"They Shall Not Grow Old" - WW1 documentary by Peter Jackson

[DarkStar]

I do not want to overly-politicize a thread that is about a documentary and the history surrounding it. I look forward to what Mr. Jackson has put together in his film.

I think this article summarizes my thoughts, though:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...armistice-day-more-comfortable-war-than-peace

The way you describe Memorial Day and Veterans' Day makes them functionally the same. I think you need two different concepts here -- one to commemorate service and sacrifice, and one to celebrate peace and learn the about horrors of war.

You dismiss Armistice Day because it was not the "war to end all wars" and it ultimately failed. We all know the long list of horrible conflicts that continued throughout the rest of the Twentieth Century and continue to this very moment.

But that is taking November 11, 1918 literally. That was not its spirit and its hope, even if the next generation of leaders (and, indeed, every one before it and after it) failed miserably holding up those ideals. The very fact that we have hopes and dreams to end the senseless slaughter and destruction -- that the ultimate hope here is for peace, for the end of a need for the heroism we commemorate on Memorial Day -- is entirely the point. Like you said, if there is ever another big war, the risk that it goes nuclear is very real, and it ends terribly for all.

Any conflict between Great Powers now (e.g., with Russia over the Baltic States, or with China in the Strait of Taiwan) needs to be brief and theater level, otherwise the chances for escalation and cooler heads losing control goes up way too fast.

Russia diving on Estonia or China attempting to invade Taiwan, and threatening tactical nuclear strikes to dissuade us from intervening with conventional forces, which then naturally means we have to threaten equally or greater back... not something I like to imagine. That kind of nuclear brinkmanship can get out of hand really fast. It almost did in 1962.

And in discussing Orwell, while I love 1984, remember that it was written in 1948 before modern thermonuclear weapons existed. The Soviets first got the bomb in 1949, and MAD was not the watchword of the day until the mid-1950s. His endless three-way war of attrition makes sense looking back at the World War, but there is no way in such a situation that Oceania, East Asia, or Eurasia would not use H-bombs, if they had them.

Hiroshima was terrible, but much of the city remained. The whole prefecture would be destroyed given what modern nuclear weapons can do.

No modern, industrialized nation survives that.

I also look forward to watching this documentary. We need a good reminder of what actually happened and why it happened.

For most rational people, the thought of total war is unthinkable. Yet our military still plans for and trains and equips itself to wage one.

If you look at Western History, about every hundred years, Western Civilization has waged a "Total War" "World War". We are about a hundred years out from the last one. There are many signs we are forgetting the horrors of that war and doing the same things that led us to that war.

I think we agree on many things and many of the views expressed in the articles you referenced.

I too am upset in the way Veteran's Day is being bastardized. It is no longer a time for the country to stop and reflect on the costs of war. A moment to pause and ask our selves if what we are doing is worth the cost and the damage is has done to the living. Same with Memorial Day. Why were these lives cut short? Was it worth it? Changing its name to reference one specific generation and one specific war will not change that. These sacrifices encompass all generations and the way the days are named reflects that.

Instead we have politicians running around using vets as political props abusing the service and sacrifices of our living and dead service members claiming that if you question what they are doing to promote an endless war you are somehow dishonoring their sacrifice. Total BS. And one of the prime tactics used by dictators to get a democracy to vote to give up its freedoms.

But, to me, an Armistice Day would be even more hypocritical. Just exactly what peace would we be celebrating?

The US has been prepared for and on a hair trigger to launch a total war for the last 70 years. We are in the middle of an active 17 year war that involves US military forces and contractors conducting active military operations in over two thirds of the world. The lead up and causes of that war started with the First Gulf War at about roughly the same time as the cold war with the Soviet Union ended when Berlin Wall came down.

We have become so numb to that war that we no longer require Congress to take another vote to reauthorize the open ended war authorization vote they took in the aftermath of 9/11.

We no longer require the Pentagon to report to the American people costs and what they are doing to wage that war.

We no longer require the President to tell the American people what is the plan to end that war. Worse yet, we have a President that told the generals to do what they want to wage the war. He has washed his hands of all responsibility for how that war is being conducted. All we do is keep authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for it and we keep sending more forces in to fight it without question.

This is not a R vs. D argument because both parties sat in the White House and controlled Congress over that time span of this active war. Neither party did anything to reverse the path we are on. This is a WTF are we doing argument.

Memorial Day is to remember the dead and the lives that were cut short by war. Veteran's Day is to remember the havoc war causes in the lives of the living that survived the war. They are two very functionally different things that need to be approached in different ways. But they are both a time when we ask the country to remember the costs of war and ask ourselves if what we are doing is really worth that cost. They should not be used to glamorize war and engage in hero worship. An Armistice Day would be meaningless because this country has not known a time of peace since the beginning of WWII

 

[RotatingColumn]

Two things:

1. Definitely go visit the WWI memorial in KC
2. Listen to Dan Carlin's podcast series "Blueprint for Armedggon"...amazing detailed account of WWI and what life was like from all angles.


To wonder what what have happened the last 100 years if Gavrilo Princip didn't pull that trigger....

