View Full Version : WW1 Why did no one end it
Franconicus
06-30-2005, 15:26
WW1 was a big desaster to all countries in Europe. Many proud and wealthy and civilized nations were ruined. Millions were killed, millions suffered. And what for?
I read books and I think I almost understood how this war happened. However, I have no idea why no person or nation made serious attempts to stop this war. Why not after Tannenberg. Then it was clear that it was going to be a long war. German attack in the west had failed, Russian attack in the east had failed. Why didn't they just stop it? :furious3:
Even at that point I dont think anyone thought it would take 4 years and millions of lives to win the war. It was just a question of one big push and then it would be over...they thought.
No government would admit defeat and as long as there was hope to win in some way (U-boats, blockade, new weapons like tanks, or opening another front etc) they would keep on fighting.
CBR
Marcellus
06-30-2005, 16:02
I think that all the countries involved were too proud to end the war: they all wanted to show that they were the most powerful country in Europe, and so kept on fighting.
cegorach
06-30-2005, 16:04
WW1 was a big desaster to all countries in Europe. Many proud and wealthy and civilized nations were ruined. Millions were killed, millions suffered. And what for?
I read books and I think I almost understood how this war happened. However, I have no idea why no person or nation made serious attempts to stop this war. Why not after Tannenberg. Then it was clear that it was going to be a long war. German attack in the west had failed, Russian attack in the east had failed. Why didn't they just stop it? :furious3:
VERY good they didn't stop ~;) otherwise my country would never be independent ( and not only my) and there would be thousands of various terrorists from Eastern Europe in active 'service' now.
True that about 3,5 mln Poles died, but all the monstrous powers were destroyed at the same time.
I know it is selfish, but more than 100 million of people actually gained something quite important - the possibility to govern in your own country, to use your own language and this is worth quite much.
Yes, I am a bastard ~D :duel:
the possibility to govern in your own country
I agree with you just like my country Singapore if there is no world war 2 we will never be independent ~D
The Electric Celt
06-30-2005, 16:34
Imo, though the war centred on Europe and was superficially sparked by the Archduke's Sarajevo assassination,It's main powderkeg lay in the late 1800's scramble for Africa and other global territories,the defeated would lose all claim to these rich pickings.Besides such an horrendous loss of life had to be justified with victory(for someone)
German attack in the west had failed, Russian attack in the east had failed. Why didn't they just stop it? :furious3:
Good question. As a Brit, my knee jerk reaction is to blame German militarism but I may get called on this again by A. Saturnus. Even after the retreat from the Marne, the Germans occupied significant territory in the West and would have had to surrender it for a plausible peace. But I suspect they thought they had the upper hand - IIRC 1915 was not a bad year for them - and we all know about the "stab in the back" stuff that happened even when they did finally quit in 1918.
The reverse was probably true in 1916 - the Allies saw a chance for victory and may have wanted to take it. The pendulum swung back and forth for the rest of the war (1917 Germany has an edge; 1918 the Allies). What looks to us like a stalemate probably seemed something different at the time.
More generally, I think there was a wave of patriotism on the home fronts that meant even supposed internationalists like left-wing political parties had to get behind the war or risk being ostracised. Asking for terms in the middle of a war, is likely to lead to politicians losing power at home or otherwise being seen as weak by their enemies.
On the trenches, I think there were still strong traditions of deference and loyalty so that even if soldiers did not hate their enemy (playing football at Christmas etc), they would do their duty for king and country. (Compare with the French Army's collapse in 1940 or even Iraq's in the Gulf Wars).
I'd be interested to hear of any peace-feelers put out during the war. I vaguely recall the Americans pushing for this, but suspect the conditions - centring around national self-determination - would not have been ones that were acceptable to the militarists and imperialists who wanted war in the first place.
ShadesPanther
06-30-2005, 20:16
In 1915 the Germans offered peace to Russia but Tsar Nicholas declined. He was scared about it and felt he would let down his allies. It was mainly pride and they honestly thought that they could achieve a breakthrough. 1915 was the "Year of the big push" for the allies. This continued into 1917 with the successfull attack at Cambrai where a breakthrough was almost achieved but wasn't capitalised on.
