OT: Fascinating/ infuriating New Yorker article on the Armistice

[LionJim]

You'll find it HERE.

It's well known that the Great War officially ended at 11am on 11/11/18, but the article states that the Armistice was signed at 5 am that morning and that everyone knew this. Regardless, "Since the armies tabulated their casualty statistics by the day and not by the hour, we know only the total toll for November 11th: twenty-seven hundred and thirty-eight men from both sides were killed, and eighty-two hundred and six were left wounded or missing. But since it was still dark at 5 a.m., and attacks almost always took place in daylight, the vast majority of these casualties clearly happened after the Armistice had been signed, when commanders knew that the firing was to stop for good at 11 a.m. The day’s toll was greater than both sides would suffer in Normandy on D Day, 1944. And it was incurred to gain ground that Allied generals knew the Germans would be vacating days, or even hours, later." Fvck me.

Also, there's a very interesting take on the impact of the Armistice on the rise of Hitler, something I hadn't before considered: Due to German propaganda on the home front, the German citizens, by and large, had no idea of the dire straits their army was in and thus the Armistice, really a surrender, came as a complete surprise. As a result, many Germans, certainly those on the right wing, considered the Armistice less a defeat than a stab in the back by the "elite."

 

[PSU87]

You'll find it HERE.

It's well known that the Great War officially ended at 11am on 11/11/18, but the article states that the Armistice was signed at 5 am that morning and that everyone knew this. Regardless, "Since the armies tabulated their casualty statistics by the day and not by the hour, we know only the total toll for November 11th: twenty-seven hundred and thirty-eight men from both sides were killed, and eighty-two hundred and six were left wounded or missing. But since it was still dark at 5 a.m., and attacks almost always took place in daylight, the vast majority of these casualties clearly happened after the Armistice had been signed, when commanders knew that the firing was to stop for good at 11 a.m. The day’s toll was greater than both sides would suffer in Normandy on D Day, 1944. And it was incurred to gain ground that Allied generals knew the Germans would be vacating days, or even hours, later." Fvck me.

Also, there's a very interesting take on the impact of the Armistice on the rise of Hitler, something I hadn't before considered: Due to German propaganda on the home front, the German citizens, by and large, had no idea of the dire straits their army was in and thus the Armistice, really a surrender, came as a complete surprise. As a result, many Germans, certainly those on the right wing, considered the Armistice less a defeat than a stab in the back by the "elite."

Thanks for posting.
I just read this article yesterday on Realclear history. Talks about some of the same things. Britain/France could have just as easily surrendered, their armies were not in much better shape, and the rank and file soldiers of Germany felt betrayed.
WWII started the day the armistice was signed. It was so punitive to Germany, they would never be able to recover from it.

https://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm

 

[Obliviax]

You'll find it HERE.

It's well known that the Great War officially ended at 11am on 11/11/18, but the article states that the Armistice was signed at 5 am that morning and that everyone knew this. Regardless, "Since the armies tabulated their casualty statistics by the day and not by the hour, we know only the total toll for November 11th: twenty-seven hundred and thirty-eight men from both sides were killed, and eighty-two hundred and six were left wounded or missing. But since it was still dark at 5 a.m., and attacks almost always took place in daylight, the vast majority of these casualties clearly happened after the Armistice had been signed, when commanders knew that the firing was to stop for good at 11 a.m. The day’s toll was greater than both sides would suffer in Normandy on D Day, 1944. And it was incurred to gain ground that Allied generals knew the Germans would be vacating days, or even hours, later." Fvck me.

Also, there's a very interesting take on the impact of the Armistice on the rise of Hitler, something I hadn't before considered: Due to German propaganda on the home front, the German citizens, by and large, had no idea of the dire straits their army was in and thus the Armistice, really a surrender, came as a complete surprise. As a result, many Germans, certainly those on the right wing, considered the Armistice less a defeat than a stab in the back by the "elite."

Good stuff. Thanks.

In 1918, people were simply cannon fodder. The elites figured people were their to serve their needs, not much different than cattle. The generals of WW1 were simply awful people. Ludendorff and Wilhelm were far too busy hanging with their consorts to actually care about people. And, yes, the limited and state run press allowed them to get away with it all. Today, as bad as social media is, there is no place to hide.

