World War I

Forum rules
Feel free to discuss any topics here. Please use the Politics sub-forum for political conversations. While most topics will be allowed please be sure to be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: World War I

Re: World War I

by Senlac » Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:17 pm

Octavious wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:56 pm
@ seniac

It depends how you spin it. You could say the Grand Fleet had the Germans trapped in port, or you could say that the outnumbered German fleet kept the entire Grand fleet occupied for the duration of the war, while German u-boats decimated British shipping.
It wasn’t an “occupied” Grand Fleet that allowed German u-boats to be effective. It was a reluctance to embrace the necessity of using convoys (even though there was plenty of evidence that they would reduce losses). Once the convoy system was fully in place (mid 1917) merchant shipping losses were manageable & German u-boat losses much greater.
Like many aspects of WW1, new technologies brought the need for new tactics in response. U-boats leading to convoys just one example.

Re: World War I

by Octavious » Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:56 pm

@ seniac

It depends how you spin it. You could say the Grand Fleet had the Germans trapped in port, or you could say that the outnumbered German fleet kept the entire Grand fleet occupied for the duration of the war, while German u-boats decimated British shipping.

Re: World War I

by osric_athanasius » Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:48 am

FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:41 pm
There must be easier ways of deciding a way to avoid a civil war. Like giving concessions, so the less radical ones would cave in, and the more radical ones could be stamped out.

Also yes, it was a great discussion, I'm about to have this same debate with my friend when we come back from Spring Break, in our physics class(we abandoned physics in that class xD) and this was a good warm-up
Yes, there were options but those run up against Irish and English politics.

Re: World War I

by Senlac » Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:16 pm

The Battle of Jutland could have been considered a North Sea “bounce” in Diplomacy terms, but strategically the German High Seas Fleet ran like hell, back into the protection of the Heligoland Bight mined area as soon they realised they were facing the entire British Grand Fleet (not just a bit of it) & before they made it around Denmark into the Baltic, let alone the North Atlantic.
The Royal Navy knew the Germans were heading out because we had broken their radio codes (typically sneaky Brits) but the German Navy didn’t expect to be confronted so quickly whilst heading north.
True Royal Navy losses were quite high, but strategically the German fleet disappeared from the high seas & never tried again. We all know what happened to the German High Seas Fleet after Germany had lost in 1918, escorted by the Royal Navy to their watery burial ground.
Think it counts as Naval dominance, if the opponents are too scared to come out of harbour during the fight & end up without a Navy at all at the end of the fight:-)

Re: World War I

by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:57 pm

Octavious wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:34 pm
Naval dominance? The Royal Navy hadn't fought a significant engagement since Trafalgar. We had a lot of shiny boats crewed by a lot of shiny sailors skilled in the art of keeping everything shiny at all times. We couldn't fight for toffee. When the Germans, with all the seafaring pedigree of Swiss mountain goat, sent their fleet to test us they gave us a kicking that stunned the nation.

Naval dominance was a myth that persevered purely because no one had the guts to challenge it. The apparently invincible Royal Navy was in fact almost as vulnerable as the apparently invincible US aircraft carriers are today. Fine for sailing by the Middle East and frightening a few Arabs, but woefully ill suited to a serious conflict.
And who would have been able to stop their shiny navy...? Germany who had given up? You saw in WWI how much Germany did in the terms of navy, you really think they had the resources to continue that losing battle...? Bismarck cobbled a country to together, one which could have easily exploded in his face had anything lit it on fire.

Re: World War I

by Octavious » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:34 pm

Naval dominance? The Royal Navy hadn't fought a significant engagement since Trafalgar. We had a lot of shiny boats crewed by a lot of shiny sailors skilled in the art of keeping everything shiny at all times. We couldn't fight for toffee. When the Germans, with all the seafaring pedigree of Swiss mountain goat, sent their fleet to test us they gave us a kicking that stunned the nation.

Naval dominance was a myth that persevered purely because no one had the guts to challenge it. The apparently invincible Royal Navy was in fact almost as vulnerable as the apparently invincible US aircraft carriers are today. Fine for sailing by the Middle East and frightening a few Arabs, but woefully ill suited to a serious conflict.

