Wars and Conflicts permalink
Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Saturday, 21st January 2006
knowing what we know now, but possessing only those supplies, equipment, and weapons available to the WW1 military, that the stalemate could have been broken and the war won (by either side) without the colossal casualties that were so common?
Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 2
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Saturday, 21st January 2006
Good question, Erik. I'm no expert on military history but I can't help thinking there was something static in the brains of the commanders on both sides of the Western Front. I mean, if it was a mountainous region I could see the problem, but it wasn't. The eastern front certainly wasn't static. As I said, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure inexcusable blunders were made and golden oportunities missed on more than one occasion.
Cheers, JozefLink to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 3
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Saturday, 21st January 2006
Why did either side think it necesasry to try and break through. Couldn't they just have set up a permenant militarised border, like the Iron Curtain?
Also, this may sound stupid, but if whichever Navy had control of the Channel/North Sea, why not launch a sea-borne invasion 'around the top' of the trenchline into either France/Germany, a la Normandy Landings? Was this ever considered? (But, not Gallipoli....)
Eliza.Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 4
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
Eliza,
A ‘permanent Iron Curtain’ across Belgium?! I think Paul Ryckier would object.
I’m no military expert but I suspect a sea-borne invasion would not have been feasible. The Normandy Landings were considered a major feat in 1944, even though Germany was already severely weakened and had the Red Army poised for the final offensive in the east, whilst the Allies had enormous air superiority, years of planning, all sorts of gizmos, special landing craft, tanks, Ultra, artificial harbour, pipeline from England etc, etc.
I was thinking more along the lines, of 5th columnists, sabotage, stealth hit and run attacks deep inside the enemy’s territory, and perhaps making deals with the suppressed nations in the east to start uprisings, which is what those nations actually did of their own accord by the end of the war. Perhaps the military commanders weren’t so much to blame as their political superiors. Perhaps it was just political short-sightedness.
Cheers, JozefLink to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 5
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
>A ‘permanent Iron Curtain’ across Belgium?! I think Paul Ryckier would object.<
Who cares what he would object to. The belgians in Congo - on which much of Belgians wealth- if not all!- was built including all the grand buildings you can see for yourself - where the most brutal people the world have ever seen! They chopped off peoples hands and arms! What do you say of this? This will continue to haunt all belgians until the end of time.Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 6
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
Also, this may sound stupid, but if whichever Navy had control of the Channel/North Sea, why not launch a sea-borne invasion 'around the top' of the trenchline into either France/Germany, a la Normandy Landings? Was this ever considered? (But, not Gallipoli....)
·¡±ô¾±³ú²¹.Ìý
Eliza, no doesn't sound stupid. There are certain factors to be taken into consideration however.
Neither fleet had real possesion of the North Sea. The Royal Navy had nominal control. The German High Seas fleet was a force to be reckoned with. So, for Jellicoe it was a risk to expose the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Fleet to destruction as this would have allowed the Germas to gain free access to the shipping lanes that Britain depended upon for its supply and also to allow Germany free access to supplies that the Royal Navy was effectively blockading.
So, for a seaborne landing to be possible the threat of the German High Seas fleet must be eradicated. (This didn't happen).
Also as several operations during WW2 proved, it is relatively easy to get troops ashore. It's a lot harder to keep them adequately supplied. It's also hard to get those troops to breakout from the bridgehead. In terms of WW1 supply the troops were tied to railways, or how fast a horse could supply food and ammunition to the troops. Also although the Navies could provide off shore artillery, the method of fire control was a little sketchy. By these difficulties I mean to persuade that the only viable method for a seaborne landing was to secure a port with working facilities in the first day (or days) od the landing. Looking at my atlas I'm inclined to think that the only feasible landing site would have been into neutral Holland, Rotterdam looking good. However this brings up several questions, one being how the Dutch would have reacted, secondly the Dutch countryside is not a great area to attack through, there are a lot of defensible rivers and pockets to channel an attacking force into.
Having overcome these problems in planning a seaborne offensive I have failed to take into account one very important thing. The German response. Now in order to achieve the landings I have assumed the German High Command will sit on their hands. Errm, not likely? In order to assemble the troops for this proposed landing I will have had to deny the Western front of troop reinforcements for at least a year. In order to perform a link up of the invasion force with the Western Front troops they will need to attack and gain ground towards the bridgehead at the same time. (Or shortly after).
So, will the German High Command allow me this time? Errm, no.
Possibly some reasons why a seaborne invasion although feasible, was not seriously considered. I'd judge it as an operation with only a 20% chance of success. Not good odds.
