100 Years On, The Great War

[Tim the Tank Nut]

In a few days everyone will be on about the 100 year anniversary. I find myself thinking of Sir Edward Grey's position now, in the days leading up to

The sense of doom had to be almost overwhelming. France did not want war and it was coming. Would the Germans cross into Belgium?

What would happen next? We know now of course but the uncertainty must've been incredible.

I suppose that the only thing to be said in consolation would be that not one of the Great Powers of the day used a hashtag to relay their views on the war.

 

I think by this time the Royal Navy was already at sea. Germany certainly knew her path. France would already be mobilized, the ultimatum from Germany expiring at midnight tonight

the start of a war that in its on way hasn't quite ended yet

[Brian Kennedy]

What scares me is that every time somebody (including me) pontificates about war between great powers being unthinkable nowadays, nobody would benefit from it and it would be economically devastating etc, the (very convincing) counter argument is.... August 1914.

[Brian Kennedy]

Although I guess a better argument would be something like "August 1909" -- by the eve of WWI all the powers wanted in and thought they would win quickly, right?

[BP]

In a few days everyone will be on about the 100 year anniversary.

 

Technically I'd say it began three days and 100 years ago, with Austria-Hungary declaring war on 28 July.

 

But it was the war that began the death of the West, cliché or not.

[Colin Williams]

I see a lot of comment in the British press that Britain should have stayed out of the war. To me this seems to easy an argument. Even assuming that Britain could overlook her treaty obligations to Belgium and her less certain commitments to the Entente, how could Britain have escaped unscathed in the long run with an enlarged, more powerful Germany dominating Europe after crushing France and Russia and absorbing Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, and the future Baltic states?

 

[shep854]

Jim Martin has been posting on Facebook a Twitter feed giving a play-by-play runup to the shooting; @great_war_100

The maneuvering and politiking certainly seem similar to the present day...

[CT96]

I'm a sucker for these "history as it happened" feeds like http://twitter.com/Great_War_100 and http://twitter.com/RealTimeWWII - they help to bring some of those events that pass in a sentence or two in a history book a sense of scale and timing. We talk about "The Great War" being started by the assassination, and we talk about "The Guns of August" as almost single thoughts. We forget with the time and distance that while things spun out of control quickly, it didn't go that way in an afternoon. It helps us to realize that in our own time that just because there wasn't a "boom today" that doesn't mean there won't be one tomorrow... or next week... or next month.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

It really went to hell in July I guess. From 1912 on everything was shaky but July was the kicker.

As far as Britain goes, she'd have been at Germany's will if they tried to stay out of it. A continent united under the German boot wouldn't have tolerated Britain's worldly possessions for long. Look at the Kaiser's reaction to the Boxer Rebellion and the Boer War.

In 1914 it was fight or surrender, there was no third option

[Archie Pellagio]

But would Germany have maintained a full occupation ala WWII or simply done a redux of the Franco-Prussian war peace terms redux?

[JWB]

But would Germany have maintained a full occupation ala WWII or simply done a redux of the Franco-Prussian war peace terms redux?

I think the later. At that point in history it seems to me KW was already having too much trouble in the Balkans and would have had a very negative reaction to occupation of even more restive populations. I feel he wanted to expand his sphere of influence more so than his empire.

[BansheeOne]

Hey, this new subforum is a great idea. There are half a dozen recent WW I threads that could be moved here, too.

[firefly1]

.

 

Different countries, different ideas on the "right" date, see this ;

 

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/declarationsofwar.htm

 

Most celebrations SEEM to be concentrating on the 4th August, although the 1st has a strong claim as Germany declared war on Russia and France was tied into that..

 

.

[X-Files]

Tannenburg Redux

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707550/Key-World-War-I-battle-enacted-Poland.html

[Mikel2]

Tannenburg Redux

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707550/Key-World-War-I-battle-enacted-Poland.html

 

Did they find the spot where Hindenburg slept before the battle, after the battle and during the battle?

[rohala]

But would Germany have maintained a full occupation ala WWII or simply done a redux of the Franco-Prussian war peace terms redux?

The military results of 1871 were different than those of 1940. Assuming Germany is able to overrun France, in say 1916 or 1917, the existing evidence suggests that they would demand demobilization, surrender of all equipment and suspention of conscription. France does not have the dynamic of Germany, and I believe a defeated France may well take the direction it took in 1940, that of accepting to be Germany's junior partner concentrating on naval power. A failure of Britain to support France in WW1 will invalidate their agreements, and begin a period of Franco-German vs Britain tension.

As I said in the thread about USA reposnisbility for WW2 when DKtanker said that Britain should have stayed out of WW2, for an empire to be an empire it needs to be willing to exert influence. If it stands meekly in the sidelines, it will lose its friends and allies.

