World War I Book

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

World War I Book

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> World War I Book

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

World War I Book - 1/28/2008 4:24:05 AM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

Just finished reading the most fascinating and illuminating book on WWI that I have ever read. "The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I" by John Mosier.

It completely altered my view of the War and how it has been presented.

Check it out.

Post #: 1

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 10:36:07 AM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

So whats so special about it? I've read some stuff, but I'm always in for another good read.

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 2

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 1:27:43 PM

Hanal

Posts: 2312
Joined: 11/1/2003
Status: offline

I went over to Amazon to check it out. Some interesting customer reviews as it looks like an attempt at revisionist history concerning the Allied strategic decisions during the war. Anyway, one can purchase it used for 5 bucks so I might pick it up.

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 3

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 1:30:33 PM

Alan Sharif

Posts: 1108
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline

I believe a lot of what this author states has been proven to be false but I am no expert. I have read the book, and found it interesting, but do not buy into his argument that the US won WW1.

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 4

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 3:40:05 PM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

Mosier goes beyond the allied propaganda and uses sources from all sides that are unbiased. The continual and bloated casualty reports that the allies made regarding German casualties are completely debunked using German, French and English sources not just HQ claims... The sourcing for this book is one of the most copious I have ever seen. Mosier cites contemporary sources that were critical of Allied casualty claims including Churchill and several members of the French government. Mosier also brings to light the "huge" advantage in firepower the Germans enjoyed especially early in the war due to far superior artillery and to a lesser extent mortars, flamethrowers, grenades etc and also to tactical doctrine.
You can dismiss this book as revisionist nonsense if you like but I read this book with an open mind and was totally blown away by it. It is certainly written with a much more scholarly and fact backed approach than any other WWI book I have read.

(in reply to Alan Sharif)

Post #: 5

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 5:26:55 PM

Alan Sharif

Posts: 1108
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline

Like I said, I am no expert, it was an enjoyable book and I am sure some of what he says is correct. However, if you do a little digging around you will find many who can discredit much of what he says in ways which seemed pretty solid to me. This is by people equally scholarly to Mr Mosier. Keeping an open mind is indeed, most important, and any book that promts discussion on WW1 has to be good for something.

I believe he has also a book on WW2.

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 6

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 5:52:32 PM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

Everyone I have seen that discredit Mosier's findings resort to backing their argument by siding with the Allied numbers quoting much larger German casualties than the German official records report. Where do those higher figures come from???? Allied field reports supplied by Allied High Command based on allied loses and supposition, not to mention political reasons. There is no factual backing for the exorbitant casualty claims that the allies made for German losses other than Haig and Nivelle and Joffre believed them to be so... I believe there is a saying about the victors writing the history, I believe it applies here. Mosier did an in depth study of the official records of Germany, France and England, he also did an exhaustive study of cemetaries and burial grounds all over france. I find it much more believable to side with official German records than the guesses of leaders like Haig, Joffre etc who had a lot of justifying to do to cover their butts. If there is any nation that is renowned for obsessive record keeping its the Germans. To me its a no brainer where the truth lies.

(in reply to Alan Sharif)

Post #: 7

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 6:48:03 PM

Alan Sharif

Posts: 1108
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline

Hi Jestre. Here are some examples off the net of why you should treat this book with an open mind. These are a few of many many. All interesting points IMO.
Please remember these are not my words just examples of a wealth of counter arguements that are out there. I think he raises some valid points and his book has generated a lot of discussion. As you will see below some of it rather heated! In fact thanks to these posts I intend to dig it out and read it again as I remember it being a very good read

.

Mosier states that the Germans captured Ypres in 1914; Ypres was NEVER captured throughout the entire war.
Mosier considers that the battle of Amiens in August 1918 wasn't a 'real' victory for the BEF because the Germans were already withdrawing. Well actually no they weren't, that is why the Germans lost 450 guns and 27,000 men in a day and Ludendorff called it "a black day for the German Army". But these facts don't fit Mosier's theory that the BEF was totally inept so they are ignored
The major tenet of the book is that the American Army was much more effective than the French and British and destroyed the German one. The problem with this is that Mosier actually glosses over the events of 1918 and offers little to support his case. In fact in the last 4 months of the war the American army only took about 50,000 prisoners whilst the British and French took about 330,000. Does Mosier mention this? Of course not.

