|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 21, 2021 19:50:14 GMT -6
I wanted to recommend a great documentary from 1964 by the BBC. It is "The Great War". It has 26 episodes of around 38-40 minutes. The narration is by Sir Michael Redgrave along with Sir Ralph Richardson, and many others. There are interviews with soldiers that actually had fought in the war. The videos are excellent. I am providing the link at YouTube. I hope you all enjoy this documentary. www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLucsO-7vMQ00twBJvRZKs1KNUKUVClo6C
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 25, 2021 17:59:38 GMT -6
I just wanted to make some comments about "The Great War" as it sometimes called, The World War, as it was titled before WW2 and of course, World War 1 as it is now frequently referred to. The Great War ended about 103 years ago this November 11th. I suspect that all who were alive at the time, have now past on so it is now an historical event which allows historians to interpret the events that occurred during the war. But there are more effects of this war on the remaining 20th century and into the 21st century, effects we probably, at least I haven't up till now, realized. Cultural, economic, political and of course, military changes occurred both during and after the war ended.
Culturally, there was a greater interaction between peoples of nations. The Indian's and South African's fought for the British, the French North African's for the French and many others. There was of course US forces fighting along side these countries. After the war, due to the damage inflicted on France, and Russia just to name a few, people migrated to other countries like the US, France and Great Britain. They wanted more freedom and better living conditions, so they left their native countries. We in the world are still dealing with these changes. Another cultural change was the rise of the power of women. With the high requirements of the war for men, women had to be used in the factories. They were paid well, given good benefits and were found to be very adept at the jobs. After the war, this led to the rise of the women's movements for voting rights and political rights. More women became legislatures, mayors etc. It wasn't a quick change, but it did begin and move though the 1920's and 1930's. We are getting the benefits of this change. This was all because of the logistical requirements of the war.
Politically, four empires were dissolved and the boiling pot of nationalism released. the German Empire, Russian, Austro--Hungarian and the Ottoman Turkish Empire were all gone. The nationalism of Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Middle East all began to become a problem for the victorious Allied nations. It was a problem that in many cases, we are still dealing with. Now, would this nationalism be released even without The Great War? Possibly but that is counterfactualism and let's let that alone. It did, that is all we have to think about. This political problem, I call it that, also changed cultural issues and economic issues.
The last issue was of course, economics. The European nations were in deep debt to pay for the war and now that it was over, their industries were converting to civilian products. However, the average person just did not have the cash to pay for all these things. So, industries reduced their workforce and outputs, this caused more issues economically. The one nation that did not have this issue was the US of A. It had been a debtor nation prior to the war, and now was a creditor nation. The debt owed to them was from the European Nations. The US had boom in business and finance but did have the sporadic recession. This debt issue also had an effect on how economics was viewed and studied. John Maynard Keynes was important and had been in the British government during war. He saw that an active government along with a national bank like the Federal Reserve and the Bank Of England. The last was first started in about 1826. This change from conservatism in government control of the economy to a more active control was a big one and it took time. Economics as usual was very important and there were more changes after The Great War.
Of course, there was one more issue and that was the dramatic rise in science and technology, the invention of many important devices and the scientific study of all natural phenomenon. It was enormous, in my opinion.
I appreciate your understanding that I am not an expert on any of these subjects but I felt that they were important. I will research and do better.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 26, 2021 1:19:51 GMT -6
You are quite right. The bipolar world which was there more than 40 years was effect of WW1 and during interwar years grow up to be finaly there after WW2.
Enomical, political and military decline of European powers was direct effect of WW1 but on other hands evolution of Europe after WW2 would be probably impossible without suffering that Europe came through.
A lot of social changes was affected and accelerated by WW1, especially as you mention women rights.
But on other hands the acceleration of government involvement in economy was accelerated rapidly and are still increasing and seems never stops. As we know that almost any government spending is not efficient we are paying quite a lot for that. And especially in EU the percentage is really high. It shows that political power tries to concentrate economical power and there is practically no control over that. EU and USA "free market" is far from reality these days if 30-50 % of products and services are provided by public sector.
The graph bellow is government expeditures and recepts to GDP in USA.
EU
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 26, 2021 7:11:55 GMT -6
You are quite right. The bipolar world which was there more than 40 years was effect of WW1 and during interwar years grow up to be finaly there after WW2.
Enomical, political and military decline of European powers was direct effect of WW1 but on other hands evolution of Europe after WW2 would be probably impossible without suffering that Europe came through.
A lot of social changes was affected and accelerated by WW1, especially as you mention women rights.
But on other hands the acceleration of government involvement in economy was accelerated rapidly and are still increasing and seems never stops. As we know that almost any government spending is not efficient we are paying quite a lot for that. And especially in EU the percentage is really high. It shows that political power tries to concentrate economical power and there is practically no control over that. EU and USA "free market" is far from reality these days if 30-50 % of products and services are provided by public sector.
