Is WWI Underappreciated

Great Debates
41

What should have been learned from the Civil War was the futility of hurling armies in frontal assaults against a well-entrenched/protected enemy with good artillery. Somewhere at St. Cyr before WWI when the French were developing the doctrine of all-out offensive, there should have been reminders of Fredericksburg and Gettysburg (i.e. Pickett’s Charge).

You don’t keep battering your head against a wall long after it’s obvious that it is not going to make a difference. Incredibly, it was considered good strategy to attack an enemy’s strongest point in WWI. Plus the standard plan was to heavily bombard an opposing sector, making it obvious where the attack was coming and allowing the enemy to move reinforcements in by train faster than the offensive force could advance.

What in large part won the war for the Allies was the strangulation of Germany by blockade. Too bad no one (generals (or, maybe, politicians as well)) was willing to hold off on suicidal assaults and concentrate on economic pressure. But that’s not glorious warfare. For the same reason, the “Anaconda Plan” (bottling up and economically choking the South) was not initially taken seriously by the North in the Civil War - but that was a major reason the North eventually won.

Another lesson not learned by the combatants in WWI.

42

In another way. The pandemic got its start in America in army camps. No army camps and the spread would have been much slower. However, given that it did start, it probably would have spread anyway.

BTW it was commonly called the Spanish flu because none of the combatant nations would admit to the pandemic for fear of appearing weak. Spain, which was a noncombatant, did admit to it.

I’m an expert in this thanks to my wife who wrote a book on it. She got paid, but it was never published, in part because a lot changed very quickly, and in part because the pandemic expected last year never happened - proving that every silver lining is surrounded by a cloud. :slight_smile:

43

So what would you have done in place of this?

There’s a tendency in retrospect to reduce wars to tabletop games of mathematical probability, but that’s simply not consistent with the facts. The Western Front was divided, to put it in simplistic terms, into three stages;

  1. The initial German invasion through Belgium and into France,
  2. The stalemate, characterized by unsuccessful offensives which were increasingly done by the Allies, and
  3. The final give and go of German offensive followed by collapse and Allied counteroffensive.

If you’re the Allies in the midgame, attacking is in fact the logical thing to do, at least to some extent. You have to bear in mind that the warring states believed they were fighting for their very survival, and they were absolutely correct in that because the losing states - imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire - all collapsed as a resulkt of losing. So from the Allied perspective attacking made sense; they were the larger side so a war of attrition suited their strategic interest by robbing Germany of its manpower, pressuring its strained economy, and relieving pressure on the Russians. From the German perspective, attacking first made sense, falling into a defensive posture made sense once France could not be overrun, and attacking again in 1918 when time was running out also made sense. Once they were committed to war they had to win, and strategically speaking the handing off of the offensive torch made sense.

The going assumption of course, as it always seems to be, is that all Western Front offensives were like that scene in “Gallipoli” where the soldiers stand up, take a few steps, get shot, and fall down. That is simply not what happened, for the most part. Some offensives WERE horribly stunted, many parts of the Somme being the obvious example. For the most part, however, they were not mere walk-into-the-machine-gun bloodbaths.

What generally happened in most of the major offensives was that a hole WAS punched in the line by a heavy initial bombardment and infantry were successfully poured into the line. What then happened, however, is that the break in the line could not be exploited, in part because of a lack of instant communications (man-portable radios generally did not exist) and in part because by mid-1915, the lines of the Western Front were not a trench, but a vast array of trenches, fortifications and strongpoints built miles deep; punching a hole in the front line often simply meant you were facing another line. The Germans actually got into the habit of undermanning the very front line of trenches, assuming they’d get overrun, and help most of their men in reserve to coalesce around the salient that would be created. The Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge is a perfect example; the attack was brilliantly prepared and planned and the Germans in the area were crushed. The attack could not, however, be further exploited, and over time the line just evened out again.

As Joshua tells us, the winning strategy was not to play the game, but hey, that ain’t the generals’ call. Once engaged, and faced with what they had, the strategy was generally logical. For the Allies sitting back on their heels was not, at the time, either politically possible or strategically advisable; sitting back would have been to the German advantage.

That is indisputably a gross mischaracterization of the truth. Many of the major offensives were quite deliberately taken to target junctions in army and corps borders, to exploit weak points, and to assault vulnerable salients.

It also very possibly would have resulted in the Allies losing the war. Again, I cannot stress enough that attrition favoured the Allies.

44

I think that’s part of what makes WWI so much more interesting. You didn’t have the out and out villains, like the Nazis, or the Japanese and Italian fascists. It was all very confusing, and no one was really the bad guy. Hell, if anything, WWI was basically one big family feud-the Kaiser, the Tsar, the King of Britain and quite a few others were all fucking related to one another.

45

And attrition works best when it’s the other side doing it, not as a race to the bottom. Standing pat, when the other guy is panicking because he’s cut off from the outside, is the best strategy by far. Better he comes into our machine guns than we into his.

