WWI re-evaluated.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

RedToo.

Probably the stupidest thing I've ever read.

I don't know, you sure you haven't seen some threads here that would compare?



The Jedi Master

Coming from the BBC I was expecting some serious leftist revisionism going on but that stuff is out there already.

Regards

Mailman

care to explain what´s so stupid in this article?

It's the facts dammit! Why did they have to use facts!

Plenty of those issues have been brought up in books.

Mud, Blood and Poppycock

This book is one I really like, and gives a very good rundown of WWI myths and their debunking.

But how much of that stuff is known to the common bloke on the street?

The article forgot to mention one of the myths about WWI,


That Germany was entirely responsible for the start of WWI.

The fallout from WW1 (for example the end of the Turkish Empire, the Balfour Declaration, the recognition of the House of Saud and the Kingdom of Saud etc. etc.) is still being felt.

It may be too much to say WWI has not yet ended, but if you look at the war in the east, since the fall of the Austrio Hungarian Empire and the Turkish Empire, the unrest has been essentially on and off since 1914.


In centuries to come, historians may not look at the last 100 years as a series of discrete wars, but rather one long conflict.

That is only partly mythical. I would say that Germany was primarily responsible for starting WWI. I think Imperial Germany was the only country involved that actually wanted a war.

Umm. No. Everyone was spoiling for a (albeit local) fight... This was the primary reason for all the convoluted alliances ~ an attempt to make it unthinkable.

The balkan states *really* wanted war ~ everyone else would have sat out if their commitments hadn't been tested by their allies.

I'd really recommend the book "War 1914: Punishing the Serbs" for a view of the conflict drawn directly from the UK archives - the various reports, memos, notes on conversations and other political manoeuvrings. It is far from clear that Germany even remotely wanted war... though it could perhaps have been a little more assertive right at the beginning after a while the momentum was such that no country could have backed down and saved face... and the young men and their families suffered as a consequence of that pride and inflexibility. It is hard to see how anyone could have bent enough to have avoided it though, especially in light of modern wars that are waged with equally flimsy pretexts.

+1 Lieste.

WW1 is a much more complex war than most people believe it to be.

Well let me re-phrase that, yes the Balkan states were spoiling for a fight. But Germany was the only major power that wanted a war. Russia didn't, France didn't, Britain didn't, Italy didn't. Germany was the primary factor in turning a regional conflict into a world war. IMO.

France desperately wanted to get Alsace Lorraine back and to avenge their loss in the Franco Prussian War.

Italy prostituted itself to the highest bidder so they dont count.

Russia saw itself as the "big brother" to the Slavs in the Balkans and would go to war if those interests were threatened.
Russia also wanted war against the Ottoman Empire since they were seen as the primary threat to their interests in the Balkans.

There was a documentary named The Century narrated by Peter Jennings back in 1999.

In it, Mr. Jennings said something to the effect that up to that time in 1999, everything that has happened in the past 80 years, was the results of World War I.

I have a copy of that documentary.

I need to find it and quote what Mr. Jennings said because not only did it make sense, it left an impact on me.

EDIT:

I found it in its entirety on YouTube and now it's just a matter of finding the correct episode where Mr. Jennings said it.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC8D9DC28C3EC5223

I watched this ten-part documentary a couple of weeks ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0D-ltuyZFc It is very informative and I learned quite a lot of what I had been taught in history class in school was only partly correct. I highly recommend watching this series if you want to understand more of the causes of WWI.

concerning books, I suggest this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-War-that-End...war+ended+peace

followed by this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sleepwalkers...ds=sleepwalkers

much interesting stuff there to find....

France and Russia both had wars of conquest in mind. Austro Hungary was struggling to hold together it's empire, and war within the Balkans was probably an eventual certainty... it did little to attempt to avert this course though.

If *either* France or Russia went to war, Germany & Austro-Hungary would have been embroiled with both. There was no flexibility in the accepted terms of their treaties. Britain was under treaty obligations to support Belgian Neutrality, but gave Germany signals that it wouldn't support France and Russia against Germany - while simultaneously giving France soothing noises of support.

Britain was probably the least interested in war in Europe, happy as it was with owning an empire that the sun never set upon. We did *far* too little too late to avert war though - wishful thinking has little practical use. It is also massively disingenuous to accuse anyone else of having colonial ambitions, when the British Empire was larger than *everyone else's* overseas interests several times over.

Or in other words:

"No, the thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?"

"Do you mean "How did the war start?""

"The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building."

"George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front."

"Oh, no, sir, absolutely not."

[aside]

"Mad as a bicycle!"

"I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry."

"I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot."

"Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir."

"Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war."

"By Gum, this is interesting. I always loved history. The Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII and his six knives, all that."

"You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war."

"But, this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?"

"Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan."

"What was that, sir?"

"It was bollocks."

"So the poor old ostrich died for nothing then."

Lol. Blackadder is simply brilliant stuff.

Got to love Black Adder.



