Ww1 - Why the offensives?

>WW1, 1915
>be French High Command
>Complete supremacy of defence over offence has been proven by several offensives with exorbitant losses, maneuver is impossible, maxims are ruling the frontline
>In order to win, Germans must push, we can just wait this one out untill Krauts run out of sausages and cabbage

Why did Entente keep on throwing men into the meatgrinder, even when it was clear, offensives are horribly costly and bring no sucess?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because WW1 was the war of the out of touch. Both sides assumed the other was close to breaking at all times, and if they just made the war even more horrible for everyone involved then they'd just accept unreasonable terms of surrender.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I’d love to read a book/article about why both sides apparantly failed to get good enough intelligence sources. It sometimes seems there was a lack of good espionage during the war

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That is an interesting part.
        Prior to WW1, you had huge spy networks from every government around. The British especially were extremely good at that.
        But during the war, stuff like German gas attacks, British tanks, troop movements, all seemed to have been successfully kept secret in a way that you wouldn't expect.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >lack of good espionage
        >when the british pulled some houdini shit to bring the US into the war

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What is that houdini shit?
          Taking out a dangerous amount of credit with American financiers?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What is that houdini shit?
            >Taking out a dangerous amount of credit with American financiers?
            This made me lose it lol

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It wasn't just an assumption, while the western front was indisputably a stalemate that stalemate hung on a knifes edge for practically the entire war
      Both sides had to attack nearly constantly in order to prevent the enemy concentrating enough force to break through

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Mathematics of the 19th century, primarily Gauss, allowed for optimization of war to the point of terrifying reason. Both sides were using it and both sides had optimal logistics, leading to the knives edge stalemates like described.

        I forgot who said it, but one Mathematician didn't believe that humans were so autonomous like this until he saw prosthetic limbs being produced before WW1 even started because they were able to use statistics + probability (invented in 19th century right before outbreak of WW1) to estimate how many would be needed before there was even a battle.

        tl;dr mathematics invented in the 19th century, then eventually formalized into the curriculum in the early 20th century, made the war a hellish stalemate because both sides were able to optimize

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Uses a tl:dr for (3) THREE fricking paragraphs

          I hate you phonebrained ADHD zoomer shits for shit like this. Literally goldfish tier attention spans

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            those aren't paragraphs, they're only 2 sentences long.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Mathematics of the 19th century, primarily Gauss, allowed for optimization of war to the point of terrifying reason. Both sides were using it and both sides had optimal logistics, leading to the knives edge stalemates like described.

        I forgot who said it, but one Mathematician didn't believe that humans were so autonomous like this until he saw prosthetic limbs being produced before WW1 even started because they were able to use statistics + probability (invented in 19th century right before outbreak of WW1) to estimate how many would be needed before there was even a battle.

        tl;dr mathematics invented in the 19th century, then eventually formalized into the curriculum in the early 20th century, made the war a hellish stalemate because both sides were able to optimize. The same math that created the industrial revolution created industrialized warfare.

        Want to end war? Make mathematics a suicide cult that murders people that break secrecy like in Pythagoras' day. Stop teaching it in schools beyond basic algebra.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >which mathematician
          Henri Poincaré
          He observed the production of prosthetic limbs before the Battle of the Marne in World War I, which led him to speculate that the battle would result in a high number of casualties.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Henri Poincaré
            Ummmmm actually it was Ouspensky

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Both sides assumed the other was close to breaking at all times,
      hmmm
      I dont like where this is going

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/lnaAPDv.jpeg

      >WW1, 1915
      >be French High Command
      >Complete supremacy of defence over offence has been proven by several offensives with exorbitant losses, maneuver is impossible, maxims are ruling the frontline
      >In order to win, Germans must push, we can just wait this one out untill Krauts run out of sausages and cabbage

      Why did Entente keep on throwing men into the meatgrinder, even when it was clear, offensives are horribly costly and bring no sucess?

      There's also the fact that if one side had remained entirely passive the other would bit by bit gain territory through attacks. The reason the western front stood still was because everyone was counter-attacking at great cost everytime the enemy took ground, meaning the front stayed the same on average. But attacks still worked, especially in the first few days of a big battle before communications broke down. The trench stalemate was only a stale mate as long as both sides kept constant pressure on the other

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because the main purpose was to relieve pressure on a different front by forcing the central powers to divert troops to that area, some times it would be the French and Brits doing it to relieve the Russians a bit, sometimes it would be the Russians doing it to relieve the French and British

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The same reason hohols did the counterofensyiv and gained nothing for it.
    moronic boomer commanders that have never fought a modern war before and have zero adaptive capabilities to modify modern doctrine.
    You will see the same shit with the coming Sino-American war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They retook Kherson and Lyman

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Kherson was evacuated by the Russians because the Ukie HIMARS made their logistics unsustainable; that trend was building and oeaked before the counteroffensyv started

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Enemy occupies your country
    >You don't do anything about it
    >Lose

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This.

      >"Defense-only" WW1
      >Nothing happens, war drags on
      >192-something, nobody can economically stomach it
      >Armistice, Germany still hold most of NE France
      >With no chance of dislodging them Germany keep their gains.