Think of it as a siege. If he starves or if he dies in a suicidal charge, so what? The result is the same. As the saying goes, patience is a virtue, and if you are holding better cards and can’t be baited into a stupid and wasteful hand, you will win.

46

Okay, it’s 1915. There is stalemate on the front. You’ve replaced Gen Haig and bring with you the knowledge of later tactics, up to today, but not the technology.

How will you win this war by 1/1/17? What new weapons are close enough to production to be used? What tactics will you use?

Okay, we will go back to August, 1914, and try it with tactics developed in light of the American Civil War. What do you know that the Germans don’t? If you’re so smart, stop them.

47

There is a huge WWI memorial in Indianapolis, a veritable temple in fact:

48

Saki ( H H Monroe) wrote an amusing book called ‘When William Came’
http://haytom.us/showcatpicks.php?thiscat=10

When I was about 15 we did a class exchange with a school in Germany for a term. It was interesting, a German teacher taught us history, their version of the run up to WWI was that Germany was fed up with not doing so well in the grab for Africa.

I think had Germany won, things would have been very different, we probably would not have had the Russian Revolution and I’m not convinced that ‘Nazism’ would have turned up in France.

49

You’re right of course, but you’re looking at it the wrong way. At the time, Americans were viewed as yokels by European powers who felt they had nothing to learn from them. But, but, but, you say, there should have been other examples of the power of defenses. There was. The two Balkan wars of a few years before were an almost rehearsal of WWI. But they were too recent and who pays attention to minor countries anyway. Was there other examples ? Yes there was at least another one : The Russo-Japanese war (maybe also the Boer war but I’m not familiar enough with it to include it), more especially the battle of Mukden. But since it happened on the other side of the world and Russian performance in this war was so dismal, it was discounted. To conclude, they had lots of warnings but they were all ignored.

50

Lervely digs and all, but according to the propaganda that I’ve been able to find, it appears that it’s a memorial to all wars. Am I correct? Or is it strictly WWI?

If it’s the latter, then I cheerfully concede being wrong.

But Liberty Memorial in KC is still more phallic.

51

I’m in over my head here, but: Did the memories of the devastation caused by WWI contribute to the attitude a appeasement that allowed Hitler’s early successes?

Stated another way, did the citizenry of England and France ‘swallow’ the appeasment granted by their political leaders more readily because they feared involvement in another meat-grinder war like the one still fresh in their memories?

Or, stated yet another way, did the political leaders tend toward appeasment, even if they personally knew the consequences, because they knew that calling Hilter’s bluffs would make them appear belligerent to their own citizens and would therefore be political suicide?

From an American history perspective, it seems fairly obvious that the isolationist movement that kept the USA out of WWII for so long was a direct result of the memories of WW1.

How much did the expenditures on WWI contribute to the Great Depression?

52

One of the lasting reminders of WWI (at least in Australia and NZ) is ANZAC Day.

The problem is that increasing numbers of the younger generation are only vaguely aware what the whole thing’s about- most of them can tell you that it remembers the Australian and New Zealand soldiers killed at Gallipoli in 1915, but I doubt many can tell you why they were there in the first place (edited highlights: It was hoped that by knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war, British ships would be able to sail to the Crimea unimpeded and supply materiel aid etc to Russia, keeping them in the war and possibly thwarting the Bolsheviks in the process), or indeed which war they were involved in at the time.

It’s interesting to look at the evolution of small arms and military equipment through WWI- the British went to war in 1914 with a uniform without a helmet(!), and the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk III rifle was equipped with ramp sights graduated out to 2000 yards, volley sights graduated out to 3200 yards, and a magazine cut-off (basically allowing the rifle to be single-shot, with the magazine kept in reserve). British Military small arms were hand-made, well-fitted (one might even say crafted), and not at all designed for use in muddy trenches by terrified soldiers whose training consisted largely of being shown how to feed rounds into the magazine, work the bolt, point the rifle in the right general direction, and pull the trigger when their CO told them to (Right up until about 1915, British military training emphasised volley fire over individual marksmanship.)

For those of you not au fait with the technical aspectry of firearms, the Reader’s Digest version is that the British Army in 1914 was geared up for fighting Colonial Wars against people armed with spears or muskets who regarded cowhide shields as adequate defence against rifle bullets and massed charges against formations of soldiers who were armed with Maxim Guns and Lee-Enfield rifles to be a sound tactical manoeuvre. (Or, as Captain Blackadder put it: “When I first joined the Army, we were still fighting Colonial wars. In those days, if you saw a man in a skirt, you shot him and nicked his country… [and] the prerequisite for any battle was that the enemies should, under no circumstances, carry guns.”)

By 1918, British Soldiers were wearing steel helmets (“Tommy Hats”), armed with a rifle designed for mass production (the SMLE Mk III*, almost identical to the SMLE Mk III, but sans volley sights and magazine cut-off), and given training emphasising close-quarters combat and individual marksmanship.

