# WWI historians wanted
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 13, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960 "2004-07-13T21:28:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@asrivkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asrivkin)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2004, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960/21 "2004-07-14T13:40:28Z")
> [@RickJay](#):
>
> But if you’re setting your decision point at April 1917, when the US enters the war (or, in our alternate scenario, doesn’t) then I think the answer is clearly that Germany would have been defeated anyway - possibly not until early 1919, but no later. The point Zagadka is making is really the central point; tactical issues don’t matter when your entire country is falling apart, and all the divisions in the world are useless if they have no food and no ammunition.
Well, I’ve only got one volume on WWI in my library (“The First World War, A Complete History” by Martin Gilbert), but it gave me a different impression:
“The omens for Germany were good. Following the signature of the Treatey of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, Russia was out of the war… The German railway system, perfected during the previous two years, was enabling the German divisions hitherto tied to the Eastern Front to be moved rapidly and efficiently westward” (p 406)
On 23 March 1918: “Lloyd George told Reading: ‘You should appeal to President to drop all questions of interpretation of past agreements and send over infantry as fast as possible without transport or other encumbrances. This situation is undoubtedly critical and if America delays now she may be too late.’” (p 408)
“As the American troops drew closer to the front they found whole villages that had been looted by the retreating French troops…French were still falling back, some of the soldiers calling out to the Americans as they passed them on, June 1, that the war was over: ‘La guerre finie.’” (p 428)
I was wrong in that I thought the major mutinies in the French Army were in 1918 rather than 1917, but nevertheless they occurred at the same time as American entry: “The arrival of the first American troops coincided with a dramatic change on the French sector of the Western Front…At the Front itself…as many as 30,000 soldiers had left their trenches and reserve billets and fallen to the rear.” (p 333)
What I take from all this is that it was a potentially close thing at times even with American entry. If there are no American troops in the spring of 1918, maybe the Germans win the war with their offensive. If there’s no American entry in 1917, maybe the mutinies spread faster and farther. Again I’m not saying it’s inevitable, but I think as late as 1918 it wasn’t quite a sure thing.
I suppose I could read another book, too. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960/22 "2004-07-14T14:30:20Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#):
>
> So what \* would \* have been an acceptable end to the war for Germany, short of total defeat for the Allies? This is something I’ve never understood about the First World War–why couldn’t the warring nations negotiate an end to the conflict? What effort, if any, did the United States, Switzerland, and/or any other neutral powers make to help the belligerent nations find some kind of common ground so that everyone could lay down their arms?
My understanding, based on several WWI histories, is that the incredible casualties and hardship caused by the war made it seem imperative to Germany that it retain at least some of the territory it had won. It was also perceived by the Emperor that he was likely to be deposed without a significant victory. On the other side, it was unlikely that the Allies would have settled for anything less than complete German withdrawal and payment of substantial reparations.
Woodrow Wilson made a number of peace overtures which generally were taken contemptuously by the warring factions, since neither would have gotten anything like a victory under his proposals. In fact, he kept pissing everyone off right through the Versailles Conference.
What always gets me about the war is that the Allies kept hurling troops against the trenches in doomed offensives, instead of recognizing the futility of these plans and concentrating on economic strangulation of Germany. They could have learned valuable lessons from the U.S. Civil War, but didn’t.
---
### Author:  [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960/23 "2004-07-14T14:37:41Z")
The First World War did not confine itsself to the European Theatre.
[CLICK HERE](http://www.historyofmilitary.com/The_Great_War_in_Africa_19141918_0393305643.html) to find a book title about WW1 in Africa.
It was almost the polar opposite of the European fight.
---
### Author:  [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960/24 "2004-07-15T00:13:44Z")
> [@Loach](#):
>
> How is that not correct? I said not much, not none. You cite one documentary, I consider that not much. You can’t refute that there are a ton more WWII documentaries. Almost everyday there is one on the History Channel. How do you know what was shown wasn’t in training or staged? I admit I have limited knowledge of the film technology of the time but I think the equipment was pretty cumbersome. Anyone setting up a film camera near the front would likely get their ass shot off. I have seen still photos and I know that cameras were well enough advanced that they could be in the trenches.