Russia, the murder of the Romanoffs, is also a great study. WW1 was really the end of Monarchy, as it was once known. But that didn't happen without bloodshed. Rasputin is, to me, one of the great all-time historical characters (up there with Churchill, Franklin and Jefferson, IMHO).

Good note on Hitler. I've never understood the Jewish issue. But this makes sense. The German Jews were business owners and I can see how Hitler used this to create his power.

 

[bcspsu]

Thanks for posting.
I just read this article yesterday on Realclear history. Talks about some of the same things. Britain/France could have just as easily surrendered, their armies were not in much better shape, and the rank and file soldiers of Germany felt betrayed.
WWII started the day the armistice was signed. It was so punitive to Germany, they would never be able to recover from it.

https://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm

I believe that without the US's entry into WWI, England and France probably would have had to sue for peace as a result of the German 1918 Spring Offensive, which almost succeeded even with the US's involvement. That was Germany's last gasp to win the war, so to speak, and when it failed, it was just a matter of time before it had to end the war due to attrition and the home conditions.

 

[Obliviax]

I believe that without the US's entry into WWI, England and France probably would have had to sue for peace as a result of the German 1918 Spring Offensive, which almost succeeded even with the US's involvement. That was Germany's last gasp to win the war, so to speak, and when it failed, it was just a matter of time before it had to end the war due to attrition and the home conditions.

Agree...but the Spring Offensive was undertaken before the US could materially affect the war. At the same time, the Russians (overthrown by the Bolsheviks and on their way to becoming the Soviet Union) had withdrawn. So Germany had a spot between Russia leaving and the US coming. But your overall point is sound....without the US, the war would have dragged on. Perhaps that outcome might have been preferred over setting up a situation that allowed the Nazis to come to power and kill even more people.

 

[diontechristmas]

Good stuff. Thanks.

In 1918, people were simply cannon fodder. The elites figured people were their to serve their needs, not much different than cattle. The generals of WW1 were simply awful people. Ludendorff and Wilhelm were far too busy hanging with their consorts to actually care about people. And, yes, the limited and state run press allowed them to get away with it all. Today, as bad as social media is, there is no place to hide.

Russia, the murder of the Romanoffs, is also a great study. WW1 was really the end of Monarchy, as it was once known. But that didn't happen without bloodshed. Rasputin is, to me, one of the great all-time historical characters (up there with Churchill, Franklin and Jefferson, IMHO).

Good note on Hitler. I've never understood the Jewish issue. But this makes sense. The German Jews were business owners and I can see how Hitler used this to create his power.

Great point. Some of the European rulers of the day were frankly uneducated, insulated and still of the feudal mindset. Their subjects were simply a tool to use to meet the needs of the ruling class. No surprise social movements were born of the terrible circumstances suffered by regular people all across Europe during this time.

I’ve been educating myself on WW1 much more lately, and burned through everything WW1 related on Netflix ( there are some excellent BBC shows in anyone is interested). Can anyone recommend some quality WW1 docs or books?

 

[Obliviax]

Great point. Some of the European rulers of the day were frankly uneducated, insulated and still of the feudal mindset. Their subjects were simply a tool to use to meet the needs of the ruling class. No surprise social movements were born of the terrible circumstances suffered by regular people all across Europe during this time.

I’ve been educating myself on WW1 much more lately, and burned through everything WW1 related on Netflix ( there are some excellent BBC shows in anyone is interested). Can anyone recommend some quality WW1 docs or books?

I am assuming you've seen "Apocalypse: World War One". It is colorized WW1 footage. It brought a new understanding to me to see the videos of the front and the leaders.

 

[86Engineer]

Great point. Some of the European rulers of the day were frankly uneducated, insulated and still of the feudal mindset. Their subjects were simply a tool to use to meet the needs of the ruling class. No surprise social movements were born of the terrible circumstances suffered by regular people all across Europe during this time.

I’ve been educating myself on WW1 much more lately, and burned through everything WW1 related on Netflix ( there are some excellent BBC shows in anyone is interested). Can anyone recommend some quality WW1 docs or books?

Piggybacking to stay in the loop on the doc and book recommendations.

 

[hotmetal]

Although it's not about the military, The Zimmerman Telegram by Barbara Tuchman details some of the diplomatic maneuvering by Germany that may have contributed to our entering the war. The Germans were urging Mexico to invade the U.S.

 

[bcspsu]

You'll find it HERE.