Mosier portrays the 1914 German retreat after the Battle of the Marne as a well thought out alternative plan. He criticises the French for the name they gave to the battle... The French really had no right to claim victory when they were on the verge of defeat until the Germans withdrew is the view taken by the author.

But withdraw they did. The Germans manoeuvred themselves into a dangerous position and the French took advantage of it. Joffre gave orders for all the Allied armies to turn and advance along that 200 km front. There was heavy fighting and each side suffered about 250,000 causalities.

Calling it the "Battle of the Marne" was geographical convenience, and it is trivial to complain about it. That he makes such points casts some doubt over the author's judgement of what is and what isn't important.

The unusual nature of the battle is no revelation, either. The British historian Basil Liddell Hart in his WWI history published in 1930 calls the relevant chapter "The battle that was not yet turned the tide". He says, "The controversy has at least served to show that the Marne was a psychological rather than a physical victory".

Mosier says there is no evidence that von Moltke suffered a mental collapse. On the contrary, there is ample evidence from numerous military colleagues close to von Moltke and from his wife.

[For a good recent account see "Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War" by Annika Mombauer.]

The idea that the winner is the side that loses the fewest soldiers is essential to Mosier's arguments. He makes the point at every opportunity sometimes with suspect figures. The figure given for British casualties at Passchendaele is the highest I have ever seen. He doesn't recognise that sides can win for other reasons; staying power, for example. How many Russian soldiers were lost to win their battle in WWII

< Message edited by Alan Sharif -- 1/28/2008 7:00:23 PM >

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 8

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 8:26:05 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

I do not know if I have read this book, I've officially only read 2 WW1 books. I think the one I read when I was in the 6th grade was sooooo old it was made in 1921 LOL

There are many points of view on many aspects of everything. One author may highlight his point of view and a valid one, but not the only nature-quality-aspect of a situation... While a battle involving hundreds of thousands of men, hundreds of guns stretching out over vast territories.....it can be ambigious to name casaulties, winners, anything really... Other than the morale based on those fighting, the countries involved and who actually has the ball after the game of catch is over....Even still, you never know whether or not that gives you distinct advantage. The Japanese won a Horrendous victory in WW2 over Pearl Harbour, and even more over the course of 12 months......so much no one could ever imagine that 3 little disaster at Midway would set them back the whole way.... That is that they could not replace those disasters

I think the same can be said for the Central Powers, they could fix xome of their mistakes, that economically they were doomed.. blockaded and shorter on manpower in the longrun. They had to win a bunch of early victories and their whole doctrine was was based on it. When it didn't happen they attempted to alter their plans, but it just never worked

WW2 is a mirror... After '41 into '42 game over

in WW1 a lot of opportunities but never cashed in, I had heard that the Germans were offered a treaty, they never Dealt though... Would've left them pretty much ahead of the game, was that in 1917

It is so hard to describe and make something useful of those dirty trenchwarfare battles, those bloody WW1 style massacres... Sort of like the Army of the North Virginia vs the Union...Constant back and forth, back and forth... until the Backend of the CSA was eaten while the head remained in tact almost until the end

< Message edited by wargamer123 -- 1/28/2008 8:27:54 PM >

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 9

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 8:36:45 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Well I have not read the book Mosier so I will not comment on that.

But I have to general points I would like to make.

The myth about the battle of the Marne bears resemblance with the battle for Moscow in WW2 which was very decisive for the outcome of that war. The Soviet counteroffensive was not specifically planned from the beginning but was more an opportunity which was grasped by STAVKA in a very diffusing situation. Even today most German historians stick to the belief that it was the Russian winter which caused the devastating German defeat. Very conveniently the similarly harsh conditions for the Soviets are being disregarded and certainly the weather had serious influence on the German performance but the Soviet supply situation was no fun either and no matter how you put it - it was the red army which stopped the Wehrmacht and drove back the invaders.