These are good points and precisely these issues have been wrangled over by film historians.
_The Great War_, as recommended by **yojimbo** , is excellent, largely because it manages to contain most of the interesting surviving footage. What it demostrates is that there’s a lot of newsreel stuff that’s survived from the period and the programmes are interesting just as a chance to see samples of these.
Where the controversy gets complicated is over the question of combat footage. This is much more restricted and there’s undoubtedly a tendency for documentary makers to resort to the same few feet again and again. Furthermore, certain key - and popular - sequences were certainly faked. The official British newsreels from the Western Front were produced by [Topical Budget](http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/583128/) and the important ones are described on [this BFI page](http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/583331/index.html). As an example of how many other sequences were faked, [see this article](http://www.uwe.ac.uk/amd/vortex/noman.htm).
Overall, I suspect there are perhaps a couple of hours worth of “authentic” WWI battle sequences. Nontrivial, but a tiny fraction of what was shot during WWII.
---
### Author:  [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2004, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960/25 "2004-07-15T13:01:22Z")
Thank you bonzer that clears things up quite a bit.
---
### Author:  [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960/26 "2004-07-15T15:43:04Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#):
>
> What always gets me about the war is that the Allies kept hurling troops against the trenches in doomed offensives, instead of recognizing the futility of these plans and concentrating on economic strangulation of Germany. They could have learned valuable lessons from the U.S. Civil War, but didn’t.
It’s hard to learn the lessons when you’re safely dozens of miles behind the front lines and haven’t ever actually seen the terrain you’re ordering your men to charge through.
There’s a quote from a General after the war who said something along the lines of, “I had no idea we were ordering men to attack across that. It was obviously suicide.”
At least in the Civil War a whole lot of the men were led by their senior officers. And I do mean “led”.
-Joe
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2004, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960/27 "2004-07-17T02:33:19Z")
Is there by any chance a clear statement of Germany’s war aims referenceable?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960/28 "2004-07-17T05:39:28Z")
No one has mentioned one of the best web sites on the subject:
[http://www.firstworldwar.com/](http://www.firstworldwar.com/)
**Polycarp** : the war aims of Germany can be found here:
[http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm](http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm)
This bit was interesting:
> [@](#):
>
> As for Germany, she was unsettled socially and militarily. The 1912 Reichstag elections had resulted in the election of no fewer than 110 socialist deputies, making Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg’s task in liaising between the Reichstag and the autocratic Wilhelm, not to mention the rigidly right-wing military high command, next to impossible.
>
> Bethmann Hollweg, who became most despondent, came to believe that Germany’s only hope of avoiding civil unrest sooner rather than later lay in war: preferably a short, sharp war, although he did not rule out a European-wide conflict if it resolved Germany’s social and political woes.
Interesting because just before WWII, the rise of Hitler came also because the extreme left was gaining in the elections, disturbing to find that for Germany war became the “solution” for their civil unrests. Regarding this, it is also notorious that one of the reasons for Russia for entering the war, was also to counteract their civilian unrest. Russia, like Germany, was expecting a short and decisive war to elevate the prestige of the crown and to discredit the extreme opposition.
[sub]Must… resist… comparisons to current events….
Damn, failed.[/sub] 😉
On the subject of footage, yes, there is less than from WW2, but that site is just recently posting many clips of 1914, more from other years will be posted soon.
[http://www.firstworldwar.com/video/1914.htm](http://www.firstworldwar.com/video/1914.htm)
Interesting to hear the songs and voices of the day:
[http://www.firstworldwar.com/audio/1918.htm](http://www.firstworldwar.com/audio/1918.htm)
Fun to hear that the famous Enrico Caruso did a cover for the “Over There” song by George M Cohan.
[http://www.firstworldwar.com/audio/1918.htm](http://www.firstworldwar.com/audio/1918.htm)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwi-historians-wanted/254960.md?page=1)