Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moderators: If this could be made a sticky that would be great, if it is not possible could you please remove this top line, thank you.
As i'm sure many of you know there is a big centenary next year, it'll be 100yrs since the declaration of war and the start of World War 1. First World War Centenary
About the Centenary
I'm aware that there are a plethora of organisations in the US as well as Europe that will be marking the anniversary in some way and if people would add links on here to anything they come across for others to see, learn from and appreciate that would be great.
Thank you.
The USA did not enter the First World War until 1917. The more appropriate thing to celebrate is the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th Month of 1918. When the damned thing finally stopped.
Yep. World War I was just abject stupidity. All wars are, ultimately, folly. But World War I sets the standard. It was a war that was essentially fought because Europe had forgotten how bad war could be. In the preceding century, there had been only two real conflicts, the Franco Prussian War and the Crimean War. Even those were not fought on the scale of the Napoleonic Wars. And the generals' refusal to change tactics on the Western Front bordered on criminal stupidity. How generals such as Kitchener and Haig could have blithely witnessed 60,000 casualties in one hour during the First Battle of the Somme and continued to try the same tactics again and again is an outrage.
The First World War was not abject stupidity but had a cruel logic all of its own that took both Great Power Blocks the Triple Entente and the Triple Axis or Central Powers into a a War no one wanted but felt that for the sake of National Honor and Pride simply had to be done. The First World War is still a possibility in our 21st Century World when we feel we must fight for the honor of our Stars and Stripes or to punsh some other nation for a real or imagined slight. The thing was started by an act of terrorism.
Yep. World War I was just abject stupidity. All wars are, ultimately, folly. But World War I sets the standard. It was a war that was essentially fought because Europe had forgotten how bad war could be. In the preceding century, there had been only two real conflicts, the Franco Prussian War and the Crimean War. Even those were not fought on the scale of the Napoleonic Wars. And the generals' refusal to change tactics on the Western Front bordered on criminal stupidity. How generals such as Kitchener and Haig could have blithely witnessed 60,000 casualties in one hour during the First Battle of the Somme and continued to try the same tactics again and again is an outrage.
CPG, you would be surprised, more than a few people defend Allied generals like British General Douglas Haig and French Generals Joffre and Nivelle.. Probably for patriotic reasons, its hard to go against one of your own. But to me, they are undefendable. Probably killed more of their own men than the Germans. After his false promises to the French government in the 1917 offensive, French General Robert Nivelle should probably have been brought up on war crimes against.....France.
A lot of Americans do not realize how lucky they are that the USA had General Pershing as the American commander in WW1. The British wanted the newly arriving American soldiers to be put into British units which had sustained heavy casualities. Unfortunately that would mean Douglas Haig would have got his hands on them. Fortunately "Black Jack" Pershing was able to convince the US government to build up its own army that would be only under American control. More than a few Americans are probably alive today because of that decision.
I've often wondered what would have happened if Germany won WW1. The Brits would have retreated back to their island fortress protected by the English Channel. Perhaps small portions of France would have been annexed and the country would have been forced to pay reparations. Hitler would have died in obscurity and the Nazis would not have risen to power.
Once read , [b]The War Nobody Wanted ,[b] All the little triggers that just kept happening. Many could see it coming but couldn't find away to head it off.
World War 1 tends to be overshadowed by the much larger more wide spread World War 2.
But in some ways it should not be. For instance, I much rather be a Allied soldier in World War 2 than in World War 1. In the First War, you have the horror what they did to those kids in the trenches and then making them advance across broken fields into machine gun nests. Truly horrifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Yep. World War I was just abject stupidity. All wars are, ultimately, folly. But World War I sets the standard. It was a war that was essentially fought because Europe had forgotten how bad war could be. In the preceding century, there had been only two real conflicts, the Franco Prussian War and the Crimean War. Even those were not fought on the scale of the Napoleonic Wars. And the generals' refusal to change tactics on the Western Front bordered on criminal stupidity. How generals such as Kitchener and Haig could have blithely witnessed 60,000 casualties in one hour during the First Battle of the Somme and continued to try the same tactics again and again is an outrage.