Yes, the Dan Carlin podcasts are incredible!

 

[madguy30]

I also look forward to watching this documentary. We need a good reminder of what actually happened and why it happened.

For most rational people, the thought of total war is unthinkable. Yet our military still plans for and trains to wage one.

If you look at Western History, about every hundred years, Western Civilization has waged a "Total War" "World War". We are about a hundred years out from the last one. There are many signs we are forgetting the horrors of that war and doing the same things that led us to that war.

I think we agree on many things and many of the views expressed in the articles you referenced.

I too am upset in the way Veteran's Day is being bastardized. It is no longer a time for the country to stop and reflect on the costs of war. A moment to pause and ask our selves if what we are doing is worth the cost and the damage is has done to the living. Same with Memorial Day. Why were these lives cut short? Was it worth it?

Instead we have politicians running around using vets as political props abusing the service and sacrifices of our living and dead service members claiming that if you question what they are doing to promote an endless war you are somehow dishonoring their sacrifice. Total BS. And one of the prime tactics used by dictators to get a democracy to vote to give up its freedoms.

But, to me, an Armistice Day would be even more hypocritical. Just exactly what peace would we be celebrating?

The US has been on a near total war footing preparedness for the last 70 years. We are in the middle of an active 17 year war that involves US military forces and contractors conducting active military operations in over two thirds of the world. The lead up and causes of that war started with the First Gulf War at about roughly the same time as the cold war with the Soviet Union ended when Berlin Wall came down.

We have become so numb to that war that we no longer require Congress to take another vote to reauthorize the open ended war authorization vote they took in the aftermath of 9/11.

We no longer require the Pentagon to report to the American people costs and what they are doing to wage that war.

We no longer require the President to tell the American people what is the plan to end that war. Worse yet, we have a President that told the generals to do what they want to wage the war. He has washed his hands of all responsibility for how that war is being conducted.

This is not a R vs. D argument because both parties sat in the White House and controlled Congress over that time span of this active war. Neither party did anything to reverse the path we are on. This is a WTF are we doing argument.

Memorial Day is to remember the dead and the lives that were cut short by war. Veteran's Day is to remember the havoc war causes in the lives of the living that survived the war. They are two very functionally different things that need to be approached in different ways. But they are both a time when we ask the country to remember the costs of war and ask ourselves if what we are doing is really worth that cost. They should not be used to glamorize war and engage in hero worship.

What are your thoughts on Junger's implication in something like 'Tribe' that all of the stuff we do like fly overs, commercials, making sure we say 'thank you for your service', etc. can actually have an averse effect in creating a further separation between veterans and every day society/communities, when many would prefer to simply feel like they're a part of society, which leads many to feel the need to go back to combat as it was a much more welcoming environment?

I found it interesting, and it really made me think about an interaction with a veteran...is it best to carry on a normal conversation, or ask how things are going being back, as opposed to saying 'thank you for your service' blindly without even knowing what they even did?

 

[DarkStar]

What are your thoughts on Junger's implication in something like 'Tribe' that all of the stuff we do like fly overs, commercials, making sure we say 'thank you for your service', etc. can actually have an averse effect in creating a further separation between veterans and every day society/communities, when many would prefer to simply feel like they're a part of society, which leads many to feel the need to go back to combat as it was a much more welcoming environment?

I found it interesting, and it really made me think about an interaction with a veteran...is it best to carry on a normal conversation, or ask how things are going being back, as opposed to saying 'thank you for your service' blindly without even knowing what they even did?

I am not sure what you are asking me. You covered a lot of ground and are addressing some very complicated issues that do not have simple answers. Can you rephrase with what you really are interested in? Is it Junger's work? Is it about the gulf between life experiences of combat veterans and our society in general? Is it about the social bonds and norms of vets that have developed during their service and the situations they survived? Is it about how some people are using and manipulating the situation for their personal gain? Or are you simply trying to understand what we have been through and want to help but do not know how?

 

[SCyclone]

What I struggle with regarding today's wars is the loss of ennoblement......when America's young men and women served in WWI and WWII, there was a sense of nobility - of the greater good, and a cause worthy of dying for. Enemies were clear and well understood, and there were rules....of a sort.

Today there is, at least to me, no national sense of admiration and support for those wars we choose to engage in. We are more or less acting as the world's traffic cop, for lack of a better example. Our daughter Shelby served in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the Marine Corps, became 100% disabled, and never wants to talk about it. (Of course we honor her wishes.) But I get the sense she feels her service, while both honorable and admirable, was all for naught.

 

[BoxsterCy]

We need an "interesting" emoji.

 

[BoxsterCy]

A lot times when people get talking WWI I think back to when I was maybe 10 or so, very early 1960's anyway. The neighborhood kids kinda had the run of the neighborhood and that included spilling over into various yards playing "war" with our toy guns. One of the neighbors, Mr. Goote, had a shop and home business making tombstones and had a number of examples on display outside. Our "battle" spilled over into his display area and next think you know he was calling us over. We thought we were going to get a "property" lecture. What we got was an impromptu lecture on war and how you shouldn't ever point a gun at anyone, not even a toy one. Not a stern lecture or anything, more like a teacher or grandfather talking about something serious to them. He was a WWI vet. My dad was a WWII vet and had never talked about it like that. Still remember that.

