command, rapid maneuvers and superior firepower. Encirclements might be possible too.

A key to this strategy would have been a careful Austria which would have tried to portray Serbia in more cunning way as the perpetuator of the assessination and the war. Without an active involvement of GB and an Italy which might have honored the agreement if Russia would have declared war things would most likely have gone very well for the central powers.

:egypt:

[DisruptorX]

So, how much use did French and German lancers get? Seen some great colour photographs of them, and was wondering if they were ever deployed to actual combat. I know horses were used extensively as pack animals, and there was some cavalry usage in the east .

[Watchman]

Trench warfare is no place for horses, it was found out very quickly. But I've seen mentions of cavalry being used to "follow through" the breakthroughs of the final years - once past the trench belts, after all, they could roam rather freely (until hitting an MG nest and having to dig in), and were quite a bit more mobile than the rather slow and mechanically unreliable tanks of the time.

[Pannonian]

Trench warfare is no place for horses, it was found out very quickly. But I've seen mentions of cavalry being used to "follow through" the breakthroughs of the final years - once past the trench belts, after all, they could roam rather freely (until hitting an MG nest and having to dig in), and were quite a bit more mobile than the rather slow and mechanically unreliable tanks of the time.
At the start, the BEF used their cavalry for picket duty, patrolling the outskirts so the infantry could move without fear of harassment.