? Has France really started every major war in the last 1000 years?

Another factor in the start of ww-1, is that the combatants to be, were literally trapped by the needs of their technology. All of the major powers, had troop mobilization plans linked to RR rolling stock, and train motion schedules...so once the decision was made to mobilize...the technology overrode any chance for stopping it all.
And nope, the French were as stuck in it, as the Germans, Belgium, AstroHungarian Empire, and to some degree even the Russians. And anyway, very clear the Germans started that one...
Granted Fishers escalating the arms race, with the Dreadnaughts certainly didn't help that one...
The only real arms race aspect the French contributed, was the rapid fire french 75...
 
WTF how did the Germans start WW I?!

Archduke Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated by a Serb terrorist in Bosnian Sarajevo. This toppled the power balance between the Triple Alliance (Austria-Hungary, Italy, Germany) and the Triple Entente (France, Russia and Great Britain.) Austria-Hungary eager to expand in the Balkans and relying on German support, delivered an ultimatum to Serbia which was accepted only in part. Serbia mobilized.

The Austrians declare war, and the SHTF as the Russians declared war on the Austrians, the Germans declared war on the Russians, but began invasion through Luxembourg and Belgium and declared war on France as well. Great Britain declares war on Germany and Italy stands back and acts the pussy, waiting to join the winning side despite its allegiance to the Alliance. The US watches.

Therefore Germany in no way started WW I. People should imagine things in 1914 terms... The Austro-Hungarian empire was more powerful than Germany back then, it was the main force on the continent besides France. It was clearly the Austrians who initiated WW I by declaring war on Serbia and therefore on all her allies.
 
"Started' a relative term, the German's weren't the sole party responsible for the series of events leading to ww-1.
Started, in the sense that, of the major powers, their mobilization and transport were good enough that it allowed them to move and attack effectively... first. The French, although enamoured of the offensive, couldn't mobilize effectively enough to take that initiative. The British, although a professional army, was small..and it took them a while to arrange conscriptions. The Russians, nothing worked, trains, munitions factorys, leadership and etc. The Belgians, basically tried, but too small of a force to be really effective.
The result was that the other combatants, for the early part of the war, were largely reacting to German actions. The Turks, a side theater.
And the US...despite early signs like the Zimmerman telegraph and the Lusitania...was by no means fully ready for their entry. So in that sense, one could argue that the German's were already being worn down by the appalling attrition of the trenches, well prior to effective US entry. Important yes, but the Brits and the French at horrible places like the Somme, Ypres,Cambria(sp) Verdun and the naval blockade...literally bled the German army out. Ironically, the outnumbered Germans nearly did the same to them.
So maybe the US didn't save France in ww-1, the US administered the coup de grace', for an enemy that was close to being beaten. (Bruchmuller and the new tactics nonetheless)
The most effective part of US intervention was that Pershing kept the USAEF, from simply being absorbed into the French Army or the British.
 
Since when has France ever taken the offensive? Honestly can anyone answer this?

The Austrio-Hungarian empire started WW I with their ridiculous tomfoolery and land grabs, just like Hitler did in the remake (man that one sucked, it was like the shot by shot redo of Psycho, whats the point). In WW I Germany decided that it could benefit from the war and joined in. Out of the powers Germany did have the best military, but in no way does this mean they started it.
 
Nemises,

Read Guns of August. It gives the full run-up to the war.

Germany was faced with supporting its ally, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, against enemies on two fronts -- France and Russia.

The Germans pursued a plan of attacking France first, figuring (largely correctly) that it would take Russia much longer to mobilize her armies.

Germany declared war on Russia on August 1, and on France on August 3. Following the Von Schlieffen Plan (which had been partially bastardized by von Moltke, VS's successor), Germany launched a pre-emptive attack against France by invading Belgium on August 4, 1914, after several weeks of attempting to get King Albert of the Belgians to agree to put his nation under German "protection."

In response to this invasion, Great Britain declared war on Germany on August 4.

Germany fired the first shots of the war by invading Belgium on its way to France.

Germany started the First World War when it launched its pre-emptive strike against France.

The term you're thinking of is the Triple Entente, which was the 1907 pact between France, Britain, and Russia. Prior to 1907, Britain and France had the Entente Cordial, essentially the same thing sans Russia.


Also, I'm not sure why you don't think that the French troops fought courageously.

They did, but still died in great numbers, largely due to the refusals of their top generals, Joffre and Castlenaurd (sp?) among them, to believe intelligence reports from field commanders about the size of the German army that was facing them.

