• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Rewriting The History Of The First World War

Can someone explain something that has always puzzled me about WW1 and WW2?

France is a large country so how come in both wars the Germans got the better of them? Why didn't the Maginot Line work? They came off even worse in WW2 than WW1 so are the French just rubbish at fighting?
 
ampman48 said:
so are the French just rubbish at fighting?
Click to expand...

*Insert xenophobic 'loveeeers not fighteeeers' joke at this stage*
 
France is a large country so how come in both wars the Germans got the better of them? Why didn't the Maginot Line work?
Click to expand...

I know that there are many. many websites that will answer this for you, and you can't go a day on the documentary channels without seeing SOMETHING about the Nazis (if you get those channels)

Unfortunately, the Maginot line was obsolete even before it was completed and the German tactics of Blitzkrieg rendered it even more useless.
 
ampman48 said:
Can someone explain something that has always puzzled me about WW1 and WW2?

France is a large country so how come in both wars the Germans got the better of them? Why didn't the Maginot Line work? They came off even worse in WW2 than WW1 so are the French just rubbish at fighting?
Click to expand...

I would say the Maginot Line bit can illustrate much of the problem ...

The Maginot Line was a classic example of effort invested in preparing for the _last_ war, at the expense of forward-looking developments to prepare for the _next_ war. Phrased another way, it represents a poor choice of which lessons one should emphasize in adapting for the future.

Going into WWI France was one of the leading nations in automotive and aeronautical development. In the wake of WWI it seemed everyone except France concluded mobility and force projection over distance were the new keys to warfare. Everyone else pushed military automotive development toward tanks and cross-terrain vehicles. Everyone else continued evolving more effective military aircraft. Meanwhile, France seemed to focus on improving old-style land warfare capabilities and the sort of naval forces that never fulfilled their expected role in WWI.

While France was obsessed with building a line the old imperial German army couldn't have breached, the Germans were just as obsessively developing a style of fast-paced / highly mobile land warfare that rendered such lines obsolete. The Maginot Line was a reasonable preparation for 'sitzkrieg'. Unfortunately for the French, the Germans unleashed 'blitzkrieg' instead.
 
^^ What he said ^^

Plus which, France is geographically large and less densely populated than the other countries...making it more difficult to quickly rally enough people along a front to keep out a determined invader.
 
It took France and the UK to defeat germany, the UK couldn't have done it on its own during ww1 any more then ww2. Its nothing to do with not being able to fight , there was just a LOT more germans then french.
 
And also, the French had lost a lot of their fighting men in repeated wars through the 18th and 19th century - that sort of thing does sap a nation's enthusiasm for bold offensive tactics. After WW1 and the carnage they suffered they were even less inclined to do so in WW2. If you keep on losing, it tends to become a self-reinforcing habit.

They had their share of terminally bombastic generals as well. Terminal for the poor bloody infantry, of course , rarely for the generals themselves.
 
I think one of the reasons why the French Foreign Legion was formed was because the French Empire was quite large and geographically spread out, but the government couldn't recruit enough native Frenchmen willing to go out and defend it (there were other reasons too, sure).
 
Since this thread has (a) "Fanned out" from its original premise and (b) attracted people who know stuff about WWI, can I ask an alt-hist related question?

I've heard it said many times that Archduke Ferdinand's assassination only sparked WWI by accident, and that the conflict could have been set off in any number of ways.

Can anyone point to any of the other potential kick-off points for a WWI in a "parallel universe"?

(May be relevant: IIRC The 39 Steps (1915) appears to be partially an alt-hist version of WWI, in that it's set in early 1914 and an international anarchist group is planning to spark a European war by assassinating the Greek premier).
 
Maybe it would have all kicked off over a dispute over a part of africa, given the spirit of the times it is difficult to see it NOT happening at one point
 
titchagain said:
Maybe it would have all kicked off over a dispute over a part of africa, given the spirit of the times it is difficult to see it NOT happening at one point
Click to expand...

Perhaps I need to re-angle my question.

How long had WWI been "on the cards", and had any previous flashpoints been defused safely?
 
It had been 'on the cards' since at least 1900, and previous crisis over Morocco (1905) and the Telegraph affair (1908) had been defused with difficulty.

It was only by about 1910, however, that the German military and naval capability had built up to the point where an overwhelming war of the kind stared in 1914 could have been contemplated.

