# What if World War One hadn't been futile? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110 "2009-03-28T18:42:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/1 "2009-03-28T18:42:29Z")
World War One was one of the most socially traumatic wars in modern history, in large part because of a historical accident. It came at a time when technology had rapidly advanced in such a way as to favor static defense and to invalidate the strategies that had been used up until then. The tactical stalemate, the resulting length of the war and stupendous cost in wealth and lives, and the paucity of positive results for either side, went far to utterly discrediting much of the European social order. It was highly anomolous compared with three other modern land campaigns fought in western Europe: the Franco-Prussian War, the defeat of France by Nazi Germany, and the counter-defeat of Germany after the Normandy landings; all of which took less than a year to conclude. Some time ago, I started a thread called [WW1 refought 1918 style](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=377958). The intent of that thread was to ask how the war could have been fought differently if somehow the combatants could have magically skipped the four-year learning curve, and fought the war using the tactics and weapons developed by 1918. This thread is sort of a followup focusing not on the “how” but the “therefore” of such a scenerio. Suppose WW1 had not been futile? Bloody, costly, hard fought, perhaps even prolonged- but not _futile_, in the tactical sense of squandering a million lives charging the enemy lines without visible result. Would such a war- win, lose, or draw- have fostered less disillusionment and radicalism than the actual WW1 caused? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/2 "2009-03-28T18:50:10Z")
What exactly _were_ the objectives in WW1? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/3 "2009-03-28T18:51:34Z")
Canada would rule the world. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/4 "2009-03-28T18:54:55Z")
“Did you really believe them, when they told you the cause? Did you really believe that this war would end wars?” ---
**Author:** ![Wakinyan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wakinyan/32/352_2.png) [@Wakinyan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wakinyan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/5 "2009-03-28T19:02:30Z")
There are two tings I don’t get in this OP. > [@Lumpy](#): > > … the counter-defeat of Germany after the Normandy landings … which took less than a year to conclude. Are you saying that Nazi Germany was defeated in a year due to the Normandy invasion…? > [@](#): > > Suppose WW1 had not been futile? Could you elaborate on the main adjective - “futile”. When the Schlieffen plan wasn’t carried out as it was planned, there was a standstill for a couple of years, while different tactics and strategies were tested (tanks on the british side, what later became knows as blitzkrieg on the German side, to name two of the most important and fairly successful; and less successfull as rolling artillery bombardment and gas), until the German side was exhausted, and defeated. Where is the “futility”? - I just don’t get the meaning of the word in this context. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/6 "2009-03-28T19:06:42Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > What exactly _were_ the objectives in WW1? Austria’s objective was to punish Serbia. France’s objective was to get back Alsace-Lorraine. I guess Serbia’s objective was to stay independent and gain Bosnia? Nobody else had really clear objectives, although Russia wanted to increase its power over the Balkans, the Ottomans wanted to avoid falling apart, Germany wanted to increase its world reach, and Britain wanted to stop it from doing so. But, you’re right, the objectives in WWI were pretty hazy. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/7 "2009-03-28T19:16:44Z")
> [@Wakinyan](#): > > Where is the “futility”? - I just don’t get the meaning of the word in this context. I think that he means that, in the west, after the failure of the initial German offensive, neither sides offensives were successful in capturing any territory, and the front lines were almost static throughout the war. He’s countering that with other successful offenses in other wars, like the Normandy invasion, which succeeded in conquering large amounts of territory. In other words, in less than a year after the Normany invasion, starting from just a beachhead in Normany, the Allies managed to liberate France, Benelux, and move into Germany. ---
**Author:** ![Wakinyan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wakinyan/32/352_2.png) [@Wakinyan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wakinyan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/8 "2009-03-28T19:37:39Z")
Ok, thanks Captain Amazing. I get it now. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/9 "2009-03-28T20:05:52Z")
The Normandy invasion would have been easily repulsed if the fighting that the Soviets were conducting on the Eastern Front was not taking place. The Soviets might have been beaten if the Nazis had tried and succeed in making peace in the West prior to the invasion of Russia. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/10 "2009-03-28T21:40:41Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Austria’s objective was to punish Serbia. France’s objective was to get back Alsace-Lorraine. I guess Serbia’s objective was to stay independent and gain Bosnia? Nobody else had really clear objectives, although Russia wanted to increase its power over the Balkans, the Ottomans wanted to avoid falling apart, Germany wanted to increase its world reach, and Britain wanted to stop it from doing so. > > But, you’re right, the objectives in WWI were pretty hazy. As I recall, a friend of mine who is a military history buff says that the only country that had to go to war to achieve its ambitions was France. However, I think France & Germany share blame if in different ways. