A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War 08:25 - Nov 5 with 1487 views | Steve_M | Not to diminish the loss of those who died, or suffered grievous injuries, but the popular view of the war remains distorted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836 | |
| | |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 09:48 - Nov 5 with 1360 views | Guthrum | Excellent book on the subject: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mud-Blood-Poppycock-MILITARY-PAPERBACKS/dp/0304366595 One thing which stands out from studying the First World War is how the "lions led by donkeys" and "futile slaughter" myths (which mostly sprang up in the disillusionment of the 1920s and '30s) do not reflect reality. Compared with the French High Command (especially the likes of Nivelle, but notably excluding Petain), the British generals were very careful with their men's lives. Haig in particular spent a lot of his time resisting calls from his ally to mount offensives he knew would be costly failures, or ill prepared. There were real innovators, such as Plumer and Allenby, who developed techniques of deception, surprise and stepped offensives to win major victories (Messines, Arras). Rawlinson was a meticulous planner. By 1918, the British Army had the techniques and technology to break through German lines and sustain offensives pretty much at will. There were some who were less than competent, tho (Hubert Gough). Notorious campaigns such as the Somme and Gallipoli actually came very close to success, the former nearly breaking the German Army. In 1916 and '17 the British were mainly defeated by the weather and the sheer difficuculty of getting troops and guns across the smashed-up battlefield compared to the defender bringing them up by rail. | |
| |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 09:53 - Nov 5 with 1351 views | Keno |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 09:48 - Nov 5 by Guthrum | Excellent book on the subject: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mud-Blood-Poppycock-MILITARY-PAPERBACKS/dp/0304366595 One thing which stands out from studying the First World War is how the "lions led by donkeys" and "futile slaughter" myths (which mostly sprang up in the disillusionment of the 1920s and '30s) do not reflect reality. Compared with the French High Command (especially the likes of Nivelle, but notably excluding Petain), the British generals were very careful with their men's lives. Haig in particular spent a lot of his time resisting calls from his ally to mount offensives he knew would be costly failures, or ill prepared. There were real innovators, such as Plumer and Allenby, who developed techniques of deception, surprise and stepped offensives to win major victories (Messines, Arras). Rawlinson was a meticulous planner. By 1918, the British Army had the techniques and technology to break through German lines and sustain offensives pretty much at will. There were some who were less than competent, tho (Hubert Gough). Notorious campaigns such as the Somme and Gallipoli actually came very close to success, the former nearly breaking the German Army. In 1916 and '17 the British were mainly defeated by the weather and the sheer difficuculty of getting troops and guns across the smashed-up battlefield compared to the defender bringing them up by rail. |
I do think Gallipoli was a interesting venture, which could have changed Europe dramatically How close id it come to succeeding? Its always portrayed as a bit of a disaster | |
| |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:09 - Nov 5 with 1316 views | chicoazul | Entering that war was the single stupidest thing our ruling class have ever done. | |
| |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:15 - Nov 5 with 1305 views | factual_blue |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 09:53 - Nov 5 by Keno | I do think Gallipoli was a interesting venture, which could have changed Europe dramatically How close id it come to succeeding? Its always portrayed as a bit of a disaster |
Nowhere near is the answer. And then it was undermined by murdoch's father. | |
| |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:18 - Nov 5 with 1297 views | Guthrum |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 09:53 - Nov 5 by Keno | I do think Gallipoli was a interesting venture, which could have changed Europe dramatically How close id it come to succeeding? Its always portrayed as a bit of a disaster |
The initial Anglo-French naval attempt to force the straits was turned back after three battleships were sunk or damaged by mines and Admiral de Robeck then refused to mount a follow-up operation. At the point they stopped, the fleet was nearly through to the Sea of Marmara and the Turkish shore batteries were running out of ammunition (something known from radio intercepts). Had they broken through, Constantinople would have been within range of bombardment and Turkey possibly forced out of the war. The landings on the Gallipoli peninsula were not well conducted (heavily defended sectors reinforced while quiet ones left alone). However, even then Turkish forces came close to collapse had it not been for the dynamic leadership of a colonel by the name of Mustafa Kemal Bey (later famous as Kemal Ataturk), who rallied the defence at a crucial moment. The second landing, at Sulva Bay, was a good idea but not forcefully pressed and soon bogged down. | |
| |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:34 - Nov 5 with 1249 views | Guthrum |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:09 - Nov 5 by chicoazul | Entering that war was the single stupidest thing our ruling class have ever done. |
In which sense? Not saying you're wrong, just wondering to what aspect you were referring. Entering wars is always bad, in that lots of people are killed or wounded and nations end up bankrupted. Could the UK, strategically, allow France to be weakened even more than in 1871, plus large chunks of Belgium (and the vital Channel coast) absorbed by the Germans, a rival naval and colonial power? In the long term, given the Kaiser's personality, would war have been avoidable? If in the sense of a shattering of the Victorian/Edwardian social order, that was being shaken anyway. Political and radical activism was gaining traction. Independence movements in Ireland and India were strenghtening, the Dominions were asserting their independence. In that respect, the war turned out worse for most of the other European powers than it did for the UK. | |
| |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:34 - Nov 5 with 1248 views | dryas |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 09:53 - Nov 5 by Keno | I do think Gallipoli was a interesting venture, which could have changed Europe dramatically How close id it come to succeeding? Its always portrayed as a bit of a disaster |
Churchill. What a twunt. | | | |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:43 - Nov 5 with 1236 views | Guthrum |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:34 - Nov 5 by dryas | Churchill. What a twunt. |
It was a good concept. Knock Turkey out of the war (or at least clear them from the Straits) and warm-water supply line is opened to Russia, thus possibly preventing revolution and withdrawal from the war in 1917. Bulgaria is outflanked and probably remains neutral, which in turn may have prevented the fall of Serbia (and later Romania) so hastening the collapse of Austria-Hungary. Could have ended the war much sooner. [Post edited 5 Nov 2018 10:45]
| |
| | Login to get fewer ads
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:49 - Nov 5 with 1216 views | flimflam |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 10:18 - Nov 5 by Guthrum | The initial Anglo-French naval attempt to force the straits was turned back after three battleships were sunk or damaged by mines and Admiral de Robeck then refused to mount a follow-up operation. At the point they stopped, the fleet was nearly through to the Sea of Marmara and the Turkish shore batteries were running out of ammunition (something known from radio intercepts). Had they broken through, Constantinople would have been within range of bombardment and Turkey possibly forced out of the war. The landings on the Gallipoli peninsula were not well conducted (heavily defended sectors reinforced while quiet ones left alone). However, even then Turkish forces came close to collapse had it not been for the dynamic leadership of a colonel by the name of Mustafa Kemal Bey (later famous as Kemal Ataturk), who rallied the defence at a crucial moment. The second landing, at Sulva Bay, was a good idea but not forcefully pressed and soon bogged down. |
If they had actually bothered to get to higher ground when they first landed then they would most probably have succeeded as the Turks were not prepared and the surrounding hills unoccupied. Instead they decided to camp up on the beach allowing the Turks to get into position and create the stalemate and ultimately the failure that followed. | |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
A good piece countering some of the myths of The Great War on 12:07 - Nov 5 with 1087 views | WeWereZombies | Interesting, I'm not going to be taken hook, line and sinker by it or jettison my admiration of 'Oh, What A Lovely War' (specifically the production at Ipswich Arts Theatre in the early seventies) but I know there is always more to learn and that certainly adds to it. The comment about Hitler rubbishing Versailles has echoes in modern day condemnations of the UN and the EU. | |
| |
| |