Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
World War 1 - The War To End All Wars
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Rab_Bruce (U1964174) on Thursday, 1st September 2005
How did it start could someone please tell me?
thanks,
Lewis -
Message 2
Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
How did it start could someone please tell me?
thanks,
³¢±ð·É¾±²õÌý
The simple version is that a Serbian nationalist assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne because Austria held Bosnia as a colony and the Serb nationalists wanted to unite Bosnian serbs with Serbia (sound familiar?).
Austria then threatened to attack Serbia but Serbia turned to its ally Russia. Gemrany then decided to back its ally Austria by attacking Russia and France (which was allied to Russia). Britain became involved when Germany invaded Belgium as part of its attack on France. -
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
Ostensibly the war started because a Serbian freedom fighter / terrorist named Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. A-H declared war on Serbia. Because of a complex web of alliances Russia declared was on A-H to support Serbia. Germany declared war on Russia which, thanks to the complexity of the various alliances, dragged in France. Britain joined in when Germnay invaded Belgium to attack France. Other countries joine dthanks to the web of international alliances. Italy, Japan and Romania on the "Allies" side and Turkey, and Bulgaria on the side of the "Central Powers".
The assassination was, if you will excuse the pun, just the trigger. Most of the European nations were just itching to get at each other and all they needed was an excuse. A lot of them wanted to settle old scores. Arms races and colonial conquests had been going on for years, with alliances signed for mutual protection. Once started, it snowballed. The war spread to Africa as many European nations had colonies there. The British Empire was still around, so, amongst others, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all joined in. The war also covered the middle east where Turkey clashed with Britain.
Greece tried to stay neutral (they were anti-Turk, but also pro-German, so they were in a quandary) but were dragged into the war on the Allied side in 1917, principally because both sides sent troops there and started fighting each other - the Allies were there with reluctant Greek consent, the Austrians and Bulgarians because they invaded to fight the French and British.
The Germans declared unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic in 1917 to try to stop supplies from North & South America reaching the Allies. This rather backfired as it resulted in USA and Brazil declaring was after some of their ships were sunk. While Brazil's impact was not huge, the Americans, of course, promptly came to Europe in time to claim the glory. By he time they arrived, British (and their Empire troops)had more or less won on the Western Front by virtue of having somehow outlasted the Germans.
I'm not sure if that answers how or why it started. There are a lot of good books, including fiction, and web-sites on the war which can give you more in-depth information.
It is a subject which really should be taught more in our schools. The impact on the world was immense. Amongst other things, it led directly to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian, Turkish and Russian empires; the rise of Communism; the collapse of France as a world power; the rise of American industrial might; women working in traditional male roles in factpries and offices; the rapid development of technology which would go on to dominate the 20th century, such as aircraft, wireless, machine guns, tanks, mines, submarines. Indirectly, it led to the second World War, largely thanks to the Allies imposing severe conditions on Germany after the Armistice.
And, of course, the casualties were horrendous on all sides. It is hard to comprehend the scale of the killing and the abominable conditions the soldiers fought in, particularly on the Western and Eastern fronts. 11th November is truly a significant day which deserves to be commemorated. Unfortunately, as time passes, too few people are aware of just how bad this war was. To put some perspective, England has a small number of what are known (I think ) as "blessed villages". These are the very few places where none of the inhabitants were killed during the war. Almost every town or village lost someone - many lost almost a whole generation. -
Message 4
Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
I agree that WW1 started all sorts of social, political, technological changes but I don't think you should look at in isolation. Really the two world wars are one long conflict with a 20 year truce in the middle. People tried to go back to the way things were after WW1 but WW2 was even more cataclysmic and nothing was the same after that.
-
Message 5
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
How did it start could someone please tell me?
thanks,
³¢±ð·É¾±²õÌý
Lewis, I agree with the posts above, it started due to the spark that was the assasination of Franz Ferdinand. After that it appears that no one could be bothered / was able to stop it. In the build up to the declaration of war many of the leaders and diplomats were on holiday (It was August after all). In the days before mobile phones, faxes, pagers it meant the people who could have stopped it were out of effective communication with events and each other. The plans each nation had to implement in the event of war clicked smoothly into place and as they say, the rest is history.
There was a domino effect, Austro Hungarys mobilisation of the Army caused Russia to mobilise, this caused the Germans to mobilise, this caused the French (and Belgians) to mobilise, the German invasion of Belgium brought the British in to defend Belgium.
