Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[Strike For The South]

Strike ...best reply would be from Philippe le Bel (maybe you know this name): "silence Strike".
And my endless dispute with panzerj... is not your job.

Of course you see everything from your narrow French spoint of view.
But you know - I'm really pround I'm from Poland. Really.
Can you be pround that you come from France?
Same time when mine country is rising, your is falling.

I think I just won the game

I'm sorry I took two seperate jabs at Poland but in my defense they were more than a week apart.

[cegorach]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with SFTS showing his pride in being quintessentially French. The sunlit vineyards of the provincial town of Eaux-tonnes and his countrymen's wars with the Latin barbarians to the south are substance enough for him to raise his head with pride, and hail the sacred red, white and blue flag.

Well written! When facing silliness it is good to respond nicely and politely, but in exaggerated fashion. ;)

[Vladimir]

Yea. That is pretty good.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

The treaty of Versiallies should have been more harsh,We french have had problems from you germans!You blame us when it is not true!

[sulla1982ad]

The treaty of Versiallies should have been more harsh,We french have had problems from you germans!You blame us when it is not true!

Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

[ShadesWolf]

Germany was planning a war well before 1914. they were looking for an excuse and the Austrian incident was just perfect. Russia was the main target but with France has her ally she needed to remove France before she could attack Russia. Germany was concerned that if it waited too long she would get overtaken by Russian and be unable to beat her.

[sulla1982ad]

Boths sides are whinning that the other side wanted war. As far as I'm concerned both sides wanted war just as much as each other. Also I've always found it funny that the British propaganda got hysterical about belgium being invaded. This is the British empire we are talking about!

There are no good or bad guys in international politics, just bad guys and more bad guys.

[Sarmatian]

Boths sides are whinning that the other side wanted war. As far as I'm concerned both sides wanted war just as much as each other. Also I've always found it funny that the British propaganda got hysterical about belgium being invaded. This is the British empire we are talking about!

There are no good or bad guys in international politics, just bad guys and more bad guys.

Britain guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and was bound by treaty to respond.

[Fisherking]

As far as I am concerned the treaty was about assuaging French pride and punishing Germany.

Both reasons are ludicrous.

If it were written today there would be an outcry, just as there was then.

Alsace-Lorraine was still more German than French. The French grabbed it while the Austrians (HRE) had their backs turned dealing with a Turk invasion.

The redrawing of borders and the breakup of Austria and Germany didn’t seem to lead to greater European security or end war for all time.

It was like most things in international politics, it looked like it was handled by six-year-olds.

[Graphic]

The Morgenthau Plan was a few decades too late if you ask me!

[Fisherking]

Punishing the citizens of a nation because of the actions of dictatorial or hereditary rulers, to me is ridiculous.

Democratization of the states was the better plan, and not saddled with debt while depriving them of their industrial base.

Rehabilitation, not punishment is the better path to peace.


edit: Of course, had the Congress of Vienna used the same logic as the Treaty of Versailles then France would have been dismembered and given to surrounding countries and its core divided into tiny states.

That may have had more of an impact on future wars than Versailles did.

[sulla1982ad]

Britain guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and was bound by treaty to respond.

Great powers make, and break treatys at there convenience.If Britian stayed out of the war, and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Great powers make, and break treatys at there convenience.If Britian stayed out of the war, and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.

Of course,anti -French hater

[Louis VI the Fat]

Punishing the citizens of a nation because of the actions of dictatorial or hereditary rulers, to me is ridiculous.

Democratization of the states was the better plan, and not saddled with debt while depriving them of their industrial base.

Rehabilitation, not punishment is the better path to peace.


edit: Of course, had the Congress of Vienna used the same logic as the Treaty of Versailles then France would have been dismembered and given to surrounding countries and its core divided into tiny states.

That may have had more of an impact on future wars than Versailles did.

Myth myth myth


Germany in Versailes was not at all 'dismembered and given to surrounding countries and its core divided into tiny states'. This is propaganda by German ultranationalist agitators of the period. Strangely, it is still believed by many, despite being so easily checked for factual correctness.

Germany lost 13% of its territory. In the west, this consisted of a return of the areas Germany had seized a few decades earlier. In the east, this consisted of territories Germany had conquered a little over a century earlier, namely Poland. Together with territories given up by Russia and Austria the state of Poland was restored.