Joffre insisted on launching a counter offensive, based on the French theory of "elan" being the only thing needed to win a war.

The Germans, on the other hand, really figured that the Maxim gun would go a long way toward winning the war.
 
Indy SIG,

Yes, if you want to factor in the geopolitical causes of World War II, there's more than enough blame to go around.

If you want to reduce it to brass tacks, you could also say that Germany's capitulation by it's politicians is what set Hitler's rage in motion.

Down to brass pins and you could say that Hitler's father getting saucy with his mother is the true cause of the war.

I've made the geopolitical argument many times in the past on this board.

If you wish to lay the blame at the feet of the Treaty of Versailles, then you also have to parcel equal blame out to Great Britain and the United States.

You could also make an equally compelling argument that the First World War was started by Adm. Jackie Fisher when he decided to build the HMS Dreadnaught, which set off the naval arms race that led right into World War I.

Students of any time frame in history will find ample similarities with periods that came before to the point where you really wonder if we're not just caught in a great cause/effect loop.
 
Cobray Commando,

"When has France taken the offensive?"

August 1914.

A massive, multi-front offensive designed to drive the Germans out of Belgium.

Unfortunately, they were facing superior numbers and maxim guns.
 
Haha I find it incredible that you believe declaring war is not equatable to starting one. The Austrians declared war 4 or 5 days before the Germans did.

If you're saying that firing shots is what officially starts a war, then we have a difference in opinion and can agree to disagree eh?
 
The Anglo-French forces never actually made it into Belgium, and if you are referring to the Battles of the Frontiers, then it is technically an offensive, but France's grand strategy was to hold her borders. And in the Battles of the Frontiers both armies were on the offensive, as the German and Anglo-French met each other head on in 4 simultaneous actions.

Perhaps I should clarify. In my opinion the only offensive France has ever been on was led by Napoleon. Yes, the French have launched many offensive, such as in Lorraine in 1914, but they were never intended to penetrate deep into enemy territory.
 
The "fog of war" -

or of those talking about it.......

"And the US...despite early signs like the Zimmerman telegraph [sic] and the Lusitania...was by no means fully ready for their [sic] entry."

Check your time line. The Zimmerman Telegram was the REASON the US entered WW I. We would have done so for the emotional and irrational reason of the sinking of the Lusitania, had William Jennings Bryan not threatened to resign from Wilson's cabinet.

Note that Lusitania was designed as an armed merchantman; had gun mounts on the upper decks (no guns fitted, however); belonged to a belligerant nation; and was loaded with war material -artillery shells, small arms ammo, and high explosives - at the time she was torpedoed.

"The Austrio [sic] -Hungarian empire started WW I with their [sic] ridiculous tomfoolery and land grabs, just like Hitler did in the remake (man that one sucked, it was like the shot by shot redo of Psycho, whats the point). In WW I Germany decided that it could benefit from the war and joined in."

Utter nonsense. There was NO "tomfoolery and land grabs" by the Austro-Hungarian Empire (which is to say, Austria). There WAS the assassination of the Austrian Archduke in Serbia. Hardly "tomfoolery" and no "land grab" whatsoever.

The unsubstantiated assertion that "Germany decided that it could benefit
from the war and joined in" is similarly assinine. As those who obviously know more than the poster of that claim have already indicated, Germany was ready for the expected war and moved adroitly when it finally came.

Many of the posts on this thread show nothing so much as the utter failure of the present public school system - or at least many of its ostensible students. :barf:
 
Haha you spelled asinine wrong you ****ING DIP****! :D
Now I get to base my entire ****ing argument on spelling errors, which is good, because I have absolutely no evidence to contradict what other people said! Yay lets celebrate everyone!

We were actually having a civilized discussion before you decided to interrupt you pompous ass.

After Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serb terrorist, the Austro-Hungarian empire forwarded an ultimatum to Serbia, which was accepted only in part. Serbia mobilized and 3 days later the Austro-Hungarian empire declared war. It was all about land and power, and everyone else got dragged into it because of alliances and power balances etc.
 
P.S. the German military had been ready for an all out continental war since the reunification of 1850.

If you present facts without becoming all hoighty toity and nitpicky then I will listen and either agree, disagree, or you will change my outlook on things and I will thank you. But if all you do is [sic] [sic] [sic] people and insult them without presenting facts, then you can go screw yourself.
 