      It's one of the reason why allied offensives keep on going until 11/11/1918 instead of stopping as soon as the armistice was decided, to really hammer the fact that the german forces were beaten.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Germany still collapses due to the blockade

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If they hadn't been pressured on the Western Front, they likely would have knocked Russia out of the war and occupied Ukraine and Romania (the breadbasket and petrol state of Europe respectively) much sooner. good luck defeated the Germans through blockade then.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but.. they did... that what the Brest-Litovsk treaty was about

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Nta but I think his point is that they did it too late, by 1917, city dwellers were regularly spending hours of their days scavenging for food instead of working, the German Empire was a dead man walking.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hate to make this about Ukraine, but it has proven to us all once again that the home front image is important to politicians during a war. Look at all the twatter queers baying for more blood whenever the line stagnates. Now imagine that the puccians were actually occupying part of your own country...

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    russia was the weakest member of the war and had to be relieved.
    also the germans adopted said strategy in 1916 with the sigfried line because they occupied french soil and had to primarily with russia first.
    french mutinies happened in 1917 because of these pointless offenses

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >russia was the weakest member of the war
      Who is Turkey
      Who is Italy
      Who is Serbia
      Who is Romania
      Hell even Austria Hungary

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        serbia stood up to austro-hungary pretty well so they're not the weakest by definition

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah ok anon, Serbia was more powerful than Russia in WW1, nice job

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Who is Turkey
        russia fall before russia
        Who is Italy
        didnt lose the war
        Who is Serbia
        minor power
        Who is Romania
        minor power
        Hell even Austria Hungary
        didnt fall before russia

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But Russia didn't fall, they had a revolution which gave them a government which didn't want to continue the war.
          And indeed before said revolution they were raping the ottomans inside out. If the revolution were delayed by even a year there's a good chance Constantinople would today be a Russian city (RIP Yudenich & Kolchak, they were robbed).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            LMAO, delusional. Russia didn't even have the logistics to try that, even if the bongs and frogs had any interest at all in allowing them.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why are you even talking when you know so little about the war in the Black Sea? Read a book. Specifically, I recommend The Ottoman Endgame by Sean McMeekin.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Black Sea
                LMAO, you wanna Gallipoli 2.0 into Constantinople? That's even more moronic. Also, again, explain how you'll get the bongs and frogs to ever tolerate that shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >russia was the weakest member of the war
      I too know absolutely nothing about the great war

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Germans lost hundreds of thousands of men in counterattacks to keep the Western Front 'static'. And you can't discount the continuous evolution of tactics and technology over those four years. The soldiers of 1914 and 1915 wouldn't have recognized the offensives of 1917 and 1918. That shit was more dynamic that most people realize.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >even when it was clear
      who says it was clear?

      >you can't discount the continuous evolution of tactics and technology over those four years
      they're not discounting it, they're just ignorant

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Least condescending PrepHole post

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Over correction of the trend for dispersion that followed when the french saw the Boer war.
    To quote:

    >Running counter to this latest trend in French tactical thought were the "Young Turks" of the Langlois tactical school.
    >The "Young Turks" based their theory on the works of du Picq and Cardot's lectures of the offensive doctrine of Clausewitz. Its younger proponents were Foch, Castelnau, Bourderiat, and Grandmaison.
    >They believed in mass, the offense, and the ability of motivated troops to penetrate the extended fronts of the modem battlefield. The then current emphasis on saving lives through dispersion was assailed.
    >From the history of warfare, they concluded that the laurels of victory invariably fell to the attacker. One must, therefore, attack even if the losses would be severe.

    >Foch’s lectures as chief of the Ecole de Guerre were published in book form in 1903 under the title of the "Principles of War". The methods and ideas expressed became the official doctrine of the French army with the rewriting of the French regulations in 1913 and 1914. Foch was one of the more extreme advocates of the new school of the offense.
    >He was interested in negating the defensive tendencies in the French army, which he considered disastrous. His work, therefore, tends toward the glorification of the offense.
    >The attack was to become the sole guide for the French army.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      there was a doctrinal disposition towards attack in the french army as put much better
      there was constant political and popular pressure to get back the land lost to the germans. Now we know that the germans where pretty chill during their occupation but at that time atrocity propaganda was all the rage. So most people thought that the hun was just raping, pillaging and killing as he saw fit, would you leave your countrymen to such a faith?
      the diplomatic need to show your allies and interested neutral parties that you are doing something.
      The cost of maintaining the war effort was bankrupting the entente the hope of ending the war even at great human cost was worth it.
      Militarily you needed to try and keep the "initiative" because the few times the germans chose where they would attack they bled you something fierce.
      You need to force the germans to keep massive reserves in the west or you'd risk them swinging around and knock one of your allies on an other front out of the war.
      and finally
      the generals where competent
      they would asses where things went wrong the last time, innovate tactics, get new equipment developed and fix what went wrong.
      It's just that the central powers also had competent generals that where doing the same thing. In the end this arms race is what won the war for the entente because they could keep innovating and putting those innovations into wide scale use while the central powers couldn't

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >all these tourists with their pop his takes on WW1
        At least

        Over correction of the trend for dispersion that followed when the french saw the Boer war.
        To quote:

        >Running counter to this latest trend in French tactical thought were the "Young Turks" of the Langlois tactical school.
        >The "Young Turks" based their theory on the works of du Picq and Cardot's lectures of the offensive doctrine of Clausewitz. Its younger proponents were Foch, Castelnau, Bourderiat, and Grandmaison.
        >They believed in mass, the offense, and the ability of motivated troops to penetrate the extended fronts of the modem battlefield. The then current emphasis on saving lives through dispersion was assailed.
        >From the history of warfare, they concluded that the laurels of victory invariably fell to the attacker. One must, therefore, attack even if the losses would be severe.