To understand mobilisation of an army of the time you have to understand that each nation (excepting Britain) had a conscript army, each male at the age of eighteen was expected to serve for a period of time (usually two years) in the army and then go onto the reserve list. Mobilisation meant calling up the reserves to the army and transporting them to their positions within the "plan".
If you didn't mobilise your army when your potential enemy did then you would be a sitting duck. Vast amounts of time were spent by all the General Staffs (except the British who had a small regular army), in planning the movement of the troops to the "critical" areas (according to their plans) prior to the war. No one seems to have considered how to call off mobilisation and return the troops to their homes.
Thus, once mobilisation started it became progressively harder to stop. To go back to the spark, it caused a conflagration, simply because there wasn't a Fire Brigade, and indeed had nations putting fuel to the fire.
I'd agree on balance that the 2nd World War did come about as a result of the 1st World War, it could be considered as one conflict with a half time break. To continue with the fire analogy, the bonfire was made with the Franco Prussian War, so possibly it started with this.
Cheers AA. -
Message 6
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
AA,
"To continue with the fire analogy, the bonfire was made with the Franco Prussian War, so possibly it started with this".
I couldn't agree more. Clemenceau, the French at the Versailles Peace Conference was influenced significantly by the experiences of 1870 and demanded severe penalties for peace. This led, indirectly to the rise of National Socialism and WWII.
Whilst the German treatment of trans-Atlantic shipping caused a severe straining of relations between the US and Germany (ie the sinking of the Lusitania) it was the infamous "Zimmermann Telegram" which propelled the US into the war. At the time the US didn't have a large standing army, the formation of which took time to train.
You have got to realise that there was a large German population in the US and many immigrants had left Europe because of warfare. Therefore declaring war on a European country and fighting in a faraway theatre of war was not popular.
Cheers, John. -
Message 7
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
John,
I have to complain about your post as agreeing is not within the rules (although you have given me an opportunity).
Quote from hes.
"You have got to realise that there was a large German population in the US and many immigrants had left Europe because of warfare. Therefore declaring war on a European country and fighting in a faraway theatre of war was not popular."
I'd submit that in terms of history the American Civil War (ACW) has defined American thinking for quite some time. Consider: in 1914 there were American citizens who'd fought in the ACW, at the very least their fathers had. In terms of military tactics the ACW was the first modern war. Sorry, nearly went off on one there.
Nice to see hes we can actually talk history, for once, without us despairing at the temerity at the hosts. Hosts
.
AA. -
Message 8
Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
Couldn't agree more that the ACW was the first modern war. Pity the WW1 generals didn't study it and see the futility of frontal attacks on trenches!
-
Message 9
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
AA,
You had a gap of almost 50 years between the ACW and WWI (I hate all these abbreviations). There were a whole generation of immigrants who became Americans in the meantime (my grandparents being one example). Leaving the Teddy Rooseveldt/Ranolph Hearst inspired "bean-shoot" in between, the US army had only the Mexican border to worry about. That was the basis of the threat of the "Zimmermann" business.
I have just posted a message to Jozef on the Hub, in which I mention a document from January, 1910 (the birthrecord of my aunt Vera) of the public records of Worcester, Massachussetts. The parents nationalities range from English, italian, German, Russian, Lithuanian, Poland (?), Austria, Armenia, Syria (?) and various ango nations. That is ONE page. These people were new world Americans.
I once met the granddaughter of someone who had fought in the ACW and she recalled that the effect of THAT terrible conflict had left a deep scar on the American physche.
Cheers, John. -
Message 10
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
John, yes, there is a two generation gap between the ACW and WW1, however it is still within the bound of reason that a proportion of the population would have heard from their grandparents how awful war is.
If I was implying any slur against you then of course I withdraw my comment. I was merely stating that in order to understand the USA (in my own opinion) you must study the ACW.
Hope that clears my position up.
. AA -
Message 11
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
AA,
The Spanish/American war bisected the two wars (ACW and WWI).
In 1914 the standing army of the US was 98,000 and it rose to just over 140,000 by April, 1917. Apart for it's focus on the Tex/Mex border there were few experiences of combat. By November, 1918, US forces reserve totalled over 23 million!!!
But the contention still exists; why should the US enter a war, in some foreign country, thousands of miles from home. Wilson made two major efforts to secure peace, one in december, 1916 and the other on April 22, AFTER the US had declared war.
Continue disagreeing, just as long as you don't threaten excommunication!
Cheers, John.
