World War 1 - The Great War

File: Paper mache decoy heads wearing British headgear..jpg (37KB, 416x300px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 416x300px

Once they (the Germans) mounted a dummy figure of a man on their parapet. Tommy had great sport shooting at it, the Germans jiggling its arms and legs in a most laughable manner whenever a hit was registered. In their eagerness to ‘get a good bead’ on the figure, the men threw caution to the winds, and stood on the firing benches, shooting over the top of the parapet. Fritz and Hans were true sportsmen while the fun was on, and did not once fire at us. Then the dummy was taken down, and we returned to the more serious game of war with the old deadly earnestness. I recall such incidents with joy as I remember certain happy events in childhood. We needed these trivial occurrences to keep us sane and human. There were not many of them, but such as there were, we talked of for days and weeks afterward.
Private James Hall, 9th Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) in Tommy’s War - Richard van Emden.

Invading Belgium was completely unnecessary and a strategic error by the German High Command.

File: John_Monash_1.jpg (31KB, 424x572px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 424x572px

>>3309165

"A World Undone" makes the claim that John Monash was the best general of the war, but doesn't go into detail on why this was such. The book merely implies that he was able to make the best use of the new technology of the era and that his troops had phenomenal success in capturing and holding land. Looking through your articles, you seem to be focusing on the Australian troops, so you might know something about this. What exactly made him so special?

File: German prisoners coming back through French trenches during the Battle of the Hills, April 1917..jpg (147KB, 636x568px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 636x568px

>>3309188
What alternative was there then? Given that the majority of the French armies were concentrated on the border with Germany how else would they have had a chance of a quick victory?

>>3309188

Schieffelin thought that if Germany didn't go through Belgium, then France would. Not really defending what they did, but it wasn't completely stupid. They had reasons.

>>3309206
>What alternative was there then?
The Prussians won without invading Belgium, also the Germans were well prepared for the french invasion, considering how much of a defeat the french attacks were.

>>3309165
Pretty cool. When I finish my thesis (it's also about British Empire) which will take me like two more days I'm gonna finish the 60s series about WWI.

Pretty fascinating thing. WWI really was like the first act of the 20th century tragedy. Old 19th century civilization (really modernist civilization as a whole) got swept away, the chaos resulted in two totalitarian ideologies that were eventualy defeated in WWII and CW respecitvely. All three conflicts are more connected than people think.

The "moving pictures" are always the best because we see the last moments of that lost world in motion.

File: E02750--1-.jpg (201KB, 1397x1000px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1397x1000px

>>3309199
Ok so Monash was actually pretty good, but he wasn't the god-general that some (looking at you Lloyd-George) made him out to be. There were other generals at least as good as him and probably some better.
Also he started the war as a brigadier (in command of 4 battalions ~4000 men) and then made it to major-general (a division which is 3 brigades, also the level of command I'm studying for my phd) and then in 1918 was promoted to lieutenant-general (a corps, in his case 5 divisions). Even at that heady height he still had an army commander telling him what to do and then Haig and Foch above that telling the army commander what to do. So Monash, was in what we call the operational level of command, he got told what to take but left largely to figure out how to go about it himself. He had NO input on strategy at all.
What he was really good at was planning. He was an engineer by trade, coming from basically the reserve army, and his detailed and creative plans worked the vast majority of the time. He was able to coordinate the combined arms under his command (mostly infantry/artillery but also a small amount of air power and sometimes tanks). Most of the battles in 1917-18 were what were called "set piece" battles which basically ran to a timetable. Everything was pre-planned in immense detail and everyone informed on what their role and everyone elses role was so that everybody knew what to do and why. Monash was really good at this. Making sure that the infantry had enough artillery to cover their advance, had enough time to get across no mans land, had the supporting troops to bring them water and ammunition etc. He also tried novel methods like air dropping ammunition and having tanks also bring ammunition for the infantry during the advace. At Hamel in July 1918 the tanks carried supplies that would have required about 1000 men to do the same job.

File: A trench watchman remains in its armoured turret to monitor enemy lines. September 1915..jpg (152KB, 606x700px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 606x700px

>>3309234
1914 wasn't exactly the same as 1870. So you think the Germans, had they concentrated opposite the French, could have defeated the invasion and then broken through with a counter-attack?
Would have left them a lot further to go through France itself though with at least as much chance of being stopped as the norther route if not more.
I dunno, I'm just sceptical.

File: Two soldiers of the 1st Battalion, Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) operating a Vermorel (gas dispersal) sprayer whilst wearing face mask respirators. May 1915..jpg (57KB, 360x600px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 360x600px

>>3309240
I've been meaning to watch the Great War series, but never got around to it. Is it as good as the WW2 one. The World At War?
And awesome, what's your topic?

>>3309313

>So you think the Germans, had they concentrated opposite the French, could have defeated the invasion

If they were properly prepared, then yes, absolutely.

>then broken through with a counter-attack?

And that's the hard part.

>>3309313
It's very hard to say whether one choice is better than another, since only one was ever played out.
The schleifen plan failed, that we do know,therefore it was a strategic failure

File: Cyrus Cuneo - The Red Cross in the Trenches, c1915-16..jpg (231KB, 719x1200px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 719x1200px

>>3309349
>>3309348
Yeah, but this is a Azerbaijani carpet weaving newsletter, we can play counterfactuals here.
I have seen it written more than once that to even call it the Schleifen plan by 1914 is wrong cause it'd been changed so many times from the original that it didn't have a whole lot in common.
The blocking force did pretty damn well against the French invasion I will admit, pushing them back despite being smaller. But I think that's partially to do with the defence having more power than the attack, at least early in the war anyway. And the French there were really poorly led, like just abysmal command.

>>3309337
Well I think it's better than WaW. Slow-burning and atmospheric. They talk about some lesser-known events like Belgian defense. World at War didn't really have that. They spend like 5 minutes on 1939 missing all the cool battles and other stuff that took place there and instead focus on power shortages in London.
The more recent First World War is also good, abridged version and the only flaw I could find is the mention of Princip's non-existent sandwich.


My topic is the evaluation of the British Empire by Ferguson, Brendon and Hyam but most of the thing is devoted to its rise, myths and fall. It's so massive it nearly broke me and I needed to ask for more time. One thing left to write is the question whether or not in the end the colonies proved to be profitable or not.

File: A British infantryman examines a recently captured trench at Feuchy whilst a column of cavalry passes behind, April 1917..jpg (84KB, 748x599px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 748x599px

>>3309365
Sounds like I'll have to download it some time then. I really enjoyed WaW, but I haven't watched it in years though, so I may have changed opinion since then.

And interesting topic. What level thesis is it?
Ferguson is quite the controversial historian so he's good to think with, whether you agree or not.

>>3309349

Militarily, the S plan made complete sense. Politically, it was a fucking disaster. Invading two neutral countries (Belgium and Luxembourg) during the opening months of the war made it very easily It brought Britain into the war (and I don't accept the premise that Britain's entry was inevitable) and ultimately the United States as well.

Adopting a defensive posture during the opening months of the war would make it much harder for France to paint Germany as the ultimate evil. In fact, it would make France appear as the aggressor because France would be forced to attempt an invasion of German territory in order to engage in the war. In my mind, the only reason why the French public was able to tolerate the war for so long was because they had the easy feeling of moral righteousness that comes when from defending your homeland. If the French public were instead being asked to endure a long, arduous war to invade Germany, purely for the sake of honoring a treaty with Czarist Russia, I think you'd see much more resistance to the war.

>>3309379

>Invading two neutral countries (Belgium and Luxembourg) during the opening months of the war made it very easily

Invading two neutral countries (Belgium and Luxembourg) during the opening months of the war made it very easily to paint Germany as the aggressor in the war. That is what I meant to have there.

>>3309377
MA. I wrote my Bachelor's about Spanish-American war. I wanted to write about everything noteworthy and I succeeded.

The point is to present conservative, leftist-liberal and moderate views so the fact that by the end of his book Ferguson was clearly witewashing the empire writing that fighting against Japan in WWII absolved Britain of all previous sins made me happy because it gave me stuff to write about.

>>3309383
Exactly, Russia (and France)played Germany perfectly.

File: Sappers of the Royal Engineers fix scaling ladders in front line trenches during 8 April 1917, the day prior to the opening of the Arras offensive..jpg (102KB, 745x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 745x600px

>>3309379
I'd have to agree with a lot of this, especially about France and the invasion. I've never been quite sure of the British involvement question though. I think they would have probably have joined the war without Belgium but used the RN as their primary means rather than actually sending an expeditionary force to the continent.

>>3309165
You got any info on the treatment of Jews in the Central Powers? That one infographic is the only thing I got to go on

File: A stack of bombs and other stores which were left behind after the Germans were driven out of St Pierre-Divion by 39th Division on 13 November 1916..jpg (112KB, 760x599px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 760x599px

>>3309386
That sounds like a hell of task anon, all the best of luck to you. Got a book deal lined up?
My honours thesis was on the nationalisation of the Australian Imperial Force during WW1, debunking a few ideas that we were led by British officers who didn't care about Australia and basically that whole trope.
PhD is a comparative study of Dominion and British major generals on the Western Front.

>>3309395
>>3309395

The answer is just to look at the discussions had by the British cabinet during the opening days of the war. The cabinet was actually quite firmly against declaring war. Yes, the conservatives wanted war, but the liberals were the ones who held power at the time, and they didn't want to declare war.

Once Belgium entered the picture, though, the entire character of the discussion changed. The cabinet felt that while Britain didn't owe anything it France, it had a clear interest in protecting Belgium. Despite this, it was still a very close vote.

This is why I feel pretty secure in saying that you wouldn't see any British involvement.

>>3309412
Thank goodness I don't live in an Anglophone country. There's a lot of room for books about lesser known parts of history and I've collected a lot of materials. British scientific expeditions is kind of my area of expertise and besides Cherry-Garrard's book I have no competition in this market.

Wrote stuff about Australasian/Canadian involvement in WWI too though I obviously couldn't write too much about it. But I get that it can't be true that a single battle "created" a nation.

File: French and British soldiers salvaging German rifles at St. Pierre-Divion, captured on 13th November 1916..jpg (87KB, 732x599px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 732x599px

>>3309446
That sounds awesome. Good luck with it.
Ever listen to In Our Time? Got some good stuff about Empire and science.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/topics/British_Empire

>>3309429
I'll have to do that at some point. They online somewhere or is it all just excerpts in books?