        >Foch’s lectures as chief of the Ecole de Guerre were published in book form in 1903 under the title of the "Principles of War". The methods and ideas expressed became the official doctrine of the French army with the rewriting of the French regulations in 1913 and 1914. Foch was one of the more extreme advocates of the new school of the offense.
        >He was interested in negating the defensive tendencies in the French army, which he considered disastrous. His work, therefore, tends toward the glorification of the offense.
        >The attack was to become the sole guide for the French army.

        Know what they're talking about. For a more in-depth analysis, I recommend every tourist in this thread reads The Art of War in The Western World.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >based fellow Jones enjoyer
          Scruffy seconds this recommendation. It's a great resource for operational and logistical thought and action from Antiquity to WWII.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they would asses where things went wrong the last time, innovate tactics, get new equipment developed and fix what went wrong.
        I feel like people don't really appreciate how much had to be learned and adapted and changed. Hundreds of years of military experience and theory went out the window and had to be relearned in the space of 4 years. Britain went from a small professional expeditionary force, to a multi-million man combined arms army who could have had the very beginnings of a mechanised force if the war had continued into 1919.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the germans took uboats from assisted suicide tubes to threatening the worlds largest maritime power
          Both sides developed airpower from being a curiosity to a fundamental part of warfare

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And in WW2 they went from threatening the worlds largest maritime power, then back into assisted suicide tubes.
            The development of airpower is fascinating too, I really need to get a good joystick and play rise of flight.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              british submarines stayed assisted suicide tubes throughout the whole war and the short time before. For some reason they fell for the myth that germans were able to produce fast uboats (which they couldnt but were able to later due to Diesel)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              not really fair; the Germans basically invented the modern submarine and the Type XXI would have been a serious problem if they weren't much too late

              british submarines stayed assisted suicide tubes throughout the whole war and the short time before. For some reason they fell for the myth that germans were able to produce fast uboats (which they couldnt but were able to later due to Diesel)

              the British subs operated in quite poor sub conditions in the Med
              even so their main losses were to mines

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, I meant ww1

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The scale of the advancement in air technology was insane
            We went from aircraft that could go 60mph and had to be tied down to stop them blowing away when the wind picked up and ended the war with the Vickers Vimy, which completed the first non-stop transatlantic flight.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The scale of the advancement in air technology was insane
              >We went from aircraft that could go 60mph and had to be tied down to stop them blowing away when the wind picked up and ended the war with the Vickers Vimy, which completed the first non-stop transatlantic flight.
              The rate of aircraft advancement actually slowed down. The first four-engined aircraft were already ready before the war. Aircraft top speed increased by a 100 km/h both, in the four years before and the four years after the war, but only by 60 km/h during the four years of the actual war. Interruptor gear had been patented pre-war, the first country to drop bombs from aircraft was Italy in 1912.
              The war did cause the aircraft manufacturing base and infrastructure (and trained pilots) to expand dramatically, which led to the rapid rise of commercial flight post-war, but in terms of technological advancement, things slowed down.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I was mostly talking about the royal flying corps and the development of air power in the military, but that's intersting to know too. Why was it so? Aircraft developers being roped in to design warplanes or being drafted? Funds shifting to the war effort?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ten mediocre planes > one great plane. Mass production ruled all, and as long as it was good enough, screw record chasing, we're here to kill people.
                Though drafting engineers didn't help.
                Germany also had the blockade problem - it held most aircraft records immediately pre-war, but during the war, its planes consistently lagged behind British and French aircraft in terms of speed, climbing rate and altitude (though they tended to be better armed, and it got the exceptionally well-balanced Fokker D VII in 1918. Even that one wasn't a record chaser, however, and excelled due to its exceptional balance rather than being the fastest or most agile). Not hard to figure out what triggered the change.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the first country to drop bombs from aircraft was Italy in 1912
                Ackshually it was in 1911

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not to mention it saw the first use of an aircraft carrier when HMS Furious performed anti-Zeppelin BARCAPs in the north sea then raided Tondern.

            People love to talk about HMS Warspite being a grand old lady of the first world war but Furious was the only aircraft carrier in history to not only fight in both world wars but survive them both with it serving in frontline service until 1944. Almost unbelievable since every other 1st generation carrier was sunk by then.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Hundreds of Mark VIII Internationals punching a hole through German lines
          >Medium Ds exploiting the penetration
          >Dedicated armored ground attack planes providing CAS
          >New chemical weapons that German gas masks couldn't stop
          >Simultaneous offensives by the French featuring enormous FT tank swarms
          >US industrial might starting to have an effect
          >1.5 million Americans on the frontlines
          >And if Billy Mitchell got his way, FRICKING PARATROOPERS

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Now we know that the germans were pretty chill
        No. They were not "chill".

        >The Germans seized 80% of the 1915 wheat crop, and 75% of the potato crop. They also took the majority of the eggs and the cattle. At the end of 1918, the herd in the territories was reduced to a quarter of that before the war.
        >The shortage of food began shortly after the arrival of the occupying army.
        >The birth rate, meanwhile, collapsed. The number of births in Lille dropped from 4885 in 1913 to 2154 in 1915, 602 in 1917, and 609 in 1918. Thus the demographic deficit, the excess of deaths over births, amounted to 14317 from October 1914 to February 1917. In 1918, 80% of adolescents were below normal weight.
        >Congar wrote on November 4, 1914, that "we don't have half a gram of bread left to eat."
        >The prefects, the returnees, the general opinion, consider that "without American aid the population would have starved to death."
        >An administration called the Schutzverwaltung, created at the start of the occupation, requisitioned supplies, leading to the cessation of industrial activity. This material was then systematically transferred to Germany.
        >From the end of 1916, the equipment that remained in place and the buildings were systematically destroyed to suppress competition from French industry after the war.
        >The inhabitants were subjected to forced labor imposed not only on men but also on women and children from the age of 9. they were subjected to exhausting work and suffered from malnourishment.
        >According to the 1923 censuses of the Ministry of Liberated Regions, out of all the municipalities in the affected areas (including in addition to the occupied areas, that of the front), 620 were completely destroyed; 1,334 destroyed more than 50%; 2,349 partially damaged; 423 remained intact; 293,043 buildings were completely destroyed and 148,948 severely damaged.
        This ignores the policy of terror bombing towns behind the French front line to bait the French into attacking.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >One must, therefore, attack even if the losses would be severe.
      And there's the mistake. Losses are always important to the continuation of the campaign. Too many losses and you lose. It is the same as using up all your ammo, and suddenly you can't fight anymore because you wasted it all.