PS The entry into the war by the US was a tremendous boost to moral on the Western Front. I know that from my grandad, who didn't have pleasurable experiences personally from American soldiers. But that is a seperate story........ -
Message 12
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
PPS. Did you know that there were bad feelings between Woodrow Wilson and Teddy R about WWI. Rooseveldt wanted to re-form his rough riders from the Spanish/American conflict. He volunteered to go over to France and charge German lines on horseback. Wilson refused as the tactics "died in the 1890's". Rooseveldt never forgave him. This was componded by the death of his youngest son Quentin (a pilot killed in action 1918).
-
Message 13
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
What we must remember is that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was but one of many potential triggers to the first world war. Anglo-German naval rivalry and German and Austro-Hungarian imperialist ambitions were creaters of many potential triggers and chance just happened upon Austro-Hungarian aggressive foreign policy. -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
Some interesting things said, but one has also to make a further analysis on the economical status of each of the participants. Yes, it was the Anglo-German rivalry, the Enlish were quite anxious about the rise of a united Germany. If peace continued for more, then Germany could possibly move towards unification of the rest of germanic speaking populations anywhere (that implies Austria whose), and that could be done in a 'more pleasant way' rather than in the pro-WW2 period. Hence, a huge state covering much of Europe would be created that would have affiliations with Skandinavian states and good relations with certain countries of the Balkans isolating France and UK from the rest of Europe. Not to mention the colonies (few but that could change).
This war was more sought by England rathern than by Germany, since Germany was not ready yet to hit England head to head. It would be too late later for UK. -
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
... not to mention of course the huuugggee transfer of international capital via Switwerland, always that land in the center of Europe that survived centuries without invasion or war while larger states were devastated - that is not of course due to its good politics or its army) of international International capital fled to US before the WW1 mainly from England, France and less from Germany. All that for those who wonder why US joined the WW1. The 'same' capital was used to give loans to European countries to fight, get destroyed and then be indebted and 'chained' forever. Not more not less than that: all the rest are tiring details, the battles the losses the human losses etc left for the analysis by those who still insist on thinking that countries like England or France or US or Germany are ruled by their governments that represent the will of their people etc.
-
Message 16
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
... not to mention of course the huuugggee transfer of international capital via Switwerland, always that land in the center of Europe that survived centuries without invasion or war while larger states were devastated - that is not of course due to its good politics or its army) of international International capital fled to US before the WW1 mainly from England, France and less from Germany. All that for those who wonder why US joined the WW1. The 'same' capital was used to give loans to European countries to fight, get destroyed and then be indebted and 'chained' forever. Not more not less than that: all the rest are tiring details, the battles the losses the human losses etc left for the analysis by those who still insist on thinking that countries like England or France or US or Germany are ruled by their governments that represent the will of their people etc.Ìý
On what source (s) do you base your knowledge of "secret" Swiss Banking? I would be very interested in some facts and figures rather than broad based statements.
Cheers. -
Message 17
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
What we must remember is that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was but one of many potential triggers to the first world war. Anglo-German naval rivalry and German and Austro-Hungarian imperialist ambitions were creaters of many potential triggers and chance just happened upon Austro-Hungarian aggressive foreign policy.Ìý
I think that it is generally aknowledged that the assassination was the event which set all the various elements in motion.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 18
Posted by FrankFry (U1853098) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
The world was alomst colonized by the Great powers. The rest of the world to colonize was little at that time. Since Britain and France already obtained vast colonies, they need to defend them. By contraries, Germany had a couple of small colonies, so the state wanted to redetermine sphere of influence and gain larger colonies. There is a power struggle among them. Bismark warned against Wilhelm II's policy, but Kaiser dismissed him.
Oesterreich(Austria-Hungary) designed to enter the Balkan Peninsula, it is the proof that the country annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. But Russia had considerable influence over the region, in which many Slavs lived. In addition, Japan winnig a victory over Russia in the Asia, Russia was obliged to go into the region. In other word there's an another power struggle between the two nations.
Italy intended to recover the Tirol and Trieste from Austria.
Bulgaria and Greece hoped for expansion of territory.
The Ottoman Empire was influenced by Germany through investment and military cooperation.
European Great powers had not experienced total war and they did not know terribleness of war, so they --particularly young officers-- thirsted for war and their being heroes.
Two clashes of interests prepared the First World War. And the Sarajevo accident lighted a match.
The U.S.A. dreaded supports for Britain were in vain by British defeat.