Essentially, family feuding, a difficult upbringing, and personal disability had made Kaiser Wilhelm both unstable and the possessor of an enormous inferiority complex. (The instability being shown by the way he would suddenly and briefly forgive all his perceived enemies when some other emotional crisis such as Victoria's death got his attention).

He dismissed Bismark in 1890 and then became virtually a medieval-style absolute monarch. After his final falling out with Victoria's other descendants in the 1890's (Not just the English Prince of Wales, who simply treated him as a cousin and not an Emperor, but after a while the Russian branch of the family as well, when they refused to support his paranoia) he was determined to seize some pretext to prove he and his empire were better than the lot of 'em.

Perhaps the whole sad history should be under 'they f*** you up, your mum and dad' .
 
Thanks for those historical notes -- I'll look into the two episodes you mention.
 
Sorry if if amended something after you've posted - I have a bad habit of proof reading after I've posted the first cut. Must do better. :oops:
 
Cochise said:
..I have a bad habit of proof reading after I've posted the first cut. Must do better. :oops:
Click to expand...
Use the Preview button - that's what it's for! :)
 
When it comes to posting on talkboards, I think it is a rare person who is not sometimes guilty of a bit of "Ready, fire ... aim!". I know I do it all the time.

(I think I got your revised version OK, because looking again it doesn't seem to have altered since I first read it).
 
garrick92 said:
So perhaps one could argue that we're still effectively fighting WWII, but the enemy has changed yet again, along with the field of conflict.
Click to expand...

To borrow a phrase:-

"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."
 
The Chancellor has announced today that Britain is to start paying off its WWI debts. I had no idea we still had them, I thought we settled our last war debt (the USA's arm-twisting from WWII) about a decade ago.

But it appears that this WWI 'debt repayment' is another WWI myth. Or "an outright fib" if you prefer.
 
I've always tended to have a rather-cautious underenthusiasm regarding the British journalist, tv inquisitor and quizmaster Jeremy Paxman....until this weekend.

A friend has given me a copy of his book "Great Britain's Great War", which until now I was completely oblivious to (as was I to his authorship skills, beyond column inches in certain broadsheet newspapers).

It is an outstandingly good, gripping, informative and entertaining history of World War 1.

I thought I knew quite a lot about the war (having had two grandfathers who served in it, and long-departed friends who actually served in it, a long century ago). But I have learnt lots from the book- and I cannot recommend it enough to you.

Plus it has radically altered my opinion of Paxman (which in itself is a deep lesson) - the man is an utter genius to have written this book. On the strength alone of having read this book, I shall never think the same of him again.

I know there are many forum members who are either historiophiles or specifically-keen on chunks of military history & lore (@Yithian @EnolaGaia @maximus otter @Frideswide @ramonmercado @Bigphoot2 @stu neville @gordonrutter @Krepostnoi , yes, you probably would all like this book a lot, if you've not already read it ). Plus: there are so many supranatural/socioillogical aspects associated with that first-ever industrial-scale horror show, that probably burns it forever into our collective psyche....

Please consider reading this book: you won't regret it. But you will regret that WW1 ever happened.

ps notable highlights for me included: Gallipolli - wow. I knew it was bad, but not how comprehensively and incompetently bad. The Easter Rising context: objectively-insightful. Unpacking of the 'lions led by donkeys' acquired meme. The paradoxical inadequacy of Britain's regular Army (reputation/size/confidence versus practical reality) and the massive expectation placed upon clueless conscripts. The UK Home Front aspects (totally-overshadowed by the equivalent nastiness of WW2, but shockingly-affective, at the time: I had no idea about eg the bans from 1914-1918 on flying kites, bonfires, buying rounds of drinks, all sorts of proto-fascist uberstaat unpleasantry under the 'Defence of the Realm' Act)

pps my attendance 'at forum' continues to be much below par, for which I continue to obliquely apologise. But if there were any woods (trees/forests/whatevers) I am not (either personally nor collectively) out of them....by any measure....though, 'twas ever so, e'n for us all.
 
1618228544458.jpeg



Very interesting book if you're into this sort of thing.

The author makes a pretty compelling argument as to how the "story" of WW1, particualrly in regards to Britian, is largely an invention.
 
Ermintruder said:
I've always tended to have a rather-cautious underenthusiasm regarding the British journalist, tv inquisitor and quizmaster Jeremy Paxman....until this weekend.