      Successful Attacks create a military advantage that needs to exceed the costs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How did we ended up naming a post WW2 aircraft carrier after this guy?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Multiple reasons, mostly it is about public perception and clout with these things.
        Foch was the "Supreme Allied Commander" by the end of the war. A war that France won despite the extent to which it ravaged the country. And he died in 1929 leaving him unbesmirched by WW2.
        That alone is arguably already enough tbh.

        The "Young Turks" weren't cool wrong with their assessment they just went from one extreme to the other, the revanchism against Germany probably played a part in it too.
        Afaik they basically argued that the focus on concealment and dispersion, after the 2nd Boer war, went so far that during maneuvers the umpires would declare any visible uniting as dead. With them ridiculing them because historically successful offenses would have been declared failure on French maneuver grounds.

        And to be fair, that kind of flopping around between military doctrines was common for Europe's armies of the 19th century.
        The germans even disregarded the 2nd Boer war for most parts. They checked the british losses during attack, as high as 9% at Magersfontein, with their own during the Franco-Prussian war and came to the conclusion that the brits would have succeeded in their attacks if they had just committed to them.
        A conclusion that was reaffirmed in the Russo-Japanese war where the japanese, following the german school of thought, succeeded in their own offensive actions.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >maxims are ruling the frontline
    According to the Roman Republic military history dude, it's artillery. And he claims that it made it more advantageous to attack in the short term - but also extremely easy to counter-attack.
    https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/
    >typically, in the initial phases of these battles (the first few days) the casualty rates between attacker and defender were close to even, or favored the attacker. This is of course connected to the fact that the leading cause of battle deaths in the war was not rifle fire, machine guns, grenades, bayonets but in fact artillery fire and the attacker was the one blasting fixed positions with literal tons of artillery fire.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just sitting troops in place is extremely expensive.
    Food, sanitation, replacing munitions, health care. All of that is very expensive in money and material and every government wants a war of that size to end fast for the sake of the national budget.
    That is beyond the soldiers hating living in the trenches and wanting the war to end.

    So you needed a yearly offensive so that you could try and find a break through and prevent the troops from revolting and the civilian government from stepping in and claiming control over the military.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There were a lot of reasons, but the main one is that most of the time, the attacks worked - at least initially. The huge whirlwind/rolling artillery barrage suppressed the defenses and forced the defenders into their dugouts, and then attackers then won the race to the parapet, and they slaughtered the defenders in the first lines. The attackers usually had the favorable casualty ratio.

    The problem was what happened afterwards, once the enemy first line was taken, and now all the troops that took it are exhausted and out of ammo and need food and water, and can't carry forward the momentum to the next line. And because no-man's land is totally fricked up terrain and this is 1915, the only thing you can transport forward to reinforce the attack is what can be carried by men on foot, which means that by the time they get to the you, they're also exhausted, and it's represent another mouth to feed. The engineers can try to build roads through no-man's land, but that takes a long time, and they're under constant artillery shelling.

    Meanwhile, the enemy is sending in reinforcements to on trains for for their own counterattack. And the trains win the race, and eventually, the attack collapses and the enemy retakes their old positions, and the stalemate continues.

    But it almost worked! We we so close, that initial success was so seductive. Maybe next time. So that's why they kept doing it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This, coupled with general nepotism and rigid castes. The privileged nobility didn't consider their men fully human, or if they did, believed that dying was their duty while they stayed safe in their comfy bunkers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This idea only really applies to the Russian army by that point. The French were a Republic that strongly emphasized 'equality' and had universal suffrage and a strong middle-class consciousness within the army since the early 1800s.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is entirely fake and gay, officers took higher proportional casualties than enlisted men in basically every army. Just wasn't possible to direct one's men from safety. Then as now, in fact.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Any image of an effeminate Captain or Colonel sending his men to slaughter while he stays behind is a myth, but amongst Staff Officers any particular horror at high casualties was seen as unmanly to the point of dismissal. The ability to read a casualty list of thousands, perhaps including your own child, and then order a renewed attack the next day was a virtue. Joffre especially embodied this

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's as maybe, but that's not to say their conduct was itself notably callous, or at least any more than an officer in such a war must be to function. There are so very many examples of officers going to great pains to care for their men and ensure their good treatment, the recovery of the wounded, etcetera. And such generals as were the type to send their men into fruitless, thoughtless attacks were swiftly sacked and replaced, often never to hold command again.

            I think there were something like 100 British/Commonwealth generals who were killed or significantly wounded during the war. Brigade CPs had to be very close to the frontline in the era before practical voice radio.
            >inb4 British brigadiers aren't general officers.
            The rank of brigadier wasn't introduced until 1921. Before that they were called brigadier generals.