-
Message 19
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
Some interesting things said, but one has also to make a further analysis on the economical status of each of the participants. Yes, it was the Anglo-German rivalry, the Enlish were quite anxious about the rise of a united Germany. If peace continued for more, then Germany could possibly move towards unification of the rest of germanic speaking populations anywhere (that implies Austria whose), and that could be done in a 'more pleasant way' rather than in the pro-WW2 period. Ìý
Hang on, isn't Germany allied with Austro Hungary? So what's the point of unification?
Hence, a huge state covering much of Europe would be created that would have affiliations with Skandinavian states and good relations with certain countries of the Balkans isolating France and UK from the rest of Europe. Not to mention the colonies (few but that could change).Ìý
Okay you have one Germanic state supposedly, what do the Hungarians think about this? I'll repeat as Germany is allied with Austro Hungary isn't the question of unification a moot one as far as other countries are concerned?
This war was more sought by England rathern than by Germany, since Germany was not ready yet to hit England head to head. It would be too late later for UK.Ìý
I'll grant that Britain was anxious about the German Naval build. The response was to outbuild the Germans, at the outbreak of WW1 the RN had 49 battleships to Germanys 29. Britain had also signed a military alliance with Japan to limit Germanys colonial gains in the east. So what exactly has Britain to gain with a war in Europe here? Do you know how many divisions there were in the BEF. Six, of which only 5 were sent! Thats approximately 90,000. Do you know the size of the German standing army and reserve in 1914. 4.5 million men! I'd be just itching to take those odds on and start a war. Sounds like a great proposition (if you're insane).
Cheers AA -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
On the same clues that historians claim that Hitler was largely responsible for the WW2 and that UK and US were dragged unwillingly in that war.
On the same clues that forget to explain to us the financing of the Red Revolution (and why revolutionaires kept visiting Switzerland repeatedly).
On the same clues that forget that Germany was 'destroyed' after WW1, where did they find then the money to rebuilt their war machine? Did they have slaves or it was all made up by Jewish/gay/gipsies/anti-nazis hands in concentration camps? Where did they find the money?
Yes, if people use such clues let me have mine. -
Message 21
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
On the same clues that historians claim that Hitler was largely responsible for the WW2 and that UK and US were dragged unwillingly in that war.
On the same clues that forget to explain to us the financing of the Red Revolution (and why revolutionaires kept visiting Switzerland repeatedly).
On the same clues that forget that Germany was 'destroyed' after WW1, where did they find then the money to rebuilt their war machine? Did they have slaves or it was all made up by Jewish/gay/gipsies/anti-nazis hands in concentration camps? Where did they find the money?
Yes, if people use such clues let me have mine.Ìý
Not very scientific is it? Perhaps it was all a plot by extraterestials? After all; "the clues are out there!". -
Message 22
Posted by Ozymandias (U1727865) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
One aspect of this thread addresses he issue of European immigrants to America being disinclined to fight in Europe after the United States entered the war in 1917. A specific example of this arose in Butte, Montana, the site of the largest copper mine in the world and the main US centre for the production of copper for shell and bullet casings.
In the 1870s Irish copper production ceased and a flood of out-of-work Irish miners emigrated to Butte where they found employment alongside German, Italian, English (Cornish), Serbian and Croatian immigrants.
At the outbreak of war Butte had developed into a political tinderbox. There existed a complicated and volatile mix of interest groups and ideologies all vying for power and control in an atmosphere charged with ethnic tension. These vested interests included militant socialist miners' unions; mine owners eager to profit from the insatiable demand for copper; and government agencies allied more towards business than labour, and with an eye to international affairs.
Strikes were broken by setting ethnic groups against each other and by using the militia and regular army to quell civil unrest and rioting. Following the introduction of the draft in 1917 there was widespread resistance to it from all immigrant nationalities, including Germans, Italians, Serbs and Croats who did not want to fight against their compatriots in a European theatre of war and Irish nationalists who did not want to fight in support of Britain.
Some tried to unite the miners by persuasion, arguing that they had more in common as exploited workers than the ethnic differences between them.
Martial law was declared to protect government and business interests in Butte and the commander in charge of military operations was Captain Omar Nelson Bradley who later commanded the American Army Group in Europe as a five-star general during World War Two.
Information on these events is readily available on the net.
Best Wishes, Oz. -
Message 23
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
Hes, cannot help feeling Nick has forgotten to look at the net result of Czechoslovakia's annexation.
-
Message 24
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
Hes, cannot help feeling Nick has forgotten to look at the net result of Czechoslovakia's annexation.Ìý
Sorry lol,
I don't understand your posting. Can you explain further please?