That's it. None of these territories could be deemed core German areas. In mixed territories, plebiscites were held, a democratic vote to decide on whether to remian part of Germany or join neighbouring countries.

On top of that, to all of this Germany had eagerly agreed in its surrender in the armistice of November 1918. Well they would have agreed eagerly, becauser it was a phenomenally good deal for the defeated German Empire. Germany received this great deal out of the magnanimity with which democracies commonly treat their vanquished, and because the victors of WWI sought to maintain Germany as Europe's most powerful state.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If Britian stayed out of the war, and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.

Britain was the world's largerts Empire in this period. As empires go, it had to be maintained against competition. France was not a strategical threat to Britain. Germany, by contrast, was. By default by its sheer size and power and industrial base. And in actual pursued policy once Germany openly sought a power struggle for supremacy by its fleet building program.

That is why Britain fought. Not because the British prefer the French over the Germans (hah!), nor because Britain was sucked into a war in which it had no business. On the contrary, Britian very much had a business in this war: the fight for supremacy against a German Empire which sought open confrontation.

To maintain the balance of power on the continent, this has always the foundation of British foreign policy, and on this foundation rested the very Empire itself, hugely overstretched but unchallenged as long as the balance in Europe remained. The maintanance of the balance of power together maintaining unrivalled naval supremacy were the guiding principles of British foreign policy in this period. To say that Britian shouldn't have met Germany's naval challenge or should've let France be turned into a German vassal state doesn't take into account the most basic fundamentals of international relations of the era.

[Strike For The South]

Punishing the citizens of a nation because of the actions of dictatorial or hereditary rulers, to me is ridiculous.

Democratization of the states was the better plan, and not saddled with debt while depriving them of their industrial base.

Rehabilitation, not punishment is the better path to peace.


edit: Of course, had the Congress of Vienna used the same logic as the Treaty of Versailles then France would have been dismembered and given to surrounding countries and its core divided into tiny states.

That may have had more of an impact on future wars than Versailles did.

But that's the way the world works

Just like when Germany gobbled up Poland and poached coal land from France

You lose and you get hosed

[Brenus]

“and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.”
Like what?
When it has to be proved that Germany would have kicked France Ass?
To do so, Germany HQ always knew they had to attack France in the back therefore the Von Schlieffen plan and the attack of Neutral Belgium, or the attack from the Ardennes in 1940.
Can’t blame them to do it, it was the only way to compensate their military inferiority.

[Louis VI the Fat]

“and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.”
Like what?
When it has to be proved that Germany would have kicked France Ass?
To do so, Germany HQ always knew they had to attack France in the back therefore the Von Schlieffen plan and the attack of Neutral Belgium, or the attack from the Ardennes in 1940.
Can’t blame them to do it, it was the only way to compensate their military inferiority.

Inferior...I would not call them inferior. The pointy-helmeted machine managed to throw more monstrosities from all the depths of hell at the French lines than the Persians managed in 300. But unlike the Spartans, France persevered, held and won. After which France still had the reserves and willpower to send an entire army halfway around Europe, and to equip the whole of Serbia, and march all the way to the heartland of that other German speaking empire too.


Something went horribly wron pr-wise. (Mainstream amateur) history thinks France lost the war but won a peace on her terms. Reality is the exact reverse. France won the war and lost the peace.

Seldom has a victor accepted such an unfavourable deal as France did in 1919. Meanwhile her allies ensured for themselves everything they needed, only to then break all of their assurances, and leaving France's foes an open invitation to try again within a generation, this time against a ravaged, bankrupted, bled-dry France.

[PanzerJaeger]

Inferior...I would not call them inferior. The pointy-helmeted machine managed to throw more monstrosities from all the depths of hell at the French lines than the Persians managed in 300. But unlike the Spartans, France persevered, held and won. After which France still had the reserves and willpower to send an entire army halfway around Europe, and to equip the whole of Serbia, and march all the way to the heartland of that other German speaking empire too.

Something went horribly wron pr-wise. (Mainstream amateur) history thinks France lost the war but won a peace on her terms. Reality is the exact reverse. France won the war and lost the peace.

Yet again you are straying from valid to invalid revisionism.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yet again you are straying from valid to invalid revisionism.

Which bit?