My second point is about who the victor of WW1 was. That is indeed highly arguable and there are no clear cut answer except that there was many losers in that war. If I should toss in my 10 cent I would rather point on a peripheral nation like Japan which with a minimal commitment rose to a great power.

(in reply to Alan Sharif)

Post #: 10

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 10:59:02 PM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

"Mosier states that the Germans captured Ypres in 1914"

No he didn't, he said that the British were forced back into a strip of Ypres and the city was reduced to rubble, he never said the Germans occupied the city.

"Mosier considers that the battle of Amiens in August 1918 wasn't a 'real' victory for the BEF because the Germans were already withdrawing. Well actually no they weren't, that is why the Germans lost 450 guns and 27,000 men in a day and Ludendorff called it "a black day for the German Army". But these facts don't fit Mosier's theory that the BEF was totally inept so they are ignored"

Mosier supports this statement by quoting Haig "The old Boche is learning the art and science of retiring, and with practice he will become perfect. I wish to goodness we had four or five thousand more tanks." August 1918
Mosier also points out that BEF losses from July through November were over 100,000 men killed, over three times as many as the Somme offensive of 1916. The Germans did not break down their losses per battle or front but their losses for all of 1918 were approx 300,000 dead or missing, British 345,000 France 340,000 American, Italian and Belgian losses brought the Allied total to approx 750,000 men killed or missing. These figures are from official sources from each nation, not from BEF or French High Command.

"In fact in the last 4 months of the war the American army only took about 50,000 prisoners whilst the British and French took about 330,000."

Where do these numbers come from????

"Mosier portrays the 1914 German retreat after the Battle of the Marne as a well thought out alternative plan. He criticises the French for the name they gave to the battle... The French really had no right to claim victory when they were on the verge of defeat until the Germans withdrew is the view taken by the author.
But withdraw they did. The Germans manoeuvred themselves into a dangerous position and the French took advantage of it. Joffre gave orders for all the Allied armies to turn and advance along that 200 km front. There was heavy fighting and each side suffered about 250,000 causalities.
Calling it the "Battle of the Marne" was geographical convenience, and it is trivial to complain about it. That he makes such points casts some doubt over the author's judgement of what is and what isn't important."

Read the book, Mosier makes a strong case that is too involved to cover here.

"The British historian Basil Liddell Hart in his WWI history published in 1930 calls the relevant chapter "The battle that was not yet turned the tide". He says, "The controversy has at least served to show that the Marne was a psychological rather than a physical victory".

Precisely Mosier's point, the Allies took every opportunity to paint a rosy propaganda picture and jumped on any appearance of victory. Hart and Churchill are not supporters of the Myth Mosier debunks and have come under much criticism for their views.

Please read the book and see for yourself, letting the internet make your mind up should have a warning label attached.

(in reply to Alan Sharif)

Post #: 11

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 11:41:29 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

And yet here you are trying to make up everyones mind on the internet....

Nebver mind that yuo say "make your own mind up" - your words clearly say what conclusions we should come to.

Reviewing criticism of a book by reference to the book itself as a source is bad technique. A good work should give sources and clearly explain how its concludsions were reached. If something is "too complicated to go into there" then it should immediately ring alarm bells IMO.

theres an interesting review of Mosier at http://www.loyno.edu/newsandcalendars/loyolatoday/2001/04/mosier.html - I have no problems with his conclusion that here was a vast propaganda effort, that minor gains were amplified and subsequernt losses hidden from the public...welcome to the world of propaganda - it is not news!

However it appears as if his abilities as a military historian are overstretched if he truly thinks that it is a mystery why the British and French stayed fighting in trenches while suffering "vastly more" casualties than the Germans. They did not.....they invented tanks, they surpassed German artillery technology by the end of 1916 and eventually their artillery was vastly more effective, and they ruled the air - ignoring such developements designed to berak teh trench stalemate shows the man is inadequate as a military historian IMO.

