The First World War

[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

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

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.

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

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.

[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.