What I'm doing in the past few posts is not about an exercise in nationalist chest-thumping. Rather, my aim is set against the notion that, roughly, 'Britain (/the US) saved France in WWI. Fought on behalf of France. France then humiliated Germany, thus pushing it into a new world war. In which the UK / US had to save France yet again'. This is the narative behind 'we should've left France to rot'. Within that narrative an entire predictable, and perfectly logical conclusion. Fortunately it is based on fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

Britain and the US did prove invaluable French allies. France alone against Germany would've been a long shot (but not impossible to pull off). But then, only during Louis XIV and Napoléon did France not have to rely upon alliances. Few countries ever are a hegomonic power, and seldom for very long.
But it is equally true that France protected the British Empire at Verdun, and American interests too. It was a war fought for common interests. One should not confuse a war fought in France for a war on behalf of France. Compare how, for example, the British fought in Belgium, but not for, or even over Belgium. Belgium simply is where the two rivals Germay and Britain met.

Yet France lost more in blood than both anglo powers combined, and immeassurably more in destruction and money than both the much larger anglo powers combined. In the peace, America and especially Britain ensured for themselves all they needed (naval supremacy, colonies, balance of power, a share in the reconstruction payments for France and Belgium) then took the moral high ground against French demands - which were arguably more pressing. But which were nearly all given up for the one thing France sought most of all at Versailles: security. This security was reached upon in the central compromise of the peace, the Anglo guarantee of alliance.

Germany was to be left intact as Europe's greatest power. For practical and economic and strategic and humanitarian purposes. Nobody was interested in dismantling Germany, the statesmen were too mature for that, and too aware of the interests at stake.
It was clear that France alone was no match against Germany. What's more, this would be nothing but an open invitation to Germany. So this option was completely unacceptable to France, as a victor. It was well understood this amounted to nothing more than a truce for twenty years, a nearly inevitable path to French disaster. It was also clear that Germany would not challenge the peace if there was a continued, insurmountable French-British-American alliance. This was the central element of the Versailles system, the central solution. Sadly, in the 1920s/30s this simple principle proved itself nigh impossible for any Frenchman to explain to nearly any Briton / American.

[PanzerJaeger]

Which bit?

Any discussion of French victory in the First World War that does not acknowledge or even mention the broader coalition is misleading at best.

France did not, in fact, persevere, hold and win. The French Army was largely spent after 2nd Aisne with nearly half of its units in outright mutiny and much of the rest refusing any attack orders. Pétain killed hundreds and sentenced thousands more to hard labor and eventually had to promise no more attacks in the immediate future and never again to attack German lines without British support to quell the uprisings.

It was only due to a propitious combination of British forces on the front, events in the East, Italy's intervention, the growing effects of the embargo, and the arrival of American troops that allowed France to survive and rebuild some level of morale in its units. It was not until over a year later that France was able to launch another large scale offensive - against an equally spent German army.

IMHO, your response to my comment was far more reasoned and less chest-thumping, and I tend to agree that Britain and particularly America had way more leverage in the Versailles negotiations than the collective sacrifices of the nations they represented should have allowed. It amazes me that Wilson was not only given equal footing but was in many ways the final arbiter in the negotiations. I suppose he who holds the purse strings holds the ultimate power.

What I'm doing in the past few posts is not about an exercise in nationalist chest-thumping. Rather, my aim is set against the notion that, roughly, 'Britain (/the US) saved France in WWI. Fought on behalf of France. France then humiliated Germany, thus pushing it into a new world war. In which the UK / US had to save France yet again'. This is the narative behind 'we should've left France to rot'. Within that narrative an entire predictable, and perfectly logical conclusion. Fortunately it is based on fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

As I've said before, the narrow focus of this discussion misses the broader picture. France's humiliation of Germany largely came after Versailles was signed. If any French actions could be said to be a contributing factor to the rise of the Nazi Party, they were her extremely shortsighted efforts to instigate instability and rebellion in the Rhine and the use of French soldiers to collect state debts from local shops and cripple Germany's industry in the Ruhr. These actions - along with the French-demanded and Versailles-mandated draconian restrictions on the German military - led to an atmosphere of insecurity in Germany, a loss in public confidence in the Weimar Republic, and a growing mainstream acceptance of far Right politics promising to secure Germany's borders. Consider the first major foreign policy decision Hitler made.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Any discussion of French victory in the First World War that does not acknowledge or even mention the broader coalition is misleading at best.

