The History Book Club discussion
THE FIRST WORLD WAR
>
1. THE FIRST WORLD WAR ~ CHAPTERS 1 and 2 (3 - 47) (02/21/10 - 02/28/10) ~ No spoilers, please
I think it's clear that the allies (particularly the French) were looking for some payback after the war. Let's not forget that the new German Empire had been declared in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles in 1871. What a slap in the face this must have been to the French, after losing the Franco-Prussian war to have their new, very powerful neighbor declare her unification in one of France's most sacred palaces. Can you imagine what the French people must have felt when the Germans marched through Paris in 1871? Imagine how they felt when the Germans again came within spitting distance during WWI. Someone born in 1850 would have been 21 when the Germans entered Paris and declared their unification. That same person would have been 64 in 1914 at the outbreak of the Great War and if they had lived long enough would have been 90 when the Germans occupied France in 1940. Thus, for nearly 100 years the French had fought the Germans on their own soil.
I think the French, and by extension the other Allies, wanted to cripple Germany so she could never threaten the continent again. I think that's one of the reasons why the Treaty of Versailles was so brutal for Germany. As Bentley has mentioned, the Germans couldn't properly mourn their dead which only stoked the fires of nationalism further. It could be argued that had the peace terms under the Versailles Treaty been less oppressive that German nationalism would have been more subdued and that Hitler may not have been able to incite the people against the world. He used the Versailles Treaty and the Weimar Republic that ensued as a scapegoat for all of Germany's ills.
This might be worth debating a bit, but would Hitler have been able to come to power had the Versailles Treaty been less oppressive? Would the people have been less willing to take such a radical approach to cool their anger and frustration at their place in the world? This might be worth exploring.
Bentley wrote: "Alias...so far it has been quite the opposite in the first two chapters especially chapter one which discussed the economic, socioeconomic, and political European Harmony. Chapter Two is called Wa..."-----------------
Thanks for the input. I was only going by some Amazon reviews which seem to indicate it was a book that focused mostly on individual battles and military strategies. Important of course, but not my thing.
Maybe I'll check out a few chapters at the library.
Mod
Of course Alias but it is written by a military historian. If you wanted to find out more about the First World War, then this is the book. Relatively short too.
Mod
I think that is what Keegan is alluding to JP; that the Germans were set up as a pariah after World War I and made to feel like an "undesirable" who had to continually pay for their past deeds. I think that having such a repressive treaty certainly added fuel to the fire.
Yes for sure, the Germans and the French had their history and I think that the French had paid dearly with its countrymen's lives because of Germany and their warlike tendencies at the time. I can see why France felt the way it did. The population problems that France has certainly stemmed in part from the altercations with Germany.
Right now France has the oldest population overall in Europe with the highest percentages in over 65 and under 14. Familes seem to have only one child so that seems to keep down the population growth considerably. After World War II there was a baby boom but it was not enough.
Mod
Of course, he started off the next paragraph with the words "This is a complacent judgement." And then on the next page he states that it damaged civilization which I tend to agree with him in part.
The Lost Generation part was disproved by the stats that Keegan himself cited to my way of thinking. I had also heard that populations were severely impacted due to the slaughter on both sides that occurred. And I believed that there were higher percentages of men lost of those who embarked; in fact we spoke about them earlier. Do I think that this generation lost out on many things because of this war? Of course, it changed people's outlook and I do agree with Keegan (in part) that it damaged civilization; but I was not discussing that point as yet (smile).
Keegan did make the statement cited and I disagreed with the statement; there were no citations for this statement at all. I checked the bibliography at the back of the book.
Was an entire generation lost (dead and not able to populate) - no according to the stats that Keegan cites. That was the part that I was referring to that I was surprised at.
Do I believe that the impact was huge and civilization was damaged. I guess I do agree about the impact and to some extent that civilization was damaged.
I hope that I made myself clearer. I do think that the Lost Generation in terms of population was most likely a myth; but not a myth when you examine a different meaning of the word lost not attributed to simply population growth and/or percentages of young men killed.
Now what I originally asked; what do you think of these assertions yourself? Were you surprised by any?
By the way, any loss of life even one person is huge for me. And when you visit these cemetaries by the World War I battlefields...it just brings tears to everyone's eyes.