 

[runbikeswim]

think about this statistic, between WWI and WWII, almost 1 in 5 Russians were killed or died due to the war. Think about how affected a society must be with that happening.

War makes money and drives the economy, always has, always will. Humans have been fighting each other from day 1, and will never stop. It is real depressing when you stop and think about the complete lack of respect for human life many of these so called leaders had in WWI.

 

[MidwestZest]

Two things:

1. Definitely go visit the WWI memorial in KC
2. Listen to Dan Carlin's podcast series "Blueprint for Armedggon"...amazing detailed account of WWI and what life was like from all angles.


To wonder what what have happened the last 100 years if Gavrilo Princip didn't pull that trigger....

I slogged through all like, 30 hours of Carlin' podcast series or whatever it is on long road trips throughout this summer and fall. I was knowledgeable about WW1 before - basic stuff. But I never really 'got it' until listening to that. Heavy and disturbing in so many ways - sometimes had to stop listening for the day because the reality of what some of it was like would start to get to me. Really recommend as well.

 

[Cyclonepride]

What I struggle with regarding today's wars is the loss of ennoblement......when America's young men and women served in WWI and WWII, there was a sense of nobility - of the greater good, and a cause worthy of dying for. Enemies were clear and well understood, and there were rules....of a sort.

Today there is, at least to me, no national sense of admiration and support for those wars we choose to engage in. We are more or less acting as the world's traffic cop, for lack of a better example. Our daughter Shelby served in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the Marine Corps, became 100% disabled, and never wants to talk about it. (Of course we honor her wishes.) But I get the sense she feels her service, while both honorable and admirable, was all for naught.

To an extent (and not in every case), widespread knowledge of what is actually happening (and alternative explanations (to government propaganda) as to why) makes us a much more informed and much less naive. WWII is the one major war (that we've been involved in) where there was a clear and legitimate threat to our own national security.

As to your latter remark, I think there is national admiration and support for our soldiers, but not national admiration for what our government is choosing to do with them. I believe that muddies the waters and creates the impression that you allude to.

 

[Sigmapolis]

What I struggle with regarding today's wars is the loss of ennoblement......when America's young men and women served in WWI and WWII, there was a sense of nobility - of the greater good, and a cause worthy of dying for. Enemies were clear and well understood, and there were rules....of a sort.

Today there is, at least to me, no national sense of admiration and support for those wars we choose to engage in. We are more or less acting as the world's traffic cop, for lack of a better example. Our daughter Shelby served in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the Marine Corps, became 100% disabled, and never wants to talk about it. (Of course we honor her wishes.) But I get the sense she feels her service, while both honorable and admirable, was all for naught.

My grandfather was a Marine in Korea. He won a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. I always knew he served, but I only learned of his decorations in his obituary.

According to the same source, he crawled out from under cover while under fire to pull three wounded comrades back to safety. Got hit in the back of his leg for his trouble by a shell fragment, though he recovered with no long-term effects.

He never spoke a word about a moment of his service to anybody. It was like he just disappeared in the fall of 1950 and reappeared two years later.

He would talk to me all day about the World War, which happened when he was early in his teens and he remembered well. He would talk the history, the politics, the great battles, the godlike admirals and generals, absolutely everything about it.

But not a damn word about Korea was ever uttered.

I slogged through all like, 30 hours of Carlin' podcast series or whatever it is on long road trips throughout this summer and fall. I was knowledgeable about WW1 before - basic stuff. But I never really 'got it' until listening to that. Heavy and disturbing in so many ways - sometimes had to stop listening for the day because the reality of what some of it was like would start to get to me. Really recommend as well.

I adored that podcast. If I had one criticism of it, and even he addresses it a few times, is that it degenerates into recitations over and over again of the privations and violence that the men suffered during the conflict, especially on the Western Front.

Not a fun choice to make, but it sounds like you were almost better off on the Eastern Front in the second go-around than the Western Front in the first one.

After awhile, though, they all start running together. It is all uniform hell. You become kind of numb to it. I suppose that is part of the effect, though, that the men themselves had to have in order to psychologically survive. Your friend dismembered by artillery? Oh well, better him than me, just another Tuesday at the Battle of Verdun, really.

That reminds me of another point -- we tend to imagine these wars and their individual battles as contests of small-arms between infantrymen, sort of like the end of Saving Private Ryan, or as exciting fights in the air or taunt naval battles.

The reality was much more terrifying. Most conflicts, north of 75%, in the world wars came from artillery fire. Random, indiscriminate, loud, oftentimes causing mutilation and a slow death rather than a quick end. Mundane services, like logistics or the Merchant Marine, also had heinously high casualty rates despite the utter banality of their tasks day-to-day.