Cheers, John. -
Message 25
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
Oz,
Thanks for reminding me of that. I had completely forgotten about Butte.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 26
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005
AA,
"I'll grant that Britain was anxious about the German Naval build. The response was to outbuild the Germans, at the outbreak of WW1 the RN had 49 battleships to Germanys 29. Britain had also signed a military alliance with Japan to limit Germanys colonial gains in the east. So what exactly has Britain to gain with a war in Europe here? Do you know how many divisions there were in the BEF. Six, of which only 5 were sent! Thats approximately 90,000. Do you know the size of the German standing army and reserve in 1914. 4.5 million men! I'd be just itching to take those odds on and start a war. Sounds like a great proposition (if you're insane)".
In addition France's armed forces totalled some 3.5 million of which 2.9 million were raw recruits during the summer of 1914. Belgium could "chip in" with 185,000 so there you have the absolute opposition. I have seen some of the weapons the French brought to the "party" - the boys from the farms brought old family hierlooms as weapons, some last used in the French Revolution.
As you suggested AA, great odds to bet on!
Cheers, John. -
Message 27
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
AA,
PS For the record I'm agreeing with you -
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Dear Hes,
In which part of history did you see science, cos if you did so, please tell me so I that I know!!! History is a story we construct usually long after real events happen, a story that is tailored to the needs of the current propaganda (whatever that maybe). Therefore, though not reaching the point of denying real events, we can question the motives behind.
The examples are numerous, especially in our century.
Anyone who believes that the Red Revolution in Russia was an internally prepared one is a naif; one should question where did they find finance (cos banks or 'capitalists' normally would not support such a movements.
Anyone who believes the WW2 started because of Hitler then is an even bigger naif - especially when he believes the common story of absolute stupidity: nazism became popular in Germany because Germany was desrroyed financially by the war. PLeeeeeeeeease ... but they had the time and money and organisation to construct in ten years the facilities to built a relatively large war machine .... is that science Mr. Hes.
It saddens me that all these people I see here knowing by heart the places, dates, generals, they know nothing about how international politics really 'move'. -
Message 29
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
I have just finished reading Norman Stones book on the Eastern Front, I have read it before a while ago.
His view if very firmly that the war was the fault of Germany and the reason was because of the Schieffen plan and the need to avoid a war on two fronts. To do this they had to knock out Fracne before Russia could intervene. His view is that the Russian army and its mobilisation was improving to such an extent that by 1917 Germany would not have had a chance. The Russians would have been in Berlin long before the Germans could have reached Paris. therefore Germany siezed on the assasination to start a war before it was too late. -
Message 30
Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Do you think you could stop giving us hints and tell us who really was behind the Russian revolution and the nazis?
-
Message 31
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Reply to hes, message 26,
Just to complete the picture of facts rather than clues, the Russian standing army and reserve was approximately 5.9 million, the British standing army and reserve numbered approximately 975,000 (of which only 90,000 was assigned to the BEF the rest being on other duties within the Empire). I don't have to hand the figures for the Indian Army or indeed know if the figure quoted above includes it, I suspect not.
Austro Hungary approximately 3 million.
hes, please stop agreeing with me it makes me nervous, I'm not used to it
AA. -
Message 32
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Dear Hes,
In which part of history did you see science, cos if you did so, please tell me so I that I know!!! History is a story we construct usually long after real events happen, a story that is tailored to the needs of the current propaganda (whatever that maybe). Therefore, though not reaching the point of denying real events, we can question the motives behind. Ìý
Okay E_Nikolaos_E, I'll grant this makes sense.
The examples are numerous, especially in our century.
Anyone who believes that the Red Revolution in Russia was an internally prepared one is a naif; one should question where did they find finance (cos banks or 'capitalists' normally would not support such a movements.
Anyone who believes the WW2 started because of Hitler then is an even bigger naif - especially when he believes the common story of absolute stupidity: nazism became popular in Germany because Germany was desrroyed financially by the war. PLeeeeeeeeease ... but they had the time and money and organisation to construct in ten years the facilities to built a relatively large war machine .... is that science Mr. Hes. Ìý
To be fair I don't think economics is a science, it seems to me to be a lot more mystical. History however can be approached from a scientific basis. To answer your points regarding the rise of Germany post WW1 I'd point out that they managed to raise 7 billion US Dollars (at 1920s values) by selling German Bonds in the USA. When rampant inflation took over the Reichmark (RM) these bonds became worthless, yet they still had the money in US dollars. (Sweet eh?). When inflation destroyed the RM German industrialists took the opportunity to quicly repay their debts to the banks with worthless currency. Thus German industry emerged debt free. (If you look at most industries nowadays very few have a penny in the bank, they spend the money they get in profits by investing in new plant). Hitler and his followers performed a supposed economic miracle by borrowing vast sums from anyone who'd lend it to him so he could fund the expansion of the German military and provide full employment. This would in normal economic terms be madness, however his plan was to be able to fund it by taking the wealth from the people who'd lent him the money. (Another sweet idea).
