• The Great War Discussion
    80 replies, posted
The First World War further propelled the US onto the world stage. Not to mention that it helped give birth to some of our famous Army units [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/US_1st_Infantry_Division_SSI.svg/182px-US_1st_Infantry_Division_SSI.svg.png[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/2_Infantry_Div_SSI.svg/629px-2_Infantry_Div_SSI.svg.png[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/3_Infantry_Div_Patch.svg/350px-3_Infantry_Div_Patch.svg.png[/img_thumb] All three have been active since 1917.
Anybody know of any good fiction, in english, about the eastern front? The a myriad of english works about the western front and Gallipoli etc but not a great deal about the Germans/HA/Bulgarians/Ottomans vs Russians/Romanians.
It's amazing that the ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution didn't just sweep through the former Central Powers.
So there's a Flight Simulator coming out about the Eastern Front!
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45588948]Anybody know of any good fiction, in english, about the eastern front? The a myriad of english works about the western front and Gallipoli etc but not a great deal about the Germans/HA/Bulgarians/Ottomans vs Russians/Romanians.[/QUOTE] I highly recommend Solzhenitsyn's "August 1914". There are two translations in English, one by Glenny (1972) and the other by Willetts (late 1980s). A lot of people will say that Willetts' translation is better, but I thought that Glenny's version read better. A comparison of the two translations: [QUOTE]Glenny But he continued fighting hard, just as an experienced actor goes on playing despite the fact that his partners are missing their cues and fluffing their lines, that the heroine's wig has come unstuck, that one of the scenery flats has fallen over, that there is an intolerable draft backstage, that the audience is whispering loudly and seems to be jostling for the exits. So, like the professional that he was, Martos went on playing his role; at least the show was not going to flop if he could help it, and he might even succeed in pulling the rest of the company through.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Wiletts He must continue doggedly, just as an experienced actor carries on when he sees that his fellows have lost the thread and dared making nonsense of the play, that the heroine's wig has come unstuck, that one panel of the set has fallen down, that there is a terrible draft, that the audience is murmuring and for some reason edging towards the exits. He must carry on acting (fighting) with the lightheartedness of despair. Just as long as he did not ruin the show it might yet be salvaged.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;vH3-Gt7mgyM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH3-Gt7mgyM[/video]
Blackadder Goes Forth was fantastic. Really, all of Blackadder was. Also, this is the flight sim I mentioned earlier. Seems to be based off of RoF's engine. [url]http://ilyamuromets.net/about/[/url] Which would make sense because it is 777 and 1C making it.
It has now officially been 100 years since Britain initiated war on Germany
Three more years until it is America that entered.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;45593482]Three more years until it is America that entered.[/QUOTE] I hope we do what Britain just did with the lights.
My great grandfather was a British trench digger. Wish I could've met him.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45589654]It's amazing that the ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution didn't just sweep through the former Central Powers.[/QUOTE] It almost did. There were a lot of attempted communist and socialist revolutions, but all failed.
it's a shame because if the general staffs of France, Britain and Germany took their heads out of their asses and tried to learn from the Russo-Japanese War and the Boer War, they wouldn't have charged into battle with their hilariously dumb Napoleon-era tactics and uniforms it took them 3-4 years to realise, hey, lets stop throwing our companies of infantry at fritz/tommy, lets stop pretending we have a bottomless reserve of manpower, lets infiltrate with squads artillery was a big cause of most casualties on all sides, it was a race to develop the biggest calibres
[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10464387_487572914719899_9145292154805432032_n.png?oh=75f54dbd6dc3f8220a457f6535fdc2ff&oe=543B889B&__gda__=1414122225_db49f8dc2139477f646f7a876721d998[/IMG] [IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10405564_468111943332663_441629009956914890_n.jpg?oh=1c9b1a72d9c75dd1ebeb4437b80c859a&oe=544B1E40&__gda__=1414108029_0127204f519a999f5b23907b0ed2d8cd[/IMG] [IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t1.0-9/10377157_464657543678103_47064344082515038_n.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s552x414/10348179_455176761292848_3240222867164174906_n.png?oh=d18cd23541b58b607997d33b0afd734f&oe=543E1E3E&__gda__=1414212056_db611228d231b43e33628538b3a433c9[/IMG] [IMG]https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10252001_455163164627541_8495404323282136113_n.png[/IMG]
I really hate it when people say WWI "invented" the submarine and trench warfare. It did neither, only perfected them to the mass scale they are known for today.
