And we take our headache pills and Berrocas from Beyer and accept Agfa for what they are today. As if I G Farben never happened.

CM, I take your point, if I understand it :)

I think you do, my friend.

With all the plethora of new WWI programmes being aired, I am wondering why the excellent 'The Great War' narrated by Laurence Olivier is not also being repeated.

Perhaps because it lasts for around 24 hours iirc ? I have 16 DVDs of the film.

I heard Sir Max H present last night - the first half was very similar to the script of his excellent BBC doc. Very convincing arguments.


He mentioned a book by one David Reynolds - The Long Shadow, which covers the influence WW1 has had on 20th (& 21st) century thinking. Has anyone read it?


He also mentioned a couple of interesting factoids that demonstrated that most of the British people remained supportive of the cause of the war even after its end, and despite the lack of political change in GB: 1m people attended Haig's funeral, and Mme Tussauds installed a gallery of British generals entitled "The Men Who Won the War" - they were not melted down until public opinion shifted in 1934!

QUOTE:

The German Army was not defeated in the field but believe it was betrayed by the politicians.

I cannot believe you should think this. The "HUNDRED DAYS" has been forgotten?

Believe me, in these last days of the war the German Army on the Western Front was thrashed out of sight, as witness the huge numbers of prisoners and guns captured.
I would also point out that the British Empire achieved more in those days than all the others put together, although I am sure we were duly grateful for a little help.

I think the point is that they didn't surrender; it was an armistice.

Anyway, Hastings annoyed me last night; he made a good programme! Most of his offerings usually elevate my blood pressure.

LB, it was not what happened but what they thought had happened.

I imagine it was very clear to the inhabitants of the Rhineland when the army marched in. Ours, not theirs,

That 1918 Advance to Victory was US-enabled. If there hadn't been that huge influx of new troops, there surely wouldn't have been many to be in the advance. That new numerical factor in terms of men and materiel was inevitably going to break the stalemate at some point.

Angering the US in an effort to match the blockade of Germany was a seriously bad move.

It was always likely that a breakthrough into the landscape behind the trenches was going to be easy to sustain. The whole logistics system was intended to supply the front. If it broke, then there was no obvious escape but to negotiate terms.

Think of all the lives and money saved if the USA had arrived two years earlier then!

"if the USA had arrived two years earlier"

LB,what if the US had not arrived at all? The British Empire (and France) was running out of manpower. Having defeated Russia, Germany nearly turned the War in 1917 by being able to transfer more troops to the Western Front.

Given the very large number of people of German descent in the United States circa 1917, I am just relieved Uncle Sam was able to arrive even if propaganda and the pursuance of unrestricted U Boat warfare by Germany were major factors that caused this to happen.

I don't disagree, better late than never.

If Lusitania has lead to direct action, then things might have been different.

However, when the trenches were in place, and well-supplied, Verdun and the Somme showed that 1916 wasn't the time to be able to break through, regardless of numbers. It took more technical development, and a more starved/ground-down enemy to make it easier as the years dragged on.

I suspect that an influx of millions of doughboys in 1916 would just have increased the casualties at those set pieces even further.

I wouldn't say that Russia was really defeated, it withdrew.
But that was indeed a very big help to Germany.

I imagine that a breakthrough from the East before US forces grew substantially in 1917 could have lead to the fall of France or at least Paris.

It also took a while for the US forces to get up to speed with it being 1917 not 1915, and they took a lot more casualties per head than Britain and France at that stage while they were learning on the job about the new world of trench warfare.

It was only an armistice because there was no hope for anything other than defeat at the end of 1918, so sensibly the Germans sued for an end to it all.

although I am an amateur [and published] Great War historian, late 1918 is not my scene, so I have had a good look at Charles Messenger's The day we won the war, Amiens 1918.

There is no doubt that Russia's exit, and America's imminent mass entry, into the war, prompted the desperate and unsuccessful German offensives in spring 1918. Thus, indirectly, the USA contributed massively.

Regarding USA active involvement at Amiens, Pershing was extremely reluctant to allow it, saying that they were not ready. In the event, some participation occurred.
The crushing victory was British [with big Empire contributions] and French.

Three days later the Kaiser said "I see that we must strike a balance. We have nearly reached the limit of our power of resistance. The war must be ended". Another two days later Ludendorff: " the termination of the war would have to be brought about by diplomacy".

There is no disputing the major and growing USA contribution in keeping the momentum going thereafter.

The most impressive book I have read on the Great War, and I have read many, is Hew Strachan's 'The First World War' a single volume survey of the war. ISBN 0-670-03295-6.

and HS was extensively interviewed by Big Max in his Beeb documentary this week - they were "talking off the same page"...

Paxmans view.
 

I think Jeremy reads these pages so watch out if you start debating with him.


Jeremy Paxman: why we would not fight the Great War now - Telegraph


Basically, he has a book out now about WW1, I interpret it that he takes the view that modern UK would not engage because we are now more self obsessed, hedonistic, materialistic etc.


I would only counter we are little different to many other nations in that once the bandwagon rolls, wars seem to gather people in with a crazy momentum of their own. Like Syria, now?


One point - we hadn't fought a modern European war in 1914 - is this why people volunteered? People are far more wise now about this.

Fair point: now is not a good time to be a Belgian