Kaiserschlacht
March 21, 2018 12:03 PM Subscribe
The beginning of the end of World War I. One hundred years ago today the German empire launched Operation Michael, a vast offensive aimed at cracking the Allied armies in France and winning the First World War.
German forces, bolstered by armies freed up from the defeat of Russia's empire in the east, fought to win as much ground as possible before American armies arrived in strength. "Paris guns" lobbed giant shells into that city from 75 miles away. It was possibly the largest military attack in human history by that point.
Ultimately the offensive would splinter against the brutalized Allies, including a growing American presence, with multiple operations running ahead of supply and suffering from ever shifting strategies. Casualties were terrible, and weakened the Germans fatally; they would lose the entire war seven months later.
More:
First Quartermaster-General of the German General Staff Erich Ludendorff's report.
German Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg's account.
Winston Churchill on the attack:
There was a rumble of artillery fire, mostly distant, and the thudding explosions of aeroplane raids. And then, exactly as a pianist runs his hands across a keyboard from treble to bass, there rose in less than one minute the most tremendous cannonade I shall ever hear. It swept around us in a wide curve of red flame...
Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, Sir Douglas Haig, trying to inspire troops three weeks later:
There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end.
Dan Carlin's episode
One map. Another.
One documentary: 1, 2
Ultimately the offensive would splinter against the brutalized Allies, including a growing American presence, with multiple operations running ahead of supply and suffering from ever shifting strategies. Casualties were terrible, and weakened the Germans fatally; they would lose the entire war seven months later.
More:
First Quartermaster-General of the German General Staff Erich Ludendorff's report.
German Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg's account.
Winston Churchill on the attack:
There was a rumble of artillery fire, mostly distant, and the thudding explosions of aeroplane raids. And then, exactly as a pianist runs his hands across a keyboard from treble to bass, there rose in less than one minute the most tremendous cannonade I shall ever hear. It swept around us in a wide curve of red flame...
Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, Sir Douglas Haig, trying to inspire troops three weeks later:
There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end.
Dan Carlin's episode
One map. Another.
One documentary: 1, 2
So glad you linked to Dan Carlin's "Blueprint to Armageddon" series. It is absolutely wonderful, riveting and worth the hours of listening investment.
posted by Major Matt Mason Dixon at 12:32 PM on March 21, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by Major Matt Mason Dixon at 12:32 PM on March 21, 2018 [7 favorites]
Inspiring troops may not have been Sir Douglas Haig's strongest suit, shall we say?
"What? It's not like I told them that if the Huns didn't shoot them, I would."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:05 PM on March 21, 2018 [6 favorites]
"What? It's not like I told them that if the Huns didn't shoot them, I would."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:05 PM on March 21, 2018 [6 favorites]
Ultimately the offensive would splinter against the brutalized Allies, including a growing American presence, with multiple operations running ahead of supply and suffering from ever shifting strategies.
See also, "Bulge, Battle of the."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:07 PM on March 21, 2018 [2 favorites]
See also, "Bulge, Battle of the."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:07 PM on March 21, 2018 [2 favorites]
. × (1.6 × 10^7)
posted by lalochezia at 1:29 PM on March 21, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 1:29 PM on March 21, 2018 [9 favorites]
Ah! My dissertation subject at university! That's some unexpected memories.
Pro-tip: If you're going to base your defences on a series of mutually supporting redoubts, then you should probably make sure they're close enough to mutually support each other.
posted by garius at 1:39 PM on March 21, 2018 [13 favorites]
Pro-tip: If you're going to base your defences on a series of mutually supporting redoubts, then you should probably make sure they're close enough to mutually support each other.
posted by garius at 1:39 PM on March 21, 2018 [13 favorites]
Every year France still reaps the Iron Harvest. I highly recommend the book Aftermath for an in-depth look at the remains of that terrible war.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:03 PM on March 21, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:03 PM on March 21, 2018 [6 favorites]
So glad you linked to Dan Carlin's "Blueprint to Armageddon" series. It is absolutely wonderful, riveting and worth the hours of listening investment.
Seconded. I've listened to the whole series a few times through. It really is incredible.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:15 PM on March 21, 2018
Seconded. I've listened to the whole series a few times through. It really is incredible.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:15 PM on March 21, 2018
ELI5: What did Germany really want out of the war? I mean, maybe at this point they just didn't want to lose, but what in particular had they hoped to gain?
posted by Halloween Jack at 3:02 PM on March 21, 2018
posted by Halloween Jack at 3:02 PM on March 21, 2018
Seconded. I've listened to the whole series a few times through. It really is incredible.