It would be interesting to find out what the percentage of casualties was for the age group 18-25 during WW1. I would hazard a guess that the majority of dead, wounded, missing and insane would be in that age group, so the 10-20% who did not return may have been, who knows, 60-80% of that age group giving the impression of a missing generation?In regards to Keegan's statement;
"For the majority, the war was but a passage in their lives, an interruption of normality to which society rapidly returned as soon as the guns fell silent."
I also disagree, many tried to return to a normal life but it was impossible for a great many. This was the defining moment in many peoples lives and in some sections of society things never returned to how they were pre WW1.
Mod
Yes the effects were truly long and everlasting.
Good post Rick..thank you for your insights.
Another factor that could give many the impression of a 'missing generation' from the Great War could be due to the British system of Pal's Battalions, raised during Kitchener's recruiting drive. The effects of casualties from men from the same local area could give rise to the feeling of one local community being totally devastated by losses on the Western Front:Pals Battalions
Mod
Mod
"Yet it damaged civilization, the rational and liberal civilization of the European enlightenment, permanently for the worse, and through the damage done, world civilization also. Pre-war Europe, imperial though it was in its relations with most of the world beyond the continent, offered respect to the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law and representative government. Post-war Europe rapidly reliquished confidence on such principles. They were lost altogether in Russia after 1917, in Italy after 1922, in Germany in 1933, in Spain after 1936, and only patchily observed at any time in the young states created or enlarged by the post-war settlement in Central and Southern Europe."
Page 8
Do you feel that World War I substituted constitutionalism with totalitarianism? Why would such a thing happen? What was there about World War I that would foster totalitarianism?
Mod
The Russian Revolution is the collective term for the series of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which destroyed the Tsarist autocracy and led to the creation of the Soviet Union. In the first revolution of February 1917 (March in the Gregorian calendar) the Tsar was deposed and replaced by a Provisional government. In the second revolution of October that year the Provisional Government was removed and replaced with a Bolshevik (Communist) government.
In Italy in 1922:
In the summer of 1922, Italy seemed on the verge of a civil war among its political parties; its government especially couldn't cope with the Fascists, who seized power in Bologna, Milan, and other cities. Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), head of the National Fascist Party, demanded the resignation of Italy's premier, Luigi Facta (1861-1930), a liberal though weak leader, and the formation of a Fascist governmetn, threatening dire consequences if his demand were not met. The "March on Rome" (October 28, 1922) by his Fascists compelled Facta to declare (belatedly) a state of siege and to decree martial law. King Victor Emmanuel III (1869-1947), Italy's constitutional head of state, refused to sign the decree, however, and dismissed Facta. Arriving in Rome from Milan in the comfort of a railroad sleeping car on October 30, 1922, Mussolini found only some 25,000 of his blackshirts (Fascists) occupying the captial; but by the next day thousands more of his followers came on special trains, surrounded the royal palace, and cheered the victory of Mussolini, whom the king permitted to form a government to reestablish order.
In Germany in 1933, Hitler become Chancellor:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2...
In Spain in 1936:
The Spanish Civil War was a major conflict that devastated Spain from 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939. It began after an attempted coup d'état by a group of Spanish Army generals against the government of the Second Spanish Republic, then under the leadership of president Manuel Azaña.
The nationalist coup was supported by the conservative Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas, or C.E.D.A), monarchists known as Carlist groups, and the Fascist Falange (Falange Española de las J.O.N.S.).[5:] The war ended with the victory of the rebel forces, the overthrow of the Republican government, and the founding of a dictatorship led by General Francisco Franco. In the aftermath of the civil war, all right-wing parties were fused into the state party of the Franco regime.
Republicans (republicanos) were supported by the Soviet Union and Mexico, while the followers of the rebellion, Nationalists (nacionales), received the support of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, as well as neighbouring Portugal.[6:]
Although the United States was officially neutral during the conflict, major American corporations such as Texaco, General Motors, Ford Motors, and The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company greatly assisted the Nationalist rebels with their constant supply of trucks, tires, machine tools, and fuel.[7:]
The war increased international tensions in Europe in the lead-up to World War II, and was largely seen as a proxy war between the Communist Soviet Union and Fascist states Italy and Germany. In particular, new tank warfare tactics and the terror bombing of cities from the air were features of the Spanish Civil War which played a significant part in the later general European war.[7:]
The Spanish Civil War has been dubbed as "the first media war", with several writers and journalists covering it wanting their work "to support the cause".[8:] Foreign correspondents and writers covering it included Ernest Hemingway, Martha Gellhorn, George Orwell and Robert Capa.
