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.
I suspect we'll hear more about the end of WWl on November 11. The start, the end, and a few of the major battles in between (the Somme, Verdun, Gallipoli) are all the average person knows about or cares about.
And that`s unfortunate. My grandfather fought (not willingly) for the losing side being a Slovak under the thumb of the Hungarians. What I remember of him was that he walked with a limp and was extremely hard of hearing. If I knew what I know today when I was a young teen, I would`ve loved to ask him about his service.
And that`s unfortunate. My grandfather fought (not willingly) for the losing side being a Slovak under the thumb of the Hungarians. What I remember of him was that he walked with a limp and was extremely hard of hearing. If I knew what I know today when I was a young teen, I would`ve loved to ask him about his service.
Was he a conscript, or a professional soldier? There were many professional regiments in the Austro Hungarian Empire comprised of volunteers from the various imperial territories including Slovakia. There were also, as you stated, a lot of less than enthusiastic draftees.
In the end, the Austro Hungarian Empire was not oppressive as far as imperial powers went. As a side note, Pope John Paul II’s father was a professional NCO in the Imperial Army and Pope John Paul himself was named after the AH Emperor. One of the AH Field Marshals was Serbian.
That, of course, does not mean that all subjects of the empire were thrilled to be in it. Your grandfather could well have been in this category. At the same time, it shows that local feelings towards the empire could be well, “complex” meaning that they preferred independence, but took loyalty oaths seriously and gave good service when called upon.
The world was a different place in 1916 than it is today. One thing I have marveled at was the ability of most of those governments to keep their people in line. I don't think England ever came near a popular uprising over the casualties in the war.
Today, I just don't think the population in any country would stand for military tactics that lead to such a heavy loss of human life. The world has changed. I don't think there will ever be a Somme offensive again. At least in western countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
The difference is a mass media that isn't prostrate before the needs of the government.
Imagine, if you will, if CNN or network news were around on July 2, 1916, reporting the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
"This is Christiane Amanpour reporting live from behind the lines in Belgium. The British and French armies today mounted a massive assault on German entrenchments around Gommecourt. British commanders are hailing about the first day's advances, which gained several hundred yards of German territory. Unnamed sources, however, are not as optimistic, noting the 57,000 casualties that took place on the first day of the offensive."
Now. If you were the parents at that time, would you docilely march your son down to the recruiting station having heard that report? Or would you have instead put your son into steerage on the first liner heading for America? It's one thing to fight for one's country, but to be fed into the maw of the senseless carnage of the Western Front was something completely different. The newspapers of the time did not question the strategy or tactics of the war, instead writing about valour and courage when an entire generation was being mowed down.
I think what MinivanDriver says is correct. All the public had back in those days were newspapers. They generally followed the government line of support for the war. In 1916, a film was released called 'The Battle of the Somme.' It was seen in Britain by 20 million people, half the population of that time. Most were shocked by what they saw, even in a sanitised version of the battle.
It would be very different today. No government could survive such losses, and there would be a public outcry. For so many men to die walking across a battlefield into machine gun fire, is hard to take for any country.
It took a long time to end WWI. Germany and A-H were in chaos. Wilson changed his position of autonomy for A-H peoples to independence in 10/18. He also demanded that Germany do away with its absolute monarchy before an armistice. Germany sort of complied, but then a sub sank a passenger ship in the Irish sea which hardened Wilson's position. He put the commanders in the field (Foch, Haig and Pershing) in charge of armistice terms. They had different ideas, so progress was slow.
Germany relieved Ludendorff when he wanted to continue the war in defiance of the new government. Admiral Scheer wanted to send the fleet on a suicide mission against the Royal Navy, which precipitated a revolt among the sailors which spread and led to the Kaiser's abdication.
Then a republic was proclaimed and agreed to unconditional surrender.
Many in the military wanted to fight on. Not in the hope of victory but to secure better peace terms. They felt if they lasted till winter, when fighting would slow down, they could transfer most of the 4,000,000 German troops occupying lands taken from Russia to the Western Front and successfully defend against renewed allied offensives in 1919.
England and France were also worn down and Germany felt they would want peace, if only Germany could hang on a little longer.
It took a long time to end WWI. Germany and A-H were in chaos. Wilson changed his position of autonomy for A-H peoples to independence in 10/18. He also demanded that Germany do away with its absolute monarchy before an armistice. Germany sort of complied, but then a sub sank a passenger ship in the Irish sea which hardened Wilson's position. He put the commanders in the field (Foch, Haig and Pershing) in charge of armistice terms. They had different ideas, so progress was slow.
Germany relieved Ludendorff when he wanted to continue the war in defiance of the new government. Admiral Scheer wanted to send the fleet on a suicide mission against the Royal Navy, which precipitated a revolt among the sailors which spread and led to the Kaiser's abdication.
Then a republic was proclaimed and agreed to unconditional surrender.
Many in the military wanted to fight on. Not in the hope of victory but to secure better peace terms. They felt if they lasted till winter, when fighting would slow down, they could transfer most of the 4,000,000 German troops occupying lands taken from Russia to the Western Front and successfully defend against renewed allied offensives in 1919.