 

[runbikeswim]

A lot times when people get talking WWI I think back to when I was maybe 10 or so, very early 1960's anyway. The neighborhood kids kinda had the run of the neighborhood and that included spilling over into various yards playing "war" with our toy guns. One of the neighbors, Mr. Goote, had a shop and home business making tombstones and had a number of examples on display outside. Our "battle" spilled over into his display area and next think you know he was calling us over. We thought we were going to get a "property" lecture. What we got was an impromptu lecture on war and how you shouldn't ever point a gun at anyone, not even a toy one. Not a stern lecture or anything, more like a teacher or grandfather talking about something serious to them. He was a WWI vet. My dad was a WWII vet and had never talked about it like that. Still remember that.

What is really sad is we are losing the last of the WWII veterans. They had a sense for the scale of what WAR can be. Both my grandfathers were WWII vets. My father in law is a Vietnam vet. Neither would ever ever talk about what they saw, neither will my father in law. My mom said her dad never had a gun before he was drafted, but that when he came back, he slept with a loaded pistol under his pillow until the day he died - he shot himself with it. I will never forget waking him up when we were at the lake and he sat up in bed with his gun in his hand pointed at me when I was like 20. My other grandfather was an avid outdoorsman/fisherman, etc. and when he came back, he got rid of his guns and never hunted again, just fished. He'd go walking with my dad hunting, but he would say he never wanted to shoot a gun again. My FIL will only talk about keeping his feet dry and his head down, and he shot so he wasn't killed and that's it.

 

[herbicide]

There are far more "what ifs" with a conflict like the Great War that was not decided until its final summer compared to the World War, which was basically over after the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942. I find the second conflict just becomes the playing out of a brutal, violent script, but not one with the outcome ever in doubt for the next three years.

I hate to use an analogy like this, but a game where you know who is going to win in the second quarter is not as interesting as one that comes down to the last drive.

Close games are more interesting than beat-downs, even a beat-down on the scale of the Red Army grinding Germany into dust and Japan under a pair of mushroom clouds.

Atom bomb aside, WWII wasn't decided until the allies held the Norman beaches. Hitler (or his staff) knew they could trade space for time on the Eastern front and pursue a peace treaty with Stalin, but all hinged on stopping/preventing a western front. There are preserved documents supporting this line of thinking from both German and USSR camps. "IF" Overlord failed, which if a few things went the German's ways could have, the war might have ended in a much different fashion. Not with an Axis victory, but with the map lines drawn quite differently than they were in 1945, or the war being extended either in years or more likely with atom bombs used on Germany.

If you extend your logic (basically attrition) used in WWII to WWI, Germany was basically destined to lose from the start. Even before the US entered WWI Germany could not recover their losses of men and material, where the Entente could make good on their losses.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Atom bomb aside, WWII wasn't decided until the allies held the Norman beaches. Hitler (or his staff) knew they could trade space for time on the Eastern front and pursue a peace treaty with Stalin, but all hinged on stopping/preventing a western front. There are preserved documents supporting this line of thinking from both German and USSR camps. "IF" Overlord failed, which if a few things went the German's ways could have, the war might have ended in a much different fashion. Not with an Axis victory, but with the map lines drawn quite differently than they were in 1945, or the war being extended either in years or more likely with atom bombs used on Germany.

If you extend your logic (basically attrition) used in WWII to WWI, Germany was basically destined to lose from the start. Even before the US entered WWI Germany could not recover their losses of men and material, where the Entente could make good on their losses.

Germany was much closer to winning in WWI than it ever was in WWII.

To go through a few chances they had...

In late 1914, if they managed a little more luck and skill to surround Paris.
The French Army was nearly broken by spring 1917 -- a little more bad luck on the part of the French, though it is hard to imagine more, and it might have quit entirely.
In late 1917, the British were nearly starved out of the war by U-Boats.
In 1918, if the Spring Offensive also manage just a little more luck and skill.

They were very close to winning the war several times. I cannot say the same for the 1940s.

I have definitely considered your failed Overlord scenario. However, if Overlord fails, and the Americans and British are thrown back on the beaches...

-- Operation Dragoon still proceeds in the south of France
-- the Allies are still coming up the Italian peninsula
-- the Soviets would have, with time, ground the Germans down, even without a second front in France... Stalin had essentially an infinite pool of materials and manpower, and Hitler did not, and Stalin was more than willing to use all of it
-- might have taken a few more years, but it would have happened
-- Stalin is eventually the one to liberate Paris

The only way out of that fate is for Stalin to agree to a truce with the Nazis, which (1.) I doubt he would, he wanted Hitler in a cage on his desk and (2.) even if they do come to some sort of armistice, I doubt it lasts. Soviet war production was rising and German production was falling. Stalin would have picked them off soon enough.

 

[wxman1]

On a somewhat different note but still historical how many people know/realize although not significant an interesting piece of history that one of the last two soldiers killed in Vietnam was from Marshalltown.

 

[herbicide]

Germany was much closer to winning in WWI than it ever was in WWII.

To go through a few chances they had...

In late 1914, if they managed a little more luck and skill to surround Paris.
The French Army was nearly broken by spring 1917 -- a little more bad luck on the part of the French, though it is hard to imagine more, and it might have quit entirely.
In late 1917, the British were nearly starved out of the war by U-Boats.
In 1918, if the Spring Offensive also manage just a little more luck and skill.