Like most civil wars, it became notable for the passion and political division it inspired, and for atrocities committed on both sides of the conflict. The Spanish Civil War often pitted family members, neighbors, and friends against each other.
Apart from the combatants, many civilians were killed for their political or religious views by both sides, and after the war ended in 1939, Republicans were persecuted by the victorious Nationalists.
An estimated total of 300,000+ people lost their lives as a consequence of the war. Out of them probably 120,000+ were civilians executed by either side.
What was there about World War I that brought about these changes?
Hi Bentley,An interesting question. You read in many books how the Great War tore apart the fabric of society. Maybe the many who returned were no longer prepared to place their future and the future of their country into the hands of those same people that took them into such a terrible conflict.
The bonds between the people and government had been damaged and maybe people were looking for a new style of leadership that gave them something concrete to hold onto in a new world that had lost all relevance to some.
Mod
Mod
The oldest Canadian veteran of World War I has died at age 109.
John Babcock died Thursday in Spokane, Wash., where he has lived since 1932, according to a statement from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"I was deeply saddened to learn today of the death of John Babcock, Canada's last known First World War veteran," Harper said. "As a nation, we honor his service and mourn his passing."
Babcock had become a celebrity in recent years, especially in Canada.
"John Babcock was Canada's last living link to the Great War, which in so many ways marked our coming of age as a nation," Harper said. He said 650,000 men and women served in the Canadian forces during WWI.
"Today they are all gone," Harper said. "Canada mourns the passing of the generation that asserted our independence on the world stage and established our international reputation as an unwavering champion of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law."
He said a ceremony to honor Babcock will be held later.
The U.S. has one surviving World War I veteran. Frank Woodruff Buckles turned 109 earlier this month in West Virginia.
Babcock was born July 23, 1900, on an Ontario farm and enlisted with the Royal Canadian Regiment when he was just 15, lying about his age. Babcock trained with nearly 1,300 other underage soldiers in anticipation of crossing the English Channel and facing enemy fire, but the war ended before he could set foot in France.
Soon after the war, he moved to the United States, where he served in the U.S. Army and became a naturalized citizen.
Babcock attributed his longevity to the physical training he received from serving in two armies in his youth. He didn't drink much and stopped smoking a long time ago.
Mod
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-...
Mod
Bentley
Mod
The Second World War, when it came in 1939, was unquestionably the outcome of the First, and in large measure its continuation. Its circumstance - the dissatisfaction of the German speaking peoples with their standing among other nations - were the same, and so were its immediate causes, a dispute between a German- speaking ruler and a Slav neighbor. The personalities, though occupying different status, were also the same. Gamelin, the French commander in 1939, had been principal staff officer to Foch, the Allied Supreme Commander in 1918, Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1930, had been First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914, Hitler, "the first soldier of the Third Reich," had been one of the first volunteers of Kaiser Wilhelm's Reich in August 1914. The battlefields were to be the same" the River Meuse, crossed with spectacular ease by the German panzer divisions in May 1940, had proved impassable at Verdun throughout 1914-18; Arras, focus of some of the British Expeditionary Force's worst trench fighting on the Western Front, was the scene of the British army's only successful counterattack in 1940; while the River Bzura, a narrow watercourse west of Warsaw was to be critical to the conduct of operations on the Eastern Front both in 1930 and in 1915. Many of those who marched off in 1939 were the same people who, younger in age, junior in rank, had also marched away in 1914, convinced they would be home, victorious, before the leaves fall.
It is strange that everyone expected World War II, and nobody expected World War I. It is almost as if World War I robbed people and their soldiers of their innocence. It was like a genie which could never go back into the bottle.
What do folks think of Keegan's premise that the Second World War was the outcome of the First. Do you believe that. Why or why not? What was the impact of Keegan's statements when you were reading these paragraphs?
I was struck that the people commanding were the same and the battlefields were the same. To me that was spooky. And to think that the same soldiers marched off to war was also a bit too much.