The graph bellow is government expeditures and recepts to GDP in USA.
EU
Prior to "The Great War", there was a firm belief in free trade or as it is put, the ideology of low taxation and small government. The gold standard was the economic "totem" of the age. it was the lifeblood of the financial system. On November 11, 1918 the war ended. Most European economies had contracted by 30 percent, England's was less than 5 percent. But the biggest problem or "economic legacy" of the war was the mountain of debt. The governments of Europe had spent $200 Billion which was half of their nations GDP for the war. To pay for this they had to raise taxes and print more money. This was the problem that the war caused and the economic systems had to change, especially the gold standard.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 26, 2021 10:31:21 GMT -6
One of the predominant ideas in pre-war Europe, probably the whole world was that the victorious in any power struggle and a war, would gain material advantage over the defeated opponent. Well, I'd say that "The Great War" certainly dispelled that idea. Even pacifist's believed that idea. Only the US gained an advantage, the rest of the world suffered for a long time, well into the 1930's. I think we can see the disillusionment with this idea by the Kellogg-Briand Treaty of 1929, The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and the beginnings of the League of Nation. All three, IMHO, are a realization that with globalization, no one is going to gain from a war. Unfortunately, it took one last war to convince Japan and Germany.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 27, 2021 10:07:54 GMT -6
I suppose that warfare in the "The Great War" should be included in this discussion. So here it is. It will include naval and air warfare, along with land. Of the three, air warfare was the newest and evolved into a valuable tool for photo reconnaissance and bombing.
Land warfare probably was the most important and changed the most. The armies were much larger in total. Firepower had increased with the new development of the machine gun, recoil operated artillery, mortar's, tear gas, bolt-action rifles with multi-round clips and the powder had been improved to gain bullet speed and range. These changes gave the defense an increased strength. Trucks were available to move supplies and men easier but the roads were not really very good and had to improved. With the increase in firepower and manpower, logistics became much more important and in fact, the supply personnel probably began to outnumber the soldiers at the front. These changes also had a dramatic affect on production of all the weapons and the ammunition along with more food and medicines. There had to be more corpsmen and doctors to handle the sick and wounded, which were accumulated in greater numbers because of the increase in defensive strength. Radios based on wires became more important and the land lines had to be laid and protected, along with maintenance and codes to protect the signals.
Offense power to break through the barbed wire and trenches wasn't improved until the advent of the tanks. These began the ability to break through and continue the offense, probably around 1917 to the end. It did revolutionize warfare as we saw in WW2.
I will continue in the next entries with air power and then naval power.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 27, 2021 10:58:51 GMT -6
Air power grew up in "The Great War". Fighters, bombers, seaplanes but more importantly photo reconnaissance which became very valuable as the war progressed. Fighters became faster more heavly armed and much more maneuverable. Bombers increased in size with multiple engines and greater bomb loads and greater ranges. As submarines became more important, submarine hunters and flying boats grew in importance also. The seaplane was a specialist aircraft based on coastal bases or ships but they could only fly in calm weather. As the war progressed, the seaplanes could attack ships and submarines. Both side tried to deploy torpedoes, which was test first before the war. Unfortunately the weight of the torpedoes was usually too heavy for the seaplane engines to cope with so they stuck with light bombs.
The beginnings of air power of course now added a third dimension to warfare. Ground based units now had to have anti-aircraft guns to protect their supply depots and frontal areas. Behind the fronts, airfield had to be developed and supplied along with maintenance facilities and training facilities. All these additions added to the cost and complications of war. Nations were using more railroad lines and stations to move troops and supplies. These now became targets for aircraft.
Warfare now became far more complex and training during and between wars now had to change.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 27, 2021 12:15:40 GMT -6
Naval warfare in "The Great War" was really centered around blockade and trade protection. The British executed a blockade from a remote location namely Scapa Flow and it was highly successful as the German people would attest to. Trade protection was an issue for the British because of the use of the new submarine technology and the British fleet was not prepared for it. Over time it developed convoys, hydrophones, depth charges and the use of floatplanes from their transports. All these over time did reduce the impact of the U-boats, but initially it did affect the British people. The war had four major naval battles, but they really did not affect the war despite what historians say. Jutland was a strategic victory for the British but I believe it was a tactical defeat and it forced the British fleet to rethink its strategy, tactics and how it built its ships.
For the German's, they should have built just a coastal navy and spent more of the funds on the German Army. Submarines were far more valuable than their battleships. For all the naval powers in the war, the fleets cost them exorbitant amounts of money, which probably was not very valuable in the first place.
