The First World War

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Ennath

June 8, 1918
Russia The Soviet government orders Allied troops in the Murmansk region to leave the country...

Of course, because they are only interested in interfering, and preventing supplies going to the Reds

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

The Germans cleansed their language in 1914. Telefon sounded far too French and became for a time 'Fernsprecher' or far speaker.

Still today in France you will get a very nasty look if you ask for Vichy water.

Was always struck by the Germans awarding the "Pour le Merite" for service against the French.

The most prominent purge was in the UK, of course-- Hannovers becoming Windsors, Battenburgs becoming Mountbattens and so on.

One of the odd things about this spasm of chauvinism is that, as of 1914, Europe was about as culturally unified as possible -- the monarchs were cousins, the aristocrats who still governed in most places belonged to one society.

When war broke out, the ethos was chivalric -- but mass mobilization turned all publics very nasty.

Here's one observation,courtesy of a long ago history professor:

"the only way for Germany not to be a world power in the second half of the 20th century was to have started and lost two world wars in the first half."

Of the two, world war one is the more decisive strategic inflection, IMO

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

...Here's one observation,courtesy of a long ago history professor:

"the only way for Germany not to be a world power in the second half of the 20th century was to have started and lost two world wars in the first half."

He should have known better - Germany didn't start World War I

[haroldeye]

Maybe Palo but Germany could have stopped it starting.

The essence of German plans was a strict adherence to the mobilisation transport plan based on the availability and routing of the nations trains. Once started the plan could not be stopped and restarted. The Kaiser was presented with the Go/No Go decision and he couldn't decide. Wilhelm could have stopped it.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

He should have known better - Germany didn't start World War I

Germany doesn't deserve all the credit but she deserved a lot of it. On 5th July 1914, the Kaiser pledged his support to Austria-Hungary against Serbia. Without that support, Austria-Hungary would have been contemplating war all on her lonelio against a significant military power (Serbia) known to enjoy the support of a very important major power (Russia) over a Royal Archduke whom the Emperor of Austria-Hungary had never liked anyway. Austria-Hungary and Serbia had bad blood going back decades, particularly over Austria's control of Bosnia-Hertzgovina; Serbian Black-Hand terrorists had been a stone in Austria's shoe for a lot too long, even before they murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Austria had motive; the murder of Franz-Ferdinand was really no more than a pre-text, not the actual motive, which was competition for control of the Balkans. But when he pledged to support Austria-Hungary against Serbia, Kaiser Wilhelm turned motive into opportunity. Unless the Kaiser actively wanted to start a war with Russia and France, his pledge to support Austria-Hungary makes no sense; it was incitement. The Kaiser's actions indicate either malignant intent to start a major European war or an inexcuseable failure to understand what the probable outcome would be.

I don't think Wilhelm was stupid. I think he correctly anticipated what Austria-Hungary would do if he offered to support her against Serbia, and this was what he wanted to happen. I think he was an egomaniac who was looking for a chance to gain more power through victory in a short, sharp war. There had been several of these in the Balkans already and Wilhelm may have been beguiled into expecting it would not last long and he would effectively be making a smash-grab raid on Russia and France. No one in 1914 appreciated what an industrial war between major industrial powers might be like. The only ones who had experience of such a war were the Americans in 1861-65.

Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm II didn't start WW1 all by herself but she did start WW1 and did so on purpose, for gain.

[palo5]

Of course not. It was the über-sensitive Austrians, followed by the über-negligent Tsarist-Russians, followed by the über-dominating Germans, followed by the über-stupid English who made a World War out of a European war

It was very good that all European empires disintegrated not long after this war. Otherwise, it was a disgrace to humanity

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

Of course not. It was the über-sensitive Austrians, followed by the über-negligent Tsarist-Russians, followed by the über-dominating Germans, followed by the über-stupid English who made a World War out of a European war

It was very good that all European empires disintegrated not long after this war. Otherwise, it was a disgrace to humanity

Of course not...what, Palo?

The Austrians were to sensitivity what Herod the Great was to child-minding. I would however agree with the characterisation of the Tsarist regime as negligent; Nicholas and Alexandra were not suitable to run the business affairs of a sweet shop. They took a great nation and ruined it. The Germans under Kaiser Wilhelm II were power-hungry, though I am rather baffled by their chancer attitude, actively choosing to declare war on two fronts, a mistake a child would have been able to point out. I think the Kaiser was a gambler who thought he could wrap it up quickly and win big; he got his comeuppance. As for we English (British btw) being stupid; we relied on the army of the French Third Republic and placed ourselves under their authority, supporting them for four years. It doesn't get much more stupid than that.

For the record, one great European empire survived and carried on almost unchanged for another 75 years. Tsarist Russia topped its Royal family and re-branded itself as the Soviet Union; same turd-logs floating in the same water-closet, just a different brand of air fresheners.

The truth is, WW1 is probably the most stupid and pointless waste of life in recorded military history.

A little footnote: on November 11th 1918, my grandmother was 16 years old and working as a typist in the local Town Hall (never mind where). Shortly before 11am all the staff sloped off outside except my grandmother, who had strong views on the appropriateness of work time versus own time; she wasn't being paid to gallivant on the streets with drunkards and ne'er-do-wells. The only other person who carried on working was the Town Hall Clerk, a senior and responsible man who was in charge of the local civil service. At 10.50 or so, he looked up from his desk at my grandmother and said "Evelyn [that was her name]; we're clocking off. It's time to ring the bells." So for the next several hours she and the Town Hall Clerk stood in the bell tower of the Town Hall and rang the Town Hall bells to celebrate Armistice Day.