They were very close to winning the war several times. I cannot say the same for the 1940s.

I have definitely considered your failed Overlord scenario. However, if Overlord fails, and the Americans and British are thrown back on the beaches...

-- Operation Dragoon still proceeds in the south of France
-- the Allies are still coming up the Italian peninsula
-- the Soviets would have, with time, ground the Germans down, even without a second front in France... Stalin had essentially an infinite pool of materials and manpower, and Hitler did not, and Stalin was more than willing to use all of it
-- might have taken a few more years, but it would have happened
-- Stalin is eventually the one to liberate Paris

The only way out of that fate is for Stalin to agree to a truce with the Nazis, which (1.) I doubt he would, he wanted Hitler in a cage on his desk and (2.) even if they do come to some sort of armistice, I doubt it lasts. Soviet war production was rising and German production was falling. Stalin would have picked them off soon enough.

In late 1914, if they managed a little more luck and skill to surround Paris.

-Most analysis says the Von Schlieffen plan would require perfect execution if not beyond for it to work. It didn't for multiple reasons, the simplest being the troops on the right wing were worn out.

The French Army was nearly broken by spring 1917 -- a little more bad luck on the part of the French, though it is hard to imagine more, and it might have quit entirely.

-The same can be said about all the major armies (of course Austria's was pretty much already out of the fight). The German nation as a whole was nearly broken.

In late 1917, the British were nearly starved out of the war by U-Boats.

-Not really true, that is a misnomer, they couldn't sink allied shipping fast enough. The English were only seeing a fraction of the hardships of the Germans. The German people had much worse rationing, malnutrition was common. Many argue that the U-boat campaign did more harm to Germany since it directly led to US intervention.

In 1918, if the Spring Offensive also manage just a little more luck and skill.

-They simply ran out of man power and material. The allies at that time had overwhelming numerical superiority, and had learned to counter the stormtrooper tactics.

-- Operation Dragoon still proceeds in the south of France

-Maybe, maybe not. If Overlord fails, there would be severe logistical problems not limited to landing craft and manpower.

-- the Allies are still coming up the Italian peninsula

In the most costly allied campaign to minor German losses. Italy was basically a stalemate where Germany spent little resources.

-- the Soviets would have, with time, ground the Germans down, even without a second front in France... Stalin had essentially an infinite pool of materials and manpower, and Hitler did not, and Stalin was more than willing to use all of it

Except as mentioned before, there is documentation supporting Stalin and Hitler may have entertained a separate peace treaty.

-- might have taken a few more years, but it would have happened

See my point about attrition and WWI...

My overall point here is if you apply the same "luck" factors to WWII, its outcome is as in just as much doubt (if not more) than WWI... What if Hitler ignored the Yugoslavs (which delayed Barbarossa 6 weeks or more, forcing a winter campaign and falling short of Moscow?) What if the BEF was destroyed at Dunkirk? What if Rommel had control of the armor in Normandy?

I recently just finished a great read on WWI, its called "A World Undone: The story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer. That book changed how I looked at WWI, it also sheds more light on the beginning of the war. My above notes are all taken from that book. That war began truly because in terms of preventing it, everything that could go wrong, did.

 

[madguy30]

I am not sure what you are asking me. You covered a lot of ground and are addressing some very complicated issues that do not have simple answers. Can you rephrase with what you really are interested in? Is it Junger's work? Is it about the gulf between life experiences of combat veterans and our society in general? Is it about the social bonds and norms of vets that have developed during their service and the situations they survived? Is it about how some people are using and manipulating the situation for their personal gain? Or are you simply trying to understand what we have been through and want to help but do not know how?

I'll try it again....in Junger's book Tribe, he paints a picture of just what it means to be in combat, and how the real sense of communal living is alive there, and it's something that those in service go back for, which doesn't make sense to the person who didn't go and only sees what's on tv/internet/etc.

It is also implied that all of the stuff that we do for public addresses, fly overs at football games, commercials, etc. tend to actually create a sort of division or distance between veterans and those that are not, even though the intention is to honor them, because it's still not really an invitation or acceptance, which most people generally want one way or another in their life. Same goes for the common 'Thank you for your service' to a veteran, still keeping those two different people, with two different experiences, in two different realms.

I'm wondering if someone who has served (and this is obviously dependent on experience, person, etc.) would rather simply be accepted and treated like just another person or if there's always value in a stranger blindly thanking them for their service. It's a very complicated topic but got me thinking, and it's a fascinating microcosm for a lot of other issues in our society.

 

[Sigmapolis]

-Most analysis says the Von Schlieffen plan would require perfect execution if not beyond for it to work. It didn't for multiple reasons, the simplest being the troops on the right wing were worn out.

I am not talking about executing the Platonic ideal of the Von Schlieffen plan. I am talking about the reality of the situation on the ground in 1914 and 1918.

The Germans were 18 miles from Paris in 1914 and 40 miles in 1918.

It is not that hard to imagine that, if the French and British do not handle the First Battle of the Marne with quite the same level of adroitness, if Von Kluck and Von Bülow do not lose touch with each other and open up a line between the First Army and the Second Army, that the Germans could have found their way around Paris.

