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.

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-Pe...908800&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.

[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.

[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-Pe...908800&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...

[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).

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.