Capatilists in my opinion are just capitalists. If there is a profit to be made in lending money to someone whose morales are different to yours then it shouldn't get in the way of making money. (I could mention the Swiss here who have made it distinctly unprofitable for anyone to invade them, and good luck to them I say).
It saddens me that all these people I see here knowing by heart the places, dates, generals, they know nothing about how international politics really 'move'.Ìý
Seeing as I've never been in a position to be involved in International Politics (have you BTW?) I can't say how they move. I suspect though, having been involved in senior positions within commercial companies, they move in much the same way. You have a leader who determines the way forward, it's then up to others within the company (or government) to point out that on reflection it's a good idea or a bad idea. When you are dealing with a maniac who can send you to an unpleasant fate I'll admit that it takes a good deal of courage to oppose them.
Cheers AA. -
Message 33
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Reply to messgae 28.
Nikolaos, Whiil eI certainly agree that one should never believe everything one reads, as history temds to be written by the victors, most students of history that I know will look at various sources to get differing views on things. Challenging accepted views is usually a healthy thing to do if one has some evidence or argument to support the challenge. However, I have to agree with allanro's comment. Can you give us something a bit more substantial for your claims?
To say that Britain wanted WW1 to start is, I think , something of an exaggeration. As other s have pointed out, Britain's army was tiny compared to most nations. Also, to say that Hitler was not responsible for WW2 is also an exaggeration. Rhinelnd, Sudetenland, Austria, Poland. Who invaded? -
Message 34
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Nick and Hes, it is correct that Germany was bankrupted by the First World War and the reparations were steep. Again it is true that German re-armament was strictly limited until the Nazi's came to power and decided that they had to on the grounds of Keynsonian centralised planning, supported to some extent by many influential economists I might add. It was portryed as a means of kickstarting German economic activity in the wake of hyperinflation from the Great crash. The Nazi's hoped that by stating this was a temporary measure supposedly until German arms were capable of defending their own borders. Even then the avenues of development were strictly limited so the Nazi's were initially forced to circumvent the terms of rearmament restricting aircraft and tank development concentrating instead on rocketry, jet engines and nuclear fission which had not been conceived as potential forms of weapon during the Treaty of Versailles. Aside from failing to develop long range bombers it must be noted that before Czechoslovakia's annexation the German army was primarily made up of infantry divisions and it was by no means the mechanised force that swept Europe in 1939 and 40. Most German tanks and transports used in the early years of the war were built in the Skoda factory largely for the Czech army to be used against external aggressors. Being unencumbered by restrictions on the development of armed vehicles the Skoda works consequently had far more advanced designs than the Germans. The fact that the Czechoslovakians were largely sold down the river without a shot being fired meant that this powerful mechanised force was incorperated into the German Army and the designs distributed across their industrial base.
-
Message 35
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
lolbeeble,
The Skoda factory was the best thing Hitler got. I think it was the largest armanent works in Europe at the time. The 38t was a good design. Something Chamberlain seems to have missed. I'll use this as part of my economic arguement if you don't mind.
Indeed in 1941, the German army against the Soviets was still horse drawn despite the capture and use of French and Czech and Polish and British equipment. The difference was that against France the Wehrmacht could advance quickly down decent roads and refuel at petrol stations. (A bit trickier from what I understand in the Ukraine at the time).
As to the Czechs being sold down the river prior to WW2 (by amongst others the British) then I have no option other than to agree. Apologies. In defence of us we were acting out of ignorance. No defence but possibly mitigation. If it's any consolation the British screwed the Polish as well after WW2, it's just that we (I'll) admit it.
AA. -
Message 36
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Hey Guys,
Wasn't this thread posted about the start of WWI and not WWII or am I missing something here.
Cheers, hes.
PS AA is that disagreement enough for you -
Message 37
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Well I was just responding to Nick's constant cry of conspiracy. To be honest I'm waiting for a response to Gorky's role in financing Russian socialism.