It's well known that the Great War officially ended at 11am on 11/11/18, but the article states that the Armistice was signed at 5 am that morning and that everyone knew this. Regardless, "Since the armies tabulated their casualty statistics by the day and not by the hour, we know only the total toll for November 11th: twenty-seven hundred and thirty-eight men from both sides were killed, and eighty-two hundred and six were left wounded or missing. But since it was still dark at 5 a.m., and attacks almost always took place in daylight, the vast majority of these casualties clearly happened after the Armistice had been signed, when commanders knew that the firing was to stop for good at 11 a.m. The day’s toll was greater than both sides would suffer in Normandy on D Day, 1944. And it was incurred to gain ground that Allied generals knew the Germans would be vacating days, or even hours, later." Fvck me.

Also, there's a very interesting take on the impact of the Armistice on the rise of Hitler, something I hadn't before considered: Due to German propaganda on the home front, the German citizens, by and large, had no idea of the dire straits their army was in and thus the Armistice, really a surrender, came as a complete surprise. As a result, many Germans, certainly those on the right wing, considered the Armistice less a defeat than a stab in the back by the "elite."

I've always been more fascinated by WWI than WWII because things were less black and white.

Great point. Some of the European rulers of the day were frankly uneducated, insulated and still of the feudal mindset. Their subjects were simply a tool to use to meet the needs of the ruling class. No surprise social movements were born of the terrible circumstances suffered by regular people all across Europe during this time.

I’ve been educating myself on WW1 much more lately, and burned through everything WW1 related on Netflix ( there are some excellent BBC shows in anyone is interested). Can anyone recommend some quality WW1 docs or books?

I also believe that Czar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm and the English monarchy all were related. Also, in my study of WWI, I was amazed at how many Russian generals and diplomats had German last names.

 

[diontechristmas]

I am assuming you've seen "Apocalypse: World War One". It is colorized WW1 footage. It brought a new understanding to me to see the videos of the front and the leaders.

I haven’t, I will watch that tonight!

 

[NittPicker]

WWII started the day the armistice was signed. It was so punitive to Germany, they would never be able to recover from it.

There are some historians who consider WWI and WWII to be the same war with a 21 year break in to middle. Well, it's officially 21 years even though the Nazis were invading other European countries before September 1, 1939. Before then everyone called it annexation.

 

[danvillenit]

I've always been more fascinated by WWI than WWII because things were less black and white.

I also believe that Czar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm and the English monarchy all were related. Also, in my study of WWI, I was amazed at how many Russian generals and diplomats had German last names.

They were all the grandchildren of Queen Victoria. The dynamics of Europe the first half of 20th century is fascinating

 

[Obliviax]

They were all the grandchildren of Queen Victoria. The dynamics of Europe the first half of 20th century is fascinating

yeah....visiting Russia and studying the Romanovs was like finding that missing puzzle piece over the holidays.

 

[Nitt1300]

WW1 had so much needless slaughter. Many of the generals were fools- using 19th century tactics with 20th century weapons.

 

[91Joe95]

Good stuff. Thanks.

In 1918, people were simply cannon fodder. The elites figured people were their to serve their needs, not much different than cattle. The generals of WW1 were simply awful people. Ludendorff and Wilhelm were far too busy hanging with their consorts to actually care about people. And, yes, the limited and state run press allowed them to get away with it all. Today, as bad as social media is, there is no place to hide.

Russia, the murder of the Romanoffs, is also a great study. WW1 was really the end of Monarchy, as it was once known. But that didn't happen without bloodshed. Rasputin is, to me, one of the great all-time historical characters (up there with Churchill, Franklin and Jefferson, IMHO).

Good note on Hitler. I've never understood the Jewish issue. But this makes sense. The German Jews were business owners and I can see how Hitler used this to create his power.

Thankfully Pershing recognized the folly of the tactics and refused to turn the American soldiers over to bolster the ranks. Instead he kept them in reserve and drilled training and tactics until they were ready.

Really, that war is quite fascinating. From its tragic beginnings of Germany coming to the aid of its ally who had its leader assassinated, to the mobile warfare at the beginning, to the technological innovations, to the quagmire it became, and subsequent devastating and quite frankly completely unfair treaty to end it. I sometimes wonder if Germany had played a better propaganda battle if the US might have been more sympathetic towards them. It's easy to overlook that prior to the war Britain was considered one of the US's greatest potential threats.

