It's your Great War boy back again with a new WW1 thread.
For those who didn't see the last thread I'm doing my PhD on WW1 specialising in Australia and the British Empire. I also run a WW1 blog with 3000+ pictures of the War.
I'll be around to answer questions, dump pictures and art and give fun facts.
“At first it was shock, then it was terror, then it was unbelief. I stepped over dead bodies, I stepped over live and smashed bodies, I stepped over pieces of what had been bodies. Wounded were crying out in agony. Shell-shocked men crawled and clung to each other. some blubbering like babies. And every few seconds another shell would burst into my nightmare.”
— Private Bert Bishop, part of a carrying party from the 30th Australian Battalion on 19 July 1916 during the Battle of Fromelles.
“My tunic is rotten …
We are lousy, stinking, ragged, unshaven and sleepless. Even when we’re back a bit we can’t sleep for our own guns. I have one puttee, a dead man’s helmet, another dead man’s gas protector, a dead man’s bayonet. My tunic is rotten with other men’s blood, and partly splattered with a comrade’s brains. It is horrible, but why should you people at home not know? Several of my friends are raving mad. I met three officers out in No Man’s Land the other night, all rambling and mad. Poor Devils!”
— Lieutenant John Raws, Australian 23rd Battalion, during the Battle of Pozieres, 4 August 1916.
Trenches in winter, not even once.
...
...
...
...
...
“I can report the Division as being in first class fighting trim. I have never seen the men look so well as they do today. The sick rate is low… Even venereal, for the time being, is a negligible quantity.
I am afraid we must put that down rather to the fact that no leave is being granted to England than to any sudden development of virtue on the part of the men.”
— An April 1917 letter from Major General Sir Andrew Russell (GOC NZ Division) to Sir James Allen New Zealand Minister for Defence.
I fucking love Lewis guns.
...
nice idea for a thread!
Any stories or pictures of the Christmas truce or similar beautiful events in the war?
“The command of the German Fourth Army, opposite the British, held a series of conferences to find possible explanations for the enemy’s success. The conclusions they reached were remarkable.
The British advances were being facilitated by the thinly held German forward zone. To counter this, more troops and machine guns should be concentrated in that area. The Germans also rethought the placement of their counter-attack divisions. By the time they arrived on the battlefield (usually late afternoon) they were required to assemble and attack while under the heavy fire of the British standing barrage. It was decided to hold these formations on the day of battle. They could then be concentrated at night and sent forward early on the following day.
These recommendations certainly prove the British command had no monopoly on muddle-headedness. Packing troops int he forward zone certain to be deluged by high explosive and shrapnel was bound to ensure increased casualties. Holding back counter-attack divisions until the following day, by which time the new British line would be established and protected by artillery, would achieve a similar result.”
— Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson - Passchendaele: The untold story - on the German responses to the limited objective attacks by Plumer in September.
Do you know much about Japan during ww1 and while it's not directly ww1 but is linked with it the 21 Demands.
I literally cannot think of a time, place or event that I'd like to partake in less than WW1.
Pretty horrifying to think that it happened just beyond living memory
Austro-Hungarian soldier aiming his rifle on a mountain (Gisnitz) in the Alps.
If anyone is interested, here's a /hr/ thread with many high res photos of the Great War:
Based thread
Also, I've got a question on German strategy:
Why didn't the Germans hold off France at Alsace-Lorrain while defeating the Russians?
It seems that would have been favourable because it's a shorter frontline, the British wouldn't get involved (no invasion of Belgium) and the almost the full might of the German Army could be put against Russia.
Did they just underestimate France and overestimate Russia?
Couldn't they figure that the UK would join the war if they'd march through Belgium?
Also, why didn't the Army commanders (from every country) try to fight a defensive war from the beginning? Couldn't they learn from maneuvers and exercises that with these new weapons the attacker was disadvantaged?
Well there's the obvious one in 1914, with the big truce (that picture is just POWs and casualties sharing a light later in the war, there weren't helmets in 1914).
But there's a lot of references about "live and let live" sectors on the front. Quiet areas that didn't see a lot of fighting and where artillery would fire at the same time every day and was usually advertised beforehand to allow the other side to take cover. You could usually appear outside of the trenches without too much chance of being shot immediately and where raids were rare.
