|
m10bob -> RE: WW2 vs. WW1 (1/5/2006 11:08:36 PM)
|
WWI was a war which nobody could have predicted. It was a war conducted after a "bluff" was called.
All of the principle monarchs were first cousins, and all shared the same grandmother, (Queen Victoria).
WWI was proof Europe had learned NOTHING from the American Civil War in how to conduct warfare by the avoidance of trench warfare.
WWI was a charnel house which devoured an entire generation of men. (For this reason, Britain went into WW2 with soldiers approx 10 years older than the U.S., on the average.)
France fought heroically in that war, but was grossly misfought by its' leaders.
France has yet to recover from its' inability to commit to armed warfare of any duration, and no longer places an importance on "military traditions within the family unit", (as in other nations, posturing be damned.)
Since German territory was never devastated as was France, they never truly felt "defeated", and this allowed many German vets to ponder "what-ifs", and believe they were "sold out on the homefront."(As a VietNam vet, I can understand this feeling entirely.)
Too, uncalled for war reperations demands made against Germany during a time of world financial failure provoked further need for Germany to bring itself out of its' misery, and of only a couple of offered means, the popular (and perhaps easiest) means was accepted.
The actual losses in the trenches of WWI were so horrific, entire DIVISIONS were never recovered, and became part of the clay of those trenches.
As in all wars, WWI possibly was a greater catalyst of furthering mans ability to conduct warfare more "efficiently" than any other war.
Certainly the airplane and submarine were only 2 of the most noticeable advances.For their day, I would deem these two alone as being more significant than even the atomic bomb of WW2.
Lest we forget.
|
|
|
|