 

[Frabjous]

A piper in kilts has always lead Scottish soldiers into battle, even when they went ‘over the top’ to face German machine guns. The Germans were so astonished by the bravery of the pipers, they called them the ‘Ladies from
Hell.’

 

[Nitt1300]

Thankfully Pershing recognized the folly of the tactics and refused to turn the American soldiers over to bolster the ranks. Instead he kept them in reserve and drilled training and tactics until they were ready.

Really, that war is quite fascinating. From its tragic beginnings of Germany coming to the aid of its ally who had its leader assassinated, to the mobile warfare at the beginning, to the technological innovations, to the quagmire it became, and subsequent devastating and quite frankly completely unfair treaty to end it. I sometimes wonder if Germany had played a better propaganda battle if the US might have been more sympathetic towards them. It's easy to overlook that prior to the war Britain was considered one of the US's greatest potential threats.

The British press was just spoiling for war

 

[Obliviax]

WW1 had so much needless slaughter. Many of the generals were fools- using 19th century tactics with 20th century weapons.

Yeah. the evolution of technology is key in WW1. The rapid growth and maturity of the air war is fascinating in and of itself. One of my favorite books is "Courage of the Early Morning". It is Billy Bishop's (Canadian Air Ace who led the West's Aces in Kills (depending on who you ask) with 72. Bloody April (a month when the west lost four times the number of Germans) was largely due to technology allowing the machine gun to shoot through the propeller times so that it didn't hit the prop. Tank warfare is also fascinating. Patton cut his teeth in WW1. Hitler was a currier who suffered blindness from gas attack. Being a courier was arguable the most dangerous job in the war. Hitler, once caught flatfooted in the middle of a field, was let go by a Britt soldier because he couldn't stand to kill the guy and didn't have the facilities to capture him.

Amazing times.

 

[JosephNit]

You'll find it HERE.

It's well known that the Great War officially ended at 11am on 11/11/18, but the article states that the Armistice was signed at 5 am that morning and that everyone knew this. Regardless, "Since the armies tabulated their casualty statistics by the day and not by the hour, we know only the total toll for November 11th: twenty-seven hundred and thirty-eight men from both sides were killed, and eighty-two hundred and six were left wounded or missing. But since it was still dark at 5 a.m., and attacks almost always took place in daylight, the vast majority of these casualties clearly happened after the Armistice had been signed, when commanders knew that the firing was to stop for good at 11 a.m. The day’s toll was greater than both sides would suffer in Normandy on D Day, 1944. And it was incurred to gain ground that Allied generals knew the Germans would be vacating days, or even hours, later." Fvck me.

Also, there's a very interesting take on the impact of the Armistice on the rise of Hitler, something I hadn't before considered: Due to German propaganda on the home front, the German citizens, by and large, had no idea of the dire straits their army was in and thus the Armistice, really a surrender, came as a complete surprise. As a result, many Germans, certainly those on the right wing, considered the Armistice less a defeat than a stab in the back by the "elite."

Yes, fascinating and infuriating indeed.

In fact, the last hours of the war are even more infuriating than depicted in the article. Henry Gunther, named in the piece as the last casualty of the conflict, did not charge that machine gun nest because he wanted to. He and thousands more in his and other units were ordered to do so by an American military command that, as the article details, knew the war had effectively ended hours earlier. It was an utterly pointless military action. Honestly, the equivalent of murder.

In fact, Congress later held hearings on what happened at the front on the morning of November 11, 1918. General officers were summoned to testify. In the end, it came to nothing. The generals blew off the questions. Nobody was held to account -- except the hundreds of men who died needlessly.

Fortunately, everyone learned the bitter lessons of WWI and the last day in that war. As a result, we no longer fight bloody conflicts that produce very different results from their stated objectives, and nobody dies in pointless military actions anymore.

Oh wait.

 

[Nitt1300]

Yes, fascinating and infuriating indeed.

In fact, the last hours of the war are even more infuriating than depicted in the article. Henry Gunther, named in the piece as the last casualty of the conflict, did not charge that machine gun nest because he wanted to. He and thousands more in his and other units were ordered to do so by an American military command that, as the article details, knew the war had effectively ended hours earlier. It was an utterly pointless military action. Honestly, the equivalent of murder.

In fact, Congress later held hearings on what happened at the front on the morning of November 11, 1918. General officers were summoned to testify. In the end, it came to nothing. The generals blew off the questions. Nobody was held to account -- except the hundreds of men who died needlessly.