There was also a bit of friendliness between the Ottomans and Brits/Aussies/Kiwis at Gallipoli. There's a lot of reports of messages being thrown from one trench to another, often written in French, complaining about their officers, the state of the trenches and the monotony of the food. Ottomans would throw things they had too much of and in return would get tins of bully beef thrown back.
What are the best books about causes of ww1 apart from The Sleepwalkers by Clark in your opinion and why?
right, the Stahlhelm only got adopted in 1916, should have noticed that. Thanks for the reply!
Attacking the Russians directly is dangerous,even with the poor performance of the Imperial Army you can see multiple example of invaders getting btfo in Russia
Everyone still believe this is the Napoleonic war where the spirit of the offensive where grand sweeping maneuver manage to give great victory
I recall one story from an Australian who's battalion was holding a quiet piece of line at Gallipoli in winter. Every day an elderly Ottoman soldier, big white moustache and all, would come out into no mans land, completely unarmed and collect whatever wood he could find, small shrubs, bits of broken tree and the like. This went on for weeks and he was given the nickname grandad by the aussies. When they were relieved by another battalion an officer stayed behind to help acquaint the newcomers with the section of the line. He was busy talking to the CO the first morning they were in the line and before he had a chance to tell him about 'grandad' one of the sentries on duty shot him as wandered into no mans land.
Yo, any good books that focus primarily on the Eastern Front?
Fuck this is sad. Can you give me a nicely written source of this?
Not a great deal sorry. I know they used it as an opportunity to gobble up some islands in the pacific and to gain another foothold in China at Tsing Tao. They helped guard allied convoys in the Pacific. Beyond that, not a heap sorry.
No one expected the trenches and stalemate that would eventuate. And they certainly didn't expect Britain to join a MASSIVE continental war over a piddly little place like Belgium.
And they wanted decisive battles against the French first because they were imagined to be the bigger threat and that the Russians would take much longer to mobilise enough to be a threat. Added to which Russia was in transition, was barely modernised and Russia needing a much bigger invasion force than they could afford. But defending on home soil is much easier.
Because you can't win a war by fighting on the defensive. France didn't have a choice, they were invaded and had to remove kraut from their soil. And you can't figure out what is going to work against trench systems unless you attack them.
Alright, thanks for the replies!
I know the Entente always had the advantage but at what point did the war clearly turn against the Central Powers? (like Stalingrad - Midway - Kursk for WW2)?
I read it a long time ago. It might have been in Broken Nation by Joan Beaumont or Gallipoli by Les Carlyon. Sorry I can't remember exactly.
Ring of Steel by Alexander Watson is pretty great, but otherwise I've only read chapters about it in other books sorry. There was an user in the last thread who had a good list of books.
I've never really read too much into the beginning of the war. Guns of August is still a good place to start if you like the Fischer thesis. But the one that stuck with me most is probably AJP Taylor's War By Timetable. The lack of political will and railway mobilisation timetables forcing everyones hand basically.
Do you have any pics of guys that look like this?
Depends on your view. A lot of people think that once the Germans were stopped at the Marne their chance to win was gone. They had to make that first blow work otherwise they would eventually be ground down to nothing.
The other view is that until their last gamble in 1918 they still had a chance of not losing, even if they couldn't force a total victory. But once their stormtroop divisions were chewed up and the momentum of their advance was lost, welp. British and French manpower and materiel mattered, but so did the fact that they were outfought on the battlefield.
They didn't always have the advantage. The British army wasn't playing with the team at the beginning and it took some serious work to convince them to actually help (and it took internal work to convince Joffre too). If you pay close attention to the opening months of the war you can see Germany was really close to actually defeating France.
Not exactly like that no. But I've got a little of some other armour. It wasn't exactly widespread and wasn't found to be very useful.
Yeah I think the Entente had a "paper advantage" but until they got their command hierarchy worked out and their economies into full gear it was pretty even. I mean, there's a reason there was stalemate for the better part of 4 years.
...
...
This one was really dumb. You could fold it up to provide a little shield to fire from.
I have Gallipoli waiting to be read so I hope it's there. Also I'm the same user that asked about books on causes. I've some books on the topic and wanted to know your recommendations. I did like Guns of August and The Proud Tower was my first in ww1 lead up. War by timetable is one I want to read but it's really expensive. I'll have to get a digital edition I guess.