If WW1 was inevitable due to the ambitions of the European powers, then surely Germany should not be removed so much from the blame. It has neatly removed itself from fault by placing the blame on Austria-Hungary and the Serbs. If unconditional military support was not given to the Austrians, then war with Serbia would have been unlikely. Even if war would break out anyway, the militaristic nature of German society stemming from older Prussian tradition and the desire for colonies in order to be recognised as a major power, a large amount of the reason for the 'inevitability' is due to Germany.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;45612532]If WW1 was inevitable due to the ambitions of the European powers, then surely Germany should not be removed so much from the blame. It has neatly removed itself from fault by placing the blame on Austria-Hungary and the Serbs. If unconditional military support was not given to the Austrians, then war with Serbia would have been unlikely. Even if war would break out anyway, the militaristic nature of German society stemming from older Prussian tradition and the desire for colonies in order to be recognised as a major power, a large amount of the reason for the 'inevitability' is due to Germany.[/QUOTE] No-one is trying to absolve Germany of blame, Germany was just as much to blame as every other European power. France was actually the most militarised country on the eve of war and wanted to settle the score with Germany after 1870 and was looking for a fight with Germany. Russia wanted too wanted to settle old scores with Austria and Germany as well as promote Slav nationalism, largely to disrupt Austria and Germany as well as providing them with natural allies in Europe. Austria wanted to finally deal with Serbia as they had been a constant nuisance for sometime now, in a sense Austria had the most legitimate reason to go to war out of any of the countries involved as Austria was actually under attack by Serbian nationalists. Italy wanted territory from Austria to (as they saw it) finally complete the unification of Italy which started in the 19th century. Britain was obsessed with not being isolated from Europe and wanted to join the war on the side of the Entente so that a victorious Germany couldn't isolate them and because France and Russia were bigger theats to Britain than they were allies, France could easily threaten Britain's colonies and Russia could threaten British India and Central Asia as preventing the "Great Game" as it was known from spilling into open conflict. The Ottoman empire wanted to reverse 2 centuries of military defeats and reclaim the land they'd lost in Europe and North Africa. Bulgaria wanted revenge on Serbia for their betrayal during the Balkan Wars and Romania wanted parts of Hungary. Serbia wanted the destruction of Austria-Hungary as well as the Ottoman empire and form Yugoslavia, largely against the wishes of other Slavs however. Every nation involved with WW1 was aggressive in one sense or another and so are all to blame.
[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;45597844]it's a shame because if the general staffs of France, Britain and Germany took their heads out of their asses and tried to learn from the Russo-Japanese War and the Boer War, they wouldn't have charged into battle with their hilariously dumb Napoleon-era tactics and uniforms it took them 3-4 years to realise, hey, lets stop throwing our companies of infantry at fritz/tommy, lets stop pretending we have a bottomless reserve of manpower, lets infiltrate with squads artillery was a big cause of most casualties on all sides, it was a race to develop the biggest calibres[/QUOTE] No Hell no. Why do people have THIS specific misconception about the evolution of trench warfare during the WW1? Its not like they were stupids. The fact that they were very reliant on a decisive battle doctrine the first years doesn't mean they didn't switch to a infiltration doctrine only after 3-4 years. And even so, you can't call it a strategy because the squad infiltration only served previously to an attack. It was part of a strategy in the same way the aerial observation was used. Napoleon tactics lasted 4-5 months until they realized, because they did really realized, there was no more place to move around armies in such a freely way like there was before. Army sizes increased and weapons size, territory did not. We're not talking about 20.000 guys roaming around, we're talking about more than 1.000.000[B][I] guys from each side....[/I][/B] The Eastern front had a lot less troops and a lot more territory which saw limited trench warfare. Just look at the armament of the French and the British...there are huge differences and you will see the British have a striking tactical resemblance to the Germans. It wasn't just a coincidence. It was because there were strategical and tactical differences between the French and the British. You're forgetting the technological level of the time didn't allow for fast movement of troops at such a level of conflict. The Russo Japanese war, the Boer War and every single conflict before that time didn't have the magnitude WW1 had. The only thing that came close was the ACW in later stages were there was next to none movement. When an advance was made, you had to cross a maze of wire, holes, bodies, mud, and God knows what. We're talking about how much? 800 meters-1km. How do you transport supplies in horses and or transport trucks across that space? Lines remained static -in the sense of gains and loses- for a long time not because they were blind and stupid, but because they couldn't really outsmart their opponent and or take advantage of technology. Even though, it doesn't mean they didn't do all they could to overcome these obstacles. If you read the evolution of the squad-level tactics, organization and how they employed weapons and tactics you will definitely see that they didn't remain with the "Durrr hurrr massive arty shelling and human wave attack" mindset that is so popular nowadays (And will always be I think).
