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
date
newest »
newest »
Hi Robert, This is an interesting discussion, although not directly linked with chapter 1 and 2. Why Germany? Yet I think that the answer (probably) is: Hitler’s obsession with the Jews. After he gained power, his anti-semitic ideas were gradually accepted by more and more Germans, although many disliked them. After all, Germany became a totalitarian state in 1933. In the beginning the measures against the Jews seemed relatively harmless but became more and more radical. The decision to exterminate the Jews was made during the infamous Wannsee-conference in january 1942, when, by the way, the defeat of Germany was not clear at all.
Responsible for the organisation of the ‘Endlösung’ was a small group of topnazis, ordered by Hitler himself. You are right: anti-semitism in Germany was not stronger than in other (European) countries but Germany had Hitler....
Robert wrote: "Bentley,
To my question about anti-semitism in Germany, my short answer is that I think you're basically right to assign blame to Hitler and a small group of Nazi fanatics. First, some new hi..."
Mod
Mod
To my question about anti-semitism in Germany, my short answer is that I think you're basically right to assign blame to Hitler and a small group of Nazi fanatics. First, some new hi..."
Robert, you raise some interesting points although like Jan indicated they may not be along the lines of Chapter 1 and 2..but interesting nonetheless.
I do think and of course I am trying to remember the history of World War II for this recollection; but the horrors of the concentration camps were going on for quite some time and I don't think that it occurred because defeat was certain or even on the horizon. Maybe it became even more horrendous than it was before; but I can hardly even imagine how things could have been any worse for the Jews. I have to agree with Jan that the reason Germany took their anti-semitism to a new level was because they had Hitler.
Mod
What did you folks think of that section?
I've never understood why Germany continued to get involved in 2-front wars (i.e. France and Russia) throughout it's history. Every time they tried this it backfired on them. By the time WW2 rolled around you would think they would have abandoned that plan.Geographically, Germany is at a bit of a disadvantage. It doesn't have the protection of the sea as in France or of vast space as in Russia. Due to the mutual treaties of assistance between France and Russia an attack on one would effectively be a declaration of war on the other. Germany would end up getting squeezed in the middle.
I found it interesting to learn a bit about Schlieffen in this chapter. I had not known much about him previously but it seems as though he was a brilliant, if abstract strategist. He had so much confidence in his plans and the strength of his arms that he didn't seem to allow for the possibility that the French would be able to mount a defense.
Mod
Yes, Schlieffen was a brilliant strategist; but underestimated the French obviously; and from what I gather in life was rather a distant man.
Germany did seem to have a geographical disadvantage. You make some valid points.
I believe Germany entered a two front war to take the initiative away from France and Britain. In both cases, the final goal was to gain lands to the East, with a quick blow to France to take them out of the war and then deal with Russia by herself. In both attempts, they came very close to success. I didn't know anything about Schlieffen either but Keegan's description does not give me a good impression of him. He seemed to me to be obsessed with his plan and didn't want to let reality get in the way. I don't see how that makes him and effective strategist either in theory or in practice.
Mod
We do not all have to agree with Keegan on every point and I am glad to see differences of opinion; but Keegan it is true did not present an appealing portrait of the man for sure.
Hi Erick, I think your views on Germany and the Schlieffen plan are correct. Due to Germany’s geographical position and the interwoven alliances that had developed between the European powers since the late 1800's and early 1900's Germany knew that if it entered a war against any one power (but most likely France or Russia) she would be caught in a vice. I think Schlieffen's plan was a very good one considering the circumstances and limitations imposed by geography and technology. It nearly worked, could it have worked if it was left as originally devised? – “No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy” – Helmuth Graf von Moltke.
Wow, you guys have really gotten a lot on this discussion so far! I finished the first two chapters a couple of days ago, but it has taken me a few more days to get through all the comments so far.I appreciate everyone's insights. I'll admit I'm someone who knew very little about WWI, so I've been looking forward to this read. I kept waiting for the war to start, but I guess the first couple chapters are prep work. And interesting at that. I'm pretty familiar with the comparison between WWI and WWII--that is most of what I know about WWI. But the detail, the fact that the leaders and soldiers were repeats, was enlightening.