I'll never understand why Joffre acted the way he did. Of all the big characters he's the one I really can't stand.
>I'll never understand why Joffre acted the way he did.
In what way? Not trying to bust chops, just curious.
I should really set up a google drive with all my ebooks and shit. I don't have that one but I really enjoy pirating stupidly expensive academic texts.
...
...
...
...
...
Hey GreatWarAnon,
Can you give me the link to your blog?
Trench warfare seemed to be the one thing where after this war, both sides just universally said "let's never fucking do that again".
Open warfare may kill more, but at least you aren't hit with cabin fever
PROVIDE A REALISTIC NUMBER OF AMOUNT OF COMBATANTS INVOLVED IN THE EASTERN FRONT
scrapironflotilla.tumblr.com
It's mostly a photo blog with occasional longer stuff written by me.
Look at this adorable little pillbox.
...
...
drive.google.com
Have some content. A lot of it is Australia related, but theres other stuff there as well.
...
...
...
...
According to John Monash in The Australian Victories if France in 1918, the losses of the five Australian divisions that made up the Australian Corps during the Hundred Days Offensive was 21,243. During this time the corps had undertaken constant offensive operations, pushed the 2nd German Army back a distance of 37 miles and liberated over 100 towns and villages.
This success had a dreadful cost though. The Australian Corps was only in the line for 60 of the 100 days and their losses were consequently higher than in any other two month period of the War. Daily losses, or what the army refers to as wastage, averaged out to 70 men per division per day. Quite a high number given the low strength of the divisions at the time, but as Monash himself wrote. “Even during periods of sedentary trench warfare the losses averaged 40 per division per day.”
...
Are these quotes sourced from Fromelles by Patrick Lindsay? I swear I've read these eyewitness accounts before.
That isn't from the Christmas truce, I've seen it captioned numerous times as a POW.
I know, another user already told me, but thanks.
Do you know which side was POW?
The Fromelles one was from a biography of the 5th Div commander McCay.
And the Pozieres one from The Great War by Les Carlyon.
But they're both from published letters and diaries of the men. They get used in basically everything written about those battles because of how useful they are. So it wouldn't surprise me if Lindsay used them too.
...
I would say probably German POWs.
how do you figure?
greatwaranon if i may ask you a question, its one thing i have never understood as an Australian. Why was there such enthusiasm for the war in Aus when Australia itself was half a world away from any possible danger?
>tainted love...
What happened to wounded soldiers after the war? Did the various governments offer any financial assistance?
What would be considered a good starting point for reading about the war? Would something like Guns of August work, or is it better to read a overall narrative of the conflict ( a la John Keegan)?
Pic sort of related, a photo of my Great great Grandfather who fought in WWI and enjoyed it
Excellent thread user thanks. I like your blog too
"Guns of August" is painfully anglo-centric. In my opinion, the best introduction to the war is "A World Undone" by G.J. Meyer. It covers the entire conflict, from beginning to end, and includes lots of background information. The author does a great job stitching all the sometimes convoluted situations into a coherent narrative. He has another book. "The World Remade" which focuses specifically on America in WW1, which I have not read yet but am definitely planning to.
Well Germany still had some of the Bismarckian social state left, and they got free health care as well es a pension and of course there were multiple NGO's to help them. Problem was, rampant inflation made the meagre funds they recieved worthless, so begging, crippled veterans were a common site in the Weimar Republic.
I kinda figured that would be the case for the Central Powers, but what about countries like France, Britain, Italy, America, etc. did they have any kind of benefits back then? After WW2, America introduced something called the GI Bill of Rights specifically to help all the returning soldiers get rehabilitated into society. I was wondering if there was any equivalent for WW1.
There is a book about the african fronts in ww1, that i forget the name of but it's pretty good if anyone is interested
As I said up there, The Sleepwalkers by Clark.
Hey, welcome back GWA! I was in the last thread looking for pictures on Italy. Do you have any good pics/stories to share about the Salonika front? It turns out my great great grandfather served there.
>captcha is chemin dams
Oh fuck it's a sign
In Canada there's a persistent meme that the German soldiers were especially afraid of Canadian soldiers and referred to them as storm troopers.
Can you please refute this OP. It comes across as absolutely absurd and highly unlikely.