Mod
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-...
/>
Mod
Ferdinand Foch (pronounced "Fosh") OM GCB (2 October 1851 – 20 March 1929) was a French soldier, military theorist, and writer credited with possessing "the most original and subtle mind in the French army" in the early 20th century.[1:] He served as general in the French army during World War I and was made Marshal of France in its final year: 1918. Shortly after the start of the Spring Offensive, Germany's final attempt to win the war, Foch was chosen as supreme commander of the Allied armies, a position that he held until 11 November 1918, when he accepted the German request for an armistice.
He advocated peace terms that would make Germany unable to pose a threat to France ever again. His words after the Treaty of Versailles, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years" would prove exactly prophetic- World War II started twenty years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinan...
[image error]
Ferdinand Foch
Mod
/>Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British politician known chiefly for his leadership of the United Kingdom during World War II. He served as Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. A noted statesman and orator, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army, historian, writer, and artist. He was the only British Prime Minister to have received the Nobel Prize in Literature and the first person to be recognised as an Honorary Citizen of the United States.
During his army career, Churchill saw military action in India, in the Sudan and the Second Boer War. He gained fame and notoriety as a war correspondent and through contemporary books he wrote describing the campaigns. He also served briefly in the British Army on the Western Front in World War I, commanding the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.
At the forefront of the political scene for almost fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of the Asquith Liberal government.
During the war he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He returned as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. In the interwar years, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Conservative government.
After the outbreak of the Second World War, Churchill was again appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. Following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain on 10 May 1940, he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and led Britain to victory against the Axis powers. Churchill was always noted for his speeches, which became a great inspiration to the British people and embattled Allied forces.
After losing the 1945 election, he became Leader of the Opposition. In 1951, he again became Prime Minister before finally retiring in 1955. Upon his death, the Queen granted him the honour of a state funeral, which saw one of the largest assemblies of statesmen in the world.
Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_...
Mod
[image error]
Hi Bentley and everybody who joins the dicussion on Keegan's book. Bentley stated:
'It is strange that everyone expected World War II, and nobody expected World War I.'
I don't think that everybody expected World War II. Millions applauded Chamberlain's Appeasementpolicy till march 1939 and really thought that war could be avoided. There certainly was,contrary to 1914,a lack of enthusiasm everywhere in september 1939, including Germany!Too many people in Europe knew what war meant. I don't know if 'nobody expected war'in 1914 but as a result of among others nationalism and militarism, a lot of people hoped that a war would or could solve in a short time a lot of problems.
Bentley also asked:'What do folks think of Keegan's premise that the Second World War was the outcome of the First?'
I am not so certain. Of course 1914-1918 was very important but maybe september 1939 was especially the inevitable outcome of the peace talks of Versailles. I think that many other circumstances influenced the outbreak of a new war in 1939. What if there had not been a Depression in the thirties? If democracy had been stronger in Germany? Anti-democratic thinking in Germany did not started in World War I. If in Britain the leading foreign policy had not been the Appeasementpolicy but, together with France, a 'stronger' anti-Hitler policy,right from january 1933? History is always more complicated than you think but that makes it fun, don't you think?
Bentley wrote: "About Maurice Gamelin (French Commander in 1939 - also had been principal staff officer to Foch):
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-...
[image error]
Mod
Glad to have everyone join in. You bring an interesting perspective to the discussion being from the Continent as well. I think along the same lines that people wanted to believe that another war was not necessary and maybe that is why they wanted to give appeasement a chance. The problem with appeasement is that there is usually a bully and usually they are never able to be appeased for too long. But you can certainly understand why everyone would want to give it a try. So I guess you would be at least on the side of not being persuaded by Keegan's arguments of certainty about one war being not expected and the other being a foregone conclusion.
Yes, the Depression was very much a mitigating factor. When from your viewpoint did anti democratic thinking in Germany start? Yes, I agree with much of what you have said. I like to believe that right up until a war starts that there are many opportunities to avert it and all should be done by all parties. It didn't sound to me like the parties wanted to avert the First World War aside from possibly France, Great Britain and Belgium and possibly Russia (and then I am not too sure about Russia).
It is always easier being a Monday morning quarterback after the game has been played ....no doubt. But when discussing history..why not (smile).
