Lesser known topics/theories regarding the Great War

>>2784940

As of now I am thinking about making it about the last Kaiser or something about the Stormtrooper tactics(ww1)

Submarine warfare was an interesting strategic conundrum in ww1. Specifically the decision to switch to unrestricted submarine warfare.

Q-Ships and the Battle for the Atlantic during the First World War would be an interesting topic.

write about how D-Day was paled by Bagration

>>2784976

Hm that is a good one. Maybe I could discuss what i believe to be the largest mistakes of the Central Powers which would cost them the war. It really amazes me how close they came to winning at points.

>>2784940
Write about Operation Dragoon, the one that EVERYONE forgets about.

I'm reading The Guns of August by Tuchman right now and it is absolutely infuriating how fucking dense this war was. So I suggest you write about either

>1) The petty rivalries and slight annoyances that provoked the powers to start the war

or

>2) All of the little misreadings, mistranslations, and hard-headedness of the generals that really could've prevented such horrors.

Fuck this war was stupid.

How 19th century tactics went up against 20th century tech. and how militaries adapted

ie, infantry tactics and development, artillery, tanks, small unit tactics

>>2784940

Suggested Essay Topic: "The War Will Be Over By Christmas."

Key Points:

>Why did everybody think the war was going to be over so quickly?

Because in the past, wars did tend to be over rather quickly, and battles were decided by quick, decisive actions like bayonet charges.

>How did the belief in a short war influence that strategies employed by commanders in the field?

At the beginning of the war, commanders to make liberal use of bold offensives that only succeeded in getting their men slaughtered.

>As belief in the "quick war" began to dissolve, how did commanders adapted to try and break the stalemate to get things moving again?

France and Britain developed tanks. Germany developed shock troops who were free from the normal chain of command to spearhead assaults.

>How did belief in the short war help politicians to "sell" the war to the general public?

Recruitment was easy during the beginning stages of the war because everybody believed it soon be over in glorious victory. As the war dragged on, people stopped volunteering and governments had to institute drafts.

There you go. You could write an entire book that this if you needed to.

>>2785296
>How did the belief in a short war influence that strategies employed by commanders in the field?

You should also add in how it created the cult of the offensive, and how that lead to everyone wanting to be the one who mobillized first, and the ensuing chaos that caused.

File: Nicky and Willy.jpg (36KB, 470x309px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 470x309px

>>2785221
hindsight is everything.

>>2785300

Yes. The belief in the short war created an almost "prisoners dilemma"-like situation where everybody felt that if they failed to respond, quickly and decisively, they would be completely overrun. This heavy bias towards decisive action eliminated any delay time where cooler heads might have prevailed.

Operation Paperclip and Hitlers "death" fused into one.

>>2784958
If you go the Kaiser route, you should look into the friendship of Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas.

You could go further and talk about all of the various royal families/leaders involved with the war. it's a large topic. The clusterfuck that is the Austro-Hungarian empire during the war, the beginning of the fall of the Ottomans, the Kaiser's exile after the war, etc.

>>2785004
>write about how D-Day was paled by Bagration

it wasn't though...the Germans suffered around half a million casualties in both operations.

>>2784940
Maybe the Italian Front of WW1? Really interesting and not hard to find info on. It was an utterly massive conflict crammed into a tiny geographical area, yet few people know about it.

Jews were the largest minority to fight for the central powers.