I know, I agree. It is pointless to describe French military involvement in WWI outside the broader perspective of the alliance which completely dictated France's limits and possibilities. That is what I mean with 'the point is not about chest thumping'. I omit the others for the sole purpose of focusing in on a specific French perspective. The others are still in the picture, but blurred, for the purpose of clarity of detail. Never underestimate how often it seems to be forgotten that France did not lose, but won, WWI. A wee little detail of course, but one that nevertheless has some consequences for an understanding of the postwar settlement.

France's humiliation of Germany largely came after Versailles was signed.

Yes, that was the original focus of this thread, not any event before November 1918. I have argued at some lenght what I have to say about that throughout this thread, so I'll skip on repeating myself by going over all of it again.

[Brenus]

40 soldiers were executed for refusing to attack, 600 is for the entire war.
During the Nivelle’s Offensive, more than 100 soldiers were dying per minutes…
Executed by fire squads for various reasons is 1200-2000 as overall total for the war.

Then, the German’s mutinies in 1918 were fatal to Germany as the German HQ was less skilled in handling the problem than the French were.
I am not a Pétain Lover, even for his alleged victory (his part was largely overestimated, in my opinion) but at least he succeeded to maintain the lines.

I agree that the German lines were broken in 1918 so circumstances were different as defeat was obvious for the Germans soldiers in full retreat, but no efforts were done to rally the troops and perhaps held the lines.
The Germans Generals failed in winning the war when they could (even with the element of surprise, thanks to attack on Belgium), failed to hold the lines, failed in protecting their country.
This is in my opinion due to a total disrespect (even deeper than the French Generals) and a total ignorance of their soldiers. Theirs plans ignored the physical and mental endurance of their troops.

“It was not until over a year later that France was able to launch another large scale offensive”
At least, The French Aristocrats Officers finally got the point and succeeded at keeping their soldiers in the fight. It can't be said for their German Counterparts.

“France did not, in fact, persevere, hold and win.”
Didn’t know that Germany won WW1, or Verdun, or the Marne battles, or any battles after the Borders Battles due to invasion of Neutral Belgium.

“The arrival of American troops that allowed France to survive”
In 1918, Germany couldn’t win the war as proved 1918 German Offensive. Between March and April 1918, the German Army sustained 230,000 casualties. It was too much even for the biggest European Country. In the French Counter Offensive (with US participation) on the Marne in July, Germany lost even more soldiers.
The big plan for the US Army was in fact for 1919. Fortunately it was not needed as finally the German HQ decided to concede defeat and to put the blame on everybody but them.
The US Army had to be equipped with French material, tanks and Airplanes. The US Army was just the reinsurance that Germany will loose for sure as it reversed the Numbers Superiority Germany had before.
So concerning the revisionism you reproach to Louis, he still have a lot of effort to reach this level…
Germany was not alone either. So, the defeat was the Central Empires’ defeat.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, that was the original focus of this thread, not any event before November 1918. I have argued at some lenght what I have to say about that throughout this thread, so I'll skip on repeating myself by going over all of it again.

Fair enough, but if the focus of the thread is going to shift from a narrow retrospective on the Versailles Treaty to a broader effort to absolve France of any contributory negligence in fueling the shift in German public opinion to the far Right then the treaty cannot remain in a vacuum, and must be viewed in the context of French-German relations during the period.

Then, the German’s mutinies in 1918 were fatal to Germany as the German HQ was less skilled in handling the problem than the French were.

The Germans, of course, also didn't benefit from having the British Army (2/3 the size of the French Army by 1917) or the Royal Navy to pick up the slack.

I agree that the German lines were broken in 1918 so circumstances were different as defeat was obvious for the Germans soldiers in full retreat, but no efforts were done to rally the troops and perhaps held the lines.
The Germans Generals failed in winning the war when they could (even with the element of surprise, thanks to attack on Belgium), failed to hold the lines, failed in protecting their country.
This is in my opinion due to a total disrespect (even deeper than the French Generals) and a total ignorance of their soldiers. Theirs plans ignored the physical and mental endurance of their troops.

Do I detect a bit of defensive deflection? It seems any criticism of the French military is answered with a "well the Germans were worse", regardless of how laughable the assertion. The German Army endured far greater organizational strains for far longer while achieving far greater results than that of the French Army, which shattered against German lines during the Nivelle Offensive and gave out. And speaking of Nivelle, I'm not sure if the commanders of any offensive of any participant in any stage of the war could be considered more ignorant of the limitations of their soldiers than those who marched the brave French boys into that spectacular defeat.