A friend has given me a copy of his book "Great Britain's Great War", which until now I was completely oblivious to (as was I to his authorship skills, beyond column inches in certain broadsheet newspapers).

It is an outstandingly good, gripping, informative and entertaining history of World War 1.

I thought I knew quite a lot about the war (having had two grandfathers who served in it, and long-departed friends who actually served in it, a long century ago). But I have learnt lots from the book- and I cannot recommend it enough to you.

Plus it has radically altered my opinion of Paxman (which in itself is a deep lesson) - the man is an utter genius to have written this book. On the strength alone of having read this book, I shall never think the same of him again.

I know there are many forum members who are either historiophiles or specifically-keen on chunks of military history & lore (@Yithian @EnolaGaia @maximus otter @Frideswide @ramonmercado @Bigphoot2 @stu neville @gordonrutter @Krepostnoi , yes, you probably would all like this book a lot, if you've not already read it ). Plus: there are so many supranatural/socioillogical aspects associated with that first-ever industrial-scale horror show, that probably burns it forever into our collective psyche....

Please consider reading this book: you won't regret it. But you will regret that WW1 ever happened.

ps notable highlights for me included: Gallipolli - wow. I knew it was bad, but not how comprehensively and incompetently bad. The Easter Rising context: objectively-insightful. Unpacking of the 'lions led by donkeys' acquired meme. The paradoxical inadequacy of Britain's regular Army (reputation/size/confidence versus practical reality) and the massive expectation placed upon clueless conscripts. The UK Home Front aspects (totally-overshadowed by the equivalent nastiness of WW2, but shockingly-affective, at the time: I had no idea about eg the bans from 1914-1918 on flying kites, bonfires, buying rounds of drinks, all sorts of proto-fascist uberstaat unpleasantry under the 'Defence of the Realm' Act)

pps my attendance 'at forum' continues to be much below par, for which I continue to obliquely apologise. But if there were any woods (trees/forests/whatevers) I am not (either personally nor collectively) out of them....by any measure....though, 'twas ever so, e'n for us all.
Click to expand...

Ordered from AbeBooks.

lf l don’t love it, you owe me - gasp! - £2.99

;)

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
lf l don’t love it, you owe me - gasp! - £2.99
Click to expand...

Never in the field of inconsequential wagers has so little been so safely-vouchsafed for so much....

I'd never liked Paxman, personally, on tv/radio/print, hitherto.

I'd now consider crossing No Man's Land to shake his hand....

And @Coastaljames
Coastaljames said:
The author makes a pretty compelling argument as to how the "story" of WW1, particualrly in regards to Britian, is largely an invention.
Click to expand...
I shall order this via Amazon as soon as I can, it sounds excellent, many thanks.
 
ampman48 said:
Can someone explain something that has always puzzled me about WW1 and WW2?

France is a large country so how come in both wars the Germans got the better of them? Why didn't the Maginot Line work? They came off even worse in WW2 than WW1 so are the French just rubbish at fighting?
Click to expand...

The French at both of these times suffered horrendous "leadership".

In regards WW2, Hitler was able to make those amazing and incredible early gains by simply not playing by gentleman's rules. He was a truly modern leader. He refused to play nicely, to wait till everyone was ready- as military gentlemen historically had. Instead he literally injected amphetamines into his war machine and ordered them to go forward with urgency and aggression,-don't pause to let any enemy work out what was going on. Just push forward, forward, forward. Nobody, particularly no "civilised" country, had ever done that nor should they do...it's just not cricket.
 
Last edited:
Coastaljames said:
The French at both of these times suffered horrendous "leadership".

In regards WW2, Hitler was able to make those amazing and incredible early gains by simply not playing by gentleman's rules. He was a truly modern leader. He refused to play nicely, to wait till everyone was ready- as military gentlemen historically had. Instead he literally injected amphetamines into his war machine and ordered them to go forward with urgency and aggression,-don't pause to let any enemy work out what was going on. Just push forward, forward, forward. Nobody, particularly no "civilised" country, had ever done that nor should they do...it's just not cricket.
Click to expand...
It should hardly have been a surprise since Achtung-Panzer! by Heinz Guderian had been published in 1937. The French in particular were still obsessed with static wars.

To bring it back to WWI, the German use of stormtroopers and the Allied development of all arms co-ordination late in proceedings were portents of how a future war would be fought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top