Re: World War I

by yavuzovic » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:43 pm

World War I:

If it didn't happen, 2019 history meme world would be poor and boring

Re: World War I

by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:37 pm

You kidding me...? Britain had just resecured naval dominance over everyone, Germany was breaking at the seams, the war is what stopped that.

Re: World War I

by Octavious » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:22 pm

I don't think that the war had much of an impact on the Empire. It was evident from South Africa and the Boer War that it was on its last legs. A relatively minor colonial skirmish and Great Britain struggled to find enough troops to fight it. Empires were no longer a profitable enterprise.

Re: World War I

by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:47 pm

Octavious wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:21 pm
Speaking from a purely selfish perspective, Britain's entry into the war was part of an important series of events without which I would not exist. So, huzzah for the war!
Yea I just thought of it from another perspective...
If we take my point as fact, that if Britain didn't enter the war, their empire would have still been preserved. Is that really good...?
If WWI really did set in motion the events that would destroy the empire, isn't that what we wanted, decolonization...?
Or is that what by proxy led to the cold war...
So many questions!

Re: World War I

by Octavious » Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:21 pm

Speaking from a purely selfish perspective, Britain's entry into the war was part of an important series of events without which I would not exist. So, huzzah for the war!

Re: World War I

by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:41 pm

There must be easier ways of deciding a way to avoid a civil war. Like giving concessions, so the less radical ones would cave in, and the more radical ones could be stamped out.

Also yes, it was a great discussion, I'm about to have this same debate with my friend when we come back from Spring Break, in our physics class(we abandoned physics in that class xD) and this was a good warm-up

Re: World War I

by dargorygel » Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:37 pm

(GREAT discussion... thanks,folks!)

Re: World War I

by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:01 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:42 pm
Here is his quote:
"We are not here to talk about the origins of the first world war,
not to talk about who's to blame,
not if we should have hung the Kaiser,
not to talk about the Versaille treaty and how it laid the foundations for the 2nd world war,
no alternative history prior to 1914,
~~~
we are sticking strictly strictly to the motion of Britain should not have fought in the first world war."
I have to go now, I'll be back, last statement;
Germany was going to collapse if it did any big 'hegemonies ' over the continent like John Charmley stated.
I do not believe the statement Germany would collapse. It was considered socially progressive in some regards and fairly cohesive. There were issues, yes.
But enough to break the system and the nationalism, no. Germany strategy for controlling European territory at the point was puppet rulers based on the peace with Russia.

Now compare this to England which actually has a serious case for civil war brewing in Ireland. It was the war that kept a lid on it for a while. Even then there was an actual uprising during the war.

Re: World War I

by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:42 pm

Here is his quote:
"We are not here to talk about the origins of the first world war,
not to talk about who's to blame,
not if we should have hung the Kaiser,
not to talk about the Versaille treaty and how it laid the foundations for the 2nd world war,
no alternative history prior to 1914,
~~~
we are sticking strictly strictly to the motion of Britain should not have fought in the first world war."
I have to go now, I'll be back, last statement;
Germany was going to collapse if it did any big 'hegemonies ' over the continent like John Charmley stated.

Re: World War I

by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:39 pm

MajorMitchell wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:32 pm
I haven't seen the YouTube thingy .. I'm not a YouTube watcher.i.would suggest that England entered the Great War because of it's treaty obligations & other reasons. (popular domestic suppt , public enthusiasm & a belief in a quick war & victory as an example)
By the time England is presented with the choice of entering/not entering the war, it was already too late to not enter imho. The Great War imho starts in the two most disfunctional Absolute Monarchies of the time, Austria & Russia.. Austria drags Germany in, partly due to mutual incompetence & that (German mobilisation & invasion of Belgium) & Russia's​ actions drag in France and England.
The interesting thing about England is the odds of them going to war without the Belgium issue is low. The popular support and key politicians were against it before Germany entered Belgium.
Once Germany invaded Belgium then public support swings to war and the anti-war politicians like David Lloyd George agree that the war is necessary.

Re: World War I

by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:34 pm

osric_athanasius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:31 pm
FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:21 pm
Also, the moderator, in the beginning, most certainly said that we should not involve ourselves in what could of beens, and simply talk about was it all worth it