At least, The French Aristocrats Officers finally got the point and succeeded at keeping their soldiers in the fight. It can't be said for their German Counterparts.

More deflection. It can also not be said that the Germans benefitted from an alliance with the most powerful nation in the world.

Didn’t know that Germany won WW1, or Verdun, or the Marne battles, or any battles after the Borders Battles due to invasion of Neutral Belgium.

I think you understood what I was saying. France technically won WW2 as well, but I don't think anyone would say she 'persevered, held, and won'. The benefits of membership in a winning coalition can erase a multitude of sins. A closer look, however, reveals an operationally broken French Army in complete mutiny. Luckily, Pétain could rely on the British Army to pick up the slack while he rebuilt French forces.

In 1918, Germany couldn’t win the war as proved 1918 German Offensive. Between March and April 1918, the German Army sustained 230,000 casualties. It was too much even for the biggest European Country. In the French Counter Offensive (with US participation) on the Marne in July, Germany lost even more soldiers.
The big plan for the US Army was in fact for 1919. Fortunately it was not needed as finally the German HQ decided to concede defeat and to put the blame on everybody but them.
The US Army had to be equipped with French material, tanks and Airplanes. The US Army was just the reinsurance that Germany will loose for sure as it reversed the Numbers Superiority Germany had before.

Americans often receive a lot of (deserved) flak for over claiming their role in the World Wars. However, I've noticed a similar phenomenon in the opposite direction among some Europeans. Despite being last in a list of half a dozen reasons why France was able to survive the mutinies, the American contribution is the one singled out and challenged. The US lost 117,000 men in France. I believe those soldiers earned their place on the list, especially considering the morale benefits/losses and the effects on German decision making their presence had.

[Strike For The South]

This arguement has been covered ad naueseum....in this very thread


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Brenus]

“The Germans, of course, also didn't benefit from having the British Army (2/3 the size of the French Army by 1917) or the Royal Navy to pick up the slack.”
Err, this has nothing to do with the handling of mutinies.
Then, the German had the supplies from Ukraine and the spoil of war from Russia and Brest-Litvosk Peace Treaty.

“Do I detect a bit of defensive deflection?” Yes. You are right.

“It seems any criticism of the French military is answered with a "well the Germans were worse", regardless of how laughable the assertion. The German Army endured far greater organizational strains for far longer while achieving far greater results than that of the French Army, which shattered against German lines during the Nivelle Offensive and gave out.”
Well, all evidences show that the assumption of German Army best Army is without any ground.
Except during the first months of the WW1, the German didn’t succeeded to break the French/English/Belgium lines.
As the logistic strain, Germany was the most industrialised country of Europe and used the French Railways network. That is true that in marching to Paris made theirs lines of supply longer and the French ones shorter, but that is what happened when you invade neighbours.
Nivels’offensives were disastrous for the French, but the same can be said for all German late offensives. From (roughly) 1915 all German Offensive failed. All strategies failed due to a lack of agreement within the German HQ (see Verdun).

“any participant in any stage of the war could be considered more ignorant of the limitations of their soldiers than those who marched the brave French boys into that spectacular defeat.”
Err, the ones who try to apply Von Schlieffen Plan could be a good start.

“More deflection. It can also not be said that the Germans benefitted from an alliance with the most powerful nation in the world.” Germany WAS the most powerful European nation and allied with (at least on paper) a powerful Empire.

“A closer look, however, reveals an operationally broken French Army in completely mutiny” If so why the Germans didn’t brake through? It is because the French soldiers refused to go in senseless offensives. They didn’t refuse to fight; they refused to go on a slaughter, to be killed by either the German Machine guns or the French Artillery.
Again, you want to see a broken French Army in full mutiny when it was a army on mutiny for so good reasons than even the arrogant, useless aristocratic French Officers were obliged to concede the point.
The German Soldiers had the bad luck to have even worst officers.

“I believe those soldiers earned their place on the list, especially considering the moral benefits/losses and the effects on German decision making their presence had.” Of course they did.
My intervention is not to down size the US involvement or deny the UK participation.
I just want to point out the myth of the German Military superiority that proved wrong during the WW1 (in WW2 as well, but the German HQ was better).
Germany didn’t loose WW1 by chance or bad luck. Germany lost because bad planning, ill conceived plans and stubbornness and heroism of the French soldiers who persevered, hold and won on the battle fields despite the French Officers Caste.
Germany had all the reasons to win the war. Better equipped, better trained, long planning and surprise elements, the Germans soldiers should have won and didn’t. They gave their best, and sometimes were not far to achieve victory… But didn’t.
The will of some to belittle (not you) the French heroism in “without US or UK, French would have collapse –as usual-)” is obvious.
The French lost 1,600,000 soldiers in defending their country.