Cheers AA.Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 7
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
The WWI was the war of the railways and that speed of the German advance through Belgium towards Brussels(and East Prussia)also owed much to the use of the railways had constructed primarily for such purpose.By contrast the outbreak of war found France and Russia ill-equipped to provide the rolling stock required to meet its demands and this despite all the evidence of the great role the railways might be expected to play in any conflicts in those days.I think something connected with it was rooted in 'static' positions of the both of sides.
I can say that during the Allied counter-offensive in the summer 1918 the transport situation was reversed.During 1918 over 1,340 miles of new track was laid by British and Canadian construction troops and during the final three months of the WWI more than 1,100 miles of track were reconstructed and this task of restoring the railway continuing even after the ending of hostilities on November 11......and the armistice was signed that day in the dining car of the TRAIN which the French Marshal Foch had been using!!!Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 8
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
TO OUR LADY ELIZA....a bit out of theme
Sometimes Ladies doing a man's work.
There was at least one Lady at Trafalgar,in the 74-gun H.M.S. Defiance.Her name was Jane Townshend and she later claimed the General Service Medal awarded to participants in the battle.
No less a person than Queen Victoria said she oughtta have it....and Hannah Snell(1723-92) served as soldie,sailor and marine,and finished up with a Government pension of 20 pounds per annum and the liberty of wearing Men's Clothers and even also a cockade in her Hat.Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 9
Posted by junius (U3008656) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
Jozef
I agree that it may seem the Generals had no idea on how to break the stalemate on the Western front but after the Somme in 1916, many new ideas were tried with some success. The main reason for the percieved lack of judgement was that the Generals simply had never had experienced a war of this type and took years to realise that walking towards machine guns simply did not work, with hindsight it would seem obvoius this would have been more successful in darkness. The Generals cwre the best and most inteligant guys we had at the time I guess no one else would have run the war any other way. We did learn years later Monty would never sacrifice his men this way, sometimes to the frustratuion of the yanks but lets face it their people had never had to endure anythink like the somme and MonsLink to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 10
Posted by junius (U3008656) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
Jozef
I agree that it may seem the Generals had no idea on how to break the stalemate on the Western front but after the Somme in 1916, many new ideas were tried with some success. The main reason for the percieved lack of judgement was that the Generals simply had never had experienced a war of this type and took years to realise that walking towards machine guns simply did not work, with hindsight it would seem obvoius this would have been more successful in darkness. The Generals were the best and most inteligant guys we had at the time I guess no one else would have run the war any other way. We did learn years later Monty would never sacrifice his men this way, sometimes to the frustratuion of the yanks but lets face it their people had never had to endure anythink like the somme and MonsLink to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 11
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
The Germans did effectively build an iron Curatn - it was calle dthe HIndenburg Line. To the Allies, this idea wa anathema. The Germans were on tFrench and Belgain soil and had to be removed. That was why the allied trench system was never regarded as permanent, even though much of it stayed the same for months or even years.
As for uprisings and fifth columns, the sheer number of combatants mean that such efforts would never be more than pin-pricks. They could only be efective if accompanuied and supported by a powerful conventional attack. The German Spring Offensive in 1918 was the only meaningful assault which had large scale success, although it could not be maintained.
That was the main problem with all the conventional attacks - nobody could get enough support troops in quickly enough to back up any initial success. If, in 19196 at the Somme, the British had had the gumption to try a stormtrooper assault as the Germans did in 1918, things might have been different, but the British generals were incapable of such thought and simply threw away the strongest and most enthusiastic army they ever had.Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 12
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
>A ‘permanent Iron Curtain’ across Belgium?! I think Paul Ryckier would object.<
Who cares what he would object to. The belgians in Congo - on which much of Belgians wealth- if not all!- was built including all the grand buildings you can see for yourself - where the most brutal people the world have ever seen! They chopped off peoples hands and arms! What do you say of this? This will continue to haunt all belgians until the end of time.Â
Nick, I don't usually respond to this sort of ill thought out post, however in your case I will make an exception.
The Belgium Congo was an invention of King Leopold. He made the Belgian Congo, and I'll admit, a lot of money out of it. He gave the Congo back to the Belgiums, in return for a lot of money.
Now too attack on a message board the Belgians who are not in presence on this board to defend themselves is cowardice and bullying in its worst form. I hope you are proud of yourself, because I'm not.
You are Nick-Rowan, an idiot and not a gentleman. If I may, I call you out upon the sands of Calais.
(You won't get that reference I'm sure).
Yours (and my second will call upon you in the morning). AA.Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 13
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
A breaktrough on such comparatly small front,and with that amount of men on both sides as the western front,was with that technology impoosible.
The defender could at a breakthrough move muntions new troops etc to contain the attacker,speed 5 to 10 times faster.
With a German army not nearly starved to death,by the RN blockade and Ludendorf 1916 ordering that the majoroty of the of the German industri making shells thus wrecking it.