Bentley
Mod
He advocated peace terms that would make Germany unable to pose a threat to France ever again. His words after the Treaty of Versailles, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years" would prove exactly prophetic- World War II started twenty years later.
Bentley wrote: "What was interesting on page nine was the following paragraph:The Second World War, when it came in 1939, was unquestionably the outcome of the First, and in large measure its continuation. Its ..."
Germany definitely had some unfinished business after World War I. They had not been able to conquer the lands to the east that they coveted and had been pushed back in the west as well. In addition, they had been left relatively intact at the end of the first war which perhaps left them feeling they had suffered a "setback" rather than lost the war. The Second World War began much like the first, a strike to the west to make room for a major strike to the east. Having the same players and battles in the same areas supports that view, I believe.
When did anti-democratic thinking started in Germany? Anti-democratic thinking in the sense of anti-liberalism or conservatism developed in the 19th century among the ruling elite.(the Junkers, leading industrialists, high civil servants) This elite was against the ideas of liberalism(in the European sense)and afraid of socialism. After the first world war, this elite was still very powerful and very much against the democratic Weimar Republic.The famous prophetic words of Foch are somewhat enigmatic:did he mean that the peaceterms should have been more harsh than they already were, as was his wish in 1918?(for instance the detachment of the Rhineland from Germany)But:would a even harsher peace treaty have been a guarantee for a permanent peace? I doubt it.
Bentley wrote: "Jan..one thing that gave me pause were Foch's words:
He advocated peace terms that would make Germany unable to pose a threat to France ever again. His words after the Treaty of Versailles, "This ..."
Erick wrote: "Bentley wrote: "What was interesting on page nine was the following paragraph:The Second World War, when it came in 1939, was unquestionably the outcome of the First, and in large measure its con..."
Hi Erick,
I tend to agree with your theory, certainly many in Germany believed that they had not been defeated in World War One and I think that is one reason why Foch said "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". The history of France and Germany tended to indicate that this was un-finished business.
I believe there was a real difference in how the German people saw the war and how the germany army saw the outcome of the war. The people were well aware of the starvation and casualties. (I visited Germany in 1986 and the churches had pictures of the War dead still on display). The army didn't feel beaten and were able to make the "stabbed in the back" claim. When the ex-army people murdered their way to power, they felt they had unfinished business. If the German police had been willing to crack down on all the violence and violent groups in post WW I germany the Nazis would not have been willing to sieze power and start the war. See
Richard J. Evans
Mod
Do you think that the German army and the military were taking over the government. Wouldn't the police have been unable to do what you think they should have done.
Why do you think that in Germany in 1986 that they still had pictures of the War dead still on display?
Mod
Thank you Jan for that explanation. Maybe in terms of borders..maybe the French were correct.
This is what wikipedia stated:
In January 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference Foch presented a memorandum to the Allied plenipotentiaries in which he stated:
Henceforward the Rhine ought to be the Western military frontier of the German countries. Henceforward Germany ought to be deprived of all entrance and assembling ground, that is, of all territorial sovereignty on the left bank of the river, that is, of all facilities for invading quickly, as in 1914, Belgium, Luxembourg, for reaching the coast of the North Sea and threatening the United Kingdom, for outflanking the natural defences of France, the Rhine, Meuse, conquering the Northern Provinces and entering the Parisian area.[8:]
In a subsequent memorandum, Foch argued that the Allies should take full advantage of their victory by permanently weakening German power in order to prevent her from threatening France again:
What the people of Germany fear the most is a renewal of hostilities since, this time, Germany would be the field of battle and the scene of the consequent devastation. This makes it impossible for the yet unstable German Government to reject any demand on our part if it is clearly formulated. The Entente, in its present favourable military situation, can obtain acceptance of any peace conditions it may put forward provided that they are presented without much delay. All it is has to do is to decide what they shall be.[8:]
However the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and the American President Wilson objected to the detachment of the Rhineland from Germany, but agreed to Allied military occupation for fifteen years, which Foch thought insufficient to protect France.