To read about all the war plans was the most interesting to me. I've not really thought through the level of detail needed to make such a war plan. Not just how many men do you need to attack and take a particular location, but how fast could this army get from here to there, and will there be enough men left? Wow. And to get a general picture for the plans of the other major parties in the war. Amazing.
Perhaps some of you could help me with a short answer to something that has puzzled me for a long time. It's the kind of question that is hard to find a short answer. When did England and France become friends? It seems they were fighting each other for centuries, then suddenly in the 20th century they partner up. What changed?
Mod
Elizabeth S asked,when did they become friends?They fought as allies in the Crimean War against Russia but I think it was the rise of unified Germany that pushed them together. Germany was challenging England and France in Africa for colonies and the Germans had their navy program that was a concern to England.
Mod
We are glad to have you with us Elizabeth on this journey; there is so much to cover and discuss in a rather short time span.
I think your pretty close to the truth there Patricrk, Britain and France were allies during the Crimean War and then basically forced into each other's arms as a result of Germany's policies. However it doesn't mean that the British and French High Command's trusted each other explicitly and there were problems during the early stages of WW1.
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I think your pretty close to the truth there Patricrk, Britain and France were allies during the Crimean War and then basically forced into each other's arms as a result of Germany's policies. Howe..."since when did any ally ever really totally trust their partner?
Mod
http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/wils...
Mod
Sometimes you have no choice; but how many people in anybody's life have total trust! Everything is relative. Do you even trust your mother "totally" not to weasel her own way behind the scenes. (smile) Totally trusting everything about someone is really almost unimaginable.
There could never be total trust between Britain and France, they had been enemies too many times for too long. I am sure that I read somewhere that The British Commander, General Raglan, during the Crimean War kept on calling his French allies those 'damn frenchies' and had to be reminded that they were on the same side in that conflict.
Mod
But of course, there are bound to be other interpretations and even now I hear that in London (grin).
Mod
by author Louis P. Benezet:Beginning with the summer of 1914, Europe and parts of Asia and Africa were torn and racked with the most tremendous war that the world has ever seen. Millions of men were killed. Other millions were maimed, blinded, or disfigured for life.
Still other millions were herded into prison camps or forced to work like convict laborers. Millions of homes were filled with grief. Millions of women were forced to do hard work which before the war had been considered beyond their power.
Millions of children were left fatherless. What had been the richest and most productive farming land in Europe was made a barren waste. Thousands of villages and towns were utterly destroyed and their inhabitants were forced to flee, the aged, the sick, and the infants alike.
In many cases, as victorious armies swept through Poland and Serbia, the wretched inhabitants fled before them, literally starving, because all food had been seized for the use of fighting men.
Dreadful diseases, which cannot exist where people have the chance to bathe and keep themselves clean, once more appeared, sweeping away hundreds of thousands of victims. The strongest, healthiest, bravest men of a dozen different nations were shot down by the millions or left to drag out a miserable existence, sick or crippled for life.
Silent were the wheels in many factories which once turned out the comforts and luxuries of civilization. There were no men to make toys for the children, or to work for mankind's happiness. The only mills and factories which were running full time were those that turned out the tools of destruction and shot and shell for the guns.
Nations poured out one hundred fifty million dollars a day for the purpose of killing off the best men in Europe.
Had the world gone mad? What was the reason for it all?
Inhabitants Fleeing
Do you think that this account is realistic?
Patricrk wrote: "Elizabeth S asked,when did they become friends?They fought as allies in the Crimean War against Russia but I think it was the rise of unified Germany that pushed them together. Germany was cha..."
Very helpful, thanks! I didn't realize they were allies in the Crimean War. Makes sense.
Bentley wrote: "This is an excerpt from a book called by author Louis P. Benezet:It seems a bit over the top and melodramatic to me. But I certainly agree with the sentiment. I doubt the part about the comfort and luxury factories shutting down. Society seems to keep those industries working.
Bentley wrote: "This is an excerpt from a book called by author Louis P. Benezet:Beginning with the summer of 1914, Europe and parts of As..."
For those who lived it, I think they would describe it as realistic. I think the biggest reason WWI doesn't seem the worst thing ever is that we've since had WWII. As far as devastation and horror, WWI was terrible. And yet only the little brother of the devastation and horror or WWII. So I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Mod
Elizabeth S wrote: I once saw a description of life in the trenches of WWI that described it as going to work. There was about a 20 mile thick more or less stationary belt of war and devastation and outside of that belt on both sides, life was normal. So soldiers would go to work for one or two weeks in the war and then be rotated out and return to normal life. Until they had to go to work again!