            Not sure if the figure includes commonwealth, but the books I have to hand give the figure of 78 British generals dead and a further 146 wounded.

            I still dont know who or what exactly cause ww1
            no matter how much wiki page I read

            Basically the Austro-Hungarians chimping out because the Serbs didn't uncondintionally surrender when they sent a letter telling them to.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I probably got the figure wrong. I think I read about it 10+ years ago so my memory is hazy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Hey, you're in the right ballpark, which is all that matters in terms of making the point that "le bunker chateau hiding generals" is a moronic meme.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think there were something like 100 British/Commonwealth generals who were killed or significantly wounded during the war. Brigade CPs had to be very close to the frontline in the era before practical voice radio.
          >inb4 British brigadiers aren't general officers.
          The rank of brigadier wasn't introduced until 1921. Before that they were called brigadier generals.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          To be fair, Von Moltke the Younger definitely got his position because of his uncle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This, coupled with general nepotism and rigid castes. The privileged nobility didn't consider their men fully human
        maybe in the russian and german armies, but the british had a ww1 field marshall who joined the army a a private, and were mostly middle class or relatively low tier gentry and the french had no aristocracy to speak of

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/H2jpaBv.jpeg

        Because WW1 was the war of the out of touch. Both sides assumed the other was close to breaking at all times, and if they just made the war even more horrible for everyone involved then they'd just accept unreasonable terms of surrender.

        This "lions led by donkeys" bullshit needs to end. The most dangerous job in the BEF was being a battalion commander.
        >During the course of the war, 78 British and Dominion officers of the rank of brigadier-general and above were killed or died during active service, while another 146 were wounded, gassed, or captured.

        And no, they were not "out of touch". The Germans leadership knew the war could not be won in the long run and thought their only hope was to prolong the suffering to secure good terms (sound familiar?)

        The Entente’s leadership was actually surprised the Germans collapsed earlier than they had forecasted. Foch wanted to pause operations after the defeat of Operation Michael, but Haig convinced him to keep pushing. End result was the 100 Day Offensive and total victory a year ahead of schedule.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How's those boots taste sonny

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To expand on your point: the problem wasn't breaking in to the enemy trenches, the problem was then breaking through.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is an acceptable % of your country to be occupied by Germany?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      100%
      t. German

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      -36%

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They promised the people at home their sons would be home by christmas. Telling the people you're going to exhaust your enemies by sitting on your ass for years and years wont sell. Why arent the gallant british troops overrunning the evil huns like the propaganda told them?

    That is why you get the historical result
    >1914, everything is still in flux as positions are taken and the first trenches are dug
    >1915 artillery is used to try and break the trenches, which causes deeper and more complex trench networks to be established, even if youtake part of it, the second, third and fourth line can just counterattack and retake it
    >1916 the hope is that with intense pressure on one point you can break through the trenchline at one spot, then flank the rest of the trenches and get a quick total victory
    >1917 new tactics and technologies are tested to see if maybe they can solve the problem. Stormtroopers or taking smaller amounts of territory instead of making big sweeping strikes might give better results
    >1918 the attacks from both sides have exhausted the germans to the point they cant keep up

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The true horror of WWI comes when you imagine how awful /k/ would've been.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It would be just a bunch of 200+ reply threads with every reply being addressed to a deleted post, saying some shit like
      >REEEE 6 gorillion Belgian children died at Dinant you kraut shill subhuman piece of shit
      and
      >LMAO 10 million Germoids dead at Lorraine (source: His Majesty's Stationery Office) along with 60000 artillery losses confirmed by aerial recon (read it in the Daily Express)
      >2 more weeks until Berlin!

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >WWč, 1940
    >be French High Command
    >Why did Entente keep on throwing men into the meatgrinder, even when it was clear, offensives are horribly costly and bring no sucess?
    Yeah, let's just sit there and NOT attack the Germans this time. It'll surely work out!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It actually would have been a bad idea for France to try attack in 1940

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but in 1939 there were 110 French/British divisions facing 23 German ones. 90% of the Luftwaffe was committed to the invasion of Poland. There were virtually no panzers on the Western Front. If the Allies had launched a serious offensive, the entire German war plan would have been derailed.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The French field army at the start of the war was 30 divisions. That's 18 infantry, 3 cavalry, seven motorised and two armoured. They also had the equivalent of seven divisions manning the Maginot line and the Italian border, but those were static fortress troops and unavailable for an offensive.

          There were also another 39 reserve divisions in the process of being mobilised; but France did not complete mobilisation until the end of September, which is to say, not until after Poland had been conquered. By the time a real offensive could start (and it would not be fast, given French doctrine) the German army from the East is already on the way back. So now we have the Battle of France again, except the entire French army is extended beyond the Maginot line against superior armour and airpower and things probably end up a whole lot worse for them.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Yeah, but in 1939 there were 110 French/British divisions facing 23 German ones.
          For a brief window of a few days, while most of those 110 division were in no way prepared or ready to launch any kind of major offensive action.

          More than half the Luftwaffe's fighter force was in the west, and those supposed 90% in Poland (which is a bullshit number btw) could have been back in the west within under a day if so required, given the airfield infrastructure was already established and all it'd take was to literally just fly the planes over.