Foch considered the Treaty of Versailles to be "a capitulation, a treason" because he believed that only permanent occupation of the Rhineland would grant France sufficient security against a revival of German aggression.[9:] As the treaty was being signed Foch said: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years".[10:]
It appears that what Foch simply wanted was an occupation of the Rhineland so that France would have sufficient security against a revival of German aggression. I think what he was referring to was that if the Allies occupied the Rhineland for 15 years that probably for 20 years France might have some peace but very soon thereafter Germany would be at its tricks again. He lost a few family members as well in the invasion of France and I think was tired of their shenanigans.
Thank you very much for your explanation of what were the anti-democratic sentiments which had started in Germany.
For those folks who might not be familiar with the terminology junker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker
Mod
Belgium was listed in 2008 by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as being number 20, and in 2009 by the CIA World Factbook as number 20. Why the drop? And was World War I so bad for it that it had a lasting impact. Going from 6 to 20 is a big drop. Or was it hurt by German occupation during World War II?
Mod
Norman AngellOther books so far that were referenced in the bibliography for CHAPTER ONE were:
Alan Bullock
Martin Gilbert
Jay Winter
T. A. Edwin Gibson (no cover available)
Robert Weldon Whalen (no cover available)
Barbara Jelavich
Robert John Weston Evans
Karl Baedeker (no cover available)
Geoffrey Best (no cover available)
Neil Strauss
Bentley, interesting question. I'm sure WWII hurt Belgium, but my guess is that the rest of the world simply caught up to it, similar to what the U.S. is experiencing today. After WWII, we were dominate, but now the rest of the world has developed and closed the gap.
Mod
Mod
Patricrk wrote: "I believe there was a real difference in how the German people saw the war and how the germany army saw the outcome of the war. The people were well aware of the starvation and casualties. (I vis..."In refrence to the start of world war II as an extension of world war I, the german military did not take over the german government. The Nazi party murdered, lied and did what ever it needed to sieze power. It was completely ruthless and single minded in its quest for power. The German military was weak and non-political but had sympathies for any political party that promised to re-arm Germany. It was part of the Nazi political program to not accept germany had lost the war and they created a police state to make sure that any dissent was silenced. The socialist and communists campaigned against the Nazis but once the Nazis were in power they used all the police powers of the state to destroy opposing political dissent. I don't believe that the European part of world war II was preordained by world war I but was more the result of a ruthless madman being put in charge of germany.
I was struck by Keegans discussion of the battle plans in which 8 german corps suddenly appeared near Paris with no plan to get them there. Its like a cartoon I used to have in which two scientists are flow charting a solution to a problem and one of the blocks says "miracle occurs here". I guess this a case where you bite off more than you can chew and won't admit it. Schlieffen refused to believe he couldn't capture Paris from the French if they defended properly so he left an over ambitious plan instead of setting a more realistic goal which could have minimized the French during the rest of the war while Russia was defeated. In regards to the lack political input to the war plans I guess its probably true of all large organizations that the planning department sometimes doesn't bother to consult with the operations department. I suspect the USA still has plans somewhere for the invasion of Mexico and Canada that the political leaders of today feel no need to review.
In trying to explain the Nazi rise to power after WWI, it's my understanding that they actually used democratic means to consolidate their power and then eliminate the Weimar Republic. They increasingly resort to effective intimidation and thuggery to win elections and take over political contol of Germany. It's only after Hitler becomes Chancellor that a police state is imposed. Also, virulent anti-semitism amidst a growing economic crisis, not just reaction to WWI reparations and feelings that they did not lose the war, provide fertile ground for the Nazi movement. One question that has baffled some historians is why anti-semitism is so pervasive in Germany and not in other countries.
Robert wrote: " One question that has baffled some historians is why anti-semitism is so pervasive in Germany " And, you had to go back and look at the old records to determine who was a "Jew". Without a piece of paper most "Jews" were indistinguishable from "Germans" not only in appearance but culturally as well. Very odd. The USA had (has?) a lot of it too but I don't think it got that bad here in the 30's. (off thread comment, sorry Bentley)
Belgium was, after Britain, the second country with an industrial revolution. In the 19th century it had a highly developed economy with especially mining and metal industry and a strong financial and banking sector. But in the twentieth century it’s industry became outdated (like Britain!, a lead became arrears.) The competition of more modern economies of bigger European countries and after the second worldwar of Asian countries was (too) strong.Do not forget the huge political problems. Belgium is very much divided in two nations: the Vlemings and the Walloons. In the 19th and the first half of the 20th century the French speaking Walloons had the economic and political power; the Vlemings felt themselves suppressed. In the first world war the common soldiers in the trenches were Flemish workers and peasants commanded in French, which they did not understand, by a Walloon officer.