File: Part of the broad wire entanglement in front of the Hindenburg Line near Heninel, 3 May 1917..jpg (106KB, 751x600px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 751x600px

A single belt of barbed wire ie. why the infantry REALLY wanted to know the artillery had cut the wire before an attack.

File: Oud-strijder 14-18 2.jpg (106KB, 264x430px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 264x430px

>>3309165
OP, did you ever look into medal recipients during the Great war. I've been wondering what some common denominators are in soldiers who won either VC's, Medal of Honors or Pour le Merites etc etc. Are there striking similarities in some medalists. I was wondering if you've read anything along these lines, thanks in advance

>>3309188
I doubt Britian would have stayed out of supporting France regardless; through Belgium at least offered the chance to decisively win the war before dying to attrition. Even failing to force France to leave the war, the ground gained served to force the allies to attack offensively into defensive German positions on the Western Front, which proved seriously advantageous. The real tactical error was botching the invasion of Belgium and delaying the offensive into France.

>>3309404
There's a compiled image (don't know what the credibility of it is though) of some information on jews in the A-H army. Don't know if I saved it, will look for it.
In the mean time I can show you this screencap of a /his/ post I took a while ago
(can't find rgat one either, will have to look for that one too)

>>3309556

>I doubt Britian would have stayed out of supporting France regardless

Explain what motivation that Britain would have to declare war if Belgium is not invaded.

File: The day after the Battle of Amiens. Dead and wounded in and beside a communication trench and stretcher-bearers taking back wounded. Behind the northern flank of the Advance, near Albert. 9 August 1918..png (223KB, 800x635px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 800x635px

>>3309599
I think the other anon may have a point.
Discussion before the opening few weeks of the war they didn't know how successful the Germans would be. If they hadn't invaded through Belgium, but still assuming they broke the French line and headed towards Paris and with the Russian defeats in the east Germany looked like they could very well crush both France and Russia and Britain really would not want a Europe dominated by Germany. Especially if they had access to the Channel Ports.
I'd say that'd be a fairly big motivating factor for joining.

File: 1497308499336.png (358KB, 1886x718px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1886x718px

>>3309580
Was similar to this one but with an actual pic of jewish A-H soldiers in a POW camp and some information below

File: 20140920180125!German_High_Seas_Fleet_(Hoschseeflotte)_during_World_War_I.jpg (53KB, 606x350px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 606x350px

>>3309165

Is there anything that the High Seas Fleet could have done to be more useful during the war? It feels like the WW2 Kreigsmarine managed to do more with less, if you know what I mean. Sure, the WW2 Germany navy didn't accomplish much, but considering how underfunded they were, what they did manage to accomplish was fucking amazing. The WW1 High Seas Fleet, on the other hand, was arguable overfunded and yet it barely did anything the entire war.

File: German trenches demolished by artillery during the Battle of Mount Sorrel, showing German dead. June, 1916.jpg (94KB, 754x599px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 754x599px

>>3309404
Not something I know much about sorry. But it looks like there's a few books about it like Reconstructing a National Identity. The Jews of Habsburg Austria during World War I by Marsha Rozenblit.
http://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/jewish-soldiers-austro-hungarian-army has a bit, but it doesn't seem like there's much in English.

>>3309599
Both Edward VII and his son George V were huge francaboos and consistently sided with French foreign policy on prior issues, going so far as to prepare the country for war during the 2nd Moroccan Crisis which was smaller in scope then this. What makes you think they wouldn't support France if it was significantly endangered, belgium or no? Even less BEF support and a large scale blockade would cripple Germany long-term. The invasion of Belgium simply gave the British government an excuse to push forward all the bills and propaganda required for mass conscription of the populace.

How long would Britain have taken to join the war if Germany held out on its own borders and allowed France to take Belgium?

File: C6548xVWcAEqI0s.jpg (56KB, 737x905px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 737x905px

>>3309702
Wilhelm would have been the King of England in 1914 had Victoria's eldest child inherited the British throne.

Not a lot of people know that.

>>3309599
Are you really naive enough to believe Britain joined this war for Belgium's sake?

>>3309348
France was basically alone on the Western front from 1914 to mid 1916 (the moment Brits started to send noticable numbers)
If they managed to stop the German advance despite the surprize attack through Belgium, they'd have done so even more easily if Germany had tried trhough the fortified Franco-German border

>>3309793

Germany doesn't need to invade France. Germany just has to stop France from invading Germany while focusing on the real threat, Russia.

>>3309599
The rivarly between Germany and Britian was intensifying for decades. The naval build-up in particular was economically straining Britian. Above that, they were the stronger power and were dominating Europe in all but diplomacy. In a choice between the two sides, the Brits should choose France, particularly when the Germans start winning (as they would likely do, at least in the East). Neutrality is imo out of the question, the question is if its purely economic attacks or if Britian declares war. But it's irrelevant-- both are equally deadly to the German war effort.

>>3309793
>mid 1916 (the moment Brits started to send noticable numbers)
Britain was sending massive numbers to France from the beginning, idiot. 1916's numbers were just way bigger after having extracted all its colonial cannon fodder from suppressing German colonies and the utter failure of Gallipoli.

>>3309815
If Germany held defensively in a reverse 'Maginot Line' they would have eventually broken from manpower losses. Defensive doctrines were pretty poor before the Hindenburg Line (though offensive ones were much worse) and the very construction of said line was implemented by ceding forward territory to then fall back on it. By it's nature it cannot be constructed at the front lines themselves. Do you think it would be permissible for Germany to cede German territory to construct such a line? It would be like the French surrendering at Verdun-- unthinkable. The Germans would be reversed into the allies role in our WW1-- offensive operations to regain 'rightful' territory. They would inevitable be pushed off forward positions and be unable to countenance the defensive tactics built on ceding territory to the enemy slowly. Therefore, to not push into France is to not be allowed the luxury of defensive lines. This is the mode of reality that overshadowed the war, and we can't divorce strategy from the modes of thinking that dominated the generals and nations in question.

>>3309702
>>3309620
>>3309786
>>3309816

I still believe that British entry into the war was not the inevitability that it is often presented as. Although I agree that it isn't enough for Germany to merely stay out of Belgium, Germany would also have to refrain from engaging in naval build-up during the years leading up to the war in order to avoid the naval arms race that soured anglo-german relations. The dreadnoughts of the high seas fleet were not very useful during the war, anyway, so not much is lost by choosing to live without them.

>>3309862
Wouldn't logistics be far easier to sustain on German soil than on the fields of Northern France? Plus it would put them in a much less harsh light by having Germany be on the defensive against a France that invaded and devestated a territory they considered their own while at the same time occupying the Napoleonic buffer state of Belgium. Germany would've been able to recast them as the Fourth French Empire, and gain a whole extra load of volunteers along with a few points from the international community. Probably wouldn't've stopped Italy from siding against them, but it might've justified the U-boat campaigns and kept Portugal neutral

>>3309862
The germans had spent years fortifying Alcese, why do you think the french attacks in 1914 failed with tremendous loses?

If you have artillery and machine guns, a small force can hold up numerous human wave attacks, and as the germans had interior railway lines they could always quickly reinforce.

Not doing the schlefine plan just means an attritional war on the frontiers and not inside France.

Without a british blockade the german population would not be starving in 1918, and russia would be facing 3 enemies alone.

>>3309884
>Not doing the schlefine plan just means an attritional war on the frontiers and not inside France.
You forget that France was planning on invading Belgium if Alsace proved too hard to crack.

>Without a british blockade the german population would not be starving in 1918, and russia would be facing 3 enemies alone.
Britain would've joined the war on France's side by 1915 no matter what happened.

>>3309862

You brought a good point: the fact that the Hindenburg Line required having the ability to fall back and cede territory, something that is very hard to do when fighting on your home turf when the natural inclination is to defend every inch of dirt. My optimism for Germany's ability to hold out against a direct assault was based in large part on the Hindenburg Line, so that is certainly something that needs to be considered. Perhaps the Schlieffen plan was the best option after all, but if it can deliver the quick victory that it promises. Is there anything that could have been done differently to improve the odds of success?

>>3309892

If France invades Belgium first, then any hope of British support for France is fucking dead.

>>3309898
Not enact the Schlieffen Plan until France invades Belgium first? Maybe then the bulk of the Kriegsmarine could've managed to make headway beyond the North Sea.

File: Get a load of this guy.jpg (9KB, 200x219px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x219px

>>3309904
You're clearly not cut out for this thread.

>>3309912

>Still believing the myth that Britain's entry into the war was inevitable

>>3309926
As long as Germany and France were fighting each other, Britain's entry into the war on France's side was inevitable.

>>3309948

Yeah dude, even if France actively backstabs Britain, they'll still get British support. Great logic.

>>3309956
France was co-operating with Britain as a subordinate in international affairs, and Germany was actively antagonizing them. You really think Britain would ever be neutral in a Franco-German conflict?

>>3309832
>Britain was sending massive numbers to France from the beginning, idiot.

That's wrong, you utter retard
Britain had a very small army at the beginning
In 1914, during the decisive Battle of the First Marne that stopped the German advance, the BEF was composed of around 50,000 men while France and Germans way over the million each

It isnt until the Battle of the Somme that Britain started to represent a sifnificant (although still less than France) part of the fighting force

What does the pope contribute to WW1?

File: The 4th Armenian Volunteer Battalion in 1914..png (470KB, 698x405px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 698x405px

Wow this got heated while I was gone. Some good points brought up though

>>3309879
You can't win a war by not attacking though, that's the problem. And the mindset of all the commanders and the strategic view of armies was that you had to decisively defeat your enemy in the field to force their surrender. You might defeat attacks by your enemy if you're defending, but you can't defeat their army without actually going on the offensive.

>>3309985
The Vatican was still under siege by the Italian government at the time. They didn't exactly have much room to say anything meaningful.

>>3309969

The British cabinet was firmly in favor of neutrality until Belgium entered the picture, so yes.

>BUT MUH BALANCE OF POWER

The conservatives cared about that, the liberals didn't. The liberals controlled the government at the time. And there were many who felt that Czarist Russia was the real menace, not Germany. All that changed once German troops entered Belgium. That was the moment that Germany ceased to be a rival, and became an enemy.