And finally....never believe everything you read - it applied to the written word long beore the 'net existed, and applies equally today.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 1/28/2008 11:49:33 PM >

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 12

RE: World War I Book - 1/28/2008 11:59:40 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

The Germans did not break down their losses per battle or front but their losses for all of 1918 were approx 300,000 dead or missing, British 345,000 France 340,000 American, Italian and Belgian losses brought the Allied total to approx 750,000 men killed or missing. These figures are from official sources from each nation, not from BEF or French High Command.

Do you know what sources the German figures are based upon because I seriously have to challenge the German numbers ?

German army sources states considerably higher numbers which I think is reasonable when you take into account the 1918 Kaiser offensives "Michael", "Georgette", "Gneisenau" and "Bl�cher-Yorck" which was launched with the addition of 500.000 battle hardened troops from the eastern front. With the desperate German situation in mind I don't think it credible that during their 3 to 4 month offensives they lost "only" 300.000 casualties if you also have to take into account loses during the later allied offensives and actions on other fronts like Italy. I mean if that number is correct I find it hard to believe that Germany declined further offensive operations at a time when they in that case still had considerably higher manpower available in the west than the Entente ?

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 13

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 12:24:46 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

FYI the book "Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1920" is available as a single HUGE pdf (85 mb!!) at http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/britishwwi.html .

It is not credible to say there was some kind of cover-up in this work - as has been pointed out Churchill was a historian of WW1, and had no interest in perpetuating any myth. the figures may have been changed since it was published due to new information, but it remains probably the most complete work on casualties in WW1 AFAIK

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 14

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 12:38:30 AM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

These losses are killed and missing not wounded. All figures I used were kia and mia not wounded. Sources for German losses Mosier used were the Sanitatsbericht uber das deutsche Heer im Weltkrieg 1914/18.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 15

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 12:43:27 AM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

And yet here you are trying to make up everyones mind on the internet....

Nebver mind that yuo say "make your own mind up" - your words clearly say what conclusions we should come to.

Reviewing criticism of a book by reference to the book itself as a source is bad technique. A good work should give sources and clearly explain how its concludsions were reached. If something is "too complicated to go into there" then it should immediately ring alarm bells IMO.

theres an interesting review of Mosier at http://www.loyno.edu/newsandcalendars/loyolatoday/2001/04/mosier.html - I have no problems with his conclusion that here was a vast propaganda effort, that minor gains were amplified and subsequernt losses hidden from the public...welcome to the world of propaganda - it is not news!

However it appears as if his abilities as a military historian are overstretched if he truly thinks that it is a mystery why the British and French stayed fighting in trenches while suffering "vastly more" casualties than the Germans. They did not.....they invented tanks, they surpassed German artillery technology by the end of 1916 and eventually their artillery was vastly more effective, and they ruled the air - ignoring such developements designed to berak teh trench stalemate shows the man is inadequate as a military historian IMO.

And finally....never believe everything you read - it applied to the written word long beore the 'net existed, and applies equally today.

Every one of my posts were based on urging one to read the book and make up ones own mind. I also stressed the mounds of official documentation used by Mosier. Your post merely perpetuates the "accepted view" viewpoint. In effect you are dismissing any dissenting view without reading and making up your own mind... and advising others to do the same.

As a matter of fact my original post did nothing more than advise interested people to read the book, my "opinions" analysis came on the request, criticisms of others. I am not trying to change anyones opinion...merely recommending a book that I found fascinating and illuminating.

< Message edited by Jestre -- 1/29/2008 12:46:37 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 16

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 12:45:30 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

I criticised him for obvious gaps in his historography, and you ahve attacked me for doing so.

Are you saying that he is above criticism?

Moreover some of the stuffy you said is pure bunk - there is nothing in modern works that vastly overinflates German casualties AFAIK - they may have done so at het time, but modern works pretty much all agree that, for example, the allies lost more troops on the Western Front than Germany did. This is often said to be becaue teh allies were,overall, doing most of the attacking.

I know of no work that claims otherwise.