Patricrk wrote: "I once saw a description of life in the trenches of WWI that described it as going to work. There was about a 20 mile thick more or less stationary belt of war and devastation..."Amazing, isn't it. Not that it was like that for many/most of them. But even for a few, really weird.
By the way, Patricrk, are you having trouble with controlling the italics? It is difficult at times to tell which parts of your posts are quotations from another poster and which parts are yours. Be sure to put your comments after the '' that appears at the end of the previous person's comments when you hit reply.
Patricrk wrote: "Elizabeth S asked,when did they become friends?They fought as allies in the Crimean War against Russia but I think it was the rise of unified Germany that pushed them together. Germany was cha..."
I have always had the impression that European alliances were generally weaker nations ganging up against the strongest. That is oversimplifying but it seems to be a common thread. Since France dominated the continent for several hundred years, I think we see a lot of conflict with the U.K. It makes sense to me that the addition of another power, a unified Germany, would push the two countries together.
An interesting discussion!About the relation between France and Britain.
Although they were allies in the Crimean War the relations between these two countries deteriorated at the end of the 19th century. The reason was imperialism: the scramble for Africa. The Britons wanted an colonial imperium from south to north, from Cape to Cairo. France expanded from the west- to the east coast. The culmination of these tension was the Fashoda-incident in 1898. A French and Britsh army met each other in Fashoda in the Sudan. After a lot of tension and a real threat of war between Britain and France, the French withdrew. The road to an Entente Cordiale was open. Why did France accede? After the Franco- German war the real enemy was Germany. The French wanted revenge for the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. For Britain Germany became also more and more a threat (naval and economic). France and Britain became allies against the same ennemy but whether they trusted each other…?
Bentley wrote: "This is an excerpt from a book called
by author Louis P. Benezet:Beginning with the summer of 1914, Europe and parts of As..."
Bentley wrote: "The Generals respected each other tremendously and there was great respect for each other at that level; the French generals believed that the British generals and commanders' word was gold and vic..."
Hi Jan, some very good points raised in your response. For those not aware of the Fashoda Incident that Jan is referring to:Fashoda-incident
And of course a good book for those interested in further reading:
by David Levering Lewis
Mod
Hi all,Keegan mentions the Great Illusion by Norman Angell. The Great IllusionNorman Angell in the first two chapters. Angell believed that the nations of Europe were growing too interconnected both economically and politically and that war would be as devastating for the victor as the defeated in a European war. While that may well have been true (it took Britain and France years to rebuild after WW2), it certainly didn't stop the war. To what extent do you think national or ethnic passions supersede all others?
Mod
Norman AngellGreat question JP..but we always add the book cover, and then the author's link which you did and the photo if available. For some tips just go to the Mechanics of the Board thread.
Getting back to your question..isn't this where all of the isms kick in? You might want to discuss these at this point.
A few booktitles before we move on to chapter 3. The history of the first 14 years of the twentieth century are fascinating. 
Philipp BlomI just bought Philipp Blom, 'the Vertigo Years, Change and Culture in the West, 1900-1914.'
The author writes the history of every year until 1914 from the perspective of the people who then lived and who did not know that the Great War was coming, let alone the decennia after 1918. ‘This was a giddy period of creativity,change,and great social upheaval.Many elements of modernity-………-had already been developed before the Great War.’ Sounds like a great book.
Barbara W. TuchmanAnd then of course there is Barbara W.Tuchman’, The Proud Tower, a portrait of the world before the war 1890-1914. Immensely readable like every book of Tuchman.
Jan Romein no cover.
Written in the same time as ‘the proud tower’ but less wel known is ‘The Watershed of Two Eras: Europe in 1900’ by Jan Romein. Romein was a Dutch historian who tried to write an ‘integral’ history (i.e. a survey of all important aspects) of Europe in 1900. This is a fascinating book, translated in English but can probably only be bought second-hand.
Great books, Jan. Thanks for the recommendations.Even if there is no cover, please still provide the link for the book, thus:
The Watershed of Two Eras: Europe in 1900 by Jan Romein
Mod
Jan wrote: "The discussion has started already before the 21th of february !. I quote JP:'I think the totality of the war and the impact it had on society is what made this war different from the one that fo..."
