Two major mistakes of the Allies during WW1

[Doug_GA]

I was taught in high school, the Great War was primarily caused by the Germans. Alone with it being all about Kaiser Wilhelm's attempt to compensate for his weak left arm. In college, at least I was told the US was not neutral and provided a lot of munitions and financing to the Allies. Banker JPMorgan arranged a lot of loans to Britain, with virtually nothing going to Germany. The 1916 effort by the Central Powers to end the war was not discussed.

If the war had ended in 1916, there would have been no Treaty of Versailles, no Communism and no Adolf Hitler. Perhaps this view is a bit simplistic. But, no worse than the weak left arm theory. The Kaiser and and his government, does seem incompetent and failed to see the risks of war. But, that can be said about France & Great Britain as well. I don't think the USA should have gotten involved, if the Western Powers didn't grab this, or any opportunity available to end the bloodshed.

This British doc, Race to Arms (youtube.com/watch?v=9i5gFENX0Lk), which seems to be objective & balanced. It suggests Kaiser Wilhelm didn't have complete control of his military and some of his cabinet level people, were less than real competent. However, the strategic military situation, was the driving force. Which does seem to be the case. Because of the Royal Navy, Germany was going to be blockaded and would likely lose her small but important overseas possessions.

So, Germany had to win the war on land and quickly. I'm sure the German generals wanted to play with their new toys (weapon systems) and test their new strategies. However, the two front strategic situation, which the Germans faced, was difficult and did require action. When Russia mobilized, I don't see what choice Germany had.

There are claims Germany had a plan to attack the US, in the late 19th century and other info suggesting Germany was just waiting for an excuse to attack other nations. But, many countries make a lot of different war plans that not realistic or taken seriously.

I also think the French had some retribution goals, after their 1871 loss and Great Britain saw an opportunity to enlarge their empire. But, if the US hadn't financed the war, it would have been much more difficult to wage and wouldn't have lasted as long. Anyway, my thinking is two of the major mistakes of the war were the US financing of the war and the western Power's failure to agree to end

the war in 1916. Do others see it that way?

 

[phillock]

Hi Doug

 

Right of the bat the modern day understanding is that the Germans did not cause the war as per WWII scenario.

 

Austria Hungary Empire was the epicenter of the beginnings of WWI.

 

The AH Empire ruled over what was then known as South Serbia (modern day Balkans) region,you would have to look up the politics for more info and understanding of the internal situation.

 

The assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo by a Bosnian Serb, was the start whereby alliances that supported either side Russia with Serbia (slav connection),Germany with AH, France with Russia and Britain with France. So with all the alliances it was just like dominoes AH supported by Germany v Russia(1917) , France , Britain , British Commonwealth.

 

So Germany didn't start the war , they supported AH, which they, the Germans Kaiser Wilhelm, weren't too happy with the Arch Duke Ferdinand and how he handled his empire.

 

Some historians look on the US involvement differently on one hand you officially have the Isolationist Act of Neutrality by Woodrow Wilson, the general consensus its not our war , its a European war and remember the US went thru Civil war, Indian and, Spanish American war within 50 years and did not see itself as the protector of the new world back then.

 

The other theory,which would explain what you have been taught, is that the US sat on the side lines making money off the war,by loans (Financing the War) to Britain France,selling munitions to the allies and in some case to the Germans(you will have to seek more info) as an example in 1916 ,one of the largest submarines sailed from Germany thru blockade and into NY to get supplies from German based companies as you NY /NJ Pennsylvania and other states had a high amount of Germans who still had very strong family connections, they were treated like heroes on arrival in NY. Please note these have come from either American or British Historians and documentaries.

 

Another major point is that in this time period c1900-1917,all vested nations that would be involved had major spy networks thru out the US,Canada, Mexico and South America.

 

Not to sure about what the Kaisers left Hand has to do with anything for the beginnings of WWI.

 

I think your Statement is too sweeping because its a complexity of understand the beginnings of what led to the war and once it kicked off , the prevailing attitudes of the time by Politicians, Military and Social leaders, would not of stopped,even though the public attitude of both sides was "well it will only be over by 1916."

 

Could they?? Probably and then you go into the "if's." But you only talk about "if's" always in hindsight trying to figure out , as they did since Nov.11 1918 and every other war since,before and now!

 

There is still a lot of classified information not released, not because of sensitivity but because no one has asked for specifics,it just remains waiting to be opened,and read, who knows maybe their are cables,documents between major powers wanting to stop the war.

 

Phill

 

 

 

[pchepurko]

I think Germany's major mistake was attacking west against France rather than attacking west against Russia. Germany had nothing to gain by defeating France, again. Russia was the bigger threat and much territory could be gained by defeating Russia.

[Garandomatic]

Their problems went back further... I think they screwed up the moment Kaiser Bill stopped listening to Bismarck.

 

Something to the effect of "In a world of 5 superpowers, make sure you're on the side with three" and "The secret to success in politics? Make a good treaty with Russia."

[Allan H.]