-
Message 38
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
hes, relpy to 36, Yes that qualifies, thanks.
lolbeeble,
I'm also waiting, however I fear we may get more clues and fewer facts. [In the spirit of a history board clues can be facts if there is a reasoned arguement, or is that Science?] .
Cheers AA. -
Message 39
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Re: message 37.
lol,
Gorky you said. That is worth an investigation.
Kind regards. -
Message 40
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Hes,
Yes it was started as a WW1 thread, but you know how one thing leads to another. -
Message 41
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
hes, relpy to 36, Yes that qualifies, thanks.
lolbeeble,
I'm also waiting, however I fear we may get more clues and fewer facts. [In the spirit of a history board clues can be facts if there is a reasoned arguement, or is that Science?] .
Cheers AA.Ìý
The closest is
-
Message 42
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
hes, Okay, I've got this one.
E_n_E, please respond as I don't find your clues interesting and cannot subscribe to your newsletter.
AA -
Message 43
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 5th September 2005
I don't know if this has been mentioned at all, but another factor in the cause of the war was Austria's pre-occupation with the Balkans. The AH empire didn't deign to take part in the first two balkan wars and therefore didn't have any say over the emergence of a vastly stronger Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria et all. These countries (esp Serbia) caused a headache for the AH as their existence raised the tension levels within the multi-ethinic empire.
Franz Ferdinand acted as a brake on the Austrian General Staff who were very bombastic over the Serbian question, and when war broke out, the AH were equitped to only deal with Serbia (and then only badly) The Central Allies were needed to protect Austria from Russia, and then as Tony points out in mess 3 ....
But for me the route cause is Austria's desire to put down Serbian nationalism and therefore protect the integrity of the multi ethinc AH Empire -
Message 44
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Re 30,
Dear Allanro,
You are the only one who makes the correct question. "Stop with the starters and get the 'roasted meat'".
I will tell ou something: I am not 100% in position to tell 'its him, or its these people or those'. People have done int he past so often so that lost its importance. We are not going to become a part of a 'witch hunt'.
You may take it as simply as that:
International capital since the time of the Rennaissance (and I should tell you even before that), had no borders; what idiots call globalisation of the 90s is a process that started slowly but gradually by 1491 though crude international banking systems existed earlier by means of dubious knight orders that at the end had little to do with religion or armies etc. For example in the late middle ages it was well known that in countries like England the ruler was not the king or the queen but the meading man of English Templars. When such organisations were disolved then others of similar nature would be created - that is a well known story for countries like Renaissance Italy, Revolutionaire France and Imprerial England. People only know the well-known leaders but do not dare go behind these names to see who played the strings. Politics and finance is a thing played behind the scene, on the scene you usually put actors - if something goes wrong then the 'enemy' or the 'people' ask for the head of the actor not that of the unknown scenario writer.
International capitalists were always of reduced localist, nationalist or religious consciousness, thus searching who is English who is French and who is Spanish is of secondary importance most times. That does not mean that nations and countries and leaderships did not play a vital role into the shapping of modern politics: all I am saying is that these all are dancing a dance that has been largely predesigned by people who have the means and will do everything (even sacrificing 60.000.000 lives at once) in order to preserve their means. -
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th September 2005
sounds strange? It should not; take the example of royal families around Europe who were more or less the same family - united they could sustain their power for more - would you think that international capitalists would not unite in a similar way in order to preserve their interests?
Anyone ho thinks that capitalism is all about antagonism does a fatal mistake: capitalism is a theoritical system like communism, socialism etc. In reality there is only power, and power can be attained mainly by two means: money and armies: the one completes the other. International investors prefer to move their capital depending on case, often investing in two conflicting armies hence in any case they are the winners -
Message 46
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
This war was more sought by England rathern than by Germany, since Germany was not ready yet to hit England head to head. It would be too late later for UK.Ìý
In which case why did Germany declare war on France and Russia, not to mention BElgium before the UK even entered the war.
GB had tried to enter an alliance with Germany but was rebuffed.
Based on the evidence it could far more be argued that Germany went to war in 1914 because they realised by 1917 that due to improvments in the Russian army the Russians would be in Berlin before they could reach Paris. -
Message 47
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Hes
"Do you know how many divisions there were in the BEF. Six, of which only 5 were sent! Thats approximately 90,000. Do you know the size of the German standing army and reserve in 1914. 4.5 million men! I'd be just itching to take those odds on and start a war. Sounds like a great proposition (if you're insane)"."