Fortunately, everyone learned the bitter lessons of WWI and the last day in that war. As a result, we no longer fight bloody conflicts that produce very different results from their stated objectives, and nobody dies in pointless military actions anymore.

Oh wait.

If you'd like to further raise your blood pressure, read about the defective 8" shells and malfunctioning torpedoes that the Navy had at the beginning of WW2. Of course, the defense contractors got paid, so who cared if they worked?

 

[GreggK]

Good stuff. Thanks.

In 1918, people were simply cannon fodder. The elites figured people were their to serve their needs, not much different than cattle. The generals of WW1 were simply awful people. Ludendorff and Wilhelm were far too busy hanging with their consorts to actually care about people. And, yes, the limited and state run press allowed them to get away with it all. Today, as bad as social media is, there is no place to hide.
Russia, the murder of the Romanoffs, is also a great study. WW1 was really the end of Monarchy, as it was once known. But that didn't happen without bloodshed. Rasputin is, to me, one of the great all-time historical characters (up there with Churchill, Franklin and Jefferson, IMHO).
Good note on Hitler. I've never understood the Jewish issue. But this makes sense. The German Jews were business owners and I can see how Hitler used this to create his power.

I listened to a 20 hour history of the western front last week. I highly recommend it, Hardcore History by dan carlin.

While you are sort of right about the cannon fodder thing, what I think people don't quite understand is that this was truly a crossroads between the old way of fighting and the new. One very interesting part was at the very start of the war, German wanted to attack France, but it had to go through Belgium. The Germans just assumed that the Belgiums would let them go through if they promised not to try to fight them, but the Belgiums said F that. There was an account from an american journalist in belgium at the time and he reported about the german army that he heard a rumble and suddenly it was the German Soldiers marching through in the morning. They continued marching through, the rest of that day, thousands upon thousands. He went to bed and woke up and they were STILL going by. Dan Carlin said he felt that german army was one of the most powerful in History. HOWEVER, this would be the first time they would go against modern weapons. They attacked a Belgium fort what was equipped with new weapons and they were decimated.

The generals were lining up their soldiers on the field they they have for hundreds of years. The problem was that the technology had come so far that it made that sort of warfare no longer viable. It took the generals some time to adapt but yes, it seemed as if they were using the soldiers as cannon fodder.

The descriptions of the soldiers at Verdun were just horrific. This was the first time another army attacked primarily to create casualties, not to gain ground, not to capture an objective, but to kill as many soldiers from the other side as possible.

What happened is the generals adapted. Germany was essentially at its knees and fighting basically for better terms of surrender. Interestingly, the Americans joined, and when they came, they fought like French or german soldiers at the beginning of the war, and lost HUGE numbers of soldiers. They got there and basically said "why are we sitting in these trenches all day, lets just attack them already". Unfortunately they quickly found out WHY they were in the trenches. On German officer described the american soldiers as "suicidality brave".

Also, I find it completely idiotic when people call the French "surrender monkeys". Imagine losing as many American soldiers as we lost in the entire Civil War in one battle (that is including the traitor Confederates who weren't real Americans)
And fighting more than one battle like that. Of course when only 20 years past and the germans come knocking again, some may have been inclined to say, for god sakes we cant lose another entire generation of men. I get it.

As for the Jewish issue, things have never changed. Right wing nationalists are always looking to blame them. Look no further than blaming George Soros for everything that is going on. Same song, different era.

 

[PittFan540]

Great point. Some of the European rulers of the day were frankly uneducated, insulated and still of the feudal mindset. Their subjects were simply a tool to use to meet the needs of the ruling class. No surprise social movements were born of the terrible circumstances suffered by regular people all across Europe during this time.

I’ve been educating myself on WW1 much more lately, and burned through everything WW1 related on Netflix ( there are some excellent BBC shows in anyone is interested). Can anyone recommend some quality WW1 docs or books?

The Guns of August is an excellent book on WWI.

 

[Obliviax]

I listened to a 20 hour history of the western front last week. I highly recommend it, Hardcore History by dan carlin.