>>3309985

The Pope consistently advocated for "peace without victory" meaning that everybody just throws down their guns and goes home, with no territorial concessions. These pleas were almost always ignored except as posturing. For example, sometimes Germany would pretend to be interested in these declarations just so they could say "see we're being reasonable, it is the nasty brits who don't want peace." To be fair, Britain did the exact same fucking thing whenever it suited them. "See, we're being reasonable, it's those damn krauts who don't want peace." But there truth behind it all was that neither side had any interest in peace unless they got something out of it, something that would justify the massive amount of blood already spilled. Ludendorff suffered from delusions that Germany would be allowed to keep Belgium in a negotiated peace. He clung to this belief well into 1918, possibly because he just needed to believe that somehow, Germany would get some sort of consolation prize for all her effort.

>>3309998
I didn't say they shouldn't've attacked. I'm saying that if France did manage to push into Alsace or the Rhineland, it still would've manageable for Germany and hell on France.

File: German soldiers boarding transport ships that will take them east for Operation Albion, October 1917.2.jpg (73KB, 800x569px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x569px

>>3309977
Uh the original BEF was 6 infantry divisions and a cavalry division. Closer in strength to 150,000. Now that's still not a lot compared to the French or Germans, but it's a lot bigger than you're saying.
And they fed in everyone they could in 1915 with Indian and Canadian troops augmenting the actual British units.

File: German soldiers boarding transport ships that will take them east for Operation Albion, October 1917..jpg (50KB, 800x572px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x572px

>>3310014
Oh, ok. Fair enough then.

>>3309862
>>3309948
>>3310024
>>3310014

The plan of fighting a defensive war on the western front was actually advocated for by Moltke the Elder. He believed that when war came, it would be a long war of attrition, and that the way to victory would be to slowly bleed out France by luring her into attacking Germany. This doesn't mean that Germany stays permanently on the defensive, the eventual goal would be to counter-attack into France after enough French soldiers have been killed.

File: images (5).jpg (27KB, 254x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 254x400px

Has somebody recommended Poilu yet? My favorite memoir, definitely the best French one.

>>3310043
>bleed out France
I really don't think this phrase was ever used until after the failure of Verdun.

>>3310071
>Forgot all this

He lays it on pretty thick with his socialist point of view, this definitely isn't an unbiased documentation of the war, or anything of the sort. It's his personal notebooks. I like it though, it's really cool to see the war through the eyes of a conscientious objector, especially as one as articulate as Barthas.

>>3310073

He might not have used that terminology, but that's the basic idea of the plan. Also, keep in mind, I was referring the Moltke the Elder, not Moltke the Younger who is more closely related to WW1.

File: Pershing boots.jpg (91KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1000x586px

>>3309165

What country in the war had the best boots?

>>3310083
I heard what you said. I assumed by "Elder", you referred to somebody who was present during the initial drawups of the Schlieffen Plan that involved invading the Netherlands.

>>3310087
I think Italy. Though I might be confusing that with helmets.

>>3309879
Logistically, once the Germans were up an running there weren't huge logistical hold-ups in France (at least, nothing crippling their defenses). Advancing was difficult due to the logistical lines needing to be constructed to continue the advance. The nature of total war in Germany imo made it so internal recruitment was less an issue than internal manpower available-- they don't need more willing recruits, just more recruits in general. Italy was more a case of Austrias present weakness in the field, maybe with proper reinforcing of the Eastern front that could have been avoided, but mostly it was out of German hands. Maybe if England remained out of the war, but thats (imo) not going to happen-- some disagreement about that here though. Ultimately, the defender will be pushed back, and theres no acceptable losses when it's your own soil-- counterattacks would have been attempted, and they'd have been devastating on a Germany that could not afford sustained losses while dealing with the East past 1915-6.

>>3309884
Fortifications wont stop the allied advance. Verdun did not, and nothing will if it didn't forestall an advance. If the Germans fight on german soil, they will be the ones counter-attacking, and those 1914 losses will be German losses now. Germany needs to maintain a defensive war, and it is critical to understand the mindset in the European commands during the war. The only way defense was an acceptable strategy is if the losses in territory are enemy soil, which is why holding a line at Alsace would have been disastrous.. we can't just assume complete god-like control of the German state outside the context it existed in. Not counterattacking an enemy holding your territory is not a permissible plan as far as high command was concerned.

File: dbaddd70-93ce-4d27-905f-3bb8d0e7f565.jpg (105KB, 500x343px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x343px

>>3309165

What is this poster meant to convey?

>>3310176
>Fortifications wont stop the allied advance. Verdun did not
?

Defending its own territory gives the german better internal lines to transfer forces to where they are needed, so local superiority can be achieved for counter-attacks

The german mindset of holding captured territory had everything to do with a position of strength in peace negotiations,if avoiding drawing Britian into the war loses them a few miles of territory, it can be taken back once the Russians surrender and the French are left fighting on their own

>>3310217
The Germans had no problems reinforcing areas the allies attacked in the early years of the war, and the Hindenburg line also didn't have a problem later on in repelling attacks-- it just lacked the manpower (and resources; ie tanks) to do so. There was never a defensive problem with holding France outside the larger front area. I also hold that the larger area is better, a smaller front would simply concentrate enemy artillery all the more-- which would lose you more men in barrages and destroy your defenses all the more.. the deployment of overwhelming artillery is what first began breaking down German defensive lines. I also still contend that you fundamentally cannot convince German command to ever follow a strategy of accepting losses of German territory. They would never stand for it, and if you commanded them to, you'd be removed from that command. It goes against everything the commanders knew about warfare.

>>3310232
In 1914 the germans let the french advance into Alcese and then hammered them so badly they fled, quickly enough to surreptitiously avoid encirclement

>>3310250
The early war of maneuver is no way relatable to the form the war would take after full mobilization, and though I'm not positive, I'm pretty sure that advance only occurred because the French mobilized faster than the Germans and took the initiative.

>>3310264
No it was part of the plan, you see everyone knew the french would try and recover their territories so they marched into a giant trap.

Once the germans failed to reach Paris they withdrew(!) to better defensible terrain and started fighting a war of Attrition (and eventually losing)

File: Erich_von_Falkenhayn-retouched.jpg (293KB, 472x639px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 472x639px

>>3309165
I don't know much about the German high command during the war so i'm curious; was Falkenhayn the most effective general on the German side? I don't believe he is the most effective general in the war period, but on the German side like compared to that of Ludendorff or Hidenburg?

I've seen a few posts on the board kiss the ground he walked on but i'm only so far into A World Undone so I don't know enough about him to say on my end.

File: čs legie.jpg (547KB, 1485x1039px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1485x1039px

>>3309165
What is your opinion on "Czechoslovak legion won the war by stopping the German POWs from comming to the western front from Siberia"?

File: gajda rare.jpg (76KB, 545x704px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 545x704px

>>3310366
Related thing, what is your opinion on General Radola Gajda

File: An Italian armed for close quarters trench fighting, called a “trench cleaner” in the original caption, near Près de Vauquois, Meuse, Hesse Forest. May 1918..jpg (184KB, 785x700px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 785x700px

>>3310366
I have never heard of them stopping POWS from coming back. Got any details on that? Can't find anything from a quick search.
Hadn't heard of him, but from a quick look at his wiki page he sounds like a lot of disillusioned ex-officers after the war who took to fascism.
He had an exciting time during the war but was a bit of a shit after it.

>>3310526
When Bolsheviks got into the power in Russia, they started with transporting of POWs to the Western front (read about the "Revolt of the Czechoslovak Legion") After this, we conquered Siberia and railways on it which stopped POws from going to west. (a lot of them fought for the Bolshevisk tho, especialy around Bajkal)
To general Gajda: that part about Kolchak´s army isnt true, since he supported unification of front with Denikin, but general named Lebedev opposed him and Kolchak trusted Lebedev more (race on Moscow was priority for him due to prestige etc.)
That "scandal" in 1926-1927 was caused by that president Masaryk ordered the police to accuse him of spionage for USSR (haha) by selling them "top secret French war materials" (that were books from the time he studied in Paris, they also werent secret and he never tried to sell them) for 6000 crowns. (general Gajda wasnt realy a poor man, saying this is as logical as accusing Norman Schwarzkopf of selling Hussein plans of coalition attack for 1000 dollars.
Židenice puč is a meme, that guy who led it named Kobsinek got a lot of money from (((someone))) when he was in prison, that attack was also absolutely pathetic, guy that led army of several dozens of men would never attack barracks like that.
After the occupation, he also supplied partisans with weapons+ that what is written on wiki.

File: Men of the Czechoslovak Legion in the trenches around Zborov, 1917..gif (257KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 600x450px

>>3310626
Sorry anon but I just don't know enough about it. But by pure numbers I don't think the POWs would have tipped the scales one way or another.
There wouldn't have been enough German ones to constitute a real threat, and what ones there were would have been in pretty bad shape and would have needed a great deal of reorganisation, training and equipping. None of which the Germans would have been able to do quickly or thoroughly in the middle of 1918.

File: Body of a French soldier at Verdun, between 1916 and 1918.jpg (130KB, 738x650px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 738x650px

>>3310344
How do you define effective?
I think he miscalculated at Verdun and he paid the price for it, both in men and reputation. But from what I recall he did very well in the east afterwards.
Could he have done any better than H&L? I don't know, probably not. I don't think any general could have extricated them from the situation they'd put themselves into.

File: 16999040_1251721501590827_6884315840906089463_n.png (421KB, 564x751px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 564x751px

>>3309199
Roland Perry did an excellent book on Monash. Though quite a lot of it is focused on his life before the war, there is much on his time in the reserve army, his education and his early achievements. pic not related.

File: Austro-Hungarian anti-aircraft gun.jpg (1MB, 1218x1680px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1218x1680px

>>3310814
>posting a WW2 soldier in my WW1 thread

I've actually read that book and I've gotta say it's pretty shabby. It's not the best of Monash's bios and the analysis is not very good at all. Geoffrey Serle's bio is still the best one out there from a full biography perspective. But for his war career nothing beats Monash as Military Commander by Peter Pederson. That book is so well researched and the analysis is top notch, I've never seen anything come close to it.

File: 1498147933942.jpg (144KB, 504x765px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 504x765px

>>3309166

>>3310013
One overlooked but nevertheless important fact is that France required British factory equipment in order to produce the armoured plate used for its cars and tanks. Without access to those factories, France would have no AFVs, at least not anything domesticly made.

File: Private Cecil Ernest Bartlett, 5th Reinforcements, 32nd Battalion, 1st AIF, in full battle dress.jpg (191KB, 415x654px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 415x654px

>>3310870
Trench raiders looked bad ass.

>>3309165
A teacher of mine once said that Churchill, feeling personally responsible for the disaster at Gallipoli went to fight on the Western front aiming to die, as punishment or something similar.

Any truth in this?

File: Illustration of French cavalry soldiers.jpg (156KB, 736x471px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 736x471px

>>3310873
I can't find anything about that online, got a source? Given the French were building their own battleships I can't imagine that they wouldn't have the capacity to make armour plating for their tanks, especially something like the Renault FT.

>>3310886
I know a little, but I'm always trying to learn more. They were the biggest allied power on the Western Front and went through a lot of the same things the Brits in terms of expansion, attrition, learning process. The whole shebang. And by the end of the war they were crushing the Germans wherever they fought. They created the first modern tank, pioneered tank tactics and fought to a standstill the most powerful army in Europe before turning it around and beating them.
The French army in 1914 was really not prepared for the kind of war they'd end up fighting and lost heavily before figuring that out. But once they built up the needed arms, heavy artillery mainly but also air power and armour, they fought at least as well as the British.

File: Oudstrijder 14-18.jpg (18KB, 424x640px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 424x640px

>>3309165
OP?
>>3309544

File: American soldiers supported by French tanks pause during the taking of Cantigny, May 1918..jpg (120KB, 962x700px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 962x700px

>>3310907
Haha no. He never accepted full responsibility for Gallipoli, claiming that the plan was changed so much that it wasn't even his plan anymore and that he disavowed it before the campaign was launched.
He spent like two or three months as a Lieutenant Colonel on a quiet part of the front, starting in January with like one rotation through the trenches before he got bored and went back to England in March 1916.

I answered a question on British entry into the war at university.

Here was the conclusion:

The thought of a continental Europe dominated by one power was enough to frighten anyone who held the British Empire in high regard. The European question was one of balancing and Britain held the power to significantly shift the pendulum. Whilst France and Russia were traditional enemies, supporting them was purely a matter of self interest. Britain was a maritime power whose hegemony was being challenged. Its survival was of paramount importance but Britain required the initial German manoeuvres of August 1914 to be able to disguise its self-interest for a moral reactionary stance in order to justify its involvement.

File: Naik Shahamad Khan, 89th Punjabis, manning a Vickers-Maxim .303 machine gun, 1916 (c)..jpg (145KB, 960x562px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 960x562px

>>3309544
>>3310947
Sorry, I was at uni teaching today and it got buried.
Not especially, no. But they're all conspicuous gallantry medals so there are a few things that they'd have in common. It's usually things that save the lives of comrades and are above and beyond the normal things asked of soldiers. So basically suicidal courage. For the big medals I'm sure if you checked it'd probably be 50/50 for living/posthumous awarding of them.
If you mean common backgrounds or things like that I think you might be out of luck. But the best thing to do would be read as many of the citations for the medals and see what jumps out at you. There's often books put out about VC winners and I'd assume MoH as well.

>>3310344

Falkenhayn was a very meticulous individual which was good in theory but it meant he often gave confused orders.. His plan at Verdun was to secure the surrounding French forts/heights and destroy repeated French counter-attacks. However, there were a number of failures.

-The operation was delayed right at the start, allowing the French time to prepare for the German attack.
-Insufficient troop numbers were deployed. This meant only minimal gains were made before attacks reached their culminating point.
-The Germans only attacked on one side of the Meuse to begin with. This allowed the French forts on the other side of the river to pepper them with artillery.
-The Germans soldiers received mixed orders. They needed to consolidate ground won but were also ordered to press the attack. This meant heavy German casualties were suffered for little gain.
-The German attacks repeatedly got bogged down as was the nature of trench warfare. This meant they failed to secure the high positions in which to execute Falkenhayn's original plan.
-Falkenhayn massively overestimated French casualties and underestimated German ones. He thought he was getting a 2/3-1 ratio when in reality, German losses were just less than the French.

I would recommend you read Robert Foley's book "German Strategy and the Path to Verdun
Erich von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870–1916"

>>3309165
Hey greatwarannon could you Tell me why they Germans had such difficulties taking Liège, but pretty much walked over the much bigger defense in Antwerp?

My great grandfathers diary tells about the differences in this battle when it Comes to optimism and such. it seems Liège filled the belgian soldiers with optimism, while Antwerp was horrofying for them.

What where they differentieel in German tactics and artillery netwerk these battles?

File: 19059_ca_object_representations_media_16560_large.jpg (255KB, 468x747px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 468x747px

>>3310979
>If you mean common backgrounds or things like that I think you might be out of luck.
No studies covering the backgrounds of high honor medalists? That's what I meant actually, similarities in upbringing or social conditions, family life, jobs etc. I seem to recall some source stating 75 percent of VC winners were elder brothers in rather large families where there was an abscent father. But I couldn't find the source back to save my life it seems.

File: French soldiers in a support trench in the St Mihiel salient, 1916..jpg (82KB, 968x700px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 968x700px

>>3311007
I think it's interesting that a lot of these issues are the same problems that the allies were running into during their operations in 1916 and early 1917.
No one side had a monopoly on bad generalship it seems.

>>3311019
What where the differences in German tactics and artillery between these battles*

>>3311024

In Falkenhayn's case, it was his inability to grasp the full political context of the war. The whole point of the Verdun operation was to grind France down as force them to come to the bargaining table. What he failed to realise that what France/Britain were aiming for was nothing short of total victory and that they were willing to pay a huge price.

In the British case in 1916, it seems like they find the correct formula for success on the Somme on a couple of occasions. Most notably the 14th July when they managed to amass overwhelming artillery superiority. However, they don't realise what they have found and still resort to penny packet attacks. Must have been infuriating as a Divisional/Brigade commander when you knew you didn't have the weight of artillery necessary to make an attack work but had to attack regardless.

File: A Belgian soldier smokes a cigarette during a fight between Dendermonde and Oudegem, Belgium, in 1914..jpg (439KB, 1247x877px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1247x877px

>>3311019
Liege was the very first battle of the war. It was the first engagement for both Germans and Belgians and morale was likely pretty high. Antwerp was a month or so later and the Belgians now knew what was coming and how little chance they had of holding out. Both battles took roughly the same amount of time, 11 and 12 days respectively, but resulted in very heavy casualties from artillery.
I can't imagine much change in tactics between the two though, but I'm not as good on the early war as I am on the late.

File: The interior of an Australian advanced dressing station on the Menin Road during the Third Battle of Ypres (Passchendaele), 20 September 1917.jpg (107KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 800x598px

>>3311020
Ok, looking at my uni library there's a few books that might interest you.
Valour reconsidered : inquiries into the Victoria Cross and other awards for extreme bravery - Hugh Halliday.
I'm also uploading a couple of books on it to my google drive so have a look there in a few minutes.

>>3311042
It wasn't just overwhelming artillery, it was the correct amount of the different sizes and the correct application of it. And they were only starting to figure that out in 1916 and even well into 1917 they were still disregarding their own advice on how to use it. Prior and Wilson are really good on this in their books on the Somme and Passchendaele and on Rawlinsons command.

File: French Army Char d'Assault, Saint (St) Chamond tank, operating in a confined area at Conde-sur-Aisne, St Chemond. The crew of the tank appears to include a dog..jpg (233KB, 640x494px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 640x494px

>>3311020
Victoria Cross by Gary Mead
Awarded for Valour by M Smith
A hundred in a million by Peter Stanley

All in my google drive (link in OP) for ya anon.

File: 164.jpg (245KB, 940x360px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 940x360px

>>3311061
Thank you I'll check the drive. And on the other hand checking the VC entries manually would be a good idea (if they also state background information) I might just do that, 600-something might be a tad bit much so segmenting will be a necessity.

File: Grenade Thrower, Henry de Groux, 1914–16. From Le visage de la victoire.png (1MB, 675x895px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 675x895px

Fucking love me some French war art.

>>3311061

Im reading Prior and Wilson's book on the Somme at the moment. They aren't big fans of Haig or Rawlinson! Just finished Nick Lloyd's book on Third Ypres. Operations after 4th October don't reflect well on the British generalship at all.

File: The debris lined road through Chateau Wood to Westhoek Ridge, in the Ypres sector.jpg (161KB, 640x495px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 640x495px

>>3311116
They've got a book called Command on the Western Front all about Rawlinson and paints a better picture of him than some other British generals. But in general (hah) nah they do pick up on every single mistake they make, but it's really illustrative.
Yeah, if Haig hadn't fucked about with command in the lead up and during 3rd Ypres it could have all gone very differently.

File: 1462134031093.jpg (311KB, 1400x1138px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1400x1138px

>>3311100
Cheers OP

>>3309165
>I've got a google drive full of WW1 books and articles here:
What do you use to get your books? My uni sometimes provides online PDF books but only of old books that don't have copyright anymore

>>3309165
Gonna repeat my comment from last thread:

onymous
08/29/17(Tue)16:37:45No.3307334

Thanks for all the effort spent here gwa - much appreciated. I always find it refreshing to actually read quality content with a civilized discussion here. So kudos to you anon.

Besides that any reading recommendations regarding tunnel warfare in ww1? Always has been one of the most faszinating aspects of it imho.

>>3309165
Oh btw how good is your german Gwa?

>>3310814
That's a WWII pic

>>3310923
why did the french always had such ugly uniforms
you're not making anyone afraid with that shit

looks like they're going to a carnaval

>>3309165
I really wish film was a lot more advanced, everything from the WW1 looks so shit, it's harder to humanise people when the footage of them has them moving too quickly

>britain
>relevant in ww1

lol

>>3311373

The point was to be bright and colorful so that in the smoking clouds of blackpowder, you'd be able to see your brothers around you, which helps with coordination and morale. By WW1 it was a dangerous anachronism since nobody was still using black powder.

>>3311391
I had no idea. But it still looks ridiculous compared to other uniforms like the british for example, that looks very classy

File: 0709d25bff539b48f1920e1630651fe7.jpg (292KB, 885x1272px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 885x1272px

>>3311045
Did some work on the frontiers war in college and their tactics did change in between. Mostly learning to use their artillery to obliterate the forts before they stormed them with their infantery. They learned a lot in liège and the belgian sorties from Antwerp like Mechelen.

Still, a lot of research has to be done on the early war in Belgium.

How many uniforms did frontline soldiers have. Did regular soldiers wear the frontline uniforms to go on leave too?

>ctrl-f "Crown prince wilhelm"
>0 results

>>3309165
Still asking for a summary answer for these meme questions:

I'm sure this has been asked before but a few basic questions:
What ere German war aims, anyway?
Could Germany have won the war? How could it have been done? If so what would their peace have looked like?

>>3311007
>>3310713
Many thanks kind anons
I'll be sure to pick up that book after I finish my current one, seems like a good read

>>3311525
The tactical and strategic war aims of the Germans changed a fair bit. I presume you mean at the outbreak of the war?
1. Support Austria to prevent being completely diplomatically isolated.
2. Weaken Russia to slow it's modernization. We all know what a terror it became as the USSR and the Germans basically predicted that occurring and wanted to strike before it fully modernized.
3. Bit more hazy on the Western Front, a war with France was basically unwanted as the only strategy they had was the Schleifen Plan, which was founded on the idea that such a dual east-west war was a bad spot to be in. Simply knocking out France to deal with Russia would have sufficed, but imposing reparations and weakening France would have been a matter of course after victory.

The war aims changed pretty dramatically as the scale of the war grew.

Germany was actually close to winning the war at the start (imo France couldn't withstand Germans holding Paris for 3 years), and could have collapsed Russia a year sooner if Austria wasn't completely incompetent. If the Brits didn't enter the war, Germany likely would have won as well. The French army nearly collapsed into mutiny even with Britain stiffening the backbone of the Western Front. A clean execution of the Belgian invasion instead of the mess it was may have been enough momentum to seize Paris. Victory was very possible, but the logistical situation was beyond grim for Germany. They could never match the allies in things like Tanks, because they simply didn't have the free resources to peruse such things. They are doomed if the war turns to attrition, as it did in our WW1.

As for peace, well, depends on the year of victory. The greater costs of the war demanded greater returns and greater peace demands as it went on.

What are some good readings on the Italian Front of WW1?

>>3312382
>The French army nearly collapsed into mutiny even with Britain stiffening the backbone of the Western Front.
I think this is a little overstated Tbh; most of the mutinying soldiers were objecting to poor conditions and poorly thought out offensives, not to actually fighting the war.

>>3312728
They were pretty close to refusing offensive operations, handing the Germans their tactical aims on the Western Front-- which by then were purely defensive. I'd say giving the enemy exactly what they want constitutes a collapse.

>>3312837

Seriously though, the mutiny could have been catastrophic for the French Army if Ludendorff had known about it.

>>3312837
>They were pretty close to refusing offensive operations
Refusing poorly thought out offensive operations until conditions improved. And it's not like British intervention was necessary to resolve that. Though the offense at Arras certainly helped take potential pressure off the French in keeping the Germans occupied.

why did the french suck so much

>>3312837
>handing the Germans their tactical aims on the Western Front-- which by then were purely defensive
But in the long run, the french are the ones who don't need to attack, the blocus is already defeating Germany.

>>3312865
The French were honestly one of the better armies, outside the opening moves of the war, where they got completely smashed. Not even comparable to the jokes that were the Italians, Austrians, Ottomans, and most of the Russians. I'd rate the French 'slightly better than the Brits/10'. They suffered primarily from being forced into offensive operations against defensive positions, which was practically suicide in 1915.

>>3312382
Has anyone posted the map of German plans for resettling Eastern Europe?

So the competence chart is basically:

Germany>France>Britannia>Serbia>Russia>Habsburgs>Bulgaria>Ottomans>Italy

File: frightful first world war.png (1013KB, 724x1293px) Image search: [Google]

1013KB, 724x1293px

Really nice work, GreatWarAnon. We really do aprecciate it.

Also, I've been wondering how the world would be like if Australia never existed for a personal project of mine and I wanted to know how much WW1 would be altered if Australia simply wasn't there. Would it change too much?

File: Australian and Ottoman soldiers mingling in no man’s land at Anzac during the truce of 24 May 1915, organised to bury the Ottoman dead from the attack of 19 May..jpg (217KB, 1100x900px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1100x900px

>>3313587
Thanks anon.
>Australia not existing
You monster!

But seriously, I don't think it would have made a tremendous difference. The Aussies, whilst they were some great troops and won some well fought battles, didn't actually tip the tide of the war. They had no strategic impact, the highest ranking Australian, and Canadian for that matter, was a Lieutenant-General, not even in charge of an entire army but only a single corps. I don't think any of the battles they fought couldn't have been done by most other British units. And because their contingent was comparatively small, 5 infantry divisions and 2 light horse divisions, they didn't have the strength in numbers to impact anything more than local battles. 160,000 men at the was just a drop in the bucket in the West. Even at the battle of Amiens where the Australian Corps fought fantastically and made some great gains if you replaced it with say the British XIII Corps for example I think you'd get the exact same results.

File: Lieutenant Rupert Frederick Arding Downes MC addressing his platoon from B Company, 29th Battalion, near Warfusee, France, in August 1918..jpg (60KB, 940x627px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 940x627px

According to Monash in The Australian Victories if France in 1918, the losses of the five Australian divisions that made up the Australian Corps during the Hundred Days Offensive was 21,243. During this time the corps had undertaken constant offensive operations, pushed the 2nd German Army back a distance of 37 miles and liberated over 100 towns and villages.

This success had a dreadful cost though. The Australian Corps was only in the line for 60 of the 100 days and their losses were consequently higher than in any other two month period of the War. Daily losses, or what the army refers to as wastage, averaged out to 70 men per division per day. Quite a high number given the low strength of the divisions at the time, but as Monash himself wrote. “Even during periods of sedentary trench warfare the losses averaged 40 per division per day.”

File: Australian officers relaxing in the Soissons region, 1917..jpg (55KB, 512x704px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 512x704px

>>3311246
Hmm, there's a movie called Beneath Hill 60 about Australian tunnellers during the war, might be worth a look.
As for books
Beneath Flanders fields by Peter Barton
Underground Warfare 1914-1918 by Simon Jones
Battle Beneath The Trenches by Robert Johns
And this https://simonjoneshistorian.com/2014/02/14/born-fighters-who-were-the-tunnellers/

File: Australian troops studying a large relief model of Messines Ridge before the opening of the Battle of Messines in June 1917..jpg (196KB, 900x1100px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 900x1100px

The set piece battles of 1917 were planned and organised to an extreme not seen in the earlier years of the War. The static lines of fortification meant that the ground that soldiers would advance over could be well mapped. So well mapped in fact that models could be made of the battlefields. The route individual companies would take during the battle could be shown in great detail to the men about to cover that ground. These routes and the amount of time it took for men to cover that ground had to be exactly timed so as to follow the artillery barrages that moved ahead of them.

File: CGW.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

I pirated Commander: The Great War and it's pretty decent. It gets the feel of trench warfare down pretty well, but I do wish you had a bit more freedom in regards to events. Germany automatically declares war on Belgium and Britain immediately joins, so you don't have the option to just go straight through France and ignore Belgium. Other than than though diplomacy is fairly open-ended with you being allowed to declare war on countries that historically were neutral at the expense of losing diplomatic reputation and potentially driving away countries from joining you like they did historically in the case of the US, Italy, or Bulgaria.

File: A German column looks over a destroyed Canadian armoured car, bodies, empty belts and cartridge boxes strewn about..jpg (402KB, 1247x798px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1247x798px

>>3314436
Sounds cool. I've never really gotten into hex square strategy games but I should give that a go some time.

>>3309639
Well they tried to break free from their base in Kiel (I think) but in the only significant battle in the war the Brits stopped them. Technically the battle was a draw and who knows what might have happened if either admiral acted more ambitiously, but both sides were wary of the psychological impact a decisive loss would have on the public. Germans had more success with cruisers in Pacific and South Atlantic, but there were too few of them to make a difference.

File: French armoured car supporting two companies of the 18th Battalion, Middlesex Regiment.jpg (58KB, 800x649px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x649px

>>3314961
Given how badly the Brits did at Jutland and how badly the blockade was hurting Germany it probably would have been better to have another go at it and force a decision one way or the other.

File: An observation balloon Caquot (named after the French officer who developed the process) is deployed over Bellemagny in Alsace..jpg (267KB, 936x700px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 936x700px

Ballooooons

File: A French locotractor at Wesserling, August 1916..jpg (220KB, 949x700px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 949x700px

And MINI TRAINS!

It's a fucking kids party here.

File: The cooperative canteen of the French 16th Infantry Regiment at Heminville, March 1918..jpg (164KB, 870x700px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 870x700px

French soldiers had a wine ration of 1L per day.

>>3315112
>park bench style seats
that's adorable

>>3315132
Looks like the Germans were doing that thing where they fired everything at a particular part so as to break through by sheer attrition.

File: A French soldier standing by some gabions (wicker frames filled with earth and stones for protection against shrapnel) protecting Place Duroc at Pont-à-Mousson, February 1918..jpg (131KB, 962x700px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 962x700px

>>3315146
It's a bit odd that they chose that spot in particular, but I guess that if you're firing from a trench and that thing is coming at you that'd be the place offering you the best aim?

>>3315092
German High Command wanted to, but they put it off until it was too late, and the fleet mutinied when given the order to sally when the war was already lost. If they'd struck in March, or better yet before America entered the war, it could have been different.

File: French soldiers showing off captured German machine guns, April 1918..jpg (208KB, 770x700px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 770x700px

>>3315170
Christ, any time before August 1918 would have made a hell of a difference. Given that they shot their bolt with the Spring Offensives I don't see why they wouldn't gamble with the navy too.

>>3315179
By August they'd been repulsed at the Marne (again) and Amiens had basically cracked the foundation of the German Army, everyone knew it was hopeless at that point. But making a run at Scapa Flow at the start of Michael...it could have made a difference, however unlikely

>>3315179
The guy on the right in this pic tho
>i'm cold
>why do Pierre and Jean get to play with the fun gun
>my puttees are too tight
>Felipe keeps looking at me funny when he's holding that gun
>i wish i back in my dugout
>this is the gun that killed half my platoon

File: 1460777959219.jpg (23KB, 243x250px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 243x250px

>>3315191

File: A woman employed in the workshops the Metropolitan Railways of the Rue des Maraîchers. March 28, 1917.jpg (78KB, 507x700px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 507x700px

BIG
FRENCH
WOMEN

>>3315337
where did you get a pic of my grandmom

File: 1498147498935.jpg (464KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1920x1080px

Where do you find all these pictures OP?
also, how accurate is pic related?

File: A woman working on camouflage nets, Nancy April 1918..jpg (101KB, 669x700px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 669x700px

>>3315405
If you're grandmother was in her 20s in 1917 you've got to be the oldest 4chan user I've ever seen.

>>3315411
I'm kidding
though one of my grand grandmother surely worked in a bombshell factory or something

File: 12th Brigade (46th or 48th Battalion) soldiers wearing small box respirators during Third Ypres 1917.jpg (753KB, 920x1232px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 920x1232px

>>3315408
I trawl archives. Lots come from the Imperial War Musem, the Australian War Memorial and the French Army Audio Visual Archives.
Well they're not entirely inaccurate. The Brit has a gas cape which is kinda cool, but only half as long as they actually were, and I don't know why he's wearing one puttee and one gaiter. And British gas masks, called a small box respirator, looked a lot more stupid than that, they didn't fit that nicely.
The Kraut is wearing a cloth machinegun ammo belt for some reason as well, I dunno, rule of cool I guess? The great coats tended not to have coloured piping either, only their field caps did.
French colour is all wrong. Meant to be a skyline blue, not an ultramarine.

If you meant the game itself? Not at all. It's a WW2 shooter with a WW1 skin.
Verdun is a much closer game.

File: Female munition worker preparing shells in a factory, 1916.jpg (170KB, 706x960px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 706x960px

>>3315420
Yeah I guessed. But chances are pretty good that if she was in Britain she may well have. And if she did she could have been a 'canary girl', cause TNT will turn you yellow. And a bunch of them became really ill from exposure to chemicals used in making explosives.

File: 568030-6665a84a-7811-11e3-ad16-5b01da53a32e.jpg (42KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 650x366px

What kind of fucknut thought pals battalions would be a good idea?

File: German Alpenkorps soldiers posing on a mountain; ca. 1915.jpg (599KB, 2048x1235px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 2048x1235px

>>3315467
I can see the attraction of them on paper. Morale isn't something to be underestimated and letting men who join up together stay together, and having ready made relationships is, in theory, a good idea for training. And as a recruiting tactic it's a great idea. It also didn't seem like that much of a change from the already local recruiting a lot of British regiments and even Australian battalions recruited from geographical districts. But in reality it was a big change, and they learnt that with time.

>>3309868
>naval arms race meme

weak theory that has been challenged a lot recently

File: 1479207564785.jpg (355KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1920x1080px

>>3315574
>challenged a lot
Just like your brain

>>3315411
Hey anon, I really like your thread and I'm not trying to be a dick but you have to stop writing you're instead of your. If it wasn't you who did it a couple of times before, I apologize.

File: 1488168587660.jpg (197KB, 962x736px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 962x736px

>>3309165
OP in the last thread you said something I found rather hard to belief. You said it was not uncommon but highly unlikely to survive 4 years of Great Waring. You gave one exemple of a unit who was down to some hundred men after x years of combat. Can you give a bit more explanation. I find it hard to belief almost no guys who had been around since '14 would go on to survive the war. Thanks in advance

>>3312644
Anyone?

>>3309207
France was willing to do it too until they heard British leaders were going to use it as the excuse to attack Germany

File: 123_0.jpg (408KB, 940x360px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 940x360px

Did commonwealth troops fly Union Jacks or their respective flags "into battle". Also as you're an aussie I hope you can clear this out was the national flag of Australia arpund WWI the red or the blue variant with the 6-pointed star?

>>3309348
Are we all pretending that Moltke didn't respond to Prince Ruprechts success on the left flank by moving troops off the right flank for counter attacks In the south.

>>3309379
Britians entry was inevitable. The naval arrangements with France sealed the deal. Lord Gray was delusional with his 'free hand' after being an ally in every way but by name and even the name at this point basically meant alliance.

How fucked was Verdun to the common foot soldier?

>>3310907
He lived in a chateau a few miles behind the line. Lmao

>>3314436
Hearts of iron, great war mod is prob better. As a game it falls apart after central powers take paris though because you'll never actually get a navy to invade British islands with.

Still it does the war way better than vanilla HOI4 does wwii

>>3315732
different Aussie here but the answers kind of both

Have any books on East Africa, OP? Or, heck, the colonial side of the war in general? Weird to think about subjects fighting for their subjugators, but I know it happened and have a bit of an idea why.

>>3315873
I actually tried the mod and it was mediocre. The mod is fairly fucked balance wise as you get shit like Belgium and A-H with hundreds of divisions.

>>3316265
A-H mobilized 9 million total and Germany 11 million. The totals aren't far fetched.

>>3309165
How do I into ww1? I'm a pretty big ww2 buff but my knowledge of ww1 comes from my knowledge of ww2. What's the best introductory book in your opinion?

>>3315330
Isn't this pic from ww2?

>>3316134

>Have any books on East Africa, OP? Or, heck, the colonial side of the war in general?

I'm reading African Kaiser right now, and it does exactly what you just described. I'm about 70% of the way through, so I feel like I can answer any question you might have about it with a reasonable degree of confidence.

>Weird to think about subjects fighting for their subjugators, but I know it happened and have a bit of an idea why.

The book does indeed attempt to explain this. Three main points of consideration.

1. While initially quite brutal, German colonization eventually became easily the most enlightened and progressive of the colonial projects. Very sincere efforts were made to ensure that the colonies would be mutually beneficial both to the natives and the Fatherland. Force labor of any sort was completely banned, and natives received free healthcare and education. The end result was that when the war ultimately came, the natives felt a genuine sort of loyalty to the Kaiser, at least to a certain degree.

2. Lettow-Vorbeck was a firm believer in color-blindness. His army was the world's first integrated army, with blacks and whites fighting beside each other in the same units. Black NCO's were the norm, and it wasn't uncommon for white soldiers to be fighting underneath black NCO's. This sort of thing created a culture of mutual respect.

3. The Natives knew the Germans. They didn't know the British. Why trade the devil you know for the devil you don't?

>>3313818
Thanks. Seen hill 60 allready. Pretty decent besides the romance stuff. Thanks for the book recommendations, will take a look.

>>3310907
There was a documentary series on some history channel [not THE History Channel, this was serious work] where they read from his diaries stuff that related to the ww1. Some of the stuff he did was really distasteful and so ridicilous that I worry how people even took him seriously. While in the trenches he felt like he would like a bath so he made the soldiers warm him some water and erect a literal shower for him, as this action of his would cause a rise in morale in the troops for some unexplainable reason.

>>3317020

Churchill spent his entire adult life as an obsessive warmonger and glory hound. He would be a very easy person to villainize if not for the fact that the people he was against were infinitely worse.

>>3309404
McCagg, William O. A History of Habsburg Jews, 1670–1918. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989.
>An idiosyncratic essay on the social history of Habsburg Jews from the 1670 expulsion of Viennese Jewry until the end of World War I, focusing on modernization, secularization, embourgeoisement, and especially assimilation. The author examines “the Jewish core of the Habsburg bourgeoisie,” seeing it as a window onto the “Imperial bourgeoisie.” In particular, he views the Jews’ “self-denial” and urge to assimilate as keys to understanding the dilemmas of modernity.
Margoshes, Joseph. A World Apart: A Memoir of Jewish Life in Nineteenth Century Galicia. Boston: Academic Studies, 2010.
>Translation of Yiddish memoir, Erinerungen fun mayn leben, written in 1936 by Joseph Margoshes (1866–1955), a writer for the New York daily Morgen Zhurnal. Describes daily life in the Habsburg Galicia of his youth as well as the transformations brought about by World War I.
Manekin, Rachel. “Galicia.” In The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe. Edited by Gershon David Hundert. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.
>Survey of Galician Jewry from 1772 until just after World War I, with a focus on legal status and religious, cultural, and economic trends as well as rising anti-Semitism in the late 19th century and the emergence of Jewish national politics.

>>3317432
Barany, George. “‘Magyar Jew or Jewish Magyar?’ Reflections on the Question of Assimilation.” In Jews and Non-Jews in Eastern Europe, 1918–1945. Edited by Bela Vago and George L. Mosse. New York: Wiley, 1974.
>Beginning with debates about Jewish emancipation in the 1840s, this classic essay explores the contours and limits of Jewish assimilation in Hungary, examining the equivocal support of assimilation on the part of Hungarian Liberals in the 19th century, and the ardent rejection of assimilation on the part of the Hungarian Right, especially after the First World War.
Ranki, Vera. The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion: Jews and Nationalism in Hungary. New York and London: Holmes & Meier, 1999.
>Argues that anti-Semitism is endemic to Hungary. The book’s controversial thesis contends that the Holocaust became inevitable in Hungary as inclusionary liberalism (1867–1918) gave way to exclusionary, antimodern conservatism (1920–1945) following World War I.
Hanebrink, Paul. In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism and Antisemitism, 1890–1944. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006.
>Examines how Hungarian nationalism, which had been liberal and inclusive in the 19th century, was redefined in narrowly “Christian” terms after World War I. The destructive “Jewish spirit” came to be seen as the national enemy.
Rechter, David. The Jews of Vienna and the First World War. London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2001.
>Based on extensive archival research, this monograph explores Viennese Jewry before and during World War I, arguing that the three main ideological camps (nationalist, integrationist, and Orthodox) remained steadfast in their views, even after the end of the Great War. The focus on social and communal history—and especially on the Galician refugees—distinguishes this work from much of the other scholarship on the Jews of late imperial Vienna.

rozenblitt too, as mentioned by the other anon

>>3317443
Victor Prusin, Alexander. Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914–1920. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2005.
>Occupied by Russian forces during World War I, Habsburg Galicia was caught between Russification and Polonization campaigns, and its Jews suffered violence at the hands of Austrian, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian troops during the war and in its aftermath. The author examines the interplay of mob violence and state-sponsored violence against the Jews.
Liulevicius, Vejas Gabriel. War Land on the Eastern Front: Culture, National Identity and German Occupation in World War I. Studies in the Social and Cultural History of Modern Warfare 9. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
>The author studies German soldiers’ encounters with the varied ethnic populations and their cultures on the eastern front during the war. According to the author, the shocking conditions in eastern Europe, particularly poverty, influenced Nazi oppression during World War II.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511497186
Deák, István. Beyond Nationalism: A Social and Political History of the Habsburg Officer Corps, 1848–1918. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
>An empathetic analysis of the institution that arguably did more than any other to hold Austria-Hungary together, stressing the synergies of dynastic loyalty and professionalism. By default, the best English-language overview of the Common Army.