The BEF consisted of six infantry and one cavalry divisions. At Kitchiner's insistance 2 were kept back initially but these were both sent during the initial phase of the campaign. By bringing in troops from the empire I belive the total was raised to 12 infantry and 5 cavlary regular divisions.
"In addition France's armed forces totalled some 3.5 million of which 2.9 million were raw recruits during the summer of 1914. Belgium could "chip in" with 185,000 so there you have the absolute opposition. I have seen some of the weapons the French brought to the "party" - the boys from the farms brought"
I do not know where you get the figures for the French from but I do not believe they are correct, I will check later as I am at work currently. France had a three year conscription so a large proportion would have been for over one or two years and so not exactly raw on top of the regulars. They also had the 75 artillery piece which was pretty good.
regards
Tim -
Message 48
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Cheers Tim, not only the army, a few more rifles would no doubt have been handy but also Russian infrastructure which as we know was largely funded by British capital. Whether they intended to lay a second track on the trans Siberian railway line is debatable however given its unreliability during the war. It is important when one considers how the Prussians developed the German rail network as well as how the French managed to stop the German advance on Paris.
Can't help thinking the Germans hoped to win as much by forcing their opponents to sue for peace allowing them to negotiate from a position of strenth and demand more territory to add to their East African colonies. They'd been eyeing up North Africa and Northern India which made the British rather nervous but it seems the productive agricultural lands of Eastern Europe were of more concern. I'm sure that is Clauswitz but I'm probably thinking of the Punic wars again, ho hum.
Have you noticed how international financiers do seem to crop up so often in conspiracy theories. So much so I gather the US ADL take it as shorthand for anti-semitism but then being so well trained they see it everywhere. There again British companies recieved plenty of capital from US investors while listed German companies were shunned leading to the head of the NYSE to warn about the risk to their capital should the Central Powers win. Do you think that rules both British and American financial establishment out of paying for the 1917 revolution given their own (in)vested interests? -
Message 49
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Tim,
"In January 1914 the French Army had 47 divisions (777,000 French and 46,000 colonial troops) in 21 regional corps, with attached cavalry and field-artillery units. Most these troops were deployed inside France with the bulk along the eastern frontier as part of Plan 17.
With the fear of war with Germany a further 2.9 million men were mobilized during the summer of 1914. Heavy losses on the Western Front during the first months of the war forced the French government to conscript men up to the age of 45".
From a site for WWI history - French Army 1914.
The belgian figures came from the Belgian Army.
Cheers, John. -
Message 50
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 8th September 2005
Hes
"In addition France's armed forces totalled some 3.5 million of which 2.9 million were raw recruits during the summer of 1914. Belgium could "chip in" with 185,000 so there you have the absolute opposition. I have seen some of the weapons the French brought to the "party" - the boys from the farms brought"
Tim,
"In January 1914 the French Army had 47 divisions (777,000 French and 46,000 colonial troops) in 21 regional corps, with attached cavalry and field-artillery units. Most these troops were deployed inside France with the bulk along the eastern frontier as part of Plan 17.
With the fear of war with Germany a further 2.9 million men were mobilized during the summer of 1914. Heavy losses on the Western Front during the first months of the war forced the French government to conscript men up to the age of 45".
From a site for WWI history - French Army 1914.
Ìý
Infantry: The French army had 43 active divisions numbered 1 to 43. It had 25 reserve divisions numbered 51 to 75. Territorail divisions were numbered above 80 and new formations created in 1915 were numbered over 100. The army consisted of 823,000 and 2,887,000 reservists were called up in 1914. As these had eaither had 2 or three years training they can hardfdly be described as 'raw'. 2,700,000 more were called up until the end of June 1915 and 8,317,000 in total for the entire war.
There were 91 cavalry regiments formed into 10 divisions.
Belgiu, had 6 infantry and 1 cavalry division plus two separate mobile briagdes (Namur and Liege) Belgium mobalised 267,000 men during the war.
All the figures are taken from the World War Sourse Book Philip J.Haythornthwaite but other books I have read are in line with it by major query was your description of the French as 'raw recruits'.
I would point out that at the start of the war Germany had only 42 infantry 2 guard and 6 Bavarian divisions those these were augnemented with large numbers of Landwehr and Reserve divisions. For example the *th army included 1st, XVII and XX Corps 1st Reserve Corps (each 2 divs) 3rd Res Div and 3 landwehr brigades.
cheers
Tim
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 Ìýto 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.