While you are sort of right about the cannon fodder thing, what I think people don't quite understand is that this was truly a crossroads between the old way of fighting and the new. One very interesting part was at the very start of the war, German wanted to attack France, but it had to go through Belgium. The Germans just assumed that the Belgiums would let them go through if they promised not to try to fight them, but the Belgiums said F that. There was an account from an american journalist in belgium at the time and he reported about the german army that he heard a rumble and suddenly it was the German Soldiers marching through in the morning. They continued marching through, the rest of that day, thousands upon thousands. He went to bed and woke up and they were STILL going by. Dan Carlin said he felt that german army was one of the most powerful in History. HOWEVER, this would be the first time they would go against modern weapons. They attacked a Belgium fort what was equipped with new weapons and they were decimated.

The generals were lining up their soldiers on the field they they have for hundreds of years. The problem was that the technology had come so far that it made that sort of warfare no longer viable. It took the generals some time to adapt but yes, it seemed as if they were using the soldiers as cannon fodder.

The descriptions of the soldiers at Verdun were just horrific. This was the first time another army attacked primarily to create casualties, not to gain ground, not to capture an objective, but to kill as many soldiers from the other side as possible.

What happened is the generals adapted. Germany was essentially at its knees and fighting basically for better terms of surrender. Interestingly, the Americans joined, and when they came, they fought like French or german soldiers at the beginning of the war, and lost HUGE numbers of soldiers. They got there and basically said "why are we sitting in these trenches all day, lets just attack them already". Unfortunately they quickly found out WHY they were in the trenches. On German officer described the american soldiers as "suicidality brave".

Also, I find it completely idiotic when people call the French "surrender monkeys". Imagine losing as many American soldiers as we lost in the entire Civil War in one battle (that is including the traitor Confederates who weren't real Americans)
And fighting more than one battle like that. Of course when only 20 years past and the germans come knocking again, some may have been inclined to say, for god sakes we cant lose another entire generation of men. I get it.

As for the Jewish issue, things have never changed. Right wing nationalists are always looking to blame them. Look no further than blaming George Soros for everything that is going on. Same song, different era.

Great post.

I agree with the generals. The USA learned a lot in the civil war as calvary and flanking was state of the art. The Euros were line 'em up and blast them. Interesting, the technology to dig trenches led to the standstill that doomed them all but the technological advancements in gas, air, machine guns and tanks did little except kill people. War, since then has devolved into gorilla warfare (Vietnam) and terrorist warfare (Afghanistan).

On the French, I believe they got that reputation in the beginning of WW2. In North Africa, the Britts and US fought as many Vichy French as they did Germans. In fact, the Vichy were renowned for their accuracy in artillery warfare. One minute the french are West and the next they are fighting for the Germans. In hindsight, understandable, but that is where they got the rep IMHO.

On the Jews, I disagree. I feel, instinctively, that they fear the majority (in this case, Christians) which is completely understandable. But support, from the right, has never been stronger for Israel. In my circles, I see zero antisemitism. I see sexism and racism from time to time. Sexism most commonly, agism second. But I almost never see or hear anatisemitism ever.

 

[91Joe95]

I listened to a 20 hour history of the western front last week. I highly recommend it, Hardcore History by dan carlin.

While you are sort of right about the cannon fodder thing, what I think people don't quite understand is that this was truly a crossroads between the old way of fighting and the new. One very interesting part was at the very start of the war, German wanted to attack France, but it had to go through Belgium. The Germans just assumed that the Belgiums would let them go through if they promised not to try to fight them, but the Belgiums said F that. There was an account from an american journalist in belgium at the time and he reported about the german army that he heard a rumble and suddenly it was the German Soldiers marching through in the morning. They continued marching through, the rest of that day, thousands upon thousands. He went to bed and woke up and they were STILL going by. Dan Carlin said he felt that german army was one of the most powerful in History. HOWEVER, this would be the first time they would go against modern weapons. They attacked a Belgium fort what was equipped with new weapons and they were decimated.

The generals were lining up their soldiers on the field they they have for hundreds of years. The problem was that the technology had come so far that it made that sort of warfare no longer viable. It took the generals some time to adapt but yes, it seemed as if they were using the soldiers as cannon fodder.

The descriptions of the soldiers at Verdun were just horrific. This was the first time another army attacked primarily to create casualties, not to gain ground, not to capture an objective, but to kill as many soldiers from the other side as possible.

