/ww1/ - The First World War

>watching the great war
>suddenly extra credits

welp, never watching this series again.

I think the war was also a missed opportuinity militarily for Japan. Since the Japanese did not participate in the land war in Europe,they missed out on developments like heavy artillery, tanks, and the increased mobility afforded by mass-produced trucks. Even at sea, where the Imperial Navy fought in the Med, correct conclusions were not drawn as to the significance of the new warfare. I'm sure that observers reported accurately on what they saw, but their reports were desregarded by seniors when the conclusions didn't fit their preconceptions.

>River Kwai
Whoopsy Daisy, I didn't mean River Kwai, I meant La Grande Illusion. River Kwai is 10/10 as well though, but I was talking about WW1 movies.

What does anyone here think about Lise Rose's "Suicide cruise" idea in support of the Schlieffen plan? He claims in pic related that it would probably have won the war, albeit at high cost, but I have some trouble believing it.

Is Fatal Alliances a good way to get into WW1?

a-d-g.com.au/collections/super-products/products/fatal-alliances-the-great-war-aka-fa-iii-new

Also, I've got some material on things like German allocation of force by front for WW2. I've never seen anything like that for WW1, and it's annoyingly difficult to track down things like "How much of their troops were in France and how many were arrayed against Russia in say, 1916". Does anyone have any information on the subject?

youtube.com/watch?v=7W6U1CBiPSI

Unlike , I think their role is a little understated and that they weren't as limited as they claim. They joined fairly early, took the German colonies in the Pacific, sank most of the German Pacific fleet and chased the rest of it to German East Africa, and then proceeded to work in the Med to safeguard Malta and the Suez for Britain. This freed up a lot of the British navy so it could work for shipping convoys in the Atlantic and put more into the North Sea blockade. On the ground, they didn't do much, but on the WHOLE they did far more than people want to give them credit for.

>With Australians and New Zealanders are prideful of Gallipoli
what the fuck, why?

anzac.govt.nz/significance/

>Although Anzac Day, the anniversary of the first day of conflict, does not mark a military triumph, it does remind us of a very important episode in New Zealand's history. Great suffering was caused to a small country by the loss of so many of its young men. But the Gallipoli campaign showcased attitudes and attributes - bravery, tenacity, practicality, ingenuity, loyalty to King and comrades - that helped New Zealand define itself as a nation, even as it fought unquestioningly on the other side of the world in the name of the British Empire.

>After Gallipoli, New Zealand had a greater confidence in its distinct identity, and a greater pride in the international contribution it could make. And the mutual respect earned during the fighting formed the basis of the close ties with Australia that continue today.

If anything it should be the anti-brit day

can anyone tell me some cool shit Lettow-Vorbeck did pre-WW1 because all things considered he sounds like the best general Germany had

telling Hitler to go fuck himself was really the cherry on top

Its symbolic of their contribution to the war.

However, what most people don't realise is that Britain lost more men than the ANZAC's combined at Gallipoli.

What doesn't help is Mel Gibson's film about the landings. It portrays the British as complete and utter retards. Especially towards the end when the "callous" "British" officer orders his men to attack even though they will get massacred. In reality, the commander ordering the attack was Australian, not British but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

>It portrays the British as complete and utter retards.
To be fair this could be said about a lot of people in the war, mostly officers

What sort of 'combat' would pic related have seen? Relative of mine I am trying to find more about (My German side doesn't talk about their heritage, for reasons).

Is there any way I can find out this information on my own? All I have is this photo, and some other Germans in uniform during WWII. Don't even really know the sur-name, all I know is the English translation of my grandmother's maiden name is 'mosquito feet'.

Pic related served on SMS Vulcan a u-boat repair ship during WWI.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Vulkan

Photo behind that one is a Luftwaffe pilot during WWII.

Also, what does the white glove mean, I've asked around but haven't found any answers.

You're retarded, kys.

>can anyone tell me some cool shit Lettow-Vorbeck did pre-WW1
Genocided Hottentots mostly.

I don't understand why the war became a stalemate.

Both sides had powerful artillery.

>Both sides had powerful artillery.

So? You still had an enormous difficulty projecting more firepower than your opponent over a given kilometer of front, and you still had a really tough time exploiting any breakthroughs you do made.

Hell, the preponderence of artillery makes that worse. If you want to advance, your advancing guys need artillery as well, and that shit doesn't move all that fast. Not to mention the enormous ammunition requirements the things have, which will put still more strain on your horses and mules.