          The Saar Offensive was LITERALLY the maximum the western Allies could have done at that time without fatally disorganising their own armies. There were no other allied formations ready to take offensive action at that moment, and there wouldn't be until the BEF arrived fully and french mobilisation had been compelted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Western allies were only capable of taking 7km2 of thinly defended forest? The French military's reserves were dangerously stretched by 2,000 casualties? C'mon, frere.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes. That's the problem with trying to launch an offensive WHILE YOUR ARMY IS IN THE MIDDLE OF MOBILISING. You know what stopped the Saar Offensive? Minefields and a couple bunkers. Because the engineers and heavy artillery of those french divisions were still a couple hundred miles away, in the process of assembling at their depots, and so they literally had nothing at hand that could deal with mines and fortified defenses.

              It's almost like shifting an army from peacetime to wartime readiness takes time, especially when you have a reservist-based mass army. French plans at the time never included them taking ANY offensive action within the first couple weeks of a conflict with Germany for that exact reason. (And what reason would ther ebe to do such. It's not like they would be able to overrun Poland within a month or something, right? Like, that's just crazy talk.) The Saar Offensive was improvised on the spot with what could be made avaiable without completely derailing the entire mobilisation process and organisatorily crippling the French Army for months.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >WWč

      Found the Pepik!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Akshually,it was not sitting that fricked the French.Sending their best divisions to Belgium is what allowed the jerry to cut them in half.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >they have no missiles, men, tanks or shells, surely ze new counteroffensyv will win ze war, vacation in Crim-ACK
    >ze piggers are weak, no missiles, men, tanks or shells, surely ze new counteroffensiev will win ze war, the eyebrow shall be rai-ACK
    It's only thanks to hindsight that all things are obvious. While in the midst of a war, not only is there a natural fog of war going on, there are all kinds of psy ops, sabotage and propaganda in general flying about everywhere, from all sides, with all sorts of intentions, that you're almost always misinformed big time, if not entirely clueless as to what's really going on. It takes a lot of courage to actually act upon the information you think is correct, and sometimes doing so can lead to major gains if not outright resulting in you wining the war in which case naturally you look like the second coming of Napoleon, but if your hunch turns out to be wrong, naturally you look like a moron and it can lead to suffering major losses or even losing the war as a whole depending on how big of a blunder you made, but it's basically impossible to know how off the mark your estimates are about the current situation before deciding to act upon those guesses.
    Wars are a big game of luck with a minimal amount of control over the odds.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When the the US entered the war the French and British were ecstatic to kill as many Americans as quickly as possible on meatwaves in the most moronic offensives. They were quickly disappointed to learn that American troops would be controlled only by American generals who could veto any orders given by the French or British.

    The glavset mindset has existed other places than Russia.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ignorant moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what till he reads about Pershing

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The entente offensives of 1915/1916 essentially destroyed the well trained pre war part of the German army. Can't remember the source but one German officer claimed that after the somme the German army was reduced to being a millitia.

      The Frogs and Bongs (rightly) perceived the burgers as completely lacking the skillset to fight a modern war. This was proved right when the US disregarded most of what the entente tried to tell them and repeated the mistakes of the first years of the war, taking higher casualties in attacks than anyone else.

      The US of the 1910's was not the US of now. It was a country which had an extremely small peace time army and no experience of modern war.

      I still dont know who or what exactly cause ww1
      no matter how much wiki page I read

      Increasing tension existed throughout Europe for various reasons, heavily exacerbated by the emergence of Germany as a unified power (it hadn't been since the 30 years war).

      A complicated system of alliances had been formed, which was triggered when Serbian domestic politics accidentally triggered all the alliances.

      https://i.imgur.com/hfLT7SD.jpeg

      But Russia didn't fall, they had a revolution which gave them a government which didn't want to continue the war.
      And indeed before said revolution they were raping the ottomans inside out. If the revolution were delayed by even a year there's a good chance Constantinople would today be a Russian city (RIP Yudenich & Kolchak, they were robbed).

      Russia definitely lost WW1. Having your whole society collapsed and state destroyed is not what winning looks like.

      This, coupled with general nepotism and rigid castes. The privileged nobility didn't consider their men fully human, or if they did, believed that dying was their duty while they stayed safe in their comfy bunkers.

      In the UK the aristocracy lost 1/5 of its men, compared with 1/8 for the working class. Officers were trained to lead from the front, it's always junior officers getting out of the trench first.

      A primarily middle class officer corp had been the case for a long time pre war anyway.

      Also a significant amount of WW1 officers came from the middle and even working classes. Including my great grandfather.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The US of the 1910's was not the US of now. It was a country which had an extremely small peace time army and no experience of modern war.
        The US of the 1930s as well.
        And the same thing happened in 1942.
        People (Americans) attribute the saying "throw shells, not men, at the enemy" to the "American" doctrine, but it's actually British and they first practised it at El Alamein.
        The Americans began WW2 by attempting to mimic the "blitzkrieg", but it didn't quite work. It took hard fighting in Italy to convince them to change their doctrine.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          We learned quick, and when you look at American operations in the war they were on a massive scale and surprisingly effective, with each one building on previous lessons. Torch taught Huskey, Huskey taught Shingle, Shingle taught Overlord, Overlord taught Dragoon. Add in lessons from various Pacific landings, plus Hitler's constant micromanaging and fortress-city autism, and you get recipes for American triumphs like the mad-dash through France, or the Bulge.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia definitely lost WW1. Having your whole society collapsed and state destroyed is not what winning looks like.
        I mean yeah sure but the point is they were physically capable of continuing the war and likely winning. They had the manpower, they had the materiel, they had the officers, their soldiers had the will to fight (this is quite complex but the gist of it is that the breakdown of the army was due to order number 1 and political collapse as opposed to military failure or a lack of will. Interestingly, the most common victim of order number 1 was an officer with a German name).