Von Moltke also sent thousands of men from the right to the left to reinforce a pointless offensive in Alsace-Lorraine for no real benefits, and he transferred two infantry corps and a cavalry division from the western reserves to the east, troops that were in transit during the decisive battles in the west and the Battle of Tannenberg in the east.

It was close in 1914. I know I am talking with hindsight, especially about what would happen in the east, but Von Moltke was not quite aggressive enough.

In 1918, you are right the deciding factor was American material and manpower. There is no real way for the Central Powers to overcome that. I think I could come up with a political situation that either forestalls or delays American involvement, however, and if the Germans had only a few more months without the extensive presence of American troops on the Western Front, they had their shot to finish off the French before American troops arrive in force.

If Paris is surrounded or taken, the war is over. I have never heard that debated.

The Germans were 18 to 20 miles from Moscow in 1942.

Is this somehow more of a chance than what they had in 1914 or 1918? I have no doubt that Stalin would have and continued the fight even without his capital.

If exhaustion and logistical problems doomed the Von Schlieffen plan, then I do not know how you cannot say the same about the Germans in late 1942 at the gates of Moscow. They faced the same problems, only worse, with the prospect of heinous street fighting to push into Moscow itself on the level of Leningrad and Stalingrad, with the Russian winter coming and the Soviets organizing a nasty counterattack once the weather turned.

The Germans were utterly unready for the Russian winter.

They were close, but did not have the means to take the city. Napoleon took it, and not a lot of good it did him. Stalin was going to wait them out.

-The same can be said about all the major armies (of course Austria's was pretty much already out of the fight). The German nation as a whole was nearly broken.

Germany went on the offensive in the east and in Italy in 1917. Germany went on the offensive, and made progress, in spring of 2018.

Yes, Germany was in dire straits and literally starting to starve to death, but the French were much closer to being done as an army by 1917.

I have never heard of a comparable event to this one in the German army...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_French_Army_mutinies

-Not really true, that is a misnomer, they couldn't sink allied shipping fast enough. The English were only seeing a fraction of the hardships of the Germans. The German people had much worse rationing, malnutrition was common. Many argue that the U-boat campaign did more harm to Germany since it directly led to US intervention.

The British were not about to run out of consumer goods; they were running low on food. Britain has the possibility of political complications regarding the progress of the war, as well, much sooner than Germany, which almost starved to death by 1918.

The U-Boat campaign worked really well in the first part of 1917. Britain was down to six weeks' of grain supply. Beatty himself said the war was coming down to a contest of which side could starve the other out first. So what if a few things happen?

-- Germany invests more heavily in submarines rather than a fleet of capital ships, which never did them much of anything good in this war
-- the British are a little slower about organizing an effective convoy system (even if they were shockingly slow about it in the first place)
-- the timing of the Zimmerman telegraph is a little slower, giving the U-Boat campaign more time to work (and fewer American troops in 1918)

What if, say, Wilson (or a different president) views ships traveling in British waters as going at their own risk in a war zone, rather than innocent victims?

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-u-boat-campaign-that-almost-broke-britain

-They simply ran out of man power and material. The allies at that time had overwhelming numerical superiority, and had learned to counter the stormtrooper tactics.

You are right you need to eliminate, or at least significantly delay, American intervention to overcome this problem. I just do not see that as impossible.

-Maybe, maybe not. If Overlord fails, there would be severe logistical problems not limited to landing craft and manpower.
In the most costly allied campaign to minor German losses. Italy was basically a stalemate where Germany spent little resources.

If thrown back at the beaches for Overlord, then Dragoon becomes even stronger from recycled assets. Air, naval, follow-up units (which are now waiting in Britain and ready to go, not being transferred across the Channel), and supplies earmarked for Normandy can go to the Mediterranean and head up the Rhone River valley towards Paris.

That invasion and campaign does not get the same press as Overlord, probably because it heavily involved Free French and Dutch, rather than U.S., troops.

Those landings went very well, historically, and the south of France had better ports than what was available to the Allies on the Normandy coast.

Overlord was extremely important, but it was not deterministic of the war's outcome.

Except as mentioned before, there is documentation supporting Stalin and Hitler may have entertained a separate peace treaty.

I do believe the Germans and Soviets sniffed around each other for a way out earlier into the war. I just do not think Stalin would have done that in late 1944, after the Red Army had broken the back of the Germans the year before and was about to start beating their corpse.

Stalin had finally put his boot on the Germans' throat.

He was not going to let it up now.

My overall point here is if you apply the same "luck" factors to WWII, its outcome is as in just as much doubt (if not more) than WWI... What if Hitler ignored the Yugoslavs (which delayed Barbarossa 6 weeks or more, forcing a winter campaign and falling short of Moscow?) What if the BEF was destroyed at Dunkirk? What if Rommel had control of the armor in Normandy?

I do not think the Germans were ever really that close to winning on the Eastern Front.

I have never seen a credible case the Germans could have invaded Britain in 1940 or 1941. They simply lacked the naval and supply capabilities. We both know how difficult and meticulously planned was the Overlord invasion, and the Germans never even tried to come up with something 10% as complicated as that, even if the BEF died on the Dunkirk beaches.

I think your last point hits on what I think was the best German chance to win WWII -- reorienting their entire strategy into dismantling the British Empire.

-- force Spain into the war, invade them if you need to, and close Gibraltar
-- blow your paratroopers on Malta, not Crete
-- properly support Rommel in Africa to the point he can push into Egypt
-- cut the Suez Canal, move into the Middle East
-- force Turkey into the Axis
-- disrupt British petroleum sources near the Persian Gulf
-- delay the invasion of the Soviet Union by 1-2 years in order to surround it
-- be able to threaten the Soviet Union from multiple strategic fronts, including a short route to their oil supplies in the Caucasus region
-- maybe actually coordinate with Japan on an attack on Vladivostok
-- maybe attract some other bit players (Brazil? Argentina?) into the Axis with your relative levels of success and patience in dismantling the Soviets

Forcing the British to defend the supply line from Britain and Ireland all the way around Africa to the Middle East, India, or Australia/New Zealand if there were U-Boat pens on the coast of South America sounds like a nightmare for an overextended empire.

One can dream, though.

 

[Cyclonepride]

-Most analysis says the Von Schlieffen plan would require perfect execution if not beyond for it to work. It didn't for multiple reasons, the simplest being the troops on the right wing were worn out.


-The same can be said about all the major armies (of course Austria's was pretty much already out of the fight). The German nation as a whole was nearly broken.


-Not really true, that is a misnomer, they couldn't sink allied shipping fast enough. The English were only seeing a fraction of the hardships of the Germans. The German people had much worse rationing, malnutrition was common. Many argue that the U-boat campaign did more harm to Germany since it directly led to US intervention.


-They simply ran out of man power and material. The allies at that time had overwhelming numerical superiority, and had learned to counter the stormtrooper tactics.


-Maybe, maybe not. If Overlord fails, there would be severe logistical problems not limited to landing craft and manpower.
In the most costly allied campaign to minor German losses. Italy was basically a stalemate where Germany spent little resources.
Except as mentioned before, there is documentation supporting Stalin and Hitler may have entertained a separate peace treaty.
See my point about attrition and WWI...

My overall point here is if you apply the same "luck" factors to WWII, its outcome is as in just as much doubt (if not more) than WWI... What if Hitler ignored the Yugoslavs (which delayed Barbarossa 6 weeks or more, forcing a winter campaign and falling short of Moscow?) What if the BEF was destroyed at Dunkirk? What if Rommel had control of the armor in Normandy?

I recently just finished a great read on WWI, its called "A World Undone: The story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer. That book changed how I looked at WWI, it also sheds more light on the beginning of the war. My above notes are all taken from that book. That war began truly because in terms of preventing it, everything that could go wrong, did.

That's a great book. Really approached the devastating carelessness with human life head on (along with being a really good overview of the war).

 

[herbicide]

I am not talking about executing the Platonic ideal of the Von Schlieffen plan. I am talking about the reality of the situation on the ground in 1914 and 1918.

The Germans were 18 miles from Paris in 1914 and 40 miles in 1918.

It is not that hard to imagine that, if the French and British do not handle the First Battle of the Marne with quite the same level of adroitness, if Von Kluck and Von Bülow do not lose touch with each other and open up a line between the First Army and the Second Army, that the Germans could have found their way around Paris.

Von Moltke also sent thousands of men from the right to the left to reinforce a pointless offensive in Alsace-Lorraine for no real benefits, and he transferred two infantry corps and a cavalry division from the western reserves to the east, troops that were in transit during the decisive battles in the west and the Battle of Tannenberg in the east.

It was close in 1914. I know I am talking with hindsight, especially about what would happen in the east, but Von Moltke was not quite aggressive enough.

In 1918, you are right the deciding factor was American material and manpower. There is no real way for the Central Powers to overcome that. I think I could come up with a political situation that either forestalls or delays American involvement, however, and if the Germans had only a few more months without the extensive presence of American troops on the Western Front, they had their shot to finish off the French before American troops arrive in force.

If Paris is surrounded or taken, the war is over. I have never heard that debated.

The Germans were 18 to 20 miles from Moscow in 1942.

Is this somehow more of a chance than what they had in 1914 or 1918? I have no doubt that Stalin would have and continued the fight even without his capital.

If exhaustion and logistical problems doomed the Von Schlieffen plan, then I do not know how you cannot say the same about the Germans in late 1942 at the gates of Moscow. They faced the same problems, only worse, with the prospect of heinous street fighting to push into Moscow itself on the level of Leningrad and Stalingrad, with the Russian winter coming and the Soviets organizing a nasty counterattack once the weather turned.

The Germans were utterly unready for the Russian winter.

They were close, but did not have the means to take the city. Napoleon took it, and not a lot of good it did him. Stalin was going to wait them out.



Germany went on the offensive in the east and in Italy in 1917. Germany went on the offensive, and made progress, in spring of 2018.

Yes, Germany was in dire straits and literally starting to starve to death, but the French were much closer to being done as an army by 1917.