I am actively looking for the article/detail that pointed it out and had the numbers, but the fact is that WW1 was no more deadly for a frontline soldier than any other major war including WW2. When the casualty rates for actual frontline units were studied they came out relatively the same across time and even wars like Vietnam had similar death rates to WW1 among frontline units. What leads to WW1 having seemingly higher rates is twofold:
1. The sheer scale of the war in terms of the numbers of troops engaged was unprecedented for the time, which made people of the time perceive the war as being worse than it actually was.
2. When compared to other wars, especially WW2 many people look at total mobilized or in the armed forces compared to the casualty rate. The problem with that is that other wars like WW2 had a much larger percentage of troops engaged in logistics and support and who were in very minimal danger.
Basically, a soldier on the frontline at Kursk or Bastogne had just as much of a chance of being killed as one at the Somme or Marne.
I think that what gives WW I added aspects of horror, even though casualty rates were congruent with other wars, is that so many of the WW I casualties were static in nature. It was the first (and may be the only, I'm not sure) war where the majority of the casualties were the victims of artillery. There is the noble image of the soldier perishing as he charges down upon the enemy, and then there is the depressing image of someone huddling in a filthy trench, waiting to be atomized or buried alive as a consequence of shellfire.
Further, it was mostly a static war, hundreds of thousands dying for what would turn out to be the exchange of a few miles of trenchworks. Small tactical victories had their heroic luster tarnished by the absence of any sort of strategic gains.
Also it was the first war machine conflict. Today we are completely used to the idea of tanks, aircraft, fighting vehicles and motorized units. In 1914 all of this was brand new and it was the introduction to the world of just how horrible modern technology could make war become. What we now take for granted must have been a shock to the psychology of the people back then.
Finally, as cpg35223 wrote, it had been a pointless, contest, the horrors made to seem worse because no one was quite sure of the causes or goals associated with having to endure all this destruction and bloodletting.
Moderators: If this could be made a sticky that would be great, if it is not possible could you please remove this top line, thank you.
As i'm sure many of you know there is a big centenary next year, it'll be 100yrs since the declaration of war and the start of World War 1. First World War Centenary
About the Centenary
I'm aware that there are a plethora of organisations in the US as well as Europe that will be marking the anniversary in some way and if people would add links on here to anything they come across for others to see, learn from and appreciate that would be great.
Thank you.
I live in Kansas City, MO, which has the only World War I museum in the United States. It's an incredible place and a favorite tourist attraction for history buffs.
A few months ago the federal government inked a deal with the museum to hold several commemorative events there to mark the centennial.
I am actively looking for the article/detail that pointed it out and had the numbers, but the fact is that WW1 was no more deadly for a frontline soldier than any other major war including WW2. When the casualty rates for actual frontline units were studied they came out relatively the same across time and even wars like Vietnam had similar death rates to WW1 among frontline units. What leads to WW1 having seemingly higher rates is twofold:
1. The sheer scale of the war in terms of the numbers of troops engaged was unprecedented for the time, which made people of the time perceive the war as being worse than it actually was.
2. When compared to other wars, especially WW2 many people look at total mobilized or in the armed forces compared to the casualty rate. The problem with that is that other wars like WW2 had a much larger percentage of troops engaged in logistics and support and who were in very minimal danger.
Basically, a soldier on the frontline at Kursk or Bastogne had just as much of a chance of being killed as one at the Somme or Marne.
Goat, did you find it yet? Should be interesting.
Hopefully it can compare British, American, French, Canadian casualties etc. on the Western front of WW1 to British, American, French casualties on the Western front of WW2.
I've often wondered what would have happened if Germany won WW1. The Brits would have retreated back to their island fortress protected by the English Channel. Perhaps small portions of France would have been annexed and the country would have been forced to pay reparations. Hitler would have died in obscurity and the Nazis would not have risen to power.
Good question. The Germans of World War 1 were not like the Nazi villians of World War 2 and I have often wondered if the United States should have just stayed out of WW1 and let nature take its course. Perhaps you are right and the Nazis may have not come to power. But we may have still had Stalin in the Soviet Union.
In any case, I read somewhere that some in the German military were looking at annexing more coal producing areas in France after the war. It also would be a good bet they would want some strategic forts and hills near the French-German border. It would not have been surprising if they demanded Verdun for instance. They also would have wanted more colonies. At the very least the Belgian Congo as a price for releasing control of Belgium. Assuming they were willing to leave Belgium that is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