What happened is the generals adapted. Germany was essentially at its knees and fighting basically for better terms of surrender. Interestingly, the Americans joined, and when they came, they fought like French or german soldiers at the beginning of the war, and lost HUGE numbers of soldiers. They got there and basically said "why are we sitting in these trenches all day, lets just attack them already". Unfortunately they quickly found out WHY they were in the trenches. On German officer described the american soldiers as "suicidality brave".

Also, I find it completely idiotic when people call the French "surrender monkeys". Imagine losing as many American soldiers as we lost in the entire Civil War in one battle (that is including the traitor Confederates who weren't real Americans)
And fighting more than one battle like that. Of course when only 20 years past and the germans come knocking again, some may have been inclined to say, for god sakes we cant lose another entire generation of men. I get it.

As for the Jewish issue, things have never changed. Right wing nationalists are always looking to blame them. Look no further than blaming George Soros for everything that is going on. Same song, different era.

I see no reason for you to impugn them. It's "cheese eating surrender monkeys."

 

[marshall23]

Great point. Some of the European rulers of the day were frankly uneducated, insulated and still of the feudal mindset. Their subjects were simply a tool to use to meet the needs of the ruling class. No surprise social movements were born of the terrible circumstances suffered by regular people all across Europe during this time.

I’ve been educating myself on WW1 much more lately, and burned through everything WW1 related on Netflix ( there are some excellent BBC shows in anyone is interested). Can anyone recommend some quality WW1 docs or books?

The Guns of August

 

[bcspsu]

I listened to a 20 hour history of the western front last week. I highly recommend it, Hardcore History by dan carlin.

While you are sort of right about the cannon fodder thing, what I think people don't quite understand is that this was truly a crossroads between the old way of fighting and the new. One very interesting part was at the very start of the war, German wanted to attack France, but it had to go through Belgium. The Germans just assumed that the Belgiums would let them go through if they promised not to try to fight them, but the Belgiums said F that. There was an account from an american journalist in belgium at the time and he reported about the german army that he heard a rumble and suddenly it was the German Soldiers marching through in the morning. They continued marching through, the rest of that day, thousands upon thousands. He went to bed and woke up and they were STILL going by. Dan Carlin said he felt that german army was one of the most powerful in History. HOWEVER, this would be the first time they would go against modern weapons. They attacked a Belgium fort what was equipped with new weapons and they were decimated.

The generals were lining up their soldiers on the field they they have for hundreds of years. The problem was that the technology had come so far that it made that sort of warfare no longer viable. It took the generals some time to adapt but yes, it seemed as if they were using the soldiers as cannon fodder.

The descriptions of the soldiers at Verdun were just horrific. This was the first time another army attacked primarily to create casualties, not to gain ground, not to capture an objective, but to kill as many soldiers from the other side as possible.

What happened is the generals adapted. Germany was essentially at its knees and fighting basically for better terms of surrender. Interestingly, the Americans joined, and when they came, they fought like French or german soldiers at the beginning of the war, and lost HUGE numbers of soldiers. They got there and basically said "why are we sitting in these trenches all day, lets just attack them already". Unfortunately they quickly found out WHY they were in the trenches. On German officer described the american soldiers as "suicidality brave".

Also, I find it completely idiotic when people call the French "surrender monkeys". Imagine losing as many American soldiers as we lost in the entire Civil War in one battle (that is including the traitor Confederates who weren't real Americans)
And fighting more than one battle like that. Of course when only 20 years past and the germans come knocking again, some may have been inclined to say, for god sakes we cant lose another entire generation of men. I get it.

As for the Jewish issue, things have never changed. Right wing nationalists are always looking to blame them. Look no further than blaming George Soros for everything that is going on. Same song, different era.

I guess that right wing nationalism is the reason why so many Soviet Jews emigrated to Israel. Also, the Nazi party was a socialist party; it only started to be referred to as a "right-wing" party when leftists wanted to compare it to conservatives in this country, which makes no sense when you realize that true conservatives like me want less government involvement and not more. Finally, do you know that George Soros assisted Nazis during WWII, and is one of the most treacherous people in the world with his funding of anarchic groups and his currency manipulation? Please don't make him out to be some kind of hero.

 

[marshall23]

Correct me if I am wrong. But I believe the Kaiser, The King of England and Czar Nicholas II were cousins. Sorry, I see this was mentioned above.

 

[bcspsu]

Great post.