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;45616969]No Hell no. Why do people have THIS specific misconception about the evolution of trench warfare during the WW1? Its not like they were stupids. The fact that they were very reliant on a decisive battle doctrine the first years doesn't mean they didn't switch to a infiltration doctrine only after 3-4 years. And even so, you can't call it a strategy because the squad infiltration only served previously to an attack. It was part of a strategy in the same way the aerial observation was used. Napoleon tactics lasted 4-5 months until they realized, because they did really realized, there was no more place to move around armies in such a freely way like there was before. Army sizes increased and weapons size, territory did not. We're not talking about 20.000 guys roaming around, we're talking about more than 1.000.000[B][I] guys from each side....[/I][/B] The Eastern front had a lot less troops and a lot more territory which saw limited trench warfare. Just look at the armament of the French and the British...there are huge differences and you will see the British have a striking tactical resemblance to the Germans. It wasn't just a coincidence. It was because there were strategical and tactical differences between the French and the British. You're forgetting the technological level of the time didn't allow for fast movement of troops at such a level of conflict. The Russo Japanese war, the Boer War and every single conflict before that time didn't have the magnitude WW1 had. The only thing that came close was the ACW in later stages were there was next to none movement. When an advance was made, you had to cross a maze of wire, holes, bodies, mud, and God knows what. We're talking about how much? 800 meters-1km. How do you transport supplies in horses and or transport trucks across that space? Lines remained static -in the sense of gains and loses- for a long time not because they were blind and stupid, but because they couldn't really outsmart their opponent and or take advantage of technology. Even though, it doesn't mean they didn't do all they could to overcome these obstacles. If you read the evolution of the squad-level tactics, organization and how they employed weapons and tactics you will definitely see that they didn't remain with the "Durrr hurrr massive arty shelling and human wave attack" mindset that is so popular nowadays (And will always be I think).[/QUOTE] Not only this but in the first years of the war, generals couldn't use radio to communicate to their troops on the ground like they could in the latter years of the war, this meant that the generals had little choice but to use basic strategies because the technology wasn't there to coordinate attacks on such a large scale. In the later years of the war mobile radio technology was just about being introduced meaning that offensives could be coordinated and directed for example the German's Micheal Offensive or the Allied "100 days" counter offensive.
[QUOTE=The mouse;45618303]Not only this but in the first years of the war, generals couldn't use radio to communicate to their troops on the ground like they could in the latter years of the war, this meant that the generals had little choice but to use basic strategies because the technology wasn't there to coordinate attacks on such a large scale. In the later years of the war mobile radio technology was just about being introduced meaning that offensives could be coordinated and directed for example the German's Micheal Offensive or the Allied "100 days" counter offensive.[/QUOTE] Plus that when the Generals received a weapon that could reliably end the stalemate of the trenches, they seized upon it and eventually worked out tactics to use it effectively.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;45528928]The world could have continued being dominated by empires; the US might have kept to themselves forever, as they planned prior to both world wars; the Russian revolution might never have happened.[/quote] The thing is that many of these things would probably have been good. The old empires fell apart, but half of them ended up turning into autocratic dictatorships. The US got involved in foreign affairs, then then went the extra mile. The Russian Revolution was perhaps the most ambitious and disastrous social experiment in human history. [quote]All it took were millions of lives to see that.[/QUOTE] The people who fought and died in that war died hoping for a better world. The worst part about it is they were betrayed. British and French soldiers came home to chronic unemployment and countries that had passed their prime. The German people had to suffer several attempted Communist insurrections before having their economy collapse. The Russians went through 7 years of war, two revolutions, a number of civil wars, genocides, and the eventual replacement of the authoritarian Tsar with the totalitarian chairman. Many of the newly independent countries formed from the breakup of the empires tended to lapse into becoming puppet states or autocracies. Really the war did nothing to get people to work together, because ultimately the problems left unresolved by the first world war would result in perhaps the most avoidable and bloodiest conflict in human history, and even the second world war did jack shit to solve anything.
