Verdun

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Constantine XI RE: Who started it 4/28/2005 8:41:57 PM

It is fair to say Germany was not the only nation which must take responsibility for the war. Upon the announcement of war the populace of all engaged nations joyously welcomed the disaster they were heading into. Each nation was confident of victory, had long planned ahead for the occasion and the alliances which positioned nations one way or another were long in place and generally held firm (not in the case of Italy though). The diplomatic manouvering, imperialistic ambitions, bellicose rhetoric and the general idealization of war as romantic and glorious made all nations rattle their sabres and push into a war each expected to win. Perhaps some nations could been seen as having greater culpability in this conflict (such as Germany) while others can be absolved from any blame (such as the unfortunate Belgium) but in assessing this war as with all wars there remains the fact that it is the winners who write history. Peace out

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Why it hurt so much 11/6/2005 12:18:13 PM

I did lots of research on WWI for a paper. It was pretty amazing how much world economics changed as a result of the war. Basically the world economy pre-war was mercantile: cheap raw goods were shipped from colonies to Europe and expensive manufactured goods were shipped back. The balance of trade favored Europe. The Europeans jealously guarded this franchise on which they had built their own economic prosperity for hundreds of years. When the war came, this system was no longer practical. Scarce shipping was needed for more impartant things than consumer goods for foreign markets. The European devoted their industry to war material, which gave non-Europeans a window of opportunity to create domestic industries (which they did). They even sold Europe some war material. This shifted the economic balance from Britain, France & Germany, the dominant economic powers of the day, to countries like the US, Canada & Japan. When the war began, Britain was the world's largest creditor nation. When it ended, the US was. Britain was the largest debtor. The war was largely fought because Germany, the rising economic power of the day, needed colonies to exploit. The British & French had all the good colonies. The Germans were hoping to get something as part of a peace settlement. Add to this the fact that there had been a broad revolution in weaponry. This was hugely expensive on its own. For example, Britian, invested a fortune in hundreds of pre-dreadnaught ships. When the Dreadnaught came along, it made all of those ships obsolete. Since the Germans were building their navy largely after this revolution, the German ships were almost all of the newer, better class. This forced the British to basically rebuild their whole (HUGE) navy just to keep pace. Also, tactics had not caught up with innovation. The Europeans had never been very big on aiming. Their philosphy was fire as many shots as you can and you'll eventually hit something. This worked well enough in the days of muskets, but in the days of machine guns that could fire 500 rounds a minute this was very expensive and wasteful (and not very effective). A million rounds of small-arms ammo might be fired for every person killed. (It's like an episode of the A-Team.) Put this all together, you have Europeans who have lost their main source of income, spending tons of cash in every wasteful way imagineable. The war ended because all of the Europeans were on the brink of bankruptcy. When the US entered, we had plenty of money to spend & the Germans knew it. They tried to knock out the French & British before we arrived, but when that didn't work, they had no choice but to fold. Pretty much the only thing that kept the British & French from going broke after the war was the fact that they were getting reparations from the Germans and managed to re-establish some of its mercanitile economy. (Even with that, the British defaulted on their debts to the US.)

Quote Reply

culprit217 RE:Verdun 11/30/2005 9:57:20 PM

Verdun was a key strong point that had to be defended. It was also a place well known to every French citizen and thus a point of national moral should it fall. The Germans knew it and the French knew it. Each side had differnt reasons to concentrate effort on the fort system. The French to hold at all cost and the Germans to attack it becasue the French would use all means to defend it and thus present neat little blue targets to the German guns. The fort, in essence had small strategic value since it was surrounded by many lines of trenches. In fact as a point of defense the wodds behind the fort made a much stronger defensive system. Strangely, no matter who held Verdun, that is all they could do. They could neither use it to advance their lines nor could they use it to defend their lines since the true defences were outside the system of forts. Nearly a million men died over Verdun and in the end, it was all for nothing. Although the generals of both sides considered Verdun highly important in reality, it was merely a place on the map to fight and die and to kill over. And, afterall, that is what soldiers do in war, isn't it? (From first World War.com)"French casualties during the battle were estimated at 550,000 with German losses set at 434,000, half of the total being fatalities. The only real effect of the battle was the irrevocable wounding of both armies. No tactical or strategic advantage had been gained by either side." "The German General Falkenhayn's plan was to subject Verdun to intense bombardment, thus drawing in and diverting French troops from all over the Western Front to the eight mile wide front around Verdun. Falkenhayn?s stated aim was to ?bleed France white? in its defence of the ancient fortress town. The fact that Verdun formed a French salient into German lines only served to help Falkenhayn, since it meant that it was open to attack from three sides at once." Thus we see the Germans considered the attack against Verdun a way to attrit the French. Unfortunately, after the initial failure to take the small forts surrounding the central fort, the Germans seem to have lost sight of the original goal of simply killing French soldiers with artillery. By repeatedly and fruitlessly attacking a strong fortified position, they became victims of their own plan.

Quote Reply

RBSchwartz RE:Verdun 4/29/2006 2:01:59 PM

Enjoyed your disc. on Lt. Col. Emile Driant-the French heroe of Verdun. Do you or anybody know the two words that he & his men made famous meaning both "Goodbye" and "best of luck" from this battle?

Quote Reply

timon_phocas RE:Why it hurt so much 4/29/2006 8:01:54 PM

>> The war was largely fought because Germany, the rising economic power of the day, needed colonies to exploit. The British & French had all the good colonies. The Germans were hoping to get something as part of a peace settlement. << That question was examined very carefully in the 1920?s through economic analysis. A book that covers this well is, ?The Credit of Nations?, It is one of those economic analyses from the 1920?s, and it periodically surfaces on the top of various book stacks in my home. It deals with the transformation of economies through the comprehensive extension of credit (for production, transportation and consumption), along with the revolutionary technological transformations of the time. According to it, the Germans were doing very well indeed in international trade. They had adequate access to raw materials and were cleaning Britain?s clock in trade competition. They were not forced to start the war from economic pressures.