The Russians also had a chance of a breakthrough in 1916 with the Brusilov offensive. Attacking without artillary bombardments at different points along the line but agin failure to capitalise because of lack of manpower (ironic with Russia I know ~;) )
1918 was the year that the stalemate was lifted and offensives took place again. It was close for the Germans mainly through a lack of cavalry to exploit their breakthrough and raid the enemies supply lines.
Ultimately they surrendered because they now had almost hope of winning so decided to surrender and get favourable terms. The allies hadn't even entered Germany.
off topic rebuttal
the french army in 1940 did not collapse as english and american (and even australian) history books would like us to believe,
the french fought bravely and well but were often outflanked by german armour and forced to withdraw or be surrounded, likewise the british armies in france
the myth of french ineptitude and cowardice in 1940 was propogated by the british to explain their defeat in france (they had to blame in on something)
Blitzkreig was armour advance till resitence met, withdraw and let air power and artillery destroy defences, advance again until more resitence, rinse and repeat,
it was Stalin who finally found an answer to blitzkreig - in-depth defensive lines
(120 miles deep of trenches and fortifications)-(at kursk IIRC)
Defensive lines in france in 1940 were not even a mile thick at most - hopeless at stopping blitzkreig
B.
Colovion
06-30-2005, 20:36
Lack of imagination in an inevitable conflict.
For centuries European nations had fought ceaselessly with eachother for no good reason. Think of it - killing eachother to gain land and then have, a few years down the road, those disgruntled peoples come back to try to take it back by killing those first agressors. After the Napoleonic war there hadn't really been a major conflict to ease the European people's nature of strutting around being macho-men on the battlefield. Once the powerkeg of agression had begun and the War began there wasn't much to stop it until each side had become thoroughly chastized by their actions and their populace's equally exhausted (save the Americans). The technology of death had been perfected just enough, and the mindset still in the past just enough that when the body counts and economic losses piled up it wasn't a choice such as "let's do this different or let's stop fighting" it was merely a choice to keep going and hoping for the best. World War 1 deffinately shook the European nations out of their battle-drunk stupour which the lower-casualty wars of the medieval times had procured; and WW2 doing the remaining bit to put a bitter taste into many European's battle-salved mouths. War was once romanticized and glorious, it took the toll of WW1 and WW2 to portray publicly what War truly epitomizes. It also helped that nations weren't self-sufficient anymore and required trade to be prosperous.
/ramble
that was fun to write.
ShadesPanther
06-30-2005, 21:12
If you really wanted to get deressed about WW1 read poems by Siegfried Sasson or Wilfred Owen.
War was thought of as romantic before WW1 and that was one reason why 2.3 million britons volunteered. After the war with almost every person knowing or being related to a veteren or someone who was killed put an end to that. It still existed but not to the same extent at the beginning of WW2 when most young people didn't believe it was as bad as their parents said (A WW1 veteren would be about 40).
In 1915 the Germans offered peace to Russia but Tsar Nicholas declined.
Interesting, I tried to follow this up. It seems that the Germans wanted to keep their gains in the East and turn their full force against the West. Hardly the "ending it" referred to by the original poster. The Russian reply was that there could be no peace while there was a single German or Austrian soldier on their land.
I agree the Allies spent the war focussing on their "big pushes" rather than peace, but returning occupied lands would seem to be the precondition for an acceptable peace. Even in 1917 when the Kaiser agreed to Wilson's plan for a withdrawal from Belgium, it was clear that the Germans were not going to abandon their gains - he added the conditions that Germany should occupy the Belgian forts, possess their ports and that there should be no Belgian army.
caesar44
06-30-2005, 22:35
Maybe because they waited for a winner ? ~:)
PanzerJaeger
07-01-2005, 04:38
Well the Germans didnt attempt to win the war because they had a serious chance of winning before America got involved.
Papewaio
07-01-2005, 06:17
The Germans had a serious chance of winning early on. By the time America got involed it was a matter of how quickly they would come to the peace table. America speed up the process quite a lot.