“France technically won WW2 as well, but I don't think anyone would say she 'persevered, held, and won'” France as such no, but French individuals did, and in 1943, the individuals together represented 120,000 fighting in Italy to reach 500,000 in mid 1944.
“During WW2 France lost about 253,000 KIA (92,000 alone during the 45 days of the 1940 campaign) and 390,000 civilians killed and of course numerous mutilated people. Among these civilians there were 67,000 deaths due to allied bombings. The USA for example suffered about 300,000 losses for a much bigger country.” From Axis History Factbook.com

So I think France didn’t usurped the right to be in the table of the winners.

But, in short, I am fighting on “and left France to get its ass kicked” as it was certain, when reality (and not parallel history) shows it was far from certain. I don’t know what would have been the outcome of WW1 with only France and Germany, without the invasion of Belgium. The assumption by some it would have resulted in a French Defeat is an insult to the French Dead.
Some assume that Germany had always had Military Superiority in term of spirit and knowledge, that Germans were defeated only by vast numbers superiority. It has to be said that is a myth, in both World War.
What Louis describes in this debate is true as well for WW2.
The rewriting of History for various reasons can’t be left unchallenged.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Do I detect a bit of defensive deflection?

There is not 'a bit' of defensive deflection. As far I'm concerned, there is only defensive deflection.

I mean, come on, PJ. Is it not obvious what Brenus and I are arguing against in this past half a page? We are not about inflating military achievements or about national egos and that sort of blahblah. We are only about arguing against 'should've let France to get it's arse kicked, would've been better for the world'. As an isolated comment that would be fine. But it is the logical conclusion of a much larger narrative, widely shared: 'Britain and the US fought on behalf of France. Saved France. Then France abused this victory for her own gain, humiliating Germany, thus provoking another war. Where once again France had to be saved. To top it all of, France is unfgrateful about it too'. My conclusion from that too would be that 'we should've let France get its arse kicked'.

Against that we argue. Nothing more. Mainly by pointing out two things:
1) France did not lose, but win.
If one reads the interwebs, one gets the impression many think of WWI as a war which was in all but name lost by France, and which was 'not really' lost by Germany. Both of which are silly. Unthinkable perhaps to some, but such is Europe's fluid and competitive history that we've all won some and we've all lost some.

2) To fight in France does not automatically mean to fight on behalf of France.
It is true Britain and America relieved France from a difficult predicament. But then it is equally true that France saved the British Empire from its main rival. As the saying back then went, 'London is prepared to defend the Empire to the last Frenchman'.
Within an understanding of the larger international relations framework, it is equally valuable, perhaps equally silly, to argue that 'Britian should not have gotten entangled in a continental war' as it is to argue that 'France should not have gotten involved in the German-British struggle for supremacy. Next time, just show the Germans the way to the North Sea ports and let's see if Britain can really build as many ships as German industry'.

Neither Britain nor Germany saw any fighting on their soil. These two empires faced each other in Belgium and France. It was the French and Belgian civilians which died, whose villages were destroyed, their industries crippled. Then one hundred years onwards, you are told you are 'ungrateful' about it. Yeah, right...
Should Belgium be 'grateful' to France and Germany and Britain for having fought their war on Belgian soil? No, of course not. To a large extent, the same applies to France too. France does not need to be grateful for being a conveniently located battlefield with agreeable weather and workable infrastructure.

Look, France sought war as much as everybody else, her gaze never left Strasbourg for decades. No need to cry about anything, France got what she deserved. But that is not the issue. The issue is that WWI was not a war fought for France, nor a war in which France had to be saved. On the contrary, it was a war that France won, for her allies too, perhaps more than the reverse, and a war for which the cost was overwhelmingly borne by France as well, in blood and physical destruction.

Mind that I've got no issue with what anybody back then did or not. Not the British dealings in WWI, nor even the Germans, least of all the Americans. The issue is with the historical narrative that leads to 'Britian should've left France to rot', which I think rests on several fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

[PanzerJaeger]

Err, this has nothing to do with the handling of mutinies.

