Posted on 06/10/2011 10:09:12 AM PDT by decimon
Archaeologists are beginning the most detailed ever study of a Western Front battlefield, an untouched site where 28 British tunnellers lie entombed after dying during brutal underground warfare. For WWI historians, it's the "holy grail".
When military historian Jeremy Banning stepped on to a patch of rough scrubland in northern France four months ago, the hairs on the back of his neck stood up.
The privately-owned land in the sleepy rural village of La Boisselle had been practically untouched since fighting ceased in 1918, remaining one of the most poignant sites of the Battle of the Somme.
In his hand was a selection of grainy photographs of some of the British tunnellers killed in bloody subterranean battles there, and who lay permanently entombed directly under his feet.
When most people think of WWI, they think of trench warfare interrupted by occasional offensives, with men charging between the lines. But with the static nature of the war, military mining played a big part in the tactics on both sides.
The idea of digging underneath fortifications in order to undermine them goes back to classical times at least. But the use of high explosive in WWI gave it a new dimension.
One of the most notable episodes was at the Battle of Messines in 1917 where 455 tons of explosive placed in 21 tunnels that had taken more than a year to prepare created a huge explosion that killed an estimated 10,000 Germans.
Tunnelling was mainly done by professional miners, sent from the collieries of Britain to the Western Front.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
I agree. Easy to write about and beyond imagining.
Prior to that experience, I'd always failed to understand how the Brits allowed Hitler to come to power, when he could have been stopped early on quite easily. I used to ridicule Chamberlain's "peace in our time."
Once you realize that the Brits lost the better part of an entire generation in WW I, it gives context to their actions up till the outbreak of the 2nd WW.
And the much maligned French.
I disagree with Keynes.
The terms of the surrender were militarily humiliating, but did not necessarily remove hope.
A lot of commentators do not seem to realize exactly what was at work in the Versailles Treaty.
The victorious powers knew that Germany's industrial base was still intact at war's end and that Germany would have a swift economic recovery and be able to rearm in short order, to begin the war again.
They also knew that France's industrial and agricultural base was deeply impaired.
So the goal of the reparations/demilitarization was that Germany would transfer its military budget to industrial output to pay off the reparations - the proceeds from reparations would rebuild France's industrial base (and also its military capability) while the demilitarization would give France the time it needed to regroup.
The goal of the Versailles treaty was primarily to restore the "natural balance" of power between France, Germany and Britain - not to deprive Germans of hope.
Both excellent posts.
You may be interested in a book called Rites of Spring by a fellow named Modris Eksteins. Assigned to me by some liberal college professor years ago when I was studying WWI it details among other things the birth of “expressionism” in the postwar period and the rise of homosexuality and cross-dressing. Also on the reading list Franz Wedekind’s Frulingserwachen and a bunch of other crazy stuff. That class is most memorable to me because, as my homosexual TA whose advances I refused failed me on my final paper, it is the only class I have ever failed.
WWI defined the entire 20th century. Culturally, it changed everything. And the rise of the Bolsheviks became a poison that damaged the entire globe.
I would agree with your theory a little more if the European power brokers didn't start carving up the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires under the watchful eye of Woody Wilson. And they took the German representatives on a lengthy tour of war desolation with the clear objective of making it known that "All this is your fault!" There was a clear desire for severe punishment of the German people and an elitist attitude toward the "Barbarians"
Prior to that experience, I'd always failed to understand how the Brits allowed Hitler to come to power, when he could have been stopped early on quite easily. I used to ridicule Chamberlain's "peace in our time."
Once you realize that the Brits lost the better part of an entire generation in WW I, it gives context to their actions up till the outbreak of the 2nd WW.
I've also found it easy to laugh at jokes about used French military rifles from WWII being "almost new; only dropped once", or referring to "surrender monkeys."
However, I believe the French suffered casualties rivaling the English. An entire generation of brave men disappeared. I think this had something to do with French attitude to WWII, and that we may still see the effects in pacifist Europe today of the loss of almost an entire generation of brave fathers, brothers, husbands, and uncles during WWI.
I once heard the Civil War described as a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons and using 18th century tactics. The Prussians learned a lot by observing our Civil War, and then used that knowledge to win the Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian War. ....and after all of that, the Brits and French (and Germany cavalry) still used mid-19th century tactics to destroy millions of their own troops.
Beg to differ. The roots of WW II had nothing to do with the military surrender terms. Indeed, Germany felt betrayed, because it had NOT been defeated militarily. But the reparations were beyond impossible, they defied logic. Germany’s industrial base, which as you correctly point out, was largely intact at the end of the war, was to have bene virtually dismantled and shipped to the Allies. Germany’s economy would have to grow to 50X the size of WW I, and at that lever, EVERY drop of output would have gone to pay the reparations. There have been several excellent studies which make this point. The Allies were bled dry by the cost of the war, and the governments told the people that they would recoup the cost of the war from the Germans.
But if the main purpose was to deprive Germans of hope and destroy Germany, the Allies could have permanently occupied large portions of Germany.
I remember reading Alistair Horne's excellent book on Verdun, "The Price of Glory," and he says that there was something like a ton of explosive detonated for every square yard of the battlefield, rendering the soil to the consistency of fine sand.
We've just finished honoring another D-Day anniversary. It's generally accepted that about 2,500 US troops were killed on that first day. Yet it is hardly ever mentioned that over 600 US troops were killed some 6 weeks before the invasion, during a training exercise to practice landings on the beaches...
Wow - thanks for the tip! Looks like a great site.
Not to mention the fact that German civilians were starving to death at the end of the war. Germany needed every ounce of industrial and agricultural output to right itself for years after the treaty was signed.
Somewhat off topic, but poignant, is a book I read about German generals. In it, Senderlin, who fought in and lost his brother in WWI, actually went to the trench where he was buried, dug him up, put him in his car and drove him home to be buried. Horrifying to say the least.
This was not the case.
The reasoning was simple: during the runup to WWI, Germany had been spending about 7% of GDP on its military.
The Treaty provided for about 40 years of reparations at the rate of about 7% of 1910 GDP.
The goal was hardly dismantling Germany's industrial production, but diverting a portion of its products to the Allies.
German industrial production was back up to prewar levels by 1921.
Your claim of 50x is simply divorced from reality.
The original total reparations were 269mm gold marks and German GDP was about 85mm gold marks - three years worth of GDP, not 50 years.
The reparations were easily sustainable by Germany.
If you tour the Verdun battlesite, because of the huge about of nitrates/nitrites in the soil from all the explosives detonated, there are still today acres upon ares of soil where nothing grows...it looks like the surface of the moon..
Again, inaccurate.
There was widespread hunger in Germany at the end of the war because most agricultural production was going to the front lines and the rest of Germany was well-blockaded by the UK navy.
Within months after the blockade ended, German domestic agricultural production and food consumption was approaching prewar levels.
France had worse food shortages in 1920 than Germany did.
Same here, until I read A World Undone: The Story of the Great War, 1914 to 1918. Phenomenal bravery and toughness on the part of the ordinary French soldier.
I think Vietnam was a result of what had already changed within the American leadership that was already in it’s 50s, 60s and 70s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.