Ulrih fon Jungingen
07-01-2005, 08:30
Hmm, is this question retoric?:)))
Why there were, are and still will be wars?
And about ending war in early period - all forces just started mobilisation and first battles were only small preludies to 4 years of fiting.
What this war gave to world? Lots of ruined lifes etc. But it also gave independence to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc. Such writer as Remark started to write hii stories etc. It was also big push to sience etc.
What this war gave to my country? I think one of the largest surprises in world history - latvian riflemen. About their bravery spoke even marshal Fosh and these 10 000 men changed whole history in Russia and impacted with this all historical processes in World History. Something like 10 000 greek hoplites in anciant times when they returned through all Persia.
Franconicus
07-01-2005, 13:16
I think they started the war because they thought they could reach their goals at a low price:
- get dominance in Europe
- get some new territories
- punish the Serbs (only for the German/Austrians)
- revenge (only for France)
In 1915 it must have been clear that the cost for a victory was very high. So why did they continue to fight?
The only reason I can think of is this:
All sides lost many men. To justifice these losses they had to go on fighting and even expand the goals. The soldier would have died in vain if htere was not a great victory and big benefits for the country. Of course this was an error. It only made more soldiers die without a reason.
WW1 was a desaster and unlike WW2 it did not start because evil persons but because of vanity and ignorance. We should try to learn about the mistakes they made!
If you except Austria, war started without any clear direct motive.
Austria felt Serbia was a threat to it’s integrity and declared war to this country, Russia wanted it’s influence to be preserver over Slavic countries and mobilized, German considered that Russia’s mobilization was an act of war, that war with Russia meant war with France and declared war to both these countries, Britain did not want to see the German fleet in Belgium’s harbours.
Thus, the goals of war were very imprecise, the countries being at war mostly because other countries were at war or were preparing to it.
Those goals, being imprecise, were completely dependant on military situation and it’s evolutions.
As time passed and that body count grew, limiting the war objectives to a few territorial gains became impossible.
This made peace very difficult as no camp could fix conditions that could make the end of war acceptable to it’s own opinion and reliable to other countries involved.
The allies could hope a military victory in 1915 and in 1917, central powers could hope it in 1916, 1917 and early 1918 at least on one of the fronts, whether eastern or western.
So all along the war, peace never appeared as a reliable option even when Wilson attempted to present himself as a referee.
Moreover, the simple fact of making peace proposals was very dangerous as it would necessary have meant a diminution of fighting spirit.
I think it is possible to say that war became too big to be stopped by anything but itself.
If you except Austria, war started without any clear direct motive.
Good point. It's interesting that when Serbia was finally being overrun, the Austrian General Conrad wrote a memo to the Emperor (on 22nd October 1915) raising the possibility of a peace settlement with the existing structure of Europe being kept in tact. However, the British historian Martin Gilbert comments:
The imminence of victory was a time for boasting and advancing, not for reflection and compromise.
On the same day as the Austrians were considering peace, Gilbert cites the Kaiser warning the American Ambassador James Gerard:
"America had better look out after this war"
Good point. It's interesting that when Serbia was finally being overrun, the Austrian General Conrad wrote a memo to the Emperor (on 22nd October 1915) raising the possibility of a peace settlement with the existing structure of Europe being kept in tact. However, the British historian Martin Gilbert comments:
The imminence of victory was a time for boasting and advancing, not for reflection and compromise.
On the same day as the Austrians were considering peace, Gilbert cites the Kaiser warning the American Ambassador James Gerard:
"America had better look out after this war"
I agree, those sentences describe correctly the spirit that ruled European countries in that time.
It can be seen clearly with Wilson’s propositions for peace, they were first rejected by Germany, then accepted by the allies but only after being rejected by the Germans, which put them again on the table as a last option in the last weeks of the war, when the US army had became the major actor of the war in Europe.
All those were only attempts not to lose the war as peace never appeared as an acceptable solution, that would make acceptable the sacrifices needed to reach it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.