        tldr it was the failure of their political system, not their military (which is what this conversation is about) that caused them to eventually withdraw from the war.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >offensives are horribly costly and bring no success?
    thats extremely wrong
    allied offensives throughout 1916 were the reason that germany was on the backfoot for the rest of the war
    the somme, as costly as it was, put germany in an untenable position that forced them into the defensive for the rest of the war

    while the war would take 2 more years to wrap up, the offensives were definitely not pointless and effectively turned the german goal of militarily defeating france into just delaying the war long enough to get decent negotiations

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    WWI is lame and Europe destroyed itself with it only to then double down with WWII which is why they're an irrelevant continent with no future today, living off of their legacy built up over a century ago.
    What's even there analyze from a military standpoint? I guess the first few years are interesting, but ultimately it was just a big US hijack lol, with the entire fresh might of North America throwing itself against the last surviving Germans who haven't eaten in weeks.
    An Arabic warlord could've won the war with a power balance like that.
    My question is, what if there's no sinking of the Lusitania and no secret deal to get Mexico involved with the war, does the US still join in 1917?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >without casus belli, does X join a war
      No, you moron.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >He thinks the US needs a real casus belli to join a war
        I've got a gulf of Tonkin to sell you

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Let me guess, you think Austria-Hungary wouldn't have invaded Serbia either if it weren't for the Archduke's assassination?

          If the US was looking to get into the war, the Lusitania would have provided the perfect casus belli but we didn't declare war for another two years. We absolutely did not want a fight.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the Lusitania wasn't even an US ship and the germans had warned everyone that she was carrying munitions ( one of the few times their intelligance got something right) thus a legal target that would be sunk if spotted.
            But yes the US didn't want to join the war, much as in WWII they thought that they could just fix the game by the power of their industry/banking and in doing so profit massively.
            one of the the reasons for the US finally joining was that with Russia out of the war (and their debt to the US looking like a write off) there was fear that the germans winning on the western front would lead to the french and brits also bailing on their loans.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              not to mention the Germans at the time had a more powerful navy than the US; could do a lot of damage; not to mention they did consider invading the US.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >not to mention they did consider invading the US.
                no they really didn't

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Kaiser was assmad at the US threatening to invoke the Monroe Doctrine over Germany's affairs in Venezuela, but he wasn't THAT stupid

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks for proving my point?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Let me guess, you think Austria-Hungary wouldn't have invaded Serbia either if it weren't for the Archduke's assassination?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The US did almost no fighting in WW1. Even in the end stages they comprised a minority of combat strength.

      The US's effect on WW1 was by putting a timer on victory conditions. It forced Germany to through everything into a last ditch offensive (the summer offensive), this stalled and was rapidly rolled back by frog/bong forces in relatively mobile proto mechanised warfare.

      The US wasn't even the main combatant from North America.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are a number of reasons, but the top 5, in no particular order were:
    That you don't win wars by not attacking. If you have more shells, or a new weapon, or new tactics, it's reasonable to expect that you may learn something, or capture an important ridge, or draw off enemy reserves. Capturing a strategically valuable position that lets your artillery observers see for miles around is worth attacking for, and depriving the enemy of it is worth attacking for.
    That the French doctrine of attaque a outrance emphasised the offensive above all else
    That the Germans were on French and Belgian territory, and removing them was politically imperative
    That it was believed that operations should be concentrated on the western front, because that was where the greatest numbers of Germans were, and therefore where they could be killed in the greatest numbers
    That there were other fronts, and attacking on one front could pin down forces and draw in reserves that would therefore not go to another front

    And this doesn't just apply to the French in 1915, the Gallipoli campaign which ended so disastrously was requested by the Russians (specifically grand nuke nicholas) as a diversion (There's much more to it than that, the whole leadup to Gallipoli was as much of a mess as the operation itself, but tldr).

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >don't launch any offensives
    >Germany leisurely finishes off Russia and the spring offensive/caporetto happen in 1916 or 1917 instead
    Germany is less exhausted and still has reserves. Americans aren't in the war yet. Unrestricted submarine warfare isn't declared since victory on the field seems imminent
    >Italy collapses against an Austria-Hungary not bled by the Brusilov offensive
    >France and Britain sue for peace
    Gee, I wonder why they thought keeping the Germany busy was a good idea.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Entente keep on throwing men into the meatgrinder, even when it was clear, offensives are horribly costly and bring no sucess?
    Population control was one of the main objectives

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I still dont know who or what exactly cause ww1
    no matter how much wiki page I read

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the foolish man says the First World War had many disparate causes
      the wise man knows the Serbs are to blame.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >t. Prussian General Staff
        Serbs provided the spark, the Pr*ssians placed the tinder and then dumped the gasoline on it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a very silly story but the tldr; is Franz Ferdinand, Prince (sorta) of Austria-Hungary took a vacation in Serbia and was shot by Gavrilo Princeps, a Serbian Rebel.

      And because everybody was part of some kind of super-alliance to make wars too big and costly, just about every notable country in Europe (Except Switzerland becuase....Reasons) got roped into the Great War.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia which had a minority of Serbians with the nation of Serbia proper next door, this fueled ethnic tensions while nationalism was already tearing the Empire apart. They needed to crackdown on the nationalists and they couldn't do that without actually tackling Serbia where the backing was coming from, realistically speaking the best way to do that would've been ensuring proper representation of existing minorities which was among the plans but not something that would've been carried out under Franz Ferdinand due to how stubbornly conservative the aging leadership was both in Austria and Hungary.
      Then Germany had it's own motivations for tackling a modernizing Russia that, through Wilhelm's incompetence, slipped from their alliance and went to the Entente, in a few years, it would've been impossible for Germany to tackle a more modernized and efficient Russia. While Russia itself had a lot of internal problems for which one of the proposed cures were pan-slavism, which ended up sealing their support for Serbia.
      On the Western side the UK was all about containing an ascendant Germany that wanted itself a place in the sun much like it always tried to contain European powers and they had a common cause with France who wanted revenge for the War of 1870 where they lost Alsace-Lorraine.

