"The Forgotten Armies of the Western Front – 1914 to 1918" Topic

"EIGHT MILLION MEN fought in the British Army during the First World War. More than half of them (5 million) served in France and Flanders on the Western Front. [1] These men came from the U.K. as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and even the West Indies. Another 8 million soldiers fought for France. [2] The United States sent 4.7 million to war with Germany in the last two years of the war [3] and as many as 11 million Germans fought in France and Belgium as well between 1914 and 1918. Interestingly enough these weren't the only nations' armies to have taken part in the fighting. There were other, smaller, often overlooked contingents to the Western Front that history has largely forgotten. Here are their stories…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Thanks -- this only reinforces the idea that this war was an incredibly massive mistake which literally consumed an entire generation. I can understand --perhaps a little better-- why there was such a reluctance on behalf of the WWII allies to engage in another such bloodbath and also why Germany was so intent on righting the scales given the war reparations they were saddled with after the Great War..

Germany was so intent on righting the scales given the war reparations they were saddled with after the Great War..

Ya know…
That really annoys me. Just what do you think the Huns would have shoved down the throats of the French and British if THEY had won? It would have been as bad, if not worse than the Versailles Treaty.
Much better if the US had stayed out of the war and let the whole Great War drown out in a whimper with nobody winning.
But NOOOOOO… Woodrow ing Wilson had to show everyone how morally superior he was and totally screw things up.
Harrumph.

"Just what do you think the Huns would have shoved down the throats of the French and British if THEY had won? It would have been as bad, if not worse than the Versailles Treaty."

Is this meant as a serious comment ? Why "Hun" but not "Frog" and "Limey"? Anyway, I suggest you stick to American history, since you do not seem to want to understand anything about European history. If, by any chance, you would be really interested, try for instance Jack Beatty: The lost history of 1914 – for Woodrow Wilson he gives an explanation grounded in Mexico.

…since you do not seem to want to understand anything about European history.

You do a very good impersonation of a condescending superior know it all with an agenda to push. I know you are not serious, though and are just pulling my leg.

OK, fine; I will play your game.
Please explain how much more lenient the Germans would have been had they won.

I think that what Porthos means is that the terms of the Versailles treaty fed the continuing saga of wars of competition between France and Germany and so were a major political error, leading directly to WW2. The action of Germany, had they won, is irrelevant to that fact.

If the Germans had been as lenient as after the FP war then they would have been considerably less harsh that Versailles.

John.. Heavens knows I am not suggesting the Nazi's were in any way justified by anything in starting WWII. Nor am I suggesting the Kaiser would have been anything less than horrid had Germany won the war (as noted the FP war established all that) --it is that the allies failed to be conciliatory to the population and wrought the whirlwind. My father was part of the post-WWII reconstruction of Germany and of course Germany is a strong ally. My father was rewarded by meeting this beautiful German girl while he was there. And of course you can infer the rest of the story.

"Please explain how much more lenient the Germans would have been had they won."
Let me try to be as short as possible. First: the real opponent was not France but Russia. Germany however had to defeat France first to escape a war on two fronts. The mobilisation of Russia (which started the war)was expected to take more time, time to use to beat France again. French president Poincaré who was in Russia at that time may have encouraged that decision, made by the Tzar.
Second: the Germans were not so much interested in conquering Europe as defending themselves. Look at the map: who was actually surrounded ? France was seething with revanche and revenge for the lost Alsace and Lotharingen (indicentally conquered by the Sun King two centuries earlier – and people there STILL speak German (like in Southern Tirol that was added to Italy after World War One). Clearly sooner or later there would be a French reaction. Remember that no one thought of anything else than a short conflict, "home before the leaves fall". Poincaré incidentally not only thought to see a possibility for a supported (by Russia) revanche, but (according to Jack Beatty) he also tried to impress his mistress in divorcing her current husband ;-)).
Several historians claim that there were not two world wars, there was only one, from 1914 to 1945. And like Nashville says: there is no justification for starting World War Two (whether or not this was a new war or a continuation of the old one). Actually, I think there is hardly any justification for any war, there is only trying to understand the various causes.
In this case – the Versailles treaty – people in Germany were dying from hunger. I think especially Clemenceau was responsible for the very harsh terms, put on a nation already punished by the blockade, the revolt and the fighting right after 1918, the incredible inflation that ruined those who still had some money left. How would history have been if George Marshall had lived earlier ? "Marshall help" definitely saved Europe in 1945.

Like I said: Germany was interested in defending itself, not in "revenge", like France.

BTW: I am not German, nor do I have any sympathy for Nazis. My father spent more than two years in Germany (Arbeitseinsatz), my mother lost both her parents in the winter of 1945 (the Hunger Winter) and my uncle (my mother's brother) was engaged to a jewish girl that was deported.
I have heard the stories first hand about slamming car doors in the middle of the night, and the listener praying "oh God, please not me, not me, let it be the neighbours !".

I feel however that as often as not people simply yell "Bad Germans ! Bad Germans !" without even a whiff of understanding what really happened and why.

I find Porthos' view of the reasons behind WW1 somewhat one-sided.

'Germany' (a very recent creation) may have seemed to be defending itself but Prussia certainly intended to use the opportunity to extend its control over those parts of Europe that it considered 'German'.

Germany also built a considerable fleet that had no possible purpose but aggression and courted allies in the Balkans & Asia Minor that were carefully chosen to force Russia into a war on many fronts.

I am not saying that German policies were particularly more belligerent than other nations, just that they were no less either. To portray them as the injured party is wrong.

Sorry about possible one-sidedness… The largest problem of the period was the influence of individuals. The German Fleet was in fact a "toy" of Wilhelm II (that incidentally was one of the reasons Germany lost the war – money thrown away that should have been spent on the army). He wanted to be equal of Great Britain, including colonies. Since however Great Britain – as an island – could never permit anyone to have a Fleet comparable with the British, his trying was doomed. The German Fleet however was not really meant for agression but more for Kaisermanövres on sea…
I quite agree with your remark concerning Russia – the German government will have been VERY happy with Liman von Sanders in Turkey ! Russia was rightfully concerned about the possible closing of the Dardanelles and therefore blocking the Black See Fleet. But, as I said, Russia was an opponent that was expected to be able to beat Germany in a few years whence.
I certainly did not intend to portray them as an injured party. Perhaps this was overcompensating ;-)). But they are not "the villain in the play" either. On that level (governments) there almost never are villains. Wasn't it Lord Palmerston who said "Countries have no friends, countries have interests" ? If we have to choose a villain for 1914, I would point at Apis, the head of Servian Military Intelligence.

That said Porthos you still did not say how more lenient terms the Germans would had offered. The some examples of their writing we have and of an actual treaty they did (Romania and Russia) do not support your argument of leniency.

I do agree with you on Apis (though would throw in the AH and Russian leadership, including Grey and Poincare). In my book Wilhem was incompetent, rather than villainous.

That said once the war started the Germans were seeking a punishing peace as much as the allies, especially once the L & H duo took power. Germany may be the least blamable participant in the outbreak of the war, but it definetly played its part in making it a total war once it started.

But answer Johns question.

I don't think John's question can be answered. While there was a position that Germany would adopt after a successful war with France and Russia in Bismark's day, I doubt such forward thinking was possible for his replacement(s). The Kaiser, apart from being unstable, had little understanding of economics and even less of political reality, without the war revolution was as likely to topple him as the Tsar.

Germany knew that their support for Austria (both open and covert) in dealing with the Balkans would cause Russia to mobilise and give them the opportunity to cry foul and do the same. Russia could not mobilise anywhere near as quickly as Germany, even against Turkey it took many weeks.

Russia needed Balkan allies to keep the Turks busy, Germany did not. Stirring and making covert promises of support made sure that the region remained a powder keg – and all sides had a spoon in the pot, each for their own reasons.

I can't see how Germany can take any less blame than numerous other parties for the start of the war. It was like a game of 'chicken' played by megalomaniacs.

" It was like a game of 'chicken' played by megalomaniacs."
Yes, I can imagine that…
I hoped to point out that Germany wouldn't have asked for paying damages (if this is the correct term). The Kaiser wanted his own place in the sun (quite literally, BTW, he wanted more colonies ;-))). Clemenceau c.s. saw a nation that had won previous wars (against Denmark, Austria, France) and wanted to be certain that this would never happen again. Germany would however have claimed territorial gain outside Europe (Africa ?) and ironclad guarantees not to be threatened by Russia and France. Suppose they had won what Holger Herwig has called the decisive battle of World War One: the Marne. Would it not have been somewhat like 1940 ?
Anyway, I do agree that Germany does not take LESS blame, I only resist the thought that they were the only ones to blame…

German war aims, the "Septemberprogramm"
link

Oh, yes. Very lenient.
Only annexation of Belgium and Luxemburg.
Stripping France of the coast and iron regions. Some going directly to Germany, some to Belgium which gets annexed in any event.
An indemnity of 10 billion Reichmarks.
Most of Afrika.
Etc.

This makes Versailles look like … Versailles?
Same intent, to punish and confiscate. To impose such a crippling indemnity that the Bad Guy would not be able to wage war "forever". It worked out well in our timeline, n'est-ce pas? (That's French for "hainna?"
I can see it working out just as well had Germany won.

Note that the Septemberprogramm was developed in September of 1914, with Russia still in the ring, albeit gasping for air.
I have a strong suspicion that the Septemberprogramm was sitting in a desk for quite some time prior to 1914. Didn't the German armies march through these areas to be annexed? Most of them?

This was a plan drawn up by a civil servant at the instigation of Germany's industrial and commercial barons. It was never adopted as policy or given 'official' status in any way. It was NOT 'sitting on a desk for some time prior to 1914', its creation definitely dates after the war started.

Von Betthmann Holweg was NOT " just" a civil servant. He was Chancellor until 1917.
One does not go to war without war aims. Particularly Germany.

Given that this thread seems to have turned into a we were all as bad as each other thread (i doubt that the population of Belgium viewed the Germans as defending themselves and atrocity stories not withstanding, it seems pretty clear that schrecklichkeit was German policy in 1914 with behaviour that would have been not out of place ble in WW2 – Belgian self defence not recognised as legitimate in the same way as Poland's was not in 1939) one 'army' not mentioned in the article is the Chinese Labour Corps. Coming from a mixed family and being a WW1 buff I am very interested in this topic and there is now a campaign to get official recognition of the role of the CLC ensuringweremember.org.uk/.
Particularly interesting I thought was their role in the tank workshops.

The mobilisation of Russia (which started the war)

I always thought it was the assassination of the heir apparent (and his wife) to the Hapsburg throne by Serbian agents that started the war. Live and learn.