What's tehactual problem there? That casualties weer overstated DURING WW1? Well whoppe do...that's no surprise either. It's called proapaanda. Germany did it too - for example claiming that the u-boats weer starving the UK just as the blockade was starving Germany.

We know better now. we have known better for a long time. these "mythbusting claims" are not new.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 1/29/2008 12:49:39 AM >

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 17

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 12:47:43 AM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

I havent attacked you or anyone for anything. I merely stated my opinion of the book and the conclusions I came too... I would also bet that you havent read the book and would never read any book that disagrees with your current views of the war.

< Message edited by Jestre -- 1/29/2008 12:51:49 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 18

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 12:51:13 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

Your post merely perpetuates the "accepted view" viewpoint

you are quite forgetful.

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 19

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 12:53:58 AM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

Your post merely perpetuates the "accepted view" viewpoint

you are quite forgetful.

That is an attack on you????? Jeez give me a break. That is an observation of your post and your position. Grow up. Your original post is full of these kinds of "attacks" on me... but I guess it only works one way in your world.

< Message edited by Jestre -- 1/29/2008 12:56:56 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 20

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 1:38:25 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

If you can criticise me in a rational manner fine....I can rationally debate the matter.

when you say I am "merely" repeating something, that I should "grow up" you are attacking the person, and not the message.

sure I've said you are wrong....but then I go on to say why I think you are wrong. that gives you an opportunity to corect me if I have made an error - if you have an actual argument to make then by all means make it.

you haven't addressed one of the points I made regarding Mosier being a bad historian. Does that mean you agree with me?

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 21

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 1:54:49 AM

Jestre

Posts: 180
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

If you can criticise me in a rational manner fine....I can rationally debate the matter.

when you say I am "merely" repeating something, that I should "grow up" you are attacking the person, and not the message.

sure I've said you are wrong....but then I go on to say why I think you are wrong.� that gives you an opportunity to corect me if I have made an error -�if you have an actual argument to make then by all means make it.

you haven't addressed one of the points I made regarding Mosier being a bad historian.� Does that mean you agree with me?

You have yet to make a point, you merely stated opinions and leveled accusations. I have one last "point" to make to you; READ THE BOOK!!!!!

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 22

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 2:36:00 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

There are probably hundreds of good WW1 books. Not reason to put this one aside. Many authors I've read had "opinions," or weak "facts." Not to say that this one doesn't have sources or reasons to state things. That's besides the point, the subject matter here should not be personal but objective.

We all seek objective Truth. We are all amatuer Historians and laymen of the subject of WW1. I bet no one here has a Doctors in History or in particular specializing in the Great War. So the books written probably are fair to study and make some assumptions with. There are so many great materials comming out now with more honesty than ever. As the propaganda years are dying. You read something from 1920s written by an English author it may be highly influenced by the times and the individual. It is good to read as much as possible.

For instance of all the books and documentaries I've read on WW2, mentioned above was the supply issues of the Red Army around Moscow, the harshness of the situation and weather conditions. Perhaps the slight edge of one side was they were fighting on their soil and they had a little luck gave them the day.

Rather than that they were superior or that the other side was freezing and had to be defeated. I've often heard, "Had Hitler not turned away from Moscow, and had he attacked it directly right off!" The war would've been over. There is no proof now that would've even meant the end of it. Nor that he would've succeeded. As if a German success was a given no matter what... Though it may have been highly likely, it is again a whatif and a waste of our energy to assume.. In any wargame we can see that there a lot more of Russia to give! Napoleon Figured that out

WW1 is a tough subject matter, the battles are high casualties and there a great deal of varying opinions. I find it harder to hit the bullseye than with the subject matter of WW2. So we should be with open minds and study whatever

I'm reopening now with great curiosity and much intrigue. It's been years, but GOA has reopened my eyes to a lot.

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 23

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 6:19:13 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jestre

These losses are killed and missing not wounded. All figures I used were kia and mia not wounded. Sources for German losses Mosier used were the Sanitatsbericht uber das deutsche Heer im Weltkrieg 1914/18.

That sounds more reasonable then as the same source stated a total casualty rate of around 200.000 on the German side during the months of German offensive operations.