      It all came together after a long period of peace between the major powers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the best way to do that would've been ensuring proper representation of existing minorities
        they did have this to a large extent but setting up a parliament ended up in a farce
        they mostly kept it to self imposed spreading of government spending/posts and other things but it was usually german speakers (both native and second language) that came out on top

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >in a few years, it would've been impossible for Germany to tackle a more modernized and efficient Russia
        this was their reasoning for Barbarossa and with the gift of hindsight it's pretty dumb when you think about it

        an incompetent country isn't going to suddenly become competent just because you fear it

        they've been a clusterfrick URRRRRAH country since they started, only beating up those who are smaller or disorganized than them, there's no reason that will ever change short of a major culture shift and probably a few generations to work up a competent force

        Hitler was right when he called it a rotten house to kick the door in, he just forgot that the USA could infinitely replace anything they lost

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Stop letting your feelings about current conflicts poison your understanding of historical conflicts, it just makes you look like an idiot.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not, my family served in the Soviet army, there has always been a serious competence problem

            I think the current conflict is a mask-off moment for normies, but they've always been an overrated force

            without an active conflict now and then to stay sharp and keep the bureaucracy at bay, or at least a strong NCO culture, any military will go completely to shit

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You're right, Russia's always mostly relied on its massive peasant population and land to win wars, the Germans also massively underestimated how determined Russia (and by extension) the other native peoples would be in fighting for their home.

              t.Dad served in mandatory military service in occupied Soviet Hungary, told me about the rampant corruption and animalistic greed among the Russian occupiers and
              willing collaborators.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Hitler was right when he called it a rotten house to kick the door in, he just forgot that the USA could infinitely replace anything they lost
          Barbarossa failed prior to any significant lend lease deliveries

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kaiser Willie’s unbridled autism

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >WW1
    Is there a list of all countries that participated in World War 1 and their reason why? Because from what i remember from school is it was an insanely complicated web of alliances and treaties that kinda forced nations to go to war but nothing in detail.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia over them not wanting to help catch the people behind the assassination of their heir apparent
      This triggers the russo-serbian alliance bringing in the Russians whom mobilise
      This brings in the Germans who considering the franco-russo alliance want to knock out France first.
      For this they give Belgium a 3 day ultimatum to let them pass for the Schlieffen plan. The invade Belgium getting the British to join the war in turn dragging in the Japanese on the entente side.
      The Italians should join the central power but end up joining the entente because they offer them more clay.
      The Ottomans are brought on board with the central powers because frick Russia and german gibs.
      the rest of the balkans is a black box as it should be but most off it is them betting on who is going to win and what they could take from their neighbors in case they side with them

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it wasnt the israelite?

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Entente keep on throwing men into the meatgrinder
    Men are cheap, more men will be born and if not enough men are born you can always import more men from abroad.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because if Germany didn’t need to keep 2.5M men on the western front, actions like the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive would have completely knocked Russia out 1 year into the war. It was a resource sink to keep german guns, men, and resources tied up.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Entente keep on throwing men into the meatgrinder, even when it was clear, offensives are horribly costly and bring no sucess?

    For the same reasons Ukraine launched their failed 2023 summer offensive: millions of their citizens in Belgium and France were being massacred and starved to death by the Central Powers.
    The difference being the Entente generals actually knew what they were doing, and their plans worked:
    >1914 we need to buy time. It will take 2 years to build up a force that can defeat the Germans on the Western Front and for the blockade to take effect.
    >1915: Russia sucks dick at war (as usual). Vital to relieve pressure to keep them in the war even if we aren't read- What the motherfrick Italy. Serbia, you too?
    >1916: the New Armies are ready. Death of the professional German army at the hands of the English and French. Quality of the German soldier never recovers (Ludendorff, Hindenburg, Wilhelm the crown prince). Allies keep growing stronger. Mechanization of Entente war effort begins.
    >1917: Destruction of the German economy, starvation take root at home, casualties keep mounting. Air war is lost. Entente tank programs begin churning out more armored vehicles to which the Germans have no real solution.
    >1918: German army gets buck-broken that spring. Total collapse of all Central Powers. Earlier than predicted by Haig and Foch who believed the Germans would collapse under the planned armored offensive of 1919 to be launched behind a screen of new chemical weapons that penetrated German protective gear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Plan 1919
      I'm sometimes of the opinion that we are actually living in one of the best timelines, and that things could have been so very much worse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus Christ how horrifying.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because the western front is not the only front or theatre you fuicking moron

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    High fricking quality thread. I kneel.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gotta keep pressure up

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Doctrine, the French were obsessed with Napoleon's philosophy of battle, in which ELAN is emphasized heavily.

    Which makes sense when you are the old guard and morale is extremely important

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Germany was occupying France's most industrialized areas, and despite having access to the world ocean while Germany didn't, France was still a smaller country that couldn't sustain millions of men at the front as easily as Germany could. No one knew how long their own side had, not to mention the other side; waiting was a really bad idea

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *