Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World War 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • World War 1

    Since WW1 is largely forgotten I did some reading up on it.

    I'll write about some aspects that were not so familiar to me until I read up a bit.

    Before WW1 Germany was developing fast and had higher GDP than England (the undisputed top super power of the time). They were also building fleet, at start Germany had 17 vs 29 English Dreadnought class battleships. Germany had to import food (about 60-65% self sufficient) and resources.

    One of goals of Germany was to build Berlin Baghdad Railway through allied Ottoman empire and build a port in Persian gulf, to facilitate trade with colonies and gain oil. Railway was financed by German bank. Pro-Russian Serbia was standing in the way between Austro-Hungary and Ottomans. Russia was fomenting pan-Slavic movement in Austro-Hungary, demanding south-Slavic independance and Austro-Hungary was fanning Ukrainian nationalism towards Russians and promoting independent Ukraine idea.

    Russia wanted to occupy Istanbul and expand from Caucasus towards today's Iraq. Russian troops were close to advancing on Mosul. Germans were blockaded by British fleet and had the Russians held out through 1917 and occupied Mosul, they would have strangled Germany. In Austro hungary for example street car tracks and bells were being melted into weapons.

    Had the Russians occupied Istanbul, they would have controlled Black Sea completely, would have gained in Versailles treaty. Because the Bolsheviks - now considered traitors by Russia's mainstream politics - signed separate peace with Germans in 1917, Russia lost Finland, Baltics, Ukraine and southern Caucasus to central powers.

    The British considered any expansion in Middle East or Mediterranean a threat to their dominance of India. In mid 19th century Russian destroyed Ottoman fleet and started to dominate Black Sea. Since British were afraid Russians would control Bospor straits and dominate black sea, they and the French attacked and occupied Crimea. Whoever controls Crimea, controls Black Sea and Ukraine Crimea was also the last bastion, from where the White Army left Russia in 1920's. So they would have neither the Germans nor Russians nor anyone else become too strong in this part. Another problem of Crimean war was that Austro Hungary didn't support Russia as they were planning to expand in the Balkans thus ending the Holy alliance.

    This is why the allies were reluctant to send arms to White Army (who didn't recognize Brest Litovsk). For example the whites caputred Russia's 500 ton gold reserves and took them to Siberia. The allies would send arms through Vladivostok and shipments were very slow. In 1920 the Czech legion under command of French general took control of gold reserves train and handed the Russian white admiral Kolchak, who was leader of white government to provisional social revolutionary government in Irkutsk.

    The Holy alliance between Austria, Prussia and Russia in 1815 has ensured peace for first half of 19th century and prevented major conflict until breakout of World War 1.

    Another aspect was that Germany was prepared for war, they had lots of artillery pieces. Everyone else was also arming up. They believed that if they mobilized quickly before Russia would have, they would have been able to capture Paris and force peace on France (like they did in 1870).

    Once that was not to pass, it became clear it was going to be a long protracted war for which no state of the time was prepared.

    What really caused the defeat was economy. While fronts remained static, the internal pressure built to the point that countries started to fall apart. There was hunger in Germany, Austrian Å koda factories were running 16h work days making arms, there was massive social unrest in Russia, there were starvations among prisoners of war and refugees in Central powers. So once the economy was spent and social unrest overboiled the country was knocked out of war.

    In Russia it was the generals and elite who forced czar to resign, hoping it would boost morale in February. After that councils were enacted through-out military units who could overrule orders from officers, remove officers, officers were forced to disarm and capital punishment was abolished on front lines. Once mutineering sailors wanted to disarm admiral Kolchak, the commander of Black Sea fleet, he threw his golden sword into sea, saying: Even the Japanese (in 1905) didn't take my weapons away when they captured me. After such destruction of vertical command in state, no one was able to put down the October revolution by Bolseviks. The civil war and red terror that followed caused more deaths than war itself.

    The march to war has been very quick. A month has passed between assassination of Austria's heir apparent and declaration of war and during this time no one was able to make peace. Russian Czar was related to German Kaiser and they corresponded but were unable to make peace. The war has destroyed 4 empires and left Europe devastated.

    Cocaine was in use. For example Germans gave Bolseviks money and cocaine. Austrian poet Georg Trakl was devastated working in field hospital unable to help 100's of wounded without any materials. After attempted suicide he was hospitalized, where he overdosed on cocaine.
    Last edited by UtwigMU; 10 September 2014, 06:39.

  • #2
    Quite frankly, is it not time that we were more forward-looking instead of going over and over and over past history, about which we can do nothing?

    I would have thought that the problems of IS, Ukraine, Scottish devolution, Ebola, deserve much more of our time than learning more about the futilities of a century ago or even of 75 years ago with World War II.
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #3
      Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by krsesq View Post
        those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
        precisely!!
        Dr. Mordrid
        ----------------------------
        An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

        I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

        Comment


        • #5
          Also found some cool movies/series. They can be watched online (if you don't need subtitles).

          Loss of Empire, Russian. A one-handed Tsarist secret service agent, who spent time in Japanese captivity and learned kendo and his company work to avert Russian defeat and subsequently revolution. They catch German, Austrian spies and Bolseviks. The ongoing war and revolution is shown in background, zeppelins, battleships, army charges and many historical personalities. Each episode has a Sherlock Holmes-like plot, watch it if you find it with subtitles or can understand Russian

          Trailer with English subs
          Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.


          The beautiful actress who acted in Goodbye Lenin is in one of leads of the series.

          Austrians also made a movie Das Attentat Sarajevo 2014 dealing with agent who researches the murder in Sarajevo, while the war party already has plans for war

          Last edited by UtwigMU; 10 September 2014, 12:43.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KRSESQ View Post
            Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
            This is a platitude. Prithee, please show me one sentence in your screed that is relevant to any of today's problems.
            Brian (the devil incarnate)

            Comment


            • #7
              I guess the better question is: What is it that we can learn from history so that we do not repeat it?
              It is clear, given Chamberlain 1938, that we should simply not accept anything and bomb the hell out of anyone
              It is clear, given Iraq 2003, that bombing the hell out of anyone does not solve any problems, in fact may open up newer bigger problems (to bomb).

              One of lessons that I have learned in the past that is relevant to this thread is that it perhaps should be moved to the P&R forum ;-)
              Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
              [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
                This is a platitude. Prithee, please show me one sentence in your screed that is relevant to any of today's problems.
                I'm not sure what qualifies the quote (slightly modified from the original by Edmund Burke and later by George Santayana) as a "screed." And platitudes of this sort survive at least in part because they contain a fundamental truth about the human condition in general that can be applied universally. Understanding how the world ignited in war in 1914 and again in 1939 gives us a better perception of the warning signs that might present themselves in the modern age, where things happen much more quickly, and the results are far more destructive, than they were a century ago.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
                  I guess the better question is: What is it that we can learn from history so that we do not repeat it?
                  It is clear, given Chamberlain 1938, that we should simply not accept anything and bomb the hell out of anyone
                  It is clear, given Iraq 2003, that bombing the hell out of anyone does not solve any problems, in fact may open up newer bigger problems (to bomb).

                  One of lessons that I have learned in the past that is relevant to this thread is that it perhaps should be moved to the P&R forum ;-)
                  1938 was a game between great powers (Germany was No. 3 or 4. then). Chamberlain being stupid and appeasing is a very simplistic explanation. The UK's and USSR's game was to have Germany start war with the other and win by staying out while undesired competitors mutually destroy each other. That's why they let Hitler run around Europe until he clashed with Soviet Union.

                  Iraq wasn't even a regional power anymore. After WW2 Hitler became universal insult and every regime one perceives as aggressive is compared to Hitler.

                  For example the USA thinks Putin is the new Hitler, while Russians think Obama is the new Hitler and it's great patriotic war all over again.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    @KRSESQ and @UtwigMU: Thx for the history lessons but what does that tell us about what we should do today?
                    - Should we tell Ukraine to suck it up and let Russia have the Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine?
                    - Should we show Russia we won't accept it, increase embargo's/boycots and prepare for a fight over the eastern part of Ukraine?
                    Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                    [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would never presume to have all-encompassing answers to any of these or other questions. In a perfect world these issues would be solved within Ukraine, diplomatically and peacefully , with both the western powers and Russia keeping their noses out of it. But we all know THAT isn't going to happen. Historically, outside powers have ALWAYS meddled in other nations' civil wars, jockeying for an advantage, currying favor with whoever they think will come out on top. Ukraine is no different.

                      If Russia were content to take Crimea in exchange for keeping out of Ukraine's internal affairs (and basically leaving Russian Ukrainians out to dry) that would be a fair exchange...to everyone but the Russian Ukrainians. Obviously THAT'S not happening!

                      It wouldn't even do any good to institute a change in leadership in all of the concerned nations, since new leaders would bring in their own agendas which would be just as at odds with each other as the current situation. And if either Putin or Obama were to be replaced with a more hawkish leader (far more likely than either of them being replaced by LESS hawkish leaders), things could go from bad to worse VERY rapidly.

                      Russia knows it can wait out the west. They plan policies across decades while the west is hard-pressed to stay on task past the next fiscal quarter. The current situation in Ukraine could drag on unchanged for years with no progress on either side, which only works to Russia's advantage as attrition takes its toll and battle fatigue sets in.

                      I guess what I'm trying to say is that what's happening now may be the best awful situation we could hope for. And if it were to drag on for years with thousands of casualties, that might be preferable to getting it over with within months with hundreds of thousands of casualties.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's very hard to say what is best. I'm good at predicting general direction of things in future but it's hard to see how this will end up. I see USA sole superpower status going away (not this or next year but in a decade) but I can't say whether multipolar World will be better than Pax Americana.

