I’ve heard that it’s really bad in the East. The Russians and Austrians both have plenty of men but not enough weapons, so men are expendable, and are being treated that way.
In any case, it looks like the tide has crested and the French have survived the worst.
The Telegraph today reports there was a cavalry on cavalry charge before the Germans retreated. Just like the good old days. Delightful!
One British non-commissioned officer reports the German dead were too many for him to count. Those Lee-Enfield rifles work wonders.
As the Allied counter-offensive near the Aisne river peters out, the BEF entrenches in place, and so do the Germans. Mobile warfare continues toward the north, in Picardy, Artois and Flanders.
The French had better mass their forces and burst through the German lines soon. The longer they wait, the longer the Germans have to consolidate their hold on captured territory. If they can build rail lines from the frontier to the front lines, they’ll eliminate the big disadvantage that invaders always suffer: a longer supply chain than the defender.
Grim news this morning. Three British ships sunk by a German submersible. Over 1,000 hands lost.
I thought the idea of underwater boats in war was a things of fantasy, or Verne. These things could make traveling the seas much more dangerous.
The use of these submarine’s could well change the sea war, and the Royal Navy should be very careful with how they proceed - do they have any of these machines?
Talking of new machines, some navies have already trialled the use of the new aeroplanes, taking off from ships. I wonder if we’ll see any of that in the war - hardly seems worth it in the Channel.
That’s for sure. There’s this faddish insistence in some circles that the machine gun is the be-all and end-all, but aimed fire from a good rifle is a much better use of resources.
With all these mechanized parts in an army, just anyone can pick up weapons and be a top warrior. Will there be no training and skill involved in the wars of the future?
HMAS Sydney cornered and sunk the German raider Emden today.
Emden had been a pain in the neck for all merchant shipping.
Emden beached and done for.
How is the war in Europe progressing, can anyone in the know post a summary?
Ah yes, we have been neglecting the war lately. Perhaps we Americans were distracted by the stunning victory by the Boston Braves over the Philadelphia Athletics in the World’s Series.
Austria-Hungary has invaded Serbia twice, and been driven back with humiliating losses both times. The only useful thing they accomplished may have been to introduce pathogens; there are reports of smallpox in Serbia.
Russia has invaded Austria-Hungary, with more success–albeit with humongous casualties. Their armies have chewed off a huge piece of Galicia and laid siege to the fortress of Przemysl.
Russia’s invasion of Germany, on the other hand, was stopped cold and turned back.
The German invasion of Belgium and France achievd early success, but of course fell short of its goal of taking Paris and forcing France out of the war a la 1870. Germany remains in occupation of Luxembourg, 95% of Belgium, and a chunk of northeastern France, but the Allies are digging a line of trenches to the North Sea and it’s hard to see how Germany regains the initiative.
France’s invasion of Alsace-Lorraine had to be called off to rush troops to the defense of Paris.
So, so far, the defenders have been winning. Nobody has forced anybody else out of the war. Russia has launched the most successful invasion, but even they have no prospect of breaking through the Carpathians into the heartland of Hungary any time soon.
The war looks to go on for a while. Big recent development–the Ottoman Empire has entered the war on Germany’s side, and closed the Bosporus to international traffic. Ninety-five percent of Russian trade passed through the Bosporus. Without imports, and with the war sucking up huge numbers of her young men, can Russia feed herself and maintain her industries and railroads in working order?
Will the Ottomons attack the Suez? And will the entry of the Ottomon Empire mean less Indian troops for Europe?
Today, His Majesty is visiting the British section of the western front. There appears to be a lot of artillery action in the area. From what I hear, the artillery is harder on infantry than machine-guns or rifles.
Marking the 1914 Christmas Truce: http://www.ideastream.org/wclv/entry/66756
The Royal Navy have begun shelling Turkish fortifications in the Dardenelle straits. Once the Ottoman forts have been destroyed the British fleet will be able to link up to with the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. The fall of Constantinople will surely follow.
Early days yet, but this looks like a masterstroke by that Churchill fellow at the British Admiralty. I just hope the Army doesn’t screw it up when they go ashore.
Why they using Aussies. (NZ is a part of Australia is it not). Suspect they will run at the first sign of trouble. These are Turks. Heirs to one of the greatest empires ever. Not stone age Aboriginies or a bunch of illiterate Dutch immigrants in Africa.
Oh, I wouldn’t worry. It’s not like our fine generals would land the troops by rowing boat at night on exposed beaches dominated on all sides by cliffs in the teeth of entrenched opposition forces or anything foolish like that!
New Zealand is not a part of Australia, and I suggest you never suggest otherwise in the hearing of a New Zealander.
The Ottomans had their hour a long time ago. I don’t see them lasting long against civilized opposition.