Okay, so why didn't Britain just send their navy to bombard the German coast?

Anyone got any cool facts about the Cacuases campaign, like in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Because Germans had decent anti-costal units.

Torpedo boats, coastal guns, and shit that would fuck up a British invasion force.

That said, the Germans couldn't project the coastal defense to the battle of Jutland so it only prevented the British from messing with German mainland.

And do what with it? I don't know about WW1, but in WW2, a battleship's gun complement was considered worth roughly that of an artillery company. They're not trained in the communication systems of the army, their guns are ridiculous overkill for all but the hardest of targets, and they're far more vulnerable to shore batteries than they are good at taking them out.

You could only apply the most superficial of help with it on the section of line closest to the shore, and you'd probably lose a big ship every time you tried. Plus, you probably want to keep that blockade going, and pull too many ships (never-mind losing them) gives the Germans a chance to break it, or break out into the Atlantic, which would be real bad.

allegedly he didn't actually lead any troops during the genocides, since he was back in South Africa at the time

He didn't participate in acts of genocide post-war. The genocide originated from the beginning of the war. He most definitely led troops during the war which makes him at the least complicit in acts of genocide since it was the whole German war plan during the Herero Revolt. No really, the whole war plan was to guard water sources and to shoot any blacks that came toward them.

Newfies always forgotten...

that revolt ended in 1907, the guy was already in German East Africa by the war's start

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeebrugge_Raid

>Gave Austria-Hungary blank check
>Invades a neutral country

I wonder why

The Brits were really good for the most part. They were the only one with a professional army, correct?

The French, at least in the beginning, were the ones who screwed up the most.

I really doubt a British officer would be telling his underlings to send wave after wave of men to their death.

here u go laddies

The First World War - Ep 1 - To Arms

youtube.com/watch?v=5plDYKWY6dk

at the beginning brits had the most professional army ye, so did the germans as well until both of them ran it to the ground in the first two years

Even a simple Google search will prove you wrong. The war started in 1903, he served directly under Von Trotha, the architect of the genocide, between 1904 and 1906 (when he was wounded and moved to SA). That's two years during the war and genocide. He did not act during the post-Herero war genocide, but he most certainly did during the conflict. You're retarded.

>Mel Gibson's film...portrays the British as complete and utter retards...callous" "British

Gallipoli
Braveheart
The Patriot

>so did the germans
not really, no one could compare to the professionalism and training of the BEF - then again they also were only a fraction of men compared to the conscripted mass armies of other combatants (which would include britain soon)

How much did poisonous gas affect the battlefield? Was it a major gamechanger, or just another thing to worry about?

Why does the white man deny that WW1 was fought by nubian noble KANGZ only?

I'm so glad at least the swedes are depicting WW1 properly in their games, as an actual black war between blacks only

>What doesn't help is Mel Gibson's film about the landings
As much as poms seem to love to spin a yarn of Mel Gibson: Anglophobe, I doubt a young, 25 year old actor without a hand in the production, writing or direction of the film can be to blame. Anyway, if you are talking about the officer that insists the attact continue at the end of the film he is AIF as indicated by the uniform, and I'm no linguist but I'd say his accent probably represents an older, perhaps affected, more upper crust accent with military clipping, just listen to Malcolm Fraser:
youtube.com/watch?v=EYvqi23rhQk

Yes, as someone who has thoroughly researched both the assassination and the july crisis, and even the Salonika process and May Coup, and in general being knowledgeable about European history of the period, it makes me really fucking mad.

bump

>What does anyone here think about Lise Rose's "Suicide cruise" idea in support of the Schlieffen plan? He claims in pic related that it would probably have won the war, albeit at high cost, but I have some trouble believing it.
I'm not convinced, but I'd have to read the argument.

The British basically did jack shit but secondary stuff until the Somme, and there they screwed hard on the first day

The French were the bulk of the Allied line since the beginning of the war, so they had that distatsteful experience two years before the Brits did
Still they managed to get their shit together quickly and stop the German advance at the First Marne

How common were automatic rifles?

All quit on the western front is a great read.

Would recommend.

>All quit on the western front
If only that had happened.

?

If only they'd all quit on the western front.

That would have saved so many young men.

>be coddled millennial who's never even been in a fight
>read Storm of Steel
>PACIFISTS ARE PUSSIES WWI WAS SUPER FUN

Unless I missed it there hasn't even been that post yet ITT.