This is a reminder to me that I started it and never quite got all the way through. So now I get to start again. It was fascinating the first time.
ELI5: What did Germany really want out of the war? I mean, maybe at this point they just didn't want to lose, but what in particular had they hoped to gain?
In addition to what Earthtopus has linked above, the Fischer thesis argues that the German political elite was pursuing aggressive foreign policy in part to distract from the growing demands for greater democracy inside Germany, as well as to make Germany a dominant power at the expense of Britain, France, and Russia.
posted by nubs at 3:31 PM on March 21, 2018 [7 favorites]
This is a reminder to me that I started it and never quite got all the way through. So now I get to start again. It was fascinating the first time.
ELI5: What did Germany really want out of the war? I mean, maybe at this point they just didn't want to lose, but what in particular had they hoped to gain?
In addition to what Earthtopus has linked above, the Fischer thesis argues that the German political elite was pursuing aggressive foreign policy in part to distract from the growing demands for greater democracy inside Germany, as well as to make Germany a dominant power at the expense of Britain, France, and Russia.
posted by nubs at 3:31 PM on March 21, 2018 [7 favorites]
An excellent blog post about France's Zone Rouge, land that is so polluted by the remains of WW1 that it may never be inhabitable.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:44 PM on March 21, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:44 PM on March 21, 2018 [15 favorites]
nubs: In addition to what Earthtopus has linked above, the Fischer thesis argues that the German political elite was pursuing aggressive foreign policy in part to distract from the growing demands for greater democracy inside Germany
I seem to recall that John Keegan expanded on that idea to suggest that all of the Great Powers involved in the war were doing the same. They all wanted to build the ideal Clausewitzean nation of soldiers who had the nationalistic drive and enthusiasm of French Revolution armies, but without the "revolution" part.
The fact that the Russian and English monarchs were German made that a little more difficult, but they managed it anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 4:42 PM on March 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
I seem to recall that John Keegan expanded on that idea to suggest that all of the Great Powers involved in the war were doing the same. They all wanted to build the ideal Clausewitzean nation of soldiers who had the nationalistic drive and enthusiasm of French Revolution armies, but without the "revolution" part.
The fact that the Russian and English monarchs were German made that a little more difficult, but they managed it anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 4:42 PM on March 21, 2018 [4 favorites]
(To expand a bit on that... Germany had universal male suffrage by 1871, while the UK didn't get it until 1918. The difference, of course, was that the German monarch had more political power than the British monarch did; Germany's franchise was broader but less meaningful.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:59 PM on March 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 4:59 PM on March 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
Ok, I’ve just listened to the first half-hour of episode I of Blueprint for Armageddon and it is legit frightening in our current context.
posted by nubs at 6:27 PM on March 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by nubs at 6:27 PM on March 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
The French 75 is also a delicious cocktail.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 7:00 PM on March 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 7:00 PM on March 21, 2018 [3 favorites]
ELI5: What did Germany really want out of the war? I mean, maybe at this point they just didn't want to lose, but what in particular had they hoped to gain?
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:02 PM on March 21 [+] [!]
Germany's war aims.
posted by Earthtopus at 6:13 PM on March 21 [6 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]
I can't remember if it's from Blueprint for Armageddon, some other thing I was reading at the time those came out (I was an Associate Producer on History Channel's "The World Wars" and so doing constant WWI research for a while, none of it particularly organized) or just common knowledge, but there was a sort of mass Sunk Costs Fallacy involved in WWI in that every power involved felt the increasing need to make all the struggle and loss of life "worthwhile" while the trench warfare continued on. Earthtopus's link there is a good example of how outlandish those goals can seem in retrospect.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:03 PM on March 21, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:02 PM on March 21 [+] [!]
Germany's war aims.
posted by Earthtopus at 6:13 PM on March 21 [6 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]
I can't remember if it's from Blueprint for Armageddon, some other thing I was reading at the time those came out (I was an Associate Producer on History Channel's "The World Wars" and so doing constant WWI research for a while, none of it particularly organized) or just common knowledge, but there was a sort of mass Sunk Costs Fallacy involved in WWI in that every power involved felt the increasing need to make all the struggle and loss of life "worthwhile" while the trench warfare continued on. Earthtopus's link there is a good example of how outlandish those goals can seem in retrospect.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:03 PM on March 21, 2018 [5 favorites]
It's important to understand the Septemberprogramm came out in, well, September of 1914, over a month after the war began. They didn't have any goals going in to the war. The list of countries entering the Great War with any well defined aims is woefully short, and millions paid the price for it.
There's a connecting thread you can draw tactically from the Brusilov Offensive to Caporetto to Operation Michael. As a military operation it could have won the war for the Germans and forced the surrender of the French. It exhausted them entirely, and separated them from the British. If the Allies didn't have a supply of fresh bodies to throw into the meatgrinder, they would have collapsed. The naive optimism of American troops heading Over There (without any significant understanding of exactly what they were heading into) saved western democracies.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:11 PM on March 21, 2018 [5 favorites]
There's a connecting thread you can draw tactically from the Brusilov Offensive to Caporetto to Operation Michael. As a military operation it could have won the war for the Germans and forced the surrender of the French. It exhausted them entirely, and separated them from the British. If the Allies didn't have a supply of fresh bodies to throw into the meatgrinder, they would have collapsed. The naive optimism of American troops heading Over There (without any significant understanding of exactly what they were heading into) saved western democracies.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 7:11 PM on March 21, 2018 [5 favorites]
There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end.
[Blackadder is informed that a German spy is stealing battle plans]posted by howfar at 8:16 PM on March 21, 2018 [16 favorites]
General Melchett: You look surprised, Blackadder.
Captain Blackadder: I certainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans.
General Melchett: Well, of course we have! How else do you think the battles are directed?
Captain Blackadder: Our battles are directed, sir?
General Melchett: Well, of course they are, Blackadder, directed according to the Grand Plan.
Captain Blackadder: Would that be the plan to continue with total slaughter until everyone's dead except Field Marshal Haig, Lady Haig and their tortoise, Alan?
General Melchett: Great Scott! Even you know it!
A short comment on this at Lawyers, Guns and Money. Farley makes the point that the popular trope that the generals spent 4 years mindlessly trying the same thing over and over is wrong. I got the same from Keegan's WWI history: They tried different things that didn't work. To tragic loss of life.
Re the September Program: The wiki article manages to capture unintentionally a lot of the problem with looking back on that era. It both calls it "the" plan and discusses how it wasn't ever government policy. It's definitive but never adopted!
All the states had many, many factions in their government and often undefined power relationships as they had to balance the old elites and new popular strains of nationalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. But they all wrote memo so its there in the record. I'm not a historian but it seems to me that this era, more than most, is prone to people find a thread of documents that supports a thesis and weaving it together into the "true" sentiments of whatever nation they're dealing with. (I did like Clark's Sleepwalkers but I know it's not the last word on this. Barraclough's Agadir to Armageddon is another perspective on diplomacy during this era.)
posted by mark k at 8:30 PM on March 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
Re the September Program: The wiki article manages to capture unintentionally a lot of the problem with looking back on that era. It both calls it "the" plan and discusses how it wasn't ever government policy. It's definitive but never adopted!
All the states had many, many factions in their government and often undefined power relationships as they had to balance the old elites and new popular strains of nationalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. But they all wrote memo so its there in the record. I'm not a historian but it seems to me that this era, more than most, is prone to people find a thread of documents that supports a thesis and weaving it together into the "true" sentiments of whatever nation they're dealing with. (I did like Clark's Sleepwalkers but I know it's not the last word on this. Barraclough's Agadir to Armageddon is another perspective on diplomacy during this era.)
posted by mark k at 8:30 PM on March 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
"Made a note in my diary on the way here. Simply says, 'Bugger'."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:04 PM on March 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:04 PM on March 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
When talking about why Germany got into the First World War, it's worth remembering the number of wars that had been going on in Europe as the various Great Powers were trying to edge each other out as hegemons. 40 years earlier, in 1870, France had declared war on a newly unified Germany over what was, essentially, an epic shade throwing telegram from the German Chancellor. France lost the Franco-Prussian war and had to give up Alsace-Lorraine, but still harbored a grudge. The Germans knew this and figured it was just a matter of time.