Regarding impact on society I want to agree with Jan not JP in that WW I's impact on society could not be compared to that of WW II in that there was not the disruption to civilian life that existed in WWII - the bombing of cities the nasty occupations -
It is true that technologies were arriving in great numbers but the machine gun was here - the magazine fed infantry rifle - that changed already greatly the war.
I think also this was the last European war fought with powers led still by monarchies.
Mod
Just a comment that Keegan has so far referred to costs and money in Sterling so, in case one wants to know, the exchange rate at the start of the war to the US dollar was one pound to $4.85. This is off google.Commenting on Bentley's 46 & 47 I would say that without WWI in 1914 would the building militaries have not led to another conflict by 1940 anyway?
How would the royal families in Germany & Russia kept or not kept power as the 20th century unfolded without this war?
I think that Hitler would have needed the economic and social distress in Germany to have come to power and without the war and his role in it he would have been less acceptable to take his eventual role. Another might have come to power similarly but that would call again for social unrest I think.
Mod
Hard to say..but I think the German monarchy might have continued without WWI which really was the death knell to its surviving. As far as Russia that is more unsure because of the economic situation and other forces which were an undercurrent at that time. I am not sure how the Czars would have survived.
Hitler, I believe, needed the fuel of anger and bitterness from WWI to thrive and become acceptable to the German people.
I think a major world war in the first half of the 20th century was inevitable. Both Germany and Japan had aspirations to increase their size by conquest. At some point they had to come into conflict with a major portion of the world.
Erick wrote: "I think a major world war in the first half of the 20th century was inevitable. Both Germany and Japan had aspirations to increase their size by conquest. At some point they had to come into conf..."I'd like to think you are wrong, that there was a way to have avoided it. But I think you have some strong arguments here. Reading these chapters, it is easy to see that things were really in place for something big to happen. And it is hard to believe that something big (i.e. The Great War) could have been avoided forever.
I've just started the book and hoping to catch up :)I love reading about WWI, and it's a been a long since I've studied the subject so I'm looking forward to it.
Mod
These threads will ultimately be in the First World War folder so you have plenty of time.
Bentley
Thanks, Bentley. I stopped reading to finish some other books that I had started, but I've been reading it again since yesterday. The book is quite dense, and I'm not used to so much emphasis on the military aspects of the battle, but I must say, that I am really enjoying it. I'm about 1/2 way through Chapter 4, and I have learned so much already.I'm looking forward to reading all the threads as well.
Mod
That is good that you are finishing up on it. It is very dense and compressed with quite a few details on military aspects as you correctly pointed out.
The threads will always be open and will ultimately be moved to the First World War folder so you have plenty of time to finish up.
Aussie Rick and/or I will always respond if you have questions or comments and feel free to continue commenting as you complete your reading.
Bentley
Hi Sera, happy to answer any questions you have whilst reading the book. I hope you enjoy the rest of the account by Keegan.
Mod
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...
To my question about anti-semitism in Germany, my short answer is that I think you're basically right to assign blame to Hitler and a small group of Nazi fanatics. First, some new historical analysis shows that in a review of Nazi party positions, pamphlets, electoral strategies prior to 1933, anti-semitism was a small part of their rise to power. In fact, all Nazis did not share these views nor did the general population. Second, while there is a very long history of anti-semitism in the world going back centuries, there is no evidence that it was more extenive in Germany than anywhere else. Third, the breakdown of the Weimar Republic, with enormous inflation, creates a political vacuum that allows radical groups to flourish. It's only after the Nazis take control that severe measures are imposed against Jews, and most of those emerge in the late 1930's. The horrors of the concentration camps come only after defeat in WWII becomes more certain and Hitler is more and more delusional. One final point is that in the Middle ages, Jews began to be systematically denied work in numerous professional occupations in Europe and were forced into accounting, rent-collecting and money-lending, tolerated as a "necessary evil." When you fast-forward to the hyper-inflation of the end of the Weimar Republic, the easiest group to blame becomes the Jewish population.
Having said all of the above, one is still left with the nagging question, "Why Germany?" Other nations experienced great hardship during the post-war period without resorting to extreme anti-semitic measures. This is what still plagues historians and the German people.