                        The biggest mistake before WW1 and WW2 was getting beyond the point where politicians could still back down without loosing face. And if one party is hell-bent on starting a war, once the drums start beating and war machine starts rolling, it's too late to stop. A war starts either when one is sure one can win or one thinks one has no other option.

                        I think the problem here is that goals of USA (Ukraine with Crima in NATO and US friendly regime in Moscow much sooner than 2024 when Putin's next term expires) and Russia (Crimea + federal Ukraine in Russian sphere) are too far apart and economic and information war will continue until balance of power is changed.

                        I do think that present world order drawn in 1990 (China encircled by US friendly bases, Russia with NATO, EU and Japan subordinated to US foreign policy) no longer reflects country strengths so a correction will come. Hope it will be a peaceful one like in 1989.

                        If war is to break out, I think it will be sooner in East Asia than in Europe. Far more nationalism and arm buildups and China has gained a lot more weight since 1990 than Russia and has a goal of their own version of Monroe doctrine in the area.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          One insane but workable* solution to the Ukraine crisis might be to offer the Russian Ukrainians an absurd sum of money (perhaps gold bullion) to buy out their interest in Ukraine, enabling them to resettle anywhere in the world they desire. They could then afford to pack everything they own and move a few miles across the border into Russia and live in relative safety and comfort for the rest of their lives. That is, if Russia will have them. I'm given to understand Russia is more interested in Ukraine's coal fields than it is in the plight of Russian Ukrainians.

                          *note that workable in this context does not necessarily equal practical.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Good ideas all. I do wonder what lessons from WWI and WWII were incorporated in those.

                            I like the buy-out idea. I think Israel would love it to solve some of their little problems. But, why would not Russia be allowed to buy-out Ukraine of the Cremea and eastern parts?
                            Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                            [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
                              Good ideas all. I do wonder what lessons from WWI and WWII were incorporated in those.

                              I like the buy-out idea. I think Israel would love it to solve some of their little problems. But, why would not Russia be allowed to buy-out Ukraine of the Cremea and eastern parts?
                              Russia has been buying off Ukraine.

                              They were giving them gas at much lower prices than to rest of Europe, they were paying them rent for Crimea, they bought most of their products which couldn't go to EU markets. Some in Russia see Ukraine as poor relative begging for money: IE - we gave you Independence from Soviet Union, we gave you territory (west ukraine is pre 1939 Poland), we give you cheap gas and money and you keep threatening to turn to Europe.

                              The lessons from WW1 on Ukraine. In early 1918 Bolseviks signed separate peace treaty of Brest Litovsk which created present day Ukraine border. Ukraine was occupied by German army. Austrians were fomenting Ukraine independence.

                              West Ukraine was let by Getman (Ataman, head of cossacks). Central Ukraine was led by Petlyura (another Ukrainian state). In East Ukraine there was a Donetsk Republic (like today). Throughout Ukraine there was operating black anarchist army. Most officers and aristocracy fled Moscow and Petersburg and White Army was operating from Don river region. After Germans left, Petlyura took over Kiev and started ethnically clensing Poles and Russians. Poles were helping Ukrainian state.

                              Ukrainian army was fighting against white army since white army didn't recognise Brest-Litovsk and when White army was close to Moscow and joining with Siberian white army, the black Makhno army raided their supply lines. So Bolseviks were able to defeat first white army, then Ukrainian army and in the end Makhno army. Were all the forces who were against bolseviks coordinated and united, they would have had a better chance.

                              While Bolseviks gave Ukraine "republic" status (Crimea also had atuonomus republic status), Ukraine fared much worse than it would have in democratic or constitutional monarchy Russia. It's really ironic that Ukrainians are toppling Lenin statues though, it was actually Lenin who gave them republic.

                              Just like it would be unproductive for Netherlands to hate Germany, Scotland to hate England or Belgium to hate France... it's unproductive for Ukraine to hate Russia. Even Serbs and Croats who were ethnically cleansing each other 20 years ago today have rising trade and relations. Ukraine is nearly bankrupt, people have no future. I see loads of Ukrainian licence plate vans shuttling gastarbeiter to Italy on Slovenian roads, millions work abroad. This is similar to Serbia under Milosevic. Once country is nearly bankrupt it's far easier for leadership to blame all problems on neighbor and start a war, Ukraine is unmanageable at the moment, it's like Soviet Union in 1989 or Yugoslavia in 1990.

                              If Ukraine leadership wants to create pro-west Ukraine, it would have been better for them to let go of territory which is against that as they lack means to impose their will throughout. Occupying, suppressing, giving concessions, bribing East would cost them too much (as it was better for Serbia to let go of Kosovo).

                              As for what historically worked in this part: Holy alliance, we need another holy alliance, 100 years of peace
                              Last edited by UtwigMU; 12 September 2014, 00:06.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X