It has everything to do with them. The French were essentially able to take the rest of 1917 off after Nivelle, while the British assumed the offensive and kept the Germans from exploiting the situation. The Germans did not have a powerful ally at their flank after Michael ran out of steam.

Also, there is a functional distinction between soldiers in retreat and soldiers in mutiny. At war's end, the vast majority of German soldiers were still fighting and still following orders - they were just losing. The Kriegsmarine suffered the one famous example, but mutiny was not a systemic issue as it was in the French military even at the end.

Then, the German had the supplies from Ukraine and the spoil of war from Russia and Brest-Litvosk Peace Treaty.

Administrating the war-torn remnants of the eastern Russian Empire was far more of a burden for Germany than a blessing.

Well, all evidences show that the assumption of German Army best Army is without any ground.

I disagree, and as evidence I offer not the German experience, but that of the Ottomans.

Except during the first months of the WW1, the German didn’t succeeded to break the French/English/Belgium lines.
As the logistic strain, Germany was the most industrialised country of Europe and used the French Railways network. That is true that in marching to Paris made theirs lines of supply longer and the French ones shorter, but that is what happened when you invade neighbours.

The supply lines against the French weren't the problem. It was marching about in Russia that caused the real issues. Do keep in mind that while fighting the French and British, the Germans also had to contend with the Russian Empire, which fielded the largest army of the war, by far. We won't even get into the Southern Front and Italy...

Nivels’offensives were disastrous for the French, but the same can be said for all German late offensives. From (roughly) 1915 all German Offensive failed. All strategies failed due to a lack of agreement within the German HQ (see Verdun).

I suppose you're speaking only of the Western Front. In regards to Nivelle, there is failure and then there is outright slaughter.

Err, the ones who try to apply Von Schlieffen Plan could be a good start.

See above. Von Schlieffen was also distorted, as were most German actions in the west, by concerns over the East.

Germany WAS the most powerful European nation and allied with (at least on paper) a powerful Empire.

And that was the problem. Austria was to handle Russia. They couldn't even hold them up for a few months, much less engage them independently. This completely threw Germany's game plan off.

If so why the Germans didn’t brake through?

As explained before - primarily the British and Germany's focus in the East. Remember, the whole reason Nivelle was launched was because of percieved German numerical inferiority on the French Front - 1.2m French versus 450k Germans. After absorbing the French offensive, the German's were in no condition to take advantage of their victory.

It is because the French soldiers refused to go in senseless offensives. They didn’t refuse to fight; they refused to go on a slaughter, to be killed by either the German Machine guns or the French Artillery.
Again, you want to see a broken French Army in full mutiny when it was a army on mutiny for so good reasons than even the arrogant, useless aristocratic French Officers were obliged to concede the point.

I made no judgments about the reasons for the mutiny or whether it was justified - only that it happened.

The German Soldiers had the bad luck to have even worst officers.

I don't know where you're coming from with this. The Germans had fine officers, competent enough to realize the new realities of modern warfare and completely overhaul German military doctrine in the middle of the war.

I just want to point out the myth of the German Military superiority that proved wrong during the WW1 (in WW2 as well, but the German HQ was better).
Germany didn’t loose WW1 by chance or bad luck. Germany lost because bad planning, ill conceived plans and stubbornness and heroism of the French soldiers who persevered, hold and won on the battle fields despite the French Officers Caste.
Germany had all the reasons to win the war. Better equipped, better trained, long planning and surprise elements, the Germans soldiers should have won and didn’t. They gave their best, and sometimes were not far to achieve victory… But didn’t.

The mere fact that Germany eventually lost is not, in itself, an indictment of the German military. The outcome of wars involves much more than military competence. In the case of WW1, Germany's geopolitical miscalculations and the immaturity and incompetence of its emperor had far more to do with the loss than its military.

But, in short, I am fighting on “and left France to get its ass kicked” as it was certain, when reality (and not parallel history) shows it was far from certain. I don’t know what would have been the outcome of WW1 with only France and Germany, without the invasion of Belgium. The assumption by some it would have resulted in a French Defeat is an insult to the French Dead.
Some assume that Germany had always had Military Superiority in term of spirit and knowledge, that Germans were defeated only by vast numbers superiority. It has to be said that is a myth, in both World War.
What Louis describes in this debate is true as well for WW2.
The rewriting of History for various reasons can’t be left unchallenged.