England and France were also worn down and Germany felt they would want peace, if only Germany could hang on a little longer.
Those thinking there was a way for Germany to somehow prevail in the war were being unrealistic. American troops and supplies greatly strengthened the Allied cause. The German Army was collapsing and Allied soldiers had penetrated the Hindenburg Line. The blockade of the North Sea by Allied ships was putting Germany literally on the verge of starvation. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was spreading to German workers. It was a matter of time before the whole German Army collapsed under a combined onslaught of American, French, and British troops.
After the war, hardliners in Germany invented the "stabbed in the back" theory to try to excuse their defeat in the war. It was a lie. Germany didn't lose because they were stabbed in the back by communists or Jews or any other group. Germany lost because they were outnumbered and overwhelmed by superior enemy forces.
Germany was smart that it gave up when it did in World War I. Hitler made the mistake of fighting to the bitter end in World War II and everyone knows what happened. All of Germany was literally in ruins and it took a decade to pick up the pieces afterwards.
The world was a different place in 1916 than it is today. One thing I have marveled at was the ability of most of those governments to keep their people in line. I don't think England ever came near a popular uprising over the casualties in the war.
In France, as the war dragged on, some soldiers at the front got together and essentially told their officers that they would not attack the enemy. There would be no more "going over the top" and marching into the German's machine guns. The French panicked and didn't know what to do. A few men went to the firing squad for disobeying orders.
I have always marveled at the same thing.
When the various homelands called in 1916, people just gave- and then gave more. A certain number even gave for homelands that were not truly theirs. The Austro Hungarian Empire had a good number of less than enthusiastic imperial conscripts. But…. By and large, they still gave a lot when the imperial Homeland called.
In regards to the French army, the British had some advantages. As the French were in immediate danger, they called up and committed their entire reserves with no additional training and little ability to support them infrastructure wise. This led to even more poorly conceived attacks and a lot of logistics confusion with French troops not getting home leave while getting shorted on rations etc. .
Meanwhile, across the Channel, the British had some breathing room. UK Divisions could receive extra training before deployment- and every little bit helped. Likewise, divisions could be deployed with proper logistical and transport support. The British also had their famous British Regimental System. Despite calls for speed, no British unit left without being “regimentalized”.
British conscripts were placed historic regiments (however expanded) which were deeply tied to a geographical area, a neighborhood, an ethnicity or even a profession. They served with their neighbors and men whom they could identify with. Even little things mattered. British battalions were all issued badges- not sew on patches. Each battalion was its own world for the duration of the war. Transfers in or out were rare. This created bonded units.
Meanwhile the French created a national army. But, this lacked the psychological advantages of the British system. Men were conscripted, then placed in newly created units with out historical lineages and with no regard for common origins, life experiences etc of the men. Some French conscripts did not even speak the same language as their officers, or the men in the units spoke a mix of French dialects that were hard to follow. Officers and NCOs were re-assigned to other units as needed. Even the little things were “mass produced”- No distinct badges, just sew on patches in a numerical sequence 121,122,123,124 etc. The results were men not bonding and experienced officers and NCOs avoiding what they called “fake regiments”.
Those thinking there was a way for Germany to somehow prevail in the war were being unrealistic. American troops and supplies greatly strengthened the Allied cause. The German Army was collapsing and Allied soldiers had penetrated the Hindenburg Line. The blockade of the North Sea by Allied ships was putting Germany literally on the verge of starvation. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was spreading to German workers. It was a matter of time before the whole German Army collapsed under a combined onslaught of American, French, and British troops.
After the war, hardliners in Germany invented the "stabbed in the back" theory to try to excuse their defeat in the war. It was a lie. Germany didn't lose because they were stabbed in the back by communists or Jews or any other group. Germany lost because they were outnumbered and overwhelmed by superior enemy forces.
Germany was smart that it gave up when it did in World War I. Hitler made the mistake of fighting to the bitter end in World War II and everyone knows what happened. All of Germany was literally in ruins and it took a decade to pick up the pieces afterwards.
That's all true. It would have been better had it given up a couple of weeks earlier. It half-heartedly tried but it actions were mixed.
A plan was floated for the Kaiser to go into combat. This was actually proposed to him. This idea was that he would be killed in action and leave the throne to his son. This would re-inspire the war effort. A new Kaiser might have preserved the dynasty and history could have been very different.
What Wilhelm thought of this idea is not recorded.
But the Germans did recover from the Black Day of Aug. 8 and were resisting even at the beginning of Nov. A new defensive line, shorter than the Hindenburg line, was being prepared. This would allow more divisions to be put in reserve. And many in the command were not of a mind to surrender just yet.
Thank you for this thread! The lack of attention paid to the 100th anniversary has puzzled and bothered me, too. But then I'm a history buff. Looking forward to reading the (so far) 7 pages.
This is a series of 10 - 12 minute videos about the Great War. There is one for each week of the war, and special ones on so-and-so's role in the war, tanks, etc. It is just winding up. I really enjoyed it.
This is a series of 10 - 12 minute videos about the Great War. There is one for each week of the war, and special ones on so-and-so's role in the war, tanks, etc. It is just winding up. I really enjoyed it.
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.