Hell, between the Franco Prussian War, the various Napoleonic Wars, and the Seven Years War, the European Powers had been fighting a war with each other once a generation. This was just a thing that they did and were going to keep doing. Everyone had studied how the Union used railroads to move troops around in the American Civil War, and the Prussians used it to great effect in the Franco-Prussian War, and so now each nation had drafted up their timetables calculating how many men they could get onto a frontline with X days after a general mobilization. Each nation was applying industrial factory thinking to the logistics of what the next war was going to be like, and a generation of Germany's generals sunk their minds into the juicy puzzle of how to fight France, Britain and Russia at the same time, while on the other side British, French and Russian generals were just itching for the opportunity for Germany to cross the line just so that they can finally, truly, humble these imperial upstarts.
It really is just the ultimate sunk cost experiment that you've just spent thirty years and entire careers planning this stuff out and telling yourselves that it's going to happen. Might as well look for an excuse, any excuse, to make it happen.
posted by bl1nk at 5:28 AM on March 22, 2018 [11 favorites]
Hell, between the Franco Prussian War, the various Napoleonic Wars, and the Seven Years War, the European Powers had been fighting a war with each other once a generation. This was just a thing that they did and were going to keep doing. Everyone had studied how the Union used railroads to move troops around in the American Civil War, and the Prussians used it to great effect in the Franco-Prussian War, and so now each nation had drafted up their timetables calculating how many men they could get onto a frontline with X days after a general mobilization. Each nation was applying industrial factory thinking to the logistics of what the next war was going to be like, and a generation of Germany's generals sunk their minds into the juicy puzzle of how to fight France, Britain and Russia at the same time, while on the other side British, French and Russian generals were just itching for the opportunity for Germany to cross the line just so that they can finally, truly, humble these imperial upstarts.
It really is just the ultimate sunk cost experiment that you've just spent thirty years and entire careers planning this stuff out and telling yourselves that it's going to happen. Might as well look for an excuse, any excuse, to make it happen.
posted by bl1nk at 5:28 AM on March 22, 2018 [11 favorites]
Farley makes the point that the popular trope that the generals spent 4 years mindlessly trying the same thing over and over is wrong. I got the same from Keegan's WWI history: They tried different things that didn't work. To tragic loss of life.or what would happen is that some small tweak would reveal some major lesson that would be adapted by both the attacker and defender.
Like the Brusilov Offensive succeeded largely because it was the first time that heavily concentrated artillery was used successfully to get a breakthrough in trench warfare, so it became accepted wisdom that if you could just drown the enemy in shells, then charging across no man's land against on your stunned opponents would be a piece of cake. But then everyone else figured that if you just built deeper bunkers and kept more of your troops in reserve off the frontline and just moved them up once the shelling stopped and the charge began then you can counter the victory by barrage tactic. It wasn't mindless at all. The Great War was a tragedy of strategic minds coming up with tiny tactical innovations that were about winning yesterday's battles but not anticipating that your opponent was also doing the same thing, and would counter most of what worked last month.
posted by bl1nk at 5:37 AM on March 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
One way to think of it is that Imperial Germany was paranoid. I mean in the sense that they couldn't imagine any other power wouldn't do what they would do.
The Naval Race with Britain occurs because they are sure the Royal Navy would be used against them. Never mind that Britain up until that point had been an Ally.
The relationship with Russia breaks down because the German fear that a fully industrialised Russia would attack them.
France was always going to want Alsace Lorraine back. Bismarck had removed Germany from the Colonial game to reduce tensions with the other powers. The German agitation over Morocco was the kind of thing he was trying to avoid.
I don't think there is really any scenario where Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't end isolating himself and fighting everyone. It was kind of just his nature.
posted by DoveBrown at 7:35 AM on March 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
The Naval Race with Britain occurs because they are sure the Royal Navy would be used against them. Never mind that Britain up until that point had been an Ally.
The relationship with Russia breaks down because the German fear that a fully industrialised Russia would attack them.
France was always going to want Alsace Lorraine back. Bismarck had removed Germany from the Colonial game to reduce tensions with the other powers. The German agitation over Morocco was the kind of thing he was trying to avoid.
I don't think there is really any scenario where Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't end isolating himself and fighting everyone. It was kind of just his nature.
posted by DoveBrown at 7:35 AM on March 22, 2018 [2 favorites]
Everyone had studied how the Union used railroads to move troops around in the American Civil War, and the Prussians used it to great effect in the Franco-Prussian War, and so now each nation had drafted up their timetables calculating how many men they could get onto a frontline with X days after a general mobilization.
Or, failing that, taxi cabs. Ah, the French!
It really is just the ultimate sunk cost experiment that you've just spent thirty years and entire careers planning this stuff out and telling yourselves that it's going to happen. Might as well look for an excuse, any excuse, to make it happen.
To be honest, the man in the street wanted it as well, arguably more so. Adventure! Comaradery! Britain didn't require conscription until 1916, and even in countries where it had had been mandatory, there was a rush to join up. Hard not to, really. My (US) grandfather was exempt (married, children) but suffered professionally for being a peacenik. My wife's (British) grandfather, also a conchie, moved to America for what we can only assume were professional reasons. (Just in time for the Spanish flu, successfully treated by sympathetic southerners with bourbon; lots and lots of bourbon. But that's another story.)
I mean in the sense that they couldn't imagine any other power wouldn't do what they would do.
One can see their point. France had been dedicated to a non-unified Germany since the Thirty Years War, a nasty piece of business that runs deep in German memory. Then too, Napoleon's invasions didn't instill a whole lot of confidence on their neighbors' good intentions. People will insist on not minding their own business.
posted by BWA at 7:57 AM on March 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
Or, failing that, taxi cabs. Ah, the French!
It really is just the ultimate sunk cost experiment that you've just spent thirty years and entire careers planning this stuff out and telling yourselves that it's going to happen. Might as well look for an excuse, any excuse, to make it happen.
To be honest, the man in the street wanted it as well, arguably more so. Adventure! Comaradery! Britain didn't require conscription until 1916, and even in countries where it had had been mandatory, there was a rush to join up. Hard not to, really. My (US) grandfather was exempt (married, children) but suffered professionally for being a peacenik. My wife's (British) grandfather, also a conchie, moved to America for what we can only assume were professional reasons. (Just in time for the Spanish flu, successfully treated by sympathetic southerners with bourbon; lots and lots of bourbon. But that's another story.)
I mean in the sense that they couldn't imagine any other power wouldn't do what they would do.
One can see their point. France had been dedicated to a non-unified Germany since the Thirty Years War, a nasty piece of business that runs deep in German memory. Then too, Napoleon's invasions didn't instill a whole lot of confidence on their neighbors' good intentions. People will insist on not minding their own business.
posted by BWA at 7:57 AM on March 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
I was in Edinburgh recently and at the castle, there is a massive war memorial to the Scottish men who fought in the war. With registers of all the men in the units (I'm not sure if it was all the men who died, or just all the men, I didn't check.) There was also a few mentions here and there that "oh yeah, Germany dropped 32 bombs on Edinburgh during the Second World War." Admittedly, Edinburgh didn't live in a state of siege with the Blitz like London did, but it felt like a great deal of popular culture that makes it over to the US from Britain these days is more concerned with WWI than WWII. I don't know if that's an anniversary thing, or if, despite being essentially besieged for a year and a half after pulling their military out at the last possible moment, the losses during the first World War were just so much greater than the second that it occupies more space in the collective memory. It may be instead that I am just missing a large part of the culture that is just not making it across the Atlantic.
posted by Hactar at 10:45 AM on March 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Hactar at 10:45 AM on March 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
@Hactar
I think part of the difference between the perception of the two World Wars was that due to technological improvements enabling exploitation of breakthroughs, in the second war large movements occurred across territory and fairly quickly...for good and for ill.
The first world war was fought in tiny enclosed spaces where bodies were fed in to the teeth of the war machine. Random death occurred full on at all times for four years in the same few kilometers. Look up the ossuary at Verdun. The first world war was conducted madly, and it was the first true war of empires in the mechanized age. The war was simply a mathematical factory exercise of how many people could die at the highest rate until one side broke.
Arguably true of the Second as well, but the achievement of local and regional successes allowed for some "bright spots." We won here, or the other sides troops took that space, but that's over now and something else will happen, with some chance of success. Those successes did not happen on the Western Front of the First World War for four long years. Imagine one day and night in the trenches, and extend that until mathematically you are guaranteed to die or be maimed.
When I read books like Aftermath or listen to Carlin's examination of the war, I literally think "they killed God." Because philosophically they did. You can't understand what happened at Paschandaele and reconcile that with a benevolent all powerful deity. It was folly, and after the first year, everyone knew it.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:03 AM on March 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
I think part of the difference between the perception of the two World Wars was that due to technological improvements enabling exploitation of breakthroughs, in the second war large movements occurred across territory and fairly quickly...for good and for ill.