Did Portugal do anything outside of the African campaigns?

File: The French military grocery store at Toul, Meurthe-et-Moselle, March 1918..jpg (144KB, 964x700px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 964x700px

>>3315672
Ok, survive is a bit strong, but to come away completely unscathed. For the AIF the casualty rate was above 60%. But that doesn't mean dead, that's killed, wounded or captured. The figures I gave were for men from the original contingent of the AIF in 1914, the 20,000 of them. There were only 400 still serving by September 1918. Not all of those other 19,600 were dead. Most would have been wounded enough to be sent home to Australia and some were captured.
I think the stats for most belligerants on the Western Front were casualty rates of between 50-60% so it's not that surprising. Especially when you consider that there was a constant stream of casualties every single day from artillery and sniping that was called "wastage". Which even in quiet times would be about 40 men per division per day.

>>3315732
The blue flag was adopted at federation so it was the flag of the army when they went into WW1. They never actually took flags into battle though.
The Red Ensign was the only flag private citizens could fly on land. By traditional British understanding, the Blue Ensign was reserved for Commonwealth Government use, with State and local governments, private organisations and individuals to use the Red Ensign.

>>3316484
Yeah could well be. It was from an article about tank factories in both wars, I thought it looked like they were making Renault FTs but I could well be wrong.

>>3316477
I'd actually say start with a national account of the war from whereever you're from, or a country you're interested in. I started by reading Broken Nation by Joan Beaumont and The Great War by Les Carlyon which were both good narrative overviews for Australia. Might also be an idea to grab the Cambridge History of WW1 from the google drive in the OP and have a read through that.

>>3317538
>They never actually took flags into battle though.
So the blue one would be the one they had, but they didn't have them at the front? So you won't see pictures of aussie men boasting the blue flag at say gallipoli (Not even at a HQ?) But you would see a red one being flown in the frontyard of a family back home?

File: A machine gun crew of the 120th Reserve Infantry Regiment in the trenches at Cambrai, November 1917..jpg (58KB, 800x513px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x513px

>>3317608
Yeah basically. I think it was in the mid 50's that the law was changed allowing everyone to use the blue ensign.
There wasn't much need for flags at the front by that point. Maybe a super patriotic colonel might have had one hanging in his HQ, but I sort of doubt it. They would have been reserved for parades, drill and camps in the rear. I can't say I've ever seen a picture of any flags either at Gallipoli or on the Western Front. Not saying it didn't happen ever, but it would have been pretty uncommon.

File: 11-07-1917.jpg (25KB, 240x189px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 240x189px

>>3317633
>There wasn't much need for flags at the front by that point.
I was thinking you understood my question as me asking:
>did they fly the blue ensign while charging the enemy
I rather meant blue flags adorning baracks or pubs, trenches etc. So as you said no patriotic symbolism at the front? Sorry I'm being so thorough mate

File: nurses and men of the 3rd Australian Casualty Clearing Station gathered beneath a flag pole flying the Australian flag (Australian Blue Ensign) and the Red Cross.jpg (171KB, 640x471px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 640x471px

>>3317757
>I rather meant blue flags adorning baracks or pubs, trenches etc.

Hmm, not as far as I'm aware. Because they were fielded in divisions, which were largely self sufficient there wasn't a super pressing need to identify themselves as a nationality in the rear areas because everyone in their lines would also be Australian. Camps and hospitals absolutely would have had the flag flying. Canteens and comforts funds and recreational facilities... maybe. If they were run by and for Australians but part of a larger British military complex, then I'd say that's quite likely.
Conditions at the front, like actually in the front line and support trenches, were generally pretty bad and the troops only took with them the absolute essentials. Too much chance of having it ruined during a bombardment. And they weren't meant to be easily identified by the enemy either because they could track troop movements that way.

File: Andre_de_Meulemeester.jpg (9KB, 175x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 175x250px

>>3317908
Cheers, something completely different. How long did it take for a pink telegram to reach the family?
I don't know much about it and there's not a lot of info on the net. I got that the term pink telegram only applies to Aussies if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if it's even the actual term.
So what was the process of administration once you got KIA and how long did it take to reach your family in Australia.

File: Between Laon and Soissons, German railway troops wash their clothes beside 50 cm shells, on July 19, 1918..jpg (439KB, 1247x861px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1247x861px

>>3317983
I believe that varied considerably during different parts of the war and depending on how and when a soldier was killed. It took a lot longer at the Gallipoli landing due to chaotic nature of the first few weeks, units were mixed up and not reorganised for some time and often the dead lay far out ahead of the front line, identification could be very difficult and sorting dead from wounded was a hassle because the Brits fucked up the medical system so badly.
Later on it depended if a soldier died during a rotation through the trenches or during a battle. During a rotation it was fairly quick and easy to note a fatality and out through the required paperwork and often LCs would write a letter to the deceased's family if they knew any circumstances. During a battle it would again take a lot longer to work its way through the system as the unit would be on active operations and roll call parades and sorting out the wounded and dead had to take a back seat to the actual fighting.
Telegrams could take only a few days to make it back to Australia but full documentation could easily take six weeks.

Hey GWA, what was the situation in Greece? Why was it courted so heavily by both sides, and why did the Entente blockade us?
>t. Corfuan

OP do you have any photograph taken "on the first day of..." or "the day they first..."?
Like, 15th sept 1916: the day tanks first went into action in history or the first day of the german offensive on Verdun or the first gas attack, etc

It happened so there must be a photograph of it

File: Four Mark I tanks filling with petrol. Chimpanzee Valley, 15 September 1916, the day tanks first went into action..jpg (77KB, 790x599px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 790x599px

>>3318269
There was a group of politicians, mostly British, who thought that the war could be won in places other than the Western Front. They were behind ideas like Gallipoli, sending troops to Italy and Salonika and increasing the presence in the middle east. They wanted more fronts opened up, to break away Germany's allies and weaken them in the west. Greece seemed like another logical one of these places where they could get at Bulgaria, Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans and help Serbia. The Central Powers didn't have all that many allies to begin with so they wanted anyone they could get, and another power in the Mediterranean would have been a help to them. And the Entente just wanted more to stack against the Central Powers, keep them encircled and pressed hard on all fronts. As to the blockade, gunboat diplomacy I guess? Carrot and stick to try and force the Greek govt/king to side with the Entente.

>>3318438
Something like pic related?
There's not a lot of actual action shots from the war. Cameras were actually banned at the front unless you were an official photographer, although a lot of officers and men brought them anyway. But there's very few photos of fighting of any kind because official photographers weren't allowed or didn't want to go out into it and fighting men were well, fighting. Added to which cameras being the comparatively big and bulky things they were, didn't make for easy use in trenches.
But there's lots of photos of rear areas and supporting trenches and that sort of thing on famous days. Just not of the fighting itself usually.

File: Q1VEyY.gif (4MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x360px

Some gifs I just made from the Battle of the Somme.

>>3317329
Oh the documentary sucked his cock, as did the 'interviewees', but his own words painted a much more damning picture than the people tried to whitewash

>>3318681
thx anon
where can i find your blog so i won't bother you with pics requests anymore?

File: CC1ymv.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>3318988
scrapironflotilla.tumblr.com

File: Char allemand A7V 'Mephisto' (capturé pat le 26th Bat. australien) à Poulainville, Somme. 1918 (Fonds R. Bérthelé).jpg (1MB, 3359x2761px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3359x2761px

>>3319002
you're australian right? ever been to france or belgium?

File: German troops moving forward during the Spring Offensive in 1918..jpg (483KB, 1280x861px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1280x861px

>>3319046
Not yet.
I'll be going to the UK for research next year or the year after. Hoping to get over to the continent while I'm there.

>>3319063
From London to Belgium should be not more than 5 or 6 hours by train, no reason not to if budget isnt a concern

File: Russian infantry take cover during a battle against the Austro-Hungarian army, at the beginning of the War; ca. August 1914..jpg (258KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1280x853px

>>3319112
With any luck my missus will have a teaching job lined up and we'll be fine to go wherever, but it's all up in the air at the moment.

>>3309956
The British empire (even with its huge navy and crack BEF) relied very much on the good will of the Russians to protect British India through central Asia, and the same went for France for their African and Caribbean holdings.

Their whole premise for joining the entante was to save their mercantile empire, which they ironically bankrupted and had screaming for independence and nationalism

>>3309165
Why did you decide to study World War 1 particularly? Also, are you australian?

File: belgie_1914_05_gallica.png (380KB, 940x360px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 940x360px

>>3318068
Thanks a bunch, so die > get noted on roll call > listing made > telegram sent to home town > relatives notified
Upwards to six weeks, LC's being lance corporals I assume?

>>3318681

Out of the fighting footage that there is, from what you can determine, how much of it is propaganda vs actual fighting?

>>3309165

Does anybody here have the image that is just a chart that compares the various world powers in 1914? The chart shows the size of the standing army, army reserves, coal production per year, for each of the top 6 world powers.

File: 1481957701136.jpg (1MB, 2440x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2440x1800px

>>3309165
WW1 had a kind of schizophrenic aesthetic

>>3309786
It was a parliamentary decision, one heavily influenced by the invasion of Belgium.

>>3309165
>I've got a google drive full of WW1 books and articles here:

It's missing The Deluge.

>>3320740
Not op
This is not easy to tell, specially in a time of war. A lot of pics are described and captioned as real combat footage but are either rehearsal post-combat or taken during a drill or training. there are a lots of these pics especially on the internets where you cannot trust 100% the caption which differ from a website to another.
A famous one for example is a serie of 2 stereoscopic films depicting 2 american soldiers rushing a bunker then taking a german prisonner. It is obvious this is staged but often captioned as real combat. another one, a famous pic that depicts german soldier running in a 'gas cloud' captioned as an attack (with the german photographer however on the 'wrong side'). it is likely a drill or an aborted attack due to turning winds and therefore they are running away and not attacking.
You can also check the frank hurley's photographs which are from the most part staged or 'photoshoped' with shell burstings or planes or horses.
Another one is a pic of british or canadian soldiers in action probably near vimy ridge. The official pic shows only soldiers marching through a devasted battlefield. You can bump on the same pic but with 2 corpses on the foreground. The 2 bodies are from a completely different pic from a battlefield in the Somme, which is around 150km away from vimy.
I have a ww1 folder with more than 10k images and i reverse googled them all the time, particularly the iconic ones or the untrustworthy ones and i often find surprises
I personnaly trust a bit more pics from national archives and again, sometimes, caption says for example 'german soldiers in 1915' however they wear sthalhem helmets.
Unless there is a caption with a proper number of unit, a genuine date and the proper place where it was taken and all of these have been verified and matched up with the campaign diary of said unit, you cannot trust the pic

>>3321513
You can also see "soldiers releasing combat gas on foes" however not themselves wearing gas masks. I mean, wtf, even the less dangerous gas used in ww1 which is the lacrymogenic gas (btw first used by the french months before the Ypres gas attack of 1915) can blind you for good

What would have happened if the Ottomans took Suez?

File: Autochrome of French soldiers in a trench manning a St. Étienne Mle 1907 machine gun..jpg (282KB, 1280x951px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1280x951px

>>3319975
Lieutenant Colonel. They were in charge of all the admin at the battalion level and it was their job to sign off on all this sort of thing. And because they usually come up from the junior officer ranks they'd worked quite closely with a lot of the men who'd died, especially other junior officers. Yep, that's the basic process, and they did it with POW's as well, but that was an even longer process mediated by other groups like the Red Cross who had contact with the German authorities.

>>3319846
Yep, I'm strayan. WW1 in straya is a really important part of our national identity and a lot of our mythology is drawn from it, especially Gallipoli. We actually commemorate a much more patriotic/nationalistic public holiday in Anzac Day to a greater extent than we do in our actual national day, which shows how deeply it's ingrained into culture here. And growing up with that you learn a lot of myth about the war. One of the big ones is that Australians were commanded and sacrificed by callous British officers. The best example of this being the movie Gallipoli, where a stereotypical British officer orders a suicide charge at Ottoman machine guns and everyone is killed. The actual colonel who ordered that it go ahead was Australian born and bred, and he went on to have a fairly distinguished career during the War. But we remember it as British butchers killing out men. Once I found out about that it drew me into all the complexities of the war and the empire. Been reading about it ever since.

File: 4148458.jpg (182KB, 640x479px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 640x479px

>>3321037
It's geared pretty heavily to my research needs for uni so it's not exactly universal, but there's still good stuff in there.

>>3320740
Yeah this is a really tricky area. Like the other anon said most of the "combat" photos are of training or staged once an area had been consolidated. Because the vast majority of pictures were taken by official photographers they tend to have an eye for propaganda.
Frank Hurley was an Australian official photographer and he did a bunch of composite photos that merged bits of several photos together. He explained it as trying to tell the totality of a story in one picture, but they do come across as quite... fake I guess. Pic related is one of his called "Over the top".
There are some pictures of men advancing during an attack, but if they're real they're always from behind and often at quite a distance.
As to the footage, it's like I said. Anything behind the lines is likely to be real, but anything purporting to show actual fighting I'd say is probably staged.

File: Frame from the Battle of the Somme film - troops getting ready to go over the top.jpg (61KB, 800x613px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x613px

>>3320740
This scene from the Battle of the Somme film is fake for example. Shot in training trenches well behind the lines.

>>3322344
for those interested in autochromes, search for Fernand Cuville, Paul Castelnau and Jean-Baptiste Tournassoud

File: Naamloos_1_3.jpg (151KB, 1500x788px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1500x788px

>>3322344
>Lieutenant Colonel
Really that high of a rank? Aren't battalions upwards of 300-500 men? Would they know them by name? Lieutenants and captains wouldn't surprise me, but enlisted men?
As long as you're not tired of answering I'm gonna keep asking stuff. Anyhow thanks a bunch!

File: belgische_soldaat_met_een_hondje_in_de_hallen_van_nieuwpoort.jpg (183KB, 500x661px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 500x661px

How common were animal mascots in the various armies?

Also shame you weren't around when I was writing a paper on chaplains during the Great War a few months ago.

>>3323795
it was very common onboard navy ships within all armies (except submarines of course) and in aerial units, like the two lion cubs 'Whiskey' and 'Soda' in the Escadrille Lafayette. Sometimes a single aviator had a mascott such as 'Helena', René Fonck's stork mascott
Dont know about infantry units

>>3323795

The crew of the SMS Konigsberg adopted a young hippopotamus as a mascot for a short time when they were trapped in the Rufiji Delta.

File: My OC.png (366KB, 418x631px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 418x631px

>>3309165
Gonna use these images for memes my friend.

>>3323795
does Cher Ami count?

File: small_pre1270541595.jpg (222KB, 704x900px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 704x900px

>>3309165

What was the basis for the Franco-Russian Alliance? Is there anything that Germany could have done to prevent it from happening?

>>3324160
Is Cher Ami an animal and was it a mascot? If yes, it counts

>>3324299
The only thing Germany could do to prevent it is not uniting most probably.

>>3324345

Imagine a world where Germany was defeated before 1917. Would the Russo-France alliance continue to this day? Just imagine how much that would change our current politics.

>>3324356
It would have fractured over time, like everything does. Russia is always tearing itself apart and only survives when there is a strongman at the helm. France has/had its own problems. Had the war been won before the Communist took power in Russia we would probably have a surge of socialist parties taking a bigger and bigger role in the main part of Europe and the only "old school" monarchies left would be UK and Russia and they would more probably have a more enduring alliance.

I don't know anon, I am talking out of my ass here, but it sounds right

>>3324340
well I don't think it was a mascot but it got awarded the croix de guerre

File: 222.jpg (332KB, 940x360px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 940x360px

>>3323912
>>3324031
lions and hipopotamusses huh?
Was talking about infantry units near the front but thanks for the information

>>3326067

The Hippotamus didn't survive very long on the ship. It was honestly a dumb idea to bring it aboard. But I guess that's what happens when you're stuck in river delta for 200+ days. You adopt hippos as pets.

File: smidsesepiazh3.jpg (95KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x531px

>>3326073
>It was honestly a dumb idea to bring it aboard
Why, kinda symbolic to bring a marine animal no?

File: kamisama_kiss-07-nanami-textbook-studying-confused-cute.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>3326104
>>3326104

Because imagine how much a hippo needs to eat to survive. Now imagine you're on ship that's cornered in the Rufiji Delta with limited food stores. Does that make sense? To adopt an animal with huge nutritional requirements when you're living on limited food stores. That's probably why it died, they probably couldn't feed it enough without depleting their own food stores. Now that I've typed all this out, I'm wondering if they ate the hippo after it died. What if.............that was the plan all along.

File: GettyImages-159146830.jpg (2MB, 3478x3333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3478x3333px

This may seem a bit trivial but i'm curious as to how the Germans ended up losing the war, was it general incompetence in the upper staff? Did the naval blockade starve them to defeat? Too many casualites?

It just seems to me anytime i'm reading about ww1 everything looks great for Germany (as great as 800,000 casualties compared to 1,000,000 can be), minus her allies, from 1914-16ish

Yet around Verdun everything seems to start going to shit for them and by 1918 it's just them being rolled back further and further as everything crumbles.

I guess i'm asking at what point did it "go wrong" for them or when did they dig themselves in too deep to ever achieve victory?

>>3327004
I would say it went wrong when the Schlieffen plan failed and they dug in on the western front after the race to the sea. If they knocked France out during the battle of the Frontiers they could have won the war, but the combined might of Britain, France, and Russia just put too much pressure on them strategically even if they were winning battles.

File: Lieutenant Fonck and his pet stork Helena. June 1918,.jpg (109KB, 800x700px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x700px

>>3323786
A battalions paper strength is about 1000, so yeah it seems high, but the LC is really where it all happened in a battalion. They were often talked about in very paternal terms "dad, the old man, pop" were all noted in a study of Australian battalion commanders during the war. And like I said, by 1918 something in the range of 90% had risen from the ranks of the junior officers, so they knew and felt a lot for their men. There's a great book called Soldiers and Gentlemen: Australian Battalion Commanders in the Great War by William Westerman. Lots of good info about that sort of thing in there.

>>3323795
Very common. Everyone did it and some were quite famous. Here is Rene Fonck and his stork like >>3323912 mentioned.

>>3324040
Go for it anon, I'd love to see them.

File: Patrol of 1st Battalion, Cameron Highlanders (1st Division) in action amidst the ruins of Cuinchy, 17 April 1918..jpg (75KB, 800x615px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x615px

>>3327004
Well there's a lot of discussion in the scholarship about when it went wrong and a lot of people think it was with the decision to invade through Belgium. I come down on the side that once they were stopped on the Marne they were pretty much done for. They didnt have any chance of an outright victory unless they could take Paris, and once they got bogged down in trench fighting that was just too far and too hard. And certainly until 1917/18 they didn't have the capability, in either technology or doctrine, to break though a well defended trench system.
And once they did have that ability they didn't have the resources or reserves to be able to do it in any way that could have changed the strategic situation. They tried in 1918, but after their initial impetus was lost they were hammered by the British and French. Whereas the British and the French had developed in tandem the technology and infantry/artillery doctrine that allowed them to chew their way through German defences regardless, in most cases, of how strongly they were opposed.
They were starved of resources by the blockade, had less manpower, their allies were all defeated and their army was outfought on the ground by the British and French.