They died of the spanish flu
As a German, I can say, that I have never heard of this. And there's a Canadian movie, where they fell for the propaganda, that Germans actually crucified people, so I really doubt the veracity of the stormtrooper claim.
Were there any soldiers who survived the whole war? Or by 1918 was everyone pretty much a replacement?
I am saddened World War I was the last great war with charges and trenches.
Modern warfare is terrible and can't be romanticized, its just non-stop bombing and centralized-special military units conducting operations
>I am saddened World War I was the last great war with charges and trenches.
en.wikipedia.org
Don't see how that could possibly be romanticized, though.
>Don't see how that could possibly be romanticized, though.
The Iranians do.
Do you have any pictures of the Thai division fighting on the Western Front?
bump for this
iwm.org.uk
Yeah, read a narrative of the whole thing, or what'd be best IMO would be go with the Cambridge History of WW1 or something like that. Then figure out what you like and dig from there
In Australia, and Britain to a lesser extent, there was state welfare for wounded soldiers and widows and orphans. But if you were wounded or gassed and your symptoms didn't really get back until a couple years after the War you had very little chance of actually getting that welfare. When you were demobbed the medical officers asked if you were "fit" and if you said yes it meant you had no lasting injuries. Most men didn't realise that so when their injuries started playing up they had a bit of paper waved in their face saying they weren't suffering from war related injuries.
There was also a soldier settlement scheme in Australia giving land (usually really shitty land) to veterans from Britain and Australia to try and build up the economy. Pity the veterans were generally factory workers from like Manchest er and something like 70-80% of them failed within 2 years.
My boy Monash wore it better.
Ok, this takes a little unpacking. But basically the Canadians, Australians and Kiwis were all considered "elite" units by German intelligence. When attacking they were generally successful, they tended to raid heavily and in large numbers that were designed to draw in German counter attacks and then destroy them with artillery. They largely missed out being hit during the Spring 1918 offensives and thus were some of the strongest units available for the counterattack in August when the Canadian Corps and Australian Corps spearheaded the Battle of Amiens, using very similar tactics to German stormtroopers. The difference is that in theory all British Empire units were trained in these tactics whereas there were specialised German stormtroop divisions who received the best in training and equipment for these kinds of operations.
So in short, sort of, yes.
Well there were quite a few old hands left in the armies, but usually in scattered positions, usually higher command and staff positions, but occasionally rank and file. To illustrate, the Aussies originally sent 20,000 men to fight at Gallipoli. In September 1918 the Aust govt decided these men deserved some time home in Australia and ordered any survivors to be removed from the line and sent home. There was less than 400 left in the AIF which numbered 100,000+
>Buy into the meme that Lettow-Vorbeck was some kind of ultra-badass
>Finally get around to actually reading his biography
>All his "victories" were against poorly motivated Indian troops that the Anglo had shipped in from India.
What a piece of shit.
So hypothetically if the Italians had honored their alliance with Germany and Austria what would have happened? Would France be knocked out of the war after simultaneous Italian offensives in the south and German offensives in the North?
Officers of the Canadian 15th Battalion, just coming out of the line on the last day of the Somme Offensive, September, 1916. Note the German souvenirs most carry.
British tanks in Koln, 1919.
I'm not going to say that the Central Powers would actually win, but it would definitely be a more even war since having Italy would give Germany a way around the British blockade. It would also put a lot of pressure on France. Luigi wasn't a good commander, but he his offensives still succeeded in tying up large numbers of troops and equipment.
Boy soldier (bugler) of the 90th Bn Winnipeg Rifles.
Canadian artilleryman in his "greyback" shirt.
Royal Flying Corp pilot on the Italian Front, 1917.
How bad is Cadorna in reality? And how much better is Armando Diaz in reality?
I've been reading pic related and its an amazing book. Massie takes a subject that many tend to overlook when studying WW1 and makes it enthralling. The way he discusses the different admirals and captains makes it almost feel like a novel. I've only just gotten to the Battle of the Falklands. Would highly recommend.
German East Asian Squadron departs Valpariso, Chile, after winning the Battle of Coronel, where the sank 2 British (outdated) armored cruisers while only suffering 3 casualties. 1 month later the entire squadron would be lost in the Battle of the Falkland Islands with the loss of nearly all 2000 hands, including Admiral Von Spee.