More WWI Study
I've been making my way through "The Myth of the Great War : A New Military History of World War I", which goes through a military history of the great war. The details are fairly astounding - it looks like the Allies spent the entire war in a parallel universe, convinced that their huge casualties were not so bad, because Germany was getting worse. In fact, as Niall Ferguson detailed in "The Pity of War", nothing of the sort was happening - and by 1917, both the BEF and the French army had ceased to have significant offensive capabilities - they had been bled out by follies like the Somme campaign and Nivelle's 1916 disasters. It's not a matter of cowardice in any way shape or form - based on the accounts I'm reading, the French and the British soldiers (not to mention the Canadians and Australians) fought bravely - it wasn't their fault that they were being led by fools.
If you take a look at the other side of the ledger, Germany (and Austria-Hungary) had knocked Russia, Serbia, Rumania, and Italy out of the war prior to the entry of the US - had the US not come in, it looks to me like the Germans would have turned West with a vengeance (witness the nearly successful 1918 spring/summer offensive) and taken the UK and France out.
Of course, there are issues with Mosier's (the first book above) narrative - he ascribes too many faults to the Allied powers, and too much brilliance to the Central powers. Even given that, it's a worthwhile book - combined with Ferguson's book, it's given me a fresh look at the mostly forgotten conflict that the pre-WWII generation called The Great War. By all means, read the book yourself, and draw your own conclusions. The more I read about that war, the more I realize that it is the central tragedy of the 20th century. Yes, WWII resulted in many things that were a whole lot worse - but WWII was one of the things set in motion by the endgame of WWI. You can look at the 1919 settlement talks and trace down many of the current issues in the middle east and the Balkans. Some wars have results that you can look back on later and be somewhat happy about. There's really nothing about WWI that looks that way.
Comments
Re: More WWI Study
[ anonymous] March 18, 2005 14:08:36.474
Comment by anonymous
Actually, as with all history, it is interesting to look back even earlier. One of the results of the Napoleonic era was the unification of Germany. Napoleon I had consolidated the nearly 300 feudal germanic states into about 30, which over the rest of the 19th century consolidated itself into Prussia and Bavaria and then into the nation of Germany. More than this, the Germans were still really annoyed with France for all the damage Napoleon I had caused them. And this, of course, led to the massive, hair-trigger militarization that resulted in WWI.
I just finished an amazing book on the last thousand years of French history -- The Course of French History by Pierre Goubert. It's no wonder Jefferson, et all, wanted to avoid entanglement in European affairs. Too bad global involvement is no longer possible.
[Jason Jones] March 18, 2005 14:57:26.507
Replying to anon comment. It was not that Germany was still upset at France with the damages inflicted upon the German states during the Napoleonic wars that helped lead to hostilities in WW1. It is more the reverse. The Franco-Prussian war in 1870 led to a French defeat and a newly unified Germany. French national pride had been wounded by France's quick defeat and they longed for a conflict to show the world that their earlier defeat had been a fluke. That, along with old Europe distrusting a new and upcoming global power with colonial ambitions and the military power to back it, was one of the myriad of factors that helped lead to the first world war.