Wasn't really the war's fault for everything that happened afterward. It was the people in Paris in 1919 who decided that, after everything was shown to be broke and malfunctioned, it was a good idea to try and put it back together again instead of starting off new and better.
The title "the Great War" is total bullshit. There is nothing great about war.
I have to explain to people that World War One is [I]the[/I] defining war, if not the most defining moment of the 20th century. People always assume it was World War Two, but honestly, World War Two just couldn't hope to match World War One in importance, even though it went above and beyond in size. I know, some people will get pissy at me for saying that -and I am not marginalizing WWII- but WWI shaped our world as we know it. People fail to see beyond the immediate causes: the Treaty of Versailles and WWII, but truly this war has had a far greater impact. It saw the rise of the USA as a world power and the birth of the Soviet Union, thus ensuring the Cold War and all the ills that it brought, from the wars in the Middle East to the further polarization of the world into "groups under the US and groups against the US". Without WWI, 9/11 would not have occurred, nor the Cuban Missile Crisis, nor the Space Race, or they would have occurred very differently. I would argue that Allied victory in WWI was not a good thing, and neither would a German victory. In the end, the war in its entirety was a disaster that would bring ruinous effects to the world regardless of who won, and the worst part was it was entirely avoidable. Yet nobody knows or remembers, not here in the states or overseas in Russia. The Brits remember, but even then, they staunchly refuse to admit to anything about the war, insisting that they "fought and died for freedom and democracy". Nobody was fighting for freedom and democracy, and when soldiers go off to Afghanistan to fight a war that spawned from a war that spawned from World War One, I think freedom and democracy is the last thing on their minds. Even now with what has happened in the Ukraine and what continues to happen abroad, I wonder, have we learned anything from a brutal century of war? A Great War and all wars that branched from that terrible, twisted tree have resulted in the horrific deaths of over 100 million individuals. A war that brought us to the brink twice, and a century of tension that followed, where at any moment mankind was ready to wipe itself out. Do we remember why those men really fought and died?
My Great-Great Grandfather was injured by gas during WW1, he survived but died years later due to the injuries.
[QUOTE=bdd458;45592798] Also, this is the flight sim I mentioned earlier. Seems to be based off of RoF's engine. [URL]http://ilyamuromets.net/about/[/URL] Which would make sense because it is 777 and 1C making it.[/QUOTE] I was watching Aces high the other day. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aces_High_(film)[/URL] And I gotta say WW1 dogfighting, there's something about, it very intense and close up. And the film has some of the most intense scenes in a war film I have ever seen, I would highly recommend it.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;45640871]The title "the Great War" is total bullshit. There is nothing great about war.[/QUOTE] What made you even think that at all? It's called the Great War because it was just a gigantic, incredible war that no one has ever seen before. Newsflash, it's called a Thesaurus; Great also means big.
For a solid history of a phase on the Western Front described by one book reviewer to be a "Napoleonic classic of maneuver, marches and counter-marches, cavalry sweeps, flanking movements, bayonet charges, and distinct individual battles", check out Sewell Tyng's "The Campaign of the Marne" which should be freely readable here: [url]http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000442648[/url]
Western front gets too much attention. Turkey, Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and even Japan was in the war too.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;45586167]The First World War further propelled the US onto the world stage. Not to mention that it helped give birth to some of our famous Army units All three have been active since 1917.[/QUOTE] The 3rd Infantry Division actually has the nickname 'Rock of the Marne' because of its actions in WW1.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.