As she put it; she was happy, but she wasn't really celebrating and neither was the Town Hall Clerk. They were just so fed up of it and so glad it was all over.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

...For the record, one great European empire survived and carried on almost unchanged for another 75 years. Tsarist Russia topped its Royal family and re-branded itself as the Soviet Union; same turd-logs floating in the same water-closet, just a different brand of air fresheners...

Absolutely not true, Comrade. Under the Tsars, 95%+ of Russia was illiterate, had no healthcare, many had no work and some even had no home

The USSR created 100% literacy, universal healthcare, full employment and housing, all guaranteed by the Constitution. No human being could say this was bad

It is unfortunate that some privileged Capitalists wanted to keep things as they were. But fortunately, they lost power because the people did not require them

[Ennath]

June 9, 1915
Eastern Front German attacks around Shavli fail. Russian attacks regain the left bank of the Dniestr. Austro-German troops secure Stanislau.
Italian Front The Italians occupy Monfalcone on the Isonzo front. Italian troops occupy Plava and attack Hill 383.
Canada The government announces its intention to raise another 35,000 men.
Adriatic The Austrian U-4 torpedoes the cruiser Dublin, which requires extensive repairs.
Russia Three days of anti-German riots in Moscow injure over 600 and destroy over 600 buildings before order is restored on the 11th. Rumors of treason circulate among the people and accusations are openly made against the Tsar, the German-born empress and Rasputin. Progressive members of the Duma warn that it is a sign of public frustration over government failures. Rodzianko advises the Tsar to call an emergency meeting of the Duma, but the Tsar takes no action.

June 9, 1916
Western Front, Verdun In the early morning, the French recapture their positions lost the night before at the Thiaumont Farm.
Eastern Front The Russians establish a bridgehead at Rojishche, north of Lutsk, and cross the Styrpa.
Italian Front The Italians open a counteroffensive in the Trentino. Some progress is made.
German East Africa The British take Ukewere Island in Lake Victoria. Spicer-Simson quarrels with Lt. Col. Murray and abruptly invalids himself back to England.
Arabia Sherifian tribesmen attack Mecca and Jeddah.

June 9, 1918
Western Front Despite the preemptive bombardment, Hutier’s artillery barrage proves deadly, severely damaging 3rd Army’s front. The German infantry attacks at 3:00 AM, advancing rapidly. By the end of the day, Hutier’s men gain six miles, taking 8000 prisoners.
French Command Clemenceau removes Duchene as commander of 6th Army, replacing him with General Degoutte.
Adriatic Two Italian MAS boats patrolling off Premuda Island spot the Austrian support group of dreadnoughts heading for the Otranto Barrage at 3:15 AM. They race in to attack the unsuspecting Austrians; at 200 yards, they launch two torpedoes – both hit the dreadnought Szent Istvan – and speed away. The dreadnought’s engines remain intact and the captain decides to continue. But soon the ship begins filling with water, lists, and sinks. With the Otranto attack no longer a secret, the Austrians terminate the operation and return to harbor.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

Absolutely not true, Comrade. Under the Tsars, 95%+ of Russia was illiterate, had no healthcare, many had no work and some even had no home

The USSR created 100% literacy, universal healthcare, full employment and housing, all guaranteed by the Constitution. No human being could say this was bad

It is unfortunate that some privileged Capitalists wanted to keep things as they were. But fortunately, they lost power because the people did not require them

I'll take your word for the literacy thing and for the healthcare, though I have reservations about healthcare which locked people up in dustbin mental asylums because disagreeing with Communism was evidence of insanity. I would not merely assume that the Tsarist system was monolithic (any more than the Communist system was); it was subject to change. For example, the death of Alexander II (assassinated by some dickhead of an Anarchist) and the accession of Alexander III, his much more repressive and bigoted son, was a tragedy for Russia. Reform and liberalisation was a process which preserved the civic peace in the UK and might have done so for Russia. But after the murder of the only real reformer among the 19th century Tsars, the successors became even more reactionary, oppressive and contemptuous of their own people. Finally, when Nicholas II had shown how crassly incompetent he was and, him being a hereditary monarch, there was no constitutional way to boot him out of it, revolution with all its evils became inevitable. The Tsars were the trees who refused to bend with the wind; WW1 was the wind which broke them.

The rise to power of the Bolshevik regime was a culminating tragedy; a denial of personal freedom even more extreme than under the absolutist Tsars. It was a lot like what happened in Britain between 1641 and 1660. The Tsars were very much to blame for steering Russia onto those rocks. Under the Communists people learned to read to write (Russian schools are still very good, much more effective than the British schools, where you can't be expelled or punished even if you burn down the school); but between 1918 and 1991, Russia and her satellite countries were ghastly places, from which people were desperately trying to escape. Instead of bringing freedom, the Bolshevik Revolution brought death and more slavery. This is what I mean when I say that it was the same turd logs in the same water-closet, just different brands of air fresheners.

Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!
A beggar upon horseback lashes a beggar on foot,
Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!
The beggars have changed places but the lash goes on.
~ WB Yeats.

Stalin was really a Tsar in everything but name, holding unwilling "republics" together in an unwilling "union" by force of terror. He even got Eisenstein to make a film glorifying Ivan the Terrible, who seems to have been a personal hero and role model for Stalin. The USSR was the empire of the Tsars but with new clothes and, yes, modernised; remember Peter the Great?