I have never heard of a comparable event to this one in the German army...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_French_Army_mutinies



The British were not about to run out of consumer goods; they were running low on food. Britain has the possibility of political complications regarding the progress of the war, as well, much sooner than Germany, which almost starved to death by 1918.

The U-Boat campaign worked really well in the first part of 1917. Britain was down to six weeks' of grain supply. Beatty himself said the war was coming down to a contest of which side could starve the other out first. So what if a few things happen?

-- Germany invests more heavily in submarines rather than a fleet of capital ships, which never did them much of anything good in this war
-- the British are a little slower about organizing an effective convoy system (even if they were shockingly slow about it in the first place)
-- the timing of the Zimmerman telegraph is a little slower, giving the U-Boat campaign more time to work (and fewer American troops in 1918)

What if, say, Wilson (or a different president) views ships traveling in British waters as going at their own risk in a war zone, rather than innocent victims?

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-u-boat-campaign-that-almost-broke-britain



You are right you need to eliminate, or at least significantly delay, American intervention to overcome this problem. I just do not see that as impossible.



If thrown back at the beaches for Overlord, then Dragoon becomes even stronger from recycled assets. Air, naval, follow-up units (which are now waiting in Britain and ready to go, not being transferred across the Channel), and supplies earmarked for Normandy can go to the Mediterranean and head up the Rhone River valley towards Paris.

That invasion and campaign does not get the same press as Overlord, probably because it heavily involved Free French and Dutch, rather than U.S., troops.

Those landings went very well, historically, and the south of France had better ports than what was available to the Allies on the Normandy coast.

Overlord was extremely important, but it was not deterministic of the war's outcome.



I do believe the Germans and Soviets sniffed around each other for a way out earlier into the war. I just do not think Stalin would have done that in late 1944, after the Red Army had broken the back of the Germans the year before and was about to start beating their corpse.

Stalin had finally put his boot on the Germans' throat.

He was not going to let it up now.



I do not think the Germans were ever really that close to winning on the Eastern Front.

I have never seen a credible case the Germans could have invaded Britain in 1940 or 1941. They simply lacked the naval and supply capabilities. We both know how difficult and meticulously planned was the Overlord invasion, and the Germans never even tried to come up with something 10% as complicated as that, even if the BEF died on the Dunkirk beaches.

I think your last point hits on what I think was the best German chance to win WWII -- reorienting their entire strategy into dismantling the British Empire.

-- force Spain into the war, invade them if you need to, and close Gibraltar
-- blow your paratroopers on Malta, not Crete
-- properly support Rommel in Africa to the point he can push into Egypt
-- cut the Suez Canal, move into the Middle East
-- force Turkey into the Axis
-- disrupt British petroleum sources near the Persian Gulf
-- delay the invasion of the Soviet Union by 1-2 years in order to surround it
-- be able to threaten the Soviet Union from multiple strategic fronts, including a short route to their oil supplies in the Caucasus region
-- maybe actually coordinate with Japan on an attack on Vladivostok
-- maybe attract some other bit players (Brazil? Argentina?) into the Axis with your relative levels of success and patience in dismantling the Soviets

Forcing the British to defend the supply line from Britain and Ireland all the way around Africa to the Middle East, India, or Australia/New Zealand if there were U-Boat pens on the coast of South America sounds like a nightmare for an overextended empire.

One can dream, though.

You are still doing the "what if" game for WWI and completely disregarding the possibility for the same in WWII. That is my major point here. You can't play the "what-if game" for WWI then discard it for WWII.

Some major disagreements we have here, I'm not going over all of them but here are the major ones:

1. Germany was starving in 1917. England was not. End of story.
2. All the major armies were close to mutinies, yes the French did have some larger ones but were controlled.
3. The US entry into the war overwhelmingly tipped the scales to the Allies. However, Germany was already on fumes in terms of manpower and munitions. They could not replenish their forces/material as did England and France, without even considering US forces. They were virtually defeated at the time of the cease fire. Their 1918 offenses could not be sustained or continued due to this lack of resources.
4. Had the BEF been destroyed in Dunkirk, the opposition (Halifax) may have gained power in London and capitulated to the Germans.
5. The winter had set in when the Germans approached Moscow. As previously mentioned, had they started without the Yugoslav delay (minimum of 6 weeks) they most likely would of taken Moscow. Many historians call this Hitler's biggest blunder, or 2nd biggest behind Barbarossa.
6. Why #4 is important is because Moscow is the logistical and communications hub of the USSR. The USSR could of continued the fight but at a severe handicap. Moscow is/was not symbolic only as a capital. The loss of Moscow may have compelled Stalin to a peace treaty.
7. In late 1944, the western front was very well established. Stalin had what he wanted, of course he becomes confident of a victory.
8. U-Boats in both wars are not as an effective as a tool as most believe if you peel back the onion a bit. Many historians argue they did more damage to the Germans (Politically) than they did good in WWI (US involvement). For WWII, late war Allied (1944) technology had rendered them ineffective.

It can be said in 1941 and even 1942 that Hitler was closer to victory than Germany was in anytime in WW1.