Nowadays Flanders is economically the strongest part of the country. Politically Belgium consists of two virtually independents parts.
Bentley wrote: "In the segment titled European Harmony, Keegan cited that Belgium which was one of the smallest countries in Europe, "Had in 1914 the sixth largest economy in the world, the result of early industr..."
Jan wrote: "Belgium was, after Britain, the second country with an industrial revolution. In the 19th century it had a highly developed economy with especially mining and metal industry and a strong financial ..."Wikipedia reports its current per capita income slightly higher than France, England and Germany. Don't know how that compares to how it ranked at the start of WWI.
Mod
Your remarks are very interesting and it certainly is true that the Nazi party was outside the norm.
Mod
From what I have been reading, it was an underling that carried out Schlieffen's Plan (after he had no input - I believe he had passed away) and he did not follow Schlieffen's directives; in fact I guess it was a watered down version which may have resulted in different results than planned including a lengthy conflict. Of course, in retrospect; things eventually turned out OK in the end for the UK France, etc.
Mod
That is an interesting question, why was it? I attributed it to Hitler and the Nazi's; do you have any hypothesis on this?
Mod
OK..as long as we get back on track (smile)
Mod
I am so glad you are here Jan because you explain everything so well and with your background we get so much great information that Keegan could not possibly put into his book. Thank you very much for the information about Belgium.
Bentley wrote:From what I have been reading, it was an underling that carried out Schlieffen's Plan (after he had no input - I believe he had passed away) and he did not follow Schlieffen's directives; in fact I guess it was a watered down version which may have resulted in different results than planned including a lengthy conflict. Of course, in retrospect; things eventually turned out OK in the end for the UK France, etc. I interpreted page 35 in Keegan's book to say that the Schlieffen himself left this puzzle in the plan. You are correct that he was dead and that his plan had been tampered with. If the French had been allowed to follow through on their plan, then they would not have defended correctly and would have probably been beaten.
Also the advances in the internal combustion engine was starting to provide a change in technology as big as the railroads had provided and some of the basis of the plans were starting to be no longer valid.
Interesting question, would losing the war quickly and not having millions killed been better for France in the long run?
Mod
I am not sure how to answer that moral question. Of course, life would have been better for so many who died. But would losing the war quickly (France) have had the world in a pickle. I am not sure if I can answer that question.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Watershed of Two Eras: Europe in 1900 (other topics)The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (other topics)
The Vertigo Years: Europe 1900-1914 (other topics)
The Great Illusion (other topics)
The Great Illusion (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jan Romein (other topics)Jan Romein (other topics)
Barbara W. Tuchman (other topics)
Philipp Blom (other topics)
Norman Angell (other topics)
More...
"Germany though it lost the largest number of counted dead --those of Russia and Turkey remain unaccounted with any exactitude--was not the worst proportionate sufferer. That country was Serbia, of whose pre-war population of five million, 125,000 were killed or died as soldiers but another 650,000 civilians succumbed to privation or disease, making a total of 15 per cent of the population lost, compared with something between two and three per cent of the British, French and German populations."
I guess there are more than a few things that have surprised me and the above was one of them. For whatever reason, I always thought that the French were the hardest hit. I did not realize that Germany had more dead than any other country nor did I realize that Serbia had had the highest proportionate dead and diseased number either.
Another point that I was also surprised at was a myth that after this war, there was a Lost Generation. According to Keegan that also is not true. Only 20% of those who went to war did not return while the aggregate was lower...closer to 10% or less.
I don't think I agree with Keegan's statement:
"For the majority, the war was but a passage in their lives, an interruption of normality to which society rapidly returned as soon as the guns fell silent."
After visiting some of these battlefields and seeing everything first hand, I find it hard to believe that these folks who returned and the ones who were left behind went on with their lives as if nothing had happened. At least from reading the war poets and many who wrote after the Great War had ended, it appeared that that the scars from this war were quite deep.
Am I mistaken in my sentiments or do most of you feel that Keegan is correct in his judgement about the impact of the war?
Source: Page 7