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/11 "2009-03-28T22:44:52Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > What exactly _were_ the objectives in WW1? On Germany’s part (nobody else had any objectives as such), simply to humiliate its rivals and take its “place in the sun.” Papers and correspondence of Kaiser Wilhelm that surfaced after his death make clear that he was determined to have a war and would find a pretext for it sooner or later. None of the other world leaders were so determined, just him. Bismarck had made Germany the premier power in Europe, but that wasn’t enough for Wilhelm; he wanted Germany to be a global superpower on a par with the British Empire, and one more war seemed the surest way to get there. He expected to win, of course, as quickly and decisively as Germany had won every war it had fought since it was unified. But Bismarck had the wisdom to make sure that when Germany was on bad terms with France it would be on good terms with Russia, and vice-versa; a two-front war must be avoided at all costs. Wilhelm didn’t see that. Pride goeth. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/12 "2009-03-28T22:59:06Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Austria’s objective was to punish Serbia. France’s objective was to get back Alsace-Lorraine. I guess Serbia’s objective was to stay independent and gain Bosnia? Nobody else had really clear objectives, although Russia wanted to increase its power over the Balkans, the Ottomans wanted to avoid falling apart, Germany wanted to increase its world reach, and Britain wanted to stop it from doing so. > > But, you’re right, the objectives in WWI were pretty hazy. Those were things the other parties hoped to **get** out of the war if they couldn’t avoid it, but only Wilhelm really, really wanted a war. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/13 "2009-03-28T23:16:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > “Did you really believe them, when they told you the cause? > Did you really believe that this war would end wars?” The suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain for Willie McBride, it’s all happened again and again and again and again and again . . . ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/14 "2009-03-28T23:22:59Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I think that he means that, in the west, after the failure of the initial German offensive, neither sides offensives were successful in capturing any territory, and the front lines were almost static throughout the war. He’s countering that with other successful offenses in other wars, like the Normandy invasion, which succeeded in conquering large amounts of territory. In other words, in less than a year after the Normany invasion, starting from just a beachhead in Normany, the Allies managed to liberate France, Benelux, and move into Germany. What he said. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/15 "2009-03-28T23:49:02Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > What he said. So basically, you’re asking what if the strategy/tactics/mechanics worked better (for everybody?). IMHO WW1 was pretty much futile from the start; it was just a big punch-up with few clear objectives. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/16 "2009-03-29T00:50:35Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > So basically, you’re asking what if the strategy/tactics/mechanics worked better (for everybody?). That’s more or less it. It’s one thing to lose three million men to advance five hundred miles, and quite another to lose three million men to advance five hundred yards. Perhaps the thread title should have said “tactically futile”. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/17 "2009-03-29T01:08:19Z")
Wouldn’t a less bloody war have meant a thirst for future conflict? Perhaps the UK and France would have been less likely to appease Hitler. If Germany had emerged victorious maybe they would have engaged in further imperialistic adventures, or maybe they would have been satisfied with their hypothetical gains. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/18 "2009-03-29T02:02:41Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > That’s more or less it. It’s one thing to lose three million men to advance five hundred miles, and quite another to lose three million men to advance five hundred yards. Perhaps the thread title should have said “tactically futile”. “Futility” is still a weird yardstick. The Allies still defeated Germany. In World War II it look LONGER to beat Germany, just under six years versus four and change in thee first go-around; was World War II somehow less"futile" because the front moved more? That’s a weird measurement of “Futility,” as in fact moving fronts just killed more people. Suppose World War I had started and ended at the same time and had the same end result, but with more fluid fronts. What would the result have been? Almost certainly exactly the same thing; just as many and very likely more people would have died, the same empires would have crumbled, and the same political forces put into motion that led to the sequel. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2009, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/19 "2009-03-29T02:47:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Austria’s objective was to punish Serbia. France’s objective was to get back Alsace-Lorraine. I guess Serbia’s objective was to stay independent and gain Bosnia? Nobody else had really clear objectives, although Russia wanted to increase its power over the Balkans, the Ottomans wanted to avoid falling apart, Germany wanted to increase its world reach, and Britain wanted to stop it from doing so. Germany did have an objective of sorts. It wanted to fight a war in 1914 rather than later. Germany figured that a war was going to happen at some point (probably true) and that the overall situation was getting worse for Germany year by year (definitely true). So they figured “if we’re going to have a war anyway, we might as well do it now rather than wait until the odds against us are worse.” ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110/20 "2009-03-29T03:10:48Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I guess Serbia’s objective was to stay independent and gain Bosnia? Was the warfare in the former Yugoslavia just a continuation of that? Did WWI, as I read in some magazine many years ago, continue into the 1990s? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-world-war-one-hadnt-been-futile/491110.md?page=2)