WW1 Why did no one end it

[econ21]

German attack in the west had failed, Russian attack in the east had failed. Why didn't they just stop it?

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]

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.

[barocca]

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]

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]

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).

[econ21]

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]

Maybe because they waited for a winner ?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well the Germans didnt attempt to win the war because they had a serious chance of winning before America got involved.

[Papewaio]

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]

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.