Cobray,

Germany had a multitude of options open to it other than invading Belgium, which is what brought Britain into the war, and also what kicked off ultimate hostilities. Germany also invaded Belgium in violation of its own agreement (London Conference of 1838) to both respect and protect the boundries of a neutral Belgium.

Britain had offered to mediate (as did the United States later) a settlement. Germany, on behalf of both itself and Austro-Hungary, refused.

"The Battle of the Frontiers."

Yes, that would be the offensive, a massive 5-army offensive along the whole of the Franco-German front.

"Yes, the French have launched many offensive, such as in Lorraine in 1914, but they were never intended to penetrate deep into enemy territory."

No, France's plan was not to hold its borders; it was the invasion of Germany as laid out in Plan 17, which the French had been working on since, at least, 1912. Plan 17 was the last iteration of that series of plans that began with France's defeat in 1871, and was both Ferdinand Foch's and Joffre's work.

Ultimately, though, the entire French military plan when the war began was offensive, offensive at all costs, offensive in all theaters -- Elan.

I can't remember the name of the general who, around 1910, attempted to get the French to switch to a totally defensive-driven plan -- he was quickly dumped from command.

Joffre finally saw that offensive operations were not going to be successful, so on August 24 he ordered a general retreat back into France. At the same time, even though he had totally ignored the reports of his front-line generals, he sacked many of them for Plan 17s failure, including Lanrezac, who had almost daily called Joffre and attempted to relay just how many German divisions he was facing in front of him and demanding that he be allowed to extend his forces toward Sambre.

That the French (the British were really hardly a factor at this point) didn't make it into Belgium is hardly an important point -- it's also incorrect.

Mons, where the British forces participated in the Battle of the Frontiers, is in Belgium.

So was Charleroi, and so was Mulhouse (I believe).
 
Many of the posts on this thread show nothing so much as the utter failure of the present public school system - or at least many of its ostensible students.

But if all you do is [sic] [sic] [sic] people and insult them without presenting facts, then you can go screw yourself.
Click to expand...

Wow.....both Number 6 and Cobray need a timeout. They do that in schools these days, don't they? I always found a board or strap to work better but, then again, I'm from that old school where people were actually successful and lived the American dream. Can't have that nonsense these days ;)
 
"The unsubstantiated assertion that "Germany decided that it could benefit
from the war and joined in" is similarly assinine."

Well, actually, that's the truth.

Germany saw the war as a potent way of both getting rid of its greatest rival in Europe, France, and also as a means of strenghtening its position both economically and militarily against Britain.

And when you get right down to it, most of the nations in Europe were quite ready, and expecting, a general land war.

Germany and France had both been preparing for it since 1871.

Russia, with Plan 19, for quite a while, as well.

Britain, largely, had wished to ignore continential Europe and concentrate on its empire, but still felt bound by it's commitment to defend Belgium. Many in the House of Commons, in the lead up to the war, were quite against entering on the side of France and Russia (Triple Entent be damned), unless Germany invaded Belgium.

There was also strong sentiment that Britain should enter the war against France (but not with Germany) if the French violated Belgium neutrality.

Many in the government had no idea, and were quite shocked and angry, at the depth of Anglo-French military planning that had been done in the years prior to 1914, much of it the result of Gen. Sir Henry Wilson's personal friendship with both Ferdinand Foch and Joffre.
 
Ok, I agree that the French did mount offensives, as they have in every war. If the Plan 17 offensive was intended to penetrate deep into enemy territory, then the French were just stupid. Germany's southern defenses were designed to slowly withdraw under a French offensive, and then use reserves to repel it as the bulk of the army drove through the low countries. Not to mention that generally speaking the Germans had been superior to the French militarily since about 1850.

On the whole I do certainly agree now that the French did intend to conquer the Germans. Thank you.

Edit: haha someone agrees with me! *does the happy dance*
 
LOL Indy SIG maybe I'm just a cynical bastard because I will have to work 4 jobs to pay for your diaper rash medication and all the jobs are being taken by non tax paying, welfare getting illegal immigrants! :p

Why if that's not the American dream then what is? Get with the program man, times have changed! The Beav didn't have to fend off hoards of looting border crossers with a 12 gauge so they wouldn't rape his livestock! :D
 
OK OK sheesh! This is not a cop out but it was only intended as a frog-bash quip anyway. I foolishly tried to back it up with facts and failed. Now stop thrashing me pleeze! :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top