The WW1 episodes especially were brilliant.

@Lieste

Excellent ...and not far off the truth....it was all a cunning plan

There have already been some good posts, however if i read this:



i have to answer !

"Germany was the only major power who wanted a war" ? Both France and Russia wanted to kick Germany, as you can read in original documents when the ambassadors of France and Russia in St. Petersburg had met and agreed to "...meet again 'unter den Linden' in Berlin, before the year's end ...". This was on New Year's eve 1914, and it was even written down.
It is also knwon that Germany had asked Belgium for an allowance to march through, something that a neutral country certainly could not do.
On the other hand Belgium was not exactly neutral or harmless, when it came to its colonies. History reports 40 million african civilian deaths in the Congo, due to belgian King Leopold 'the slaughterer', who ran the colony as a private enterprise. Rhodes in his privately owned 'Rhodesia' was 'benevolent', in comparison (*hrrrm* lmao).

Germany had the choice of going through Belgium first, or waiting to be attacked from both sides, Russia and France. France was a bit more eager than Russia though, thinking of Napoleon I through III, but they sure had an axe to grind.
Interestingly, the original French plans included invading Germany through Belgium as well, but as things went they came a bit too late.
As Niall Ferguson points out in 'The pity of war', England would have invaded Belgium as well. B.t.w. they had held manoeuvers in 1907, simulating landing military in Belgium, across the channel.
Italy wanted to get big chunks of the toppling austro-hungarian Empire, and had the least reason to enter the war, if you blind out good old imperial greed. Venice was not always italian, you know.

As someone else put it, harsh but true:
" ... Germans had the choice of going through Belgium first, or waiting for a simultanous invasion from Russia and France. Belgs had a choice of granting Germans passage and being invaded by Britons or French, or refusing passage and being invaded by Germans. French had the choice of keeping peace and letting Germans mind their business, or assembling an international anti-German coalition, plan, and then execute a world war over a previous conflict (which France had started, too, and duly lost). Britons had the choice of informing Germans they were going to back France in the case of war (which could prevent the war) or feign neutrality until Germans committed to war with the French (which would ensure Germans stumble into an unwinnnable war). But sure, let's blame Germans for using every promising strategy when fighting for survival, they should have lain belly up and accept the Versailles treaty without a fight. ..."

The book 'The sleepwalkers' is not quite as harsh, but comes to a similar conclusion.

Germany was not shy of fighting, but it found itself in a war intended by Russia and France. I guess we will all be astonished if those archives will be really opened, after a hundred years. I doubt the latter though.

That is pretty much the impression I got from the British official papers as published in the previously noted book. No-one came out of it looking smart, or noble.

Oh christ...Gove IS right about Black Adder!

Mailman

A side of WW1 that I had not heard of until now.




Wheels

Erwin Rommel fought on the Alpine front during WW1.

To expand on it, everyone also expected a war to come. There had been a number of crises that almost lead to wars. Some of these involved Germany and her colonial ambitions in Africa, one involved France and the UK over land in the Sudan. Then there were lesser crises, like the Pig War. Other issues being that the UK perceived Germany as a direct rival to her, this was partly due to diplomatic incompetence by the Germans after Bismarck left public life and then died. Though the failure to keep Russia out of the French sphere was a major failing by him as I recall.

The Germans wanted to weaken a rising Russia as I recall, and had colonial ambitions. The French wanted to regain Alsace-Lorraine, and return the favor for the peace resulting from the Franco Prussian war. The Russians wanted to protect their "South Slav" compatriots (the Serbs, etc). The Austro-Hungarians wanted to incorporate Serbia to weaken Serbian nationalism in their own territory, the Hungarians probably also wanted to just pound on Serbs. The Serbs on their part considered the Austro-Hungarians as an existential threat, which they were. Though the response to this threat was perhaps mildly insane by some.

I've been to the Dolomites region in the Alps quite a few times. The frontline literally wound along peaks and ridge lines. To this day you can find rusted wire and sometimes even rifle cartridges next to the old fortifications and embrasures. Many of the supply routes blasted into the rock by the soldiers back then are now used as hiking/climbing trails.

Most famous among them is probably the Alpinisteig:

Winter is coming. Beware the White Walkers.



The Jedi Master

Is that the same as this one? Pasubio: Strada delle Gallerie
The other post mentions mortars that trigger (snow) avalanches. Probably even more amazing are the mining efforts Messines-style, blowing up whole mountain peaks.
Just found this page: Virtual tour of the Italian Front

No doubt France wanted to revenge the defeat of 1871 and retake Alsace Lorraine...all eyed were focused on 'blue line of the Vosges (mountains)' (actual expression) beyond which were the lost territories...War or at least a confrontation against Germany was inevitable and France during the preceeding decades prepared it with all means, militarization of the bodies and souls, of the industry, cult of the nation and the motherland, mobilization of all ressources, colonies, etc...etc.

No, that's another one.

The Italian name is Strada degli Alpini.