Germany and France had been enemies for years prior to WWI and had fought the Franco- Prussian War a war in 1870 and 1871 when Prussia was attempting to unify the kingdoms into a unified Germany. The French feared a united Germany and tried to thwart the unification as they felt that a unified German state would be virtually unbeatable in war. While some historians believe that Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck tried to goad the French into war in order to get the other German states (Saxony, Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria and Hesse) to come to Prussia's aid. Other historians believe that Bismarck simply leveraged French aggression to create a German alliance. History does show that it was the French declared war on Prussia and attacked them three days later. The German allies were able to get their armies into the field much more efficiently than the French and were thus able to invade France. The Germans had far superior in numbers, had more modern weapons, and were far better trained than the French. The Germans had many victories on the battlefield and even captured French Premier Napoleon III. Following the Siege of Paris, the French forces collapsed. The French never got over the defeat, and there were a number of border skirmishes and territorial disputes from the time the Germans took Alsace-Lorraine in 1871. As WWI was starting, France saw it as an opportunity to overtake their lost territories, while the Germans saw it as an opportunity to permanently secure those areas. It was only natural that France and Germany would fight each other again in 1914.

 

While there appears to have been thoughts of the German states to acquire territories in the USA (be securing a foothold for an invasion through Mexico, the Germans did understand just how difficult waging a war a half world away would be. While Americans were enraged over discoveries of the "Zimmerman Telegram," historians have pretty well proven that the telegram was a hoax inspired to get Americans to feel as though their sovereignty had been attacked by the Germans. You have to remember, there were HUGE numbers of Germans living in the USA. Entire regiments of German speaking soldiers had bought on both sides of the US Civil War. There was plenty of support for the Germans in the USA prior to WWI.

 

Doug_GA seems to think that had WWI ended in 1916, there wouldn't have been a rise by Hitler and the National Socialists, nor a rise in Communism. One has to agree that there wouldn't have been a rise of Hitler and the National Socialist movement, as the Germans would have been at a considerable advantage should the allies have sued for peace. The Germans would have gained considerable territorial advantages, and would have been able to make even more gains politically by negotiating in a position of power against the Belgians and the French. The British would have simply pulled their forces back to the British Isles. The British Monarchy was already in a bad position trying to justify war against their German relations.

 

Russia is a completely different situation. By 1916, the conditions in Russia were already so bad that the Communists had gained quite a foothold. I believe that the Tsar and his family were doomed even without a European war raging. The Russian Civil War would have taken place even without the war on the remainder of the continent.

 

My two cents,

Allan

[Garandomatic]

I really dig trading discussions about this matter.

[Garandomatic]

Reading... Stupid phone...

[JasonT]

Another big mistake the allies made were trying to break the stalemate on Western front in 1915-1916 instead of focusing on getting AH and Turkey out of the war in the Balkans. That would have isolated Germany much in the way Italy defeat in WWII did. In WWII they seemed to learn from this mistake by fighting the European war one front at a time to push Germany back and ultimately defeat them; North Africa, then Italy, then France.

[Garandomatic]

Wasn't Gallipolis in 1915-16, though?

[JasonT]

Wasn't Gallipolis in 1915-16, though?

That is true. Perhaps if they put more planning and manpower into Gallipoli it wouldnt have been such a disaster and things would have turned out differently and the war could have been ended sooner.

[Garandomatic]

Maybe. If you think about that, though, assume that Germany would still launch the Verdun offensive. That hit like a sledgehammer, and if all the Allies (say, France, in addition to Commonwealth forces) had committed to the Gallipolis efforts, Germany might have pulled it off. That's why I always liked the topic, I don't think we will ever truly get to the root, but it sure fun is.

[JasonT]

I agree. It's fun to think about and discuss. With so many players involved and numerous fronts, any particular battle, strategy or planning could have changed the course of the war in either direction.

[phillock]

Great discussions

 

With the Gallipoii landings 25 April 1915, the plan was doomed from the start , again modern historians have come across plans and documentation.

 

They had one map from 1850 , which covered a General map of Turkey with the landing area along the Dardanelles straight(ANZAC Cove) and the foot (Brit/French) but nothing of the Interior. They also had frontal maps(tech drawings) of the landing area , view of flat beach and mountains.

 

The Dardanelles Straight was mined and the Turks had artillery positioned both sides, which caused havoc with the RN.

 

They (ANZAC) landed in the wrong place due to strong currents onto a beach which had a mountainous terrain , instead of the flat beach head.

 

There was a second landing at Cape Helles Brit and French forces, again that was mismanaged

 

There was an aircraft that flew over the area(ANZAC) for reconnaissance and if I could show you the view , what the ANZACs had to go thru mountains,Ravines for 130 miles , in a hostile environment with a smart enemy , who were annoyed with The Germans high command and there lack of tactics and support , they had NO chance , withdrawal was made in Dec 1915, ironically the most succssessful part with no fatalities.

 

It was a Grand strategy with no detailed planning, hence the outcome.