There were other changes, too- the Germans had introduced sub-machine guns, the Americans had brought trench guns (pump-action shotguns that could mount bayonets), and the British invented the Tank. Aircraft transformed from kites with lawn-mower engines to long-range bombers and fast, agile fighters, and radio communication became considerably more advanced.

I agree, WWI doesn’t get nearly enough recognition- I recall one poster on these very boards who very recently stated that they thought WWI started in 1917 when America got involved :eek:- but it’s had a lasting effect on all of us in ways we may not realise.

Of course, I have a physical reminder of The Great War every time I take my SMLE Mk III* out to the rifle range (it was made in 1918, as was the accompanying bayonet), but I suspect that most of what a lot of people know about WWI comes from The Blue Max, Sergeant York, or Lawrence of Arabia, stories about Manfred von Richtofen, and throwaway comments by Abe Simpson and Monty Burns in The Simpsons ("We had to say “Dickety” because the Kaiser had stolen our word “Twenty!”).

World War I is a fascinating subject for research- I recently had the pleasure of researching and writing an article on Lawrence of Arabia’s SMLE Mk III rifle (which is on display in the Imperial War Museum in London), and I highly recommend reading Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom for an account of World War I in Palestine- very different to the mud-filled horrors of Flanders, and a fascinating read in itself.

53

We recently rented Flyboys (which I knew I would hate anyway, but Mr. K wanted to see it). I think today’s audiences tend to avoid period movies for the most part. Most WWI vets are gone now, and most people today relate to WWII and Vietnam war flicks simply because most of us know someone who was involved. If it isn’t a really, really great production, I think most people really don’t have much interest.

54

I bet ya think WW2 started before December 7 1941 too! :dubious:

:wink:
CMC fnord!

55

RickJay, one of the technologies that you seem to have missed talking about that had a devastating impact on the war, was simply that no one, on either side, seems to have thought in advance about the need to have logisitical systems available to keep the armies involved supplied. AIUI one of the reasons that the German push in 1914 failed was because, due to the fact that they were limited to what could be supplied via mostly horse-drawn transport through the Low Countries, Von Klerk had to turn in, early, to avoid advancing ahead of his supports.

It’s a little thing, but had a lot of effect of setting up the stalemate on the Western Front.

My understanding is that logistics were vastly improved, once the lines stabilized. But neglecting them in the planning stages helped to make for the fiasco that the war became.

56

And what happened, over and over again, was that despite the failures in exploiting “breakthroughs” (due to slow offensive movement, bad communications etc.), generals went on pouring men into meatgrinders for days and weeks after offensives bogged down. Leaders were very slow to learn that their tactics went nowhere.

Be careful about expounding “indisputable” truths in regard to WWI. :smiley: See historian A.J.P. Taylor’s “The First World War” for a discussion of this subject.

How would you then characterize the Second Battle of the Aisne, in which Nivelle launched a doomed attack even after a supposedly vulnerable salient had been eliminated?

“Opposite the French on high ground, heavily defended and fortified, was von Boehm’s German Seventh Army, who conducted an efficient defence. On 16 April the French suffered 40,000 casualties alone, a similar disaster to that suffered by the British on the first day of the Somme a year earlier on 1 July 1916.”

The French suffered 187,000 casualties in that battle. More head-battering against the wall.

This makes no sense at all. “Attrition” very nearly destroyed the French army at Verdun. Pursuing grand offensives was the losers’ game for virtually the entire war.

Being less cavalier with the lives of Allied soldiers and experimenting with alternate tactics more intelligently (i.e. the British not using the first tanks until they had built up a large force of them) might not have ended the war more quickly, but it would have avoided some of the bloodbath.

57

I know of at least one historian who considers World Wars I and II discrete incidents in the same “civil war,” a basic shaking up of the ruling order of the 19th century, with the time between the two wars a truce or interregnum.

58

Movies: “The Grand Illusion” (1937) is the best WW I film that I know of. It really puts across the sense of how the upper class on both sides was united as one, regardless of national boundaries. You might be the enemy, but dammit, you’re “one of us” and so should be afforded certain priviliges. That’s probably why that war has not captured Hollywood’s imagination as strongly as WW II has. WW I was basically a slanging match between empires jockeying for position. They say that the US could just as easily have entered the war on the German side as it did on the British and French side. In fact, there were a lot of Irish immgrants in the US at the time who were damned if they were going to support the British; and many German immigrants who were campaigning for the Kaiser.

WW II was clear Good versus Evil, WW I was not. The Nazis couldn’t give a damn if the Brit they just captured was Lord Such and Such or not. And then there was the Hollywood studios’ mobilization in WW II. All in all, the Second World War was tailormade for movies, while World War I was a little too esoteric perhaps for the average movie-goers tastes.

59

Gee, how times have changed, eh? :rolleyes:

60

It kicks ass, too:

It had fallen into disrepair, but after repair has recently been reopened and is the only WWI memorial in the US. Worth a visit if you’re in KC. The future Mrs. Eggerhaus and I visited a few weeks ago and we’re impressed…