Would the allied offensive in the autumm 1918,end like the German kaiseroffensive in the same spring.
To AA.
Hear hear sir,well said about the hatefull mess of the Belgians.
Bigots and fanatics are IMO no good contributors to this board.
Y friend
HasseLink to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 14
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
Hi Brownwardle (welcome aboard), hi TonyG, hi Arnald,
I think we can all agree that the Western Front was a pointless tragedy. The Western Front was pointless, but not the entire First World War. To understand what I mean take a look at the political map of those times. Look at Western Europe. Yes, there was a dispute over Alsace-Lorraine, but that’s about it. Today the borders in Western Europe are pretty much the same. Now look at Eastern Europe. Yes, pretty unrecognisable, and the political map would change many times over before until quite recently it began to look the way it does today. And remember that in 1914 it was still pretty much the age of empire.
My point is that in 1914 the geo-political situation in the Western Europe (not Ireland) was already basically settled. In the east, on the other hand, four empires were about to abruptly fall. You might say that I’m speaking with the benefit of hindsight, but the fact that there were nations out there that had enough history and national pride to object to being classed as second class citizens to Germans, Austrians, Russians or Turks was most certainly known. Remember how WWI began. So if any of the powers had offered to guarantee any of the captive nations a fully independent state they would have some extremely enthusiastic allies.
I can safely say that would have been true of the Poles, as they certainly proved that point at the end of the war and in its immediate aftermath, not to mention every year since the 18th-century partitions. As it was, during the war Poles were in the ridiculous situation of fighting on all sides: the Austrian, the Russian and the German, Pole against Pole, brother against brother.
So covert actions, sabotage and popular risings would be mere pinpricks, you say? Perhaps, but they’d still hurt and more importantly they’d provoke a response. In the west the soldiers in the trenches and the civilian populations were living in two different worlds. So what if you could hear the detonations from the Somme across the Channel? As long as the bombs weren’t landing in your living room, it was still pretty abstract. The toffs would continue to pretend to be gentlemen and the commoners still new their place – in the muddy trenches. Now if you had 5th columnists blowing up railway lines, factories, government buildings or worse still popular disturbances and even uprisings, the people suffering hell at the front would start wondering more intensively about what on earth they were fighting for. Soldiers usually fight to protect their homeland, so what happens when they feel their women and children are in danger at home whilst they’re stuck in a foreign land, in a trench, exposed to persistent shelling for no obvious reason at all?
I can see why the governments of empires were loath to make such decisions, but they were wrong, because imperialism is wrong. And now instead almost every village in countries like England has monuments for the brave local lads who died, for what?
Cheers, JozefLink to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 15
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Thank you for the explanations of why a seaa-borne invasion of Germany/France was not feasible for this war.
Jozef - a very valid point about the 'subject peoples of Eastern Europe'. They were, if anyone could be so considered, the main 'beneficiaries' of the Great War. Yes, they had a 'long sleep' during the Russian Communist occupation, but in one way that served to hone eastern european nationalism, especially with the memories of the breif 'interwar spring' perhaps to keep that spirit alive. Lets hope that finally now, the nations of Eastern Europe can 'settle down' and be nation states like us in the West of europe. All we have to sort out now is the south balkans....
Eliza.Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 16
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
'what on earth they were fighting for'-for the fantasy that it was the war that should end wars,Josef and as the influence of the 'revolutionary theory' of Darwin on all aspects of human life.Of course Germany and Austria wanted this war of their own reasons which were different from these of their enemies-
Germany suffered from her fairs and ambitions before A-S world,Austria from her submissiveness and despair.German politicians also were addicted in ideas of Lombrozo&Freid -the bottom line of what was the thought that the world was going to the total destruction-with war or without....Marx,Freid,Einstein -all of 'em told the world the same thing- the modern world was changeable with the hidden message that there was neither good nor bad things.In short -Einstein's Theory of Relativity in action.All of these analyses undermined the moral codex that had been standing at the central point for the European civilization since XIX century...The culminate point of that sort of views came into the world in 1918 with the book of O.Spengler 'The End of the West'.In UK such views were shared by writer J.Konrad(although he himself was born in Eastern Europe) -'Victory'(1915),'Nostromo'(1904).'Before The Eyes Of The West'(1911).There he also claimed that human being was a beetle but not an eagle.....On the whole the world was on brink of moral degradation...when the war was over....Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
-
Message 17
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
'the nations of Eastern Europe can 'settle down' and be nation states like us in the West of europe'-we should be better like those who live in the West of Europe...'cause we know the running of things of the both of worlds-as in Totalitarian so in Free ones,Lady.
Link to this forum: Consider WW1 and its static condition. Does anyone here think,
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.