 

Phill

 

 

 

 

 

 

[patches]

Great discussions

 

With the Gallipoii landings 25 April 1915, the plan was doomed from the start , again modern historians have come across plans and documentation.

 

They had one map from 1850 , which covered a General map of Turkey with the landing area along the Dardanelles straight(ANZAC Cove) and the foot (Brit/French) but nothing of the Interior. They also had frontal maps(tech drawings) of the landing area , view of flat beach and mountains.

 

The Dardanelles Straight was mined and the Turks had artillery positioned both sides, which caused havoc with the RN.

 

They (ANZAC) landed in the wrong place due to strong currents onto a beach which had a mountainous terrain , instead of the flat beach head.

 

There was a second landing at Cape Helles Brit and French forces, again that was mismanaged

 

There was an aircraft that flew over the area(ANZAC) for reconnaissance and if I could show you the view , what the ANZACs had to go thru mountains,Ravines for 130 miles , in a hostile environment with a smart enemy , who were annoyed with The Germans high command and there lack of tactics and support , they had NO chance , withdrawal was made in Dec 1915, ironically the most succssessful part with no fatalities.

 

It was a Grand strategy with no detailed planning, hence the outcome.

 

Phill

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was re-reading Castles of Steel by Robert K. Massey recently, Gallipoli is covered extensively, and I was wondering why throughout all this, why the Russians didn't do anything to help, they still had their Black Sea Fleet right, a demonstration, a sallying out and down towards Constantinople would have thrown the Turks and their German advisors off I think, thus re-leaving some pressure on the Entente Forces on Gallipoli.

[phillock]

Hi patches

 

Good observation , couldn't offer a reason , especially when the Russians lost a major Trading route when the Ottoman Empire sided with the Central Powers , one would of thought communication between Tsar Nicholas II and his cousin King George V of Britain would of had some influence with there respective War Cabinets but I think reading up on Russia during that early time period there seems to have been a huge internal turmoil between the Royalist and the Bolsheviks/Communist since the first Russian revolt in 1905, maybe that had some part to play

 

Good discussion.

 

 

[patches]

Hi patches

 

Good observation , couldn't offer a reason , especially when the Russians lost a major Trading route when the Ottoman Empire sided with the Central Powers , one would of thought communication between Tsar Nicholas II and his cousin King George V of Britain would of had some influence with there respective War Cabinets but I think reading up on Russia during that early time period there seems to have been a huge internal turmoil between the Royalist and the Bolsheviks/Communist since the first Russian revolt in 1905, maybe that had some part to play

 

Good discussion.

 

 

The main reason for the Gallipoli action was to open a avenue of supply to Russia, while it's true the Russians and the Turks were involved in actions in the Caucasus, one would think they would of used their Navy, it was only 1915, and the war weariness had yet to take hold, and the Black Sea Fleet was in fair shape, this despite that Potemkin thing a few years back.

 

As it was, just the thought, the idea, that the Entente was landing on the Gallipoli Peninsula was enough to spread panic in Constantinople, the Sultan (and his Harem ) and major government Officials panicked and fled to Asiatic Turkey to get away, just think what would of happened if the Russian Imperial Navy sailed.

[phillock]

Thanks for filling me in Patches.

 

Always good reading your's and Allan H posts always informative.

 

 

Phill

[patches]

Thanks for filling me in Patches.

 

Always good reading your's and Allan H posts always informative.

 

 

Phill

If you or other members are interested, these are the books, companions by Robert K. Massie, they're big ones, Dreadnought 1007 pages and Castles of Steel with 880 pages.

 

Highly Recommend, they of course can be had on Amazon, or Alibris or if one likes, Ebay.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought_(book)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castles_of_Steel

[12thengr]

The Gallipoli campaign was designed to open the straits for the Anglo-French Fleet. They could then capture Istanbul-Constantinopolis and force Turkey out of the war. If the British Generals at Suvic Bay would have shown the tiniest bit of initiative this likely would have happened. Instead they sat on their hands while the Turks organized a defense above them. Alan Moorehead's "Gallipoli", is the only book I've read that makes any sense of this tragic and fruitless campaign.

[patches]

The Gallipoli campaign was designed to open the straits for the Anglo-French Fleet. They could then capture Istanbul-Constantinopolis and force Turkey out of the war. If the British Generals at Suvic Bay would have shown the tiniest bit of initiative this likely would have happened. Instead they sat on their hands while the Turks organized a defense above them. Alan Moorehead's "Gallipoli", is the only book I've read that makes any sense of this tragic and fruitless campaign.

Yeah they really blew it. The supply route for Russia which was also a goal never happened. One of the main problems was the British, Churchill in particular, were keen on making it a purely Naval effort, they simply wanted to force the Dardanelles, ground forces were not going to be used, but when they found they could not force the straits, then they came to the conclusion that ground forces had to used. Problems with troops right, Kitchener say's we don't have them to spare from the Western Front, then they could be spared, then they couldn't be spared, back in forth it went, then when troops were found for some reason they were not to landed on the Asiatic side blah blah blah.