[Adam_S]

It really went to hell in July I guess. From 1912 on everything was shaky but July was the kicker.

As far as Britain goes, she'd have been at Germany's will if they tried to stay out of it. A continent united under the German boot wouldn't have tolerated Britain's worldly possessions for long. Look at the Kaiser's reaction to the Boxer Rebellion and the Boer War.

In 1914 it was fight or surrender, there was no third option

 

Would they, though? There's still that annoying bit of water between France and Britain, along with the small matter of the largest navy in the world.

[Adam_S]

 

But would Germany have maintained a full occupation ala WWII or simply done a redux of the Franco-Prussian war peace terms redux?

The military results of 1871 were different than those of 1940. Assuming Germany is able to overrun France, in say 1916 or 1917, the existing evidence suggests that they would demand demobilization, surrender of all equipment and suspention of conscription. France does not have the dynamic of Germany, and I believe a defeated France may well take the direction it took in 1940, that of accepting to be Germany's junior partner concentrating on naval power. A failure of Britain to support France in WW1 will invalidate their agreements, and begin a period of Franco-German vs Britain tension.

As I said in the thread about USA reposnisbility for WW2 when DKtanker said that Britain should have stayed out of WW2, for an empire to be an empire it needs to be willing to exert influence. If it stands meekly in the sidelines, it will lose its friends and allies.

 

 

Which option would Germany go for in 1914 though? March on Paris and dictate peace terms a la Franco Prussian war or occupy the whole place like in 1940? Pre-war German plans seem to suggest the former but perhaps it would depend on how quickly they win.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Certainly, look at Samoa. The Kaiser had a bee in his bonnet where Great Britain (the damned family) was concerned and if the Kaiser's Germany triumphed then Britain would not have the strength to maintain it's worldwide possessions. Read Grey's speech to the Commons. It covers the British dilemma well. If it were so easy to stay out of the war then they would have...

[Tim the Tank Nut]

A link to the speech

http://www.1914-1918.net/greys_speech.htm

[Adam_S]

Certainly, look at Samoa. The Kaiser had a bee in his bonnet where Great Britain (the damned family) was concerned and if the Kaiser's Germany triumphed then Britain would not have the strength to maintain it's worldwide possessions. Read Grey's speech to the Commons. It covers the British dilemma well. If it were so easy to stay out of the war then they would have...

 

Well Samoa was occupied by New Zealand troops in 1914 so I'm not sure it's a great example of the Germans' ability to maintain an overseas empire in the face of opposition from the Royal Navy.

 

I'm not questioning the Kaiser's desire to take on the British outside of Europe, rather Germany's ability to do so in the event of outright hostility between the two countries.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

No, I am sorry. I wasn't clear. The Kaiser had a tiff with Britain over Samoa before the war. Much the same as his support for the Boers, the Kaiser was always looking for trouble with England and give him a continent to exploit and Great Britain would be in trouble once Tirpitz had his way

[Adam_S]

No, I am sorry. I wasn't clear. The Kaiser had a tiff with Britain over Samoa before the war. Much the same as his support for the Boers, the Kaiser was always looking for trouble with England and give him a continent to exploit and Great Britain would be in trouble once Tirpitz had his way

 

I'm somewhat inclined to agree.

 

The parallels with the Napoleonic wars a century earlier are interesting though. The British empire went through one of its fastest periods of expansion ever during that time driven at least in part by a desire to acquire French colonies and to make sure nobody snapped up any bits of the globe that might be a threat to their existing interests (e.g. the Mahratta wars in India).

 

I think the US was more inclined to favour Britain over Germany historically as well so while the Kaiser may have a huge land army, attacking anything that German infantry can't walk or catch the train to looks a bit problematic IMO.

[shep854]

@Stuart G.: Jim is quite active on Facebook.

----

@BansheeOne: Agreed! I am also glad to see other WWI-related threads moved to the sub-forum, it will help me to learn about a war I was never really interested in.

Edited August 2, 2014 by shep854

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I think it is fair to say that the Great War has been the defining event of the century. Most of WW2 was a carryover from the Great War.

Just think how much death and sorrow may have been prevented if Kaiser Wilhelm hadn't attained the throne so quickly. If Frederick had lived things may have been much different.

That's what is so scary about today's world. We think we are smarter, more experienced but in reality we are shallower, more reliant on technology which is only a tool for human nature. The right (read as wrong) person reaches power and starts what should be a minor confrontation and soon enough all is in flames.

Right now, with Ukraine, Iraq/Syria, and Hamas/Israel the embers are smoldering... much like the summer of '14 (oh wait....)

[shep854]

I've also seen a statement that all the 20th century wars were really one conflict, with periodic rest breaks. This makes a certain amount if sense.

Edited August 2, 2014 by shep854