I think this idea of a waste of money was realized in the Washington and London Naval Treaties, which we could say was an outgrowth of "The Great War".
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 28, 2021 9:09:03 GMT -6
Well, I am on the last episode of "The Great War" documentary. I would recommend it. If anyone is remotely interested in the effects of World War 1 on the history of the 20th century and into the 21st century, I would recommend this book:
The Long Shadow by David Reynolds - There is also a very good documentary available based on the book and narrated by David Reynolds.
Anyway I am going to continue to study this issue and its parts, good luck to all
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 29, 2021 16:08:37 GMT -6
One interesting idea about the "The Great War" that I have always understood is that this was the first war in which the home front of all nations involved, mattered as much or more than the armies. Modern warfare required the mobilization of the whole economy. You now had to balance the size of the army with requirements of manufacturing, food and using women in factories, transport, farming and clerical work. This was unique. It was absolutely vital for the governments of all nations to get the nation behind the war, persuading them to keep up their efforts during the war. This was a very difficult task and many nations, after the war ended, paid a price for this. The story of the "The Great War" was not just about the soldiers, it was about everyone. World War 2 duplicated this and so did the Cold War, despite what everyone might think.
We also have to enlarge our view of the geography of the world because this war was fought over many areas, not just Europe. The effects of this was were global and until after 1991, were still causing nationalist problems in Russia and Eastern Europe along with the Middle East.
It was the first global war, and the world is still paying a price for it.
|
|
hamjo
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by hamjo on Sept 30, 2021 7:41:34 GMT -6
I remember watching this series. It was in the seventies, I believe BBC aired it round about the same time ITV ran the World at War series, narrated of course by Olivier. Unfortunately, I can’t remember much of it now. Thanks for bringing it to light again. I will certainly watch it again
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 30, 2021 7:45:27 GMT -6
I remember watching this series. It was in the seventies, I believe BBC aired it round about the same time ITV ran the World at War series, narrated of course by Olivier. Unfortunately, I can’t remember much of it now. Thanks for bringing it to light again. I will certainly watch it again It was first produced in 1964 and it is very good. Just remember that the men who are interviewed were in their '70's. You have difficulty remember the exact events at that age, I know I am 74 and I have trouble remembering the details of my service in the USAF in the late '60's. There are some interesting books in Internet Archive from the post WW1 period.
|
|
hamjo
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by hamjo on Sept 30, 2021 7:49:11 GMT -6
Haha, I served in the Royal Navy, from 1973 to 1985, and as I get older Things get a little dimmer. So I can relate on that one !
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 30, 2021 13:07:51 GMT -6
Haha, I served in the Royal Navy, from 1973 to 1985, and as I get older Things get a little dimmer. So I can relate on that one ! My dad was in a CASU for the Navy on Guadalcanal during the war. In the 1960's he said he had trouble remembering most of what happened. He used to say war is ten minutes of terror and fifty minutes of pure boredom.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Oct 14, 2021 10:06:30 GMT -6
Naval warfare in "The Great War" was really centered around blockade and trade protection. The British executed a blockade from a remote location namely Scapa Flow and it was highly successful as the German people would attest to. Trade protection was an issue for the British because of the use of the new submarine technology and the British fleet was not prepared for it. Over time it developed convoys, hydrophones, depth charges and the use of floatplanes from their transports. All these over time did reduce the impact of the U-boats, but initially it did affect the British people. The war had four major naval battles, but they really did not affect the war despite what historians say. Jutland was a strategic victory for the British but I believe it was a tactical defeat and it forced the British fleet to rethink its strategy, tactics and how it built its ships. For the German's, they should have built just a coastal navy and spent more of the funds on the German Army. Submarines were far more valuable than their battleships. For all the naval powers in the war, the fleets cost them exorbitant amounts of money, which probably was not very valuable in the first place. I think this idea of a waste of money was realized in the Washington and London Naval Treaties, which we could say was an outgrowth of "The Great War". From the little that, for now, I have managed to know about the Baltic Project supported by Admiral Fisher (but of even more distant origins) it seems that it was a kind of last resort, in case the remote blockade strategy would turn out to be ineffective. According to Lambert www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjVUV82EAAAthe project involved the landing of 5-6 British divisions on the island of Sjaelland, where Copenhagen is located, and from that base proceed to blockade the German Baltic ports and to stop the traffic of food, ferrous material and mechanical components coming from Sweden to Germany (in 1913 SKF already manufactured 1.3 million ball bearings per year). In short, the main objective would not have been to land an army corps (I suppose mainly Russian) 100 miles from Berlin, as it is commonly read. I am eager to know more details about that project of which, however, I cannot imagine its practical execution (least of all its success), also given the importance of the attitude of Denmark and Sweden.
|
|