The first world war was fought in tiny enclosed spaces where bodies were fed in to the teeth of the war machine. Random death occurred full on at all times for four years in the same few kilometers. Look up the ossuary at Verdun. The first world war was conducted madly, and it was the first true war of empires in the mechanized age. The war was simply a mathematical factory exercise of how many people could die at the highest rate until one side broke.
Arguably true of the Second as well, but the achievement of local and regional successes allowed for some "bright spots." We won here, or the other sides troops took that space, but that's over now and something else will happen, with some chance of success. Those successes did not happen on the Western Front of the First World War for four long years. Imagine one day and night in the trenches, and extend that until mathematically you are guaranteed to die or be maimed.
When I read books like Aftermath or listen to Carlin's examination of the war, I literally think "they killed God." Because philosophically they did. You can't understand what happened at Paschandaele and reconcile that with a benevolent all powerful deity. It was folly, and after the first year, everyone knew it.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:03 AM on March 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
Hactar, this may be related to your observation - One of the things a history prof pointed out to me, and it's been true at every place I've stopped to look since, is that the lists at the various memorials in whatever town/city you happen to be in will be much longer for WWI than for WWII, because of how regiments and units were put together in WWI - the concept of the Pals Battalions. Basically, the British Army (and the Canadian, as it was part of the British Army at that point) tried to help recruitment by enabling people to sign up alongside their neighbours, friends, and family members, and they would all be put into the same unit.
This meant, as the war became the meatgrinder we now know it as, that losses that impacted a particular town, village, service group, school, sportsmans club, etc. would be massive as everyone was in the same unit in the same battle (for example, the Accrington Pals lost 235 killed and 350 wounded in the first half hour of the Battle of the Somme) . The practice was ended in 1916.
posted by nubs at 11:24 AM on March 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
This meant, as the war became the meatgrinder we now know it as, that losses that impacted a particular town, village, service group, school, sportsmans club, etc. would be massive as everyone was in the same unit in the same battle (for example, the Accrington Pals lost 235 killed and 350 wounded in the first half hour of the Battle of the Somme) . The practice was ended in 1916.
posted by nubs at 11:24 AM on March 22, 2018 [6 favorites]
One way to think of it is that Imperial Germany was paranoid. I mean in the sense that they couldn't imagine any other power wouldn't do what they would do.
Germany was and is territorially paranoid in the same way that Russia was and is. That's because they haven't really got natural borders in many directions. There are no geographic obstacles to invading armies between the Dutch coast and the Urals. The territorial instability between the powers occupying that plane, including Poland and Ukraine which are inconveniently stuck between the two more powerful countries, continues today.
Americans and British don't understand this mentality all because their borders are fixed in all or most directions by geography - The US has. Territorial acquisitions for the British Empire were about building markets, not about paranoia driven buffer building. Even the French have mountains and seas on most sides of the hexagon.
posted by atrazine at 7:37 AM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
Germany was and is territorially paranoid in the same way that Russia was and is. That's because they haven't really got natural borders in many directions. There are no geographic obstacles to invading armies between the Dutch coast and the Urals. The territorial instability between the powers occupying that plane, including Poland and Ukraine which are inconveniently stuck between the two more powerful countries, continues today.
Americans and British don't understand this mentality all because their borders are fixed in all or most directions by geography - The US has. Territorial acquisitions for the British Empire were about building markets, not about paranoia driven buffer building. Even the French have mountains and seas on most sides of the hexagon.
posted by atrazine at 7:37 AM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
the lists at the various memorials in whatever town/city you happen to be in will be much longer for WWI than for WWII, because of how regiments and units were put together in WWI
Partly but Britain lost twice as many soldiers in WWI as in WWII. From a smaller population in a shorter time. And they got off "easy" compared to France or Germany. The war was just so unimaginably brutal.
posted by mark k at 7:33 PM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
Partly but Britain lost twice as many soldiers in WWI as in WWII. From a smaller population in a shorter time. And they got off "easy" compared to France or Germany. The war was just so unimaginably brutal.
posted by mark k at 7:33 PM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
atrazine: There are no geographic obstacles to invading armies between the Dutch coast and the Urals.
Well, there are some, but you can go around them.
posted by clawsoon at 8:56 AM on March 24, 2018
Well, there are some, but you can go around them.
posted by clawsoon at 8:56 AM on March 24, 2018
« Older All about the ballast | #KarmaCycle Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Naberius at 12:09 PM on March 21, 2018 [10 favorites]