I agree, and that is why I bristled at some of Louis' comments. I understand why he makes them, but I think a critical reassessment of France's role in WW1 and the interwar period can be achieved without overcompensating. It ultimately weakens one's argument.

Obviously we disagree at the margins on the capabilities of the French versus German militaries of the period, but I have no doubt that the French soldiers fought just as hard, just as tenaciously, and were just as brave as those of any of the other major combatants.

There is not 'a bit' of defensive deflection. As far I'm concerned, there is only defensive deflection.

I mean, come on, PJ. Is it not obvious what Brenus and I are arguing against in this past half a page? We are not about inflating military achievements or about national egos and that sort of blahblah. We are only about arguing against 'should've let France to get it's arse kicked, would've been better for the world'. As an isolated comment that would be fine. But it is the logical conclusion of a much larger narrative, widely shared: 'Britain and the US fought on behalf of France. Saved France. Then France abused this victory for her own gain, humiliating Germany, thus provoking another war. Where once again France had to be saved. To top it all of, France is unfgrateful about it too'. My conclusion from that too would be that 'we should've let France get its arse kicked'.

Against that we argue. Nothing more. Mainly by pointing out two things:
1) France did not lose, but win.
If one reads the interwebs, one gets the impression many think of WWI as a war which was in all but name lost by France, and which was 'not really' lost by Germany. Both of which are silly. Unthinkable perhaps to some, but such is Europe's fluid and competitive history that we've all won some and we've all lost some.

2) To fight in France does not automatically mean to fight on behalf of France.
It is true Britain and America relieved France from a difficult predicament. But then it is equally true that France saved the British Empire from its main rival. As the saying back then went, 'London is prepared to defend the Empire to the last Frenchman'.
Within an understanding of the larger international relations framework, it is equally valuable, perhaps equally silly, to argue that 'Britian should not have gotten entangled in a continental war' as it is to argue that 'France should not have gotten involved in the German-British struggle for supremacy. Next time, just show the Germans the way to the North Sea ports and let's see if Britain can really build as many ships as German industry'.

Neither Britain nor Germany saw any fighting on their soil. These two empires faced each other in Belgium and France. It was the French and Belgian civilians which died, whose villages were destroyed, their industries crippled. Then one hundred years onwards, you are told you are 'ungrateful' about it. Yeah, right...
Should Belgium be 'grateful' to France and Germany and Britain for having fought their war on Belgian soil? No, of course not. To a large extent, the same applies to France too. France does not need to be grateful for being a conveniently located battlefield with agreeable weather and workable infrastructure.

Look, France sought war as much as everybody else, her gaze never left Strasbourg for decades. No need to cry about anything, France got what she deserved. But that is not the issue. The issue is that WWI was not a war fought for France, nor a war in which France had to be saved. On the contrary, it was a war that France won, for her allies too, perhaps more than the reverse, and a war for which the cost was overwhelmingly borne by France as well, in blood and physical destruction.

Mind that I've got no issue with what anybody back then did or not. Not the British dealings in WWI, nor even the Germans, least of all the Americans. The issue is with the historical narrative that leads to 'Britian should've left France to rot', which I think rests on several fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

Couldn't agree more.

[sulla1982ad]

Of course,anti -French hater

Don't hate the French. Just wasn't the British Empires business to get involved in that war. Germany smashes France, Germany is the biggest power in Europe, Britain trades with a more powerful Germany, not the end of the world. I don't like Germany any better than France. I've find all European imperial powers of the era distasteful.

[Brenus]

“Just wasn't the British Empires business to get involved in that war.” And how long UK would have been able to compete against a Continental German Empire? Germany was producing Battleships faster than the UK. With the Industrial French North in its grasp, it would have been even faster…
UK didn’t go to war for French and Belgium for their beautiful eyes but for a reality check of where was the most dangerous opponent to her interest.

“Germany smashes France”: Didn’t succeed this in 1914, or 1915, or 1916, 1917 and 1918.
I remember now, Germany was defeated...
You are just following the anti-French propaganda based on no fact to sustain this assertion.
It is of course your right to follow blindly non-sense.

“I've find all European imperial powers of the era distasteful.” Is a contradiction with “Germany smashes France, Germany is the biggest power in Europe, Britain trades with a more powerful Germany, not the end of the world.”
You wouldn’t mind a Imperial Germany apparently.