But it opens up for discussion whether that figure is representative and the relevant input to use in the calculation about who was actually winning the war (still I haven't read the book and the presentation of the analysis) as I think the factor in the equation should have been be battle ready numbers on each sides adding new recruits/rekonvalescens ?

(in reply to Jestre)

Post #: 24

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 6:30:26 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
but modern works pretty much all agree that, for example, the allies lost more troops on the Western Front than Germany did. This is often said to be becaue teh allies were,overall, doing most of the attacking.

Quite so. I will again refer to general belief of WW2 in the complete superiority of the German soldier. Statistics shows that in fightings against wallies (after France 40') the casualty rate was something like 2 to 1 in favor of Germany. But that is not conclusive proof that they were all factors taking into account better soldiers as they were in the defensive for most of the time.

The quality in 44 was far lower than in 40 caused by obvious reasons.

But the whole discussion about casualties is twisted. What it all comes down to is battle ready forces at hand and in the future and not the least the political/moral will to fight on.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 25

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 6:35:39 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

I've often heard, "Had Hitler not turned away from Moscow, and had he attacked it directly right off!" The war would've been over.

Exactly. Truth is after getting to Smolensk in a couple of weeks time Soviet resistance was so fierce that the German troops was in the defensive and under attack until they gathered all their strength for their October gambit.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 26

RE: World War I Book - 1/29/2008 11:45:00 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

I have no intention of spending money to get this book - the reviews on the 'net are quite enough to persuade me it is not worth it. I've read glowing reports on it from people who love it....but even such reviews highlight significant errors in judgement or the highlighting of well known facts as if they were something new and exciting that only this author has the courage and insight to reveal.

No doubt this means I'm "merely" a dupe of the "accepted line", but I can live with that in this case.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 27

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 12:37:37 AM

arichbourg

Posts: 32
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline

In any case, it's a darn good read. I'm in the middle of it and enjoying it. Thanks for the info about online reviews, etc.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 28

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 2:41:32 AM

Disintegration

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/17/2007
Status: offline

Most wars end when one side decides it is beaten, not when all capability of active resistance is physically beaten down - WW2 in Europe was exceptional.

Unfortunately, this subjective process often gives rise to decades of wrangling over the true nature and meaning of the victory and defeat. Most of this wrangling serves one of two purposes: to alter perceptions of a later political divide by redefining and rewriting the historical narrative, and to salvage or burnish the reputations of individuals involved in the original conflict. Often the memoirs of those involved - in this case, most especially of Ludendorff, but many others on both sides as well - exist more to serve these interests than to advance our knowledge of history.

This thread reminds me of similar debates over the Vietnam War and, particularly here in the southern US, the American Civil War. 99% of the ink spilled in those battles serves no useful purpose.

The Germans lost. Either they bungled the war or it was unwinnable and they were stupid to enter into it (and, unusually, the German Army leadership had almost total control over both). If they were as superhuman (in this war and in WW2) as they are sometimes portrayed, the German Amry, like the Army of Northern Virginia, could not have lost.

The why and the how can be a very interesting topic to study, but any approach from the angle of "How the [losing side] really won, but wuz robbed" strikes me as unlikely to be sufficiently objective to be of much use in this regard.

I'll save my money for the remainder of Hew Strachan's series.

(in reply to arichbourg)

Post #: 29

RE: World War I Book - 1/30/2008 3:00:01 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

One has to definitely admit a tiny nation like Germany Populationwise did do in a small amount of time some impressive feats. Just like the great victories of the Army of the Northern Virginia Disintegration mentioned, better leadership, better marksmenship... the iniative and there you go

but in the longrun the same story, less manpower, industry and unable to cope with a long war, so Gettysburg was right, and the Ludendorf offensive probably was right too??? Correct me if I am wrong the last ditch effort to end WW1?

Any good movie, documentary or novel will illustrate these battles... Though history is history and the victors write the Books :) and the losers hate the victors and we all love an underdog! :) even if they're not perfect

(in reply to Disintegration)

Post #: 30