Monkspider's history corner: Which country was most responsible for World War I?

[GePap]

When and how the German woin would have been crucial. A quick German victory in 1914 would have probalby lead to a vindictive settlement, and just set up a new war, if not the war we got. A quick vicotry would have also meant no Revolution in russia either.

A victory by mid 1916 would still have meant a very harsh german emposed settlement, and a new war down the line, and still no Revoltion in Russia.

Victory in early 1918 ditto above, with a revolution in Russia. How the Kaiser's government would ahve handled that, I can't say, though the continued unity of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires would have been very questionalbe at this late point.

The only thing a German victory makes clear, is a highly unlikelyness of the Nazi's coming to power.

[Dinner]

Whole books have been written on this subject but the only time war could have been averted after Ferdinand & his wife were killed was when the Serbian government offered a compromise which the Austro-Hungarians shot down. They did this because the Germans promised the "total support" but it was still the Austrians who pulled the trigger.

BTW here is a picture of Arch Duke Ferdinand moments before he was murdered.

[Dinner]

The technology in 1914 clearly favored the defender and it would remain that way until modern motorized armor (not the unreliable wrecks slapped togeather in WW1), mechnized infantry, and airborne assaults were invented.

Think about the situation with military technology in 1914 there were machine guns, antipersonnel mines, barbed wire, an officer corp trained in defensive doctrines and "digging in", poor roads, and non-uniform gauge railroads. All of these things favor the defender over the attacker.

[Dinner]

Going over the top.

[Felch]

The officer corps were trained in offensive war actually. Look at the early battles of the war and you'll see tremendous slaughter on all sides. It was the soldiers who took the initiative to dig in and defend.

[David Floyd]

John Mosier recently published an interesting book called "Myth of the Great War" - anyone else read it?

[Stefu]

FINL... oh.. this isn't one of those polls.

as is supports terrorism with its penal court in Hague

Tee hee hee...

...penal...

[Dinner]

The beginning strategy was to try to get your army up and moving before the enemy could mobilize it's reserves and get its own army in combat shape. Thus France wanted to rush head long into Alces-Lorraine, Germany rush through Belgium and knock out France before British and Russian forces could be brought bare, AH wanted to divid it's forces and attack both Serbia and Russia, while the British long service Army wasn't really large enough to influence things in a major way. The Italians had such a long coastline that there was no way they'd side against the Anglo-French navy and the only reason the British even honored the informal defensive agreement with France was because of Germany's invasion of Belgium.

The point is everyone had big planes but no one had the equipement or manpower to make them happen. All the offenses ended up being blunders except Germany's thrust into France and that one didn't even achieve it's opporational goals.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


The problem with the German advance was not one of supplies. Once German forces crossed the front, it is highly unlikely their rolling stock could use French or Belgian Lines

The problem with the German advance wasn't supplies because the most supply-crucial part of it never happened. 20th century armies couldn't "live off the land" any more...

And rail transport could never have crossed the frontier, but it was crucial for internal movements...which is half the battle.

[KrazyHorse]

The point is everyone had big planes but no one had the equipement or manpower to make them happen. All the offenses ended up being blunders except Germany's thrust into France and that one didn't even achieve it's opporational goals.

Exactly. The character of war could hardly help but be defensive. With quick-firing accurate rifles+machine guns and the mass of troops made available by the large standing armies+rapidly deployed volunteer forces it was possible to defend every single meter of ground on a scale like the Western Front took on.

No more practically autonomous 40 000 strong armies marching unhindered across a country like France after winning one or two battles...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whole books have been written on this subject but the only time war could have been averted after Ferdinand & his wife were killed was when the Serbian government offered a compromise which the Austro-Hungarians shot down. They did this because the Germans promised the "total support" but it was still the Austrians who pulled the trigger.

Incorrect. The Austrian government gave the Serbians a demand, which they were about to accept before the Tsar in Moscow told them that Russia would support the Serbians no matter what.

After that the powers of Europe came up with the Halt in Belgrade Plan, where Austria would have taken Belgrade and used it as a bargaining chip.

I think a 'NONE' option would be the best, but I voted Russia.

[GePap]

Frogger:

All reports from the front by German troops indicates not that they were running low on either food or bullets, but simply were dead tired from almost a month of continual marhcing and fighting. Also, German deployments went on without a hitch. Had the Germans planned for an entire army more, they had the ability to provide the necessary rail stock. And and extra army would have made a huge difference to the German effort, if one assumes that the German plan was plausible, given the time.

The fact is that the Germans did come close in 1914. The first army, a force of well over 100,000 men won several battles and still made it within 50 miles or so of Paris from the German, Belgian broder.

[GePap]

I greatly underestimated the size of the German force in the first army: some numbers

Rigth hook
1st army: Von Kluck 320,000 men
2nd army: Von Bulow, 260,000 men
3rd army: Von Hausen, 180,000
4th army: Duke Albrecht, 200,000

In Alsace
5th army: Crown Prince Wilhem, 220,000
6th Army: Crown Prince Ruppercht, 220,000
7th Army: Von Heeringen, 125,000

Compare this to the East, in August 1914:

8th army, first under Prittwitz, then Luddendorf and Hindunberg: 200,000 men.

Ad during the month of August, the German were able to divert 2 entire corp from the West to reinforce the East

[Ned]

From my understanding, they were all war mongers.

Serbia fire the first shot.

This ignited the fuse. Events then unfolded the way they did because none of the powers truly wanted to avoid war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ad during the month of August, the German were able to divert 2 entire corp from the West to reinforce the East

This is because von Moltke (the younger) did not believe in the plan and thus doomed it by weakening the hammer.