I agree with the generals. The USA learned a lot in the civil war as calvary and flanking was state of the art. The Euros were line 'em up and blast them. Interesting, the technology to dig trenches led to the standstill that doomed them all but the technological advancements in gas, air, machine guns and tanks did little except kill people. War, since then has devolved into gorilla warfare (Vietnam) and terrorist warfare (Afghanistan).

On the French, I believe they got that reputation in the beginning of WW2. In North Africa, the Britts and US fought as many Vichy French as they did Germans. In fact, the Vichy were renowned for their accuracy in artillery warfare. One minute the french are West and the next they are fighting for the Germans. In hindsight, understandable, but that is where they got the rep IMHO.

On the Jews, I disagree. I feel, instinctively, that they fear the majority (in this case, Christians) which is completely understandable. But support, from the right, has never been stronger for Israel. In my circles, I see zero antisemitism. I see sexism and racism from time to time. Sexism most commonly, agism second. But I almost never see or hear anatisemitism ever.

I agree with you about antisemitism. However, where it is rampant in this country is at our lovely institutions of higher learning, where young minds are being filled with anti-Israel thought by professors and special interest groups on campus.

 

[NittPicker]

Also, the Nazi party was a socialist party; it only started to be referred to as a "right-wing" party when leftists wanted to compare it to conservatives in this country, which makes no sense when you realize that true conservatives like me want less government involvement and not more.

Regardless of what the Nazis called themselves, the reality was they were fascists and not socialists. The fascists are certainly way out on the right side of the spectrum.

 

[LionJim]

Finally, do you know that George Soros assisted Nazis during WWII,

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/

 

[Nitt1300]

I guess that right wing nationalism is the reason why so many Soviet Jews emigrated to Israel. Also, the Nazi party was a socialist party; it only started to be referred to as a "right-wing" party when leftists wanted to compare it to conservatives in this country, which makes no sense when you realize that true conservatives like me want less government involvement and not more. Finally, do you know that George Soros assisted Nazis during WWII, and is one of the most treacherous people in the world with his funding of anarchic groups and his currency manipulation? Please don't make him out to be some kind of hero.

wow, the obviously untrue shit that people get convinced of- amazing

and they call factual reporting "fake"

 

[Chickenman Testa]

The Great War and Modern Memory is a fantastic look at the literature which was spawned by the war and written by men who fought in it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_and_Modern_Memory

 

[Obliviax]

wow, the obviously untrue shit that people get convinced of- amazing

and they call factual reporting "fake"

Agree 100%. But have to say convincing yourself that Soros is hated because he's jewish is not as bad, but it is in the same ballpark.

 

[LionJim]

Also, the Nazi party was a socialist party; it only started to be referred to as a "right-wing" party when leftists wanted to compare it to conservatives in this country

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

 

[91Joe95]

Regardless of what the Nazis called themselves, the reality was they were fascists and not socialists. The fascists are certainly way out on the right side of the spectrum.

Not socialists? Oh dear lord...

 

[niteowlgt]

America had an artillery officer at the end of WW1 that wanted to scalp the older Krauts and chop off the hands of the children so they couldn't fight in future conflicts. His name, Harry S. Truman. Wow!

 

[Obliviax]

America had an artillery officer at the end of WW1 that wanted to scalp the older Krauts and chop off the hands of the children so they couldn't fight in future conflicts. His name, Harry S. Truman. Wow!

If you ever get the chance to have a serious, private conversation with anyone who has been "in the soup", most will admit that they lost any semblance of civility. People are trying to kill you. The trick is to kill them before they kill you. Its that simple.

The guy that hired me out of college was the lead Navigator for the Bloody 100th Bomb group. Talk to him about carpet bombing Germany and creating firestorms that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians? No problem, no remorse. He'd tell you about the waist gunner that got cut in half by a messerschmidt or traveling to a concentration camp after the war. Vietnam? People turned into complete animals.

 

[Nitt1300]

Agree 100%. But have to say convincing yourself that Soros is hated because he's jewish is not as bad, but it is in the same ballpark.

In this country, no one SHOULD be hated for their political positions- but there is a lot of that going around and it's been actively encouraged by a fair number of people - it's unAmerican

 

[Nitt1300]

America had an artillery officer at the end of WW1 that wanted to scalp the older Krauts and chop off the hands of the children so they couldn't fight in future conflicts. His name, Harry S. Truman. Wow!

got something to prove that?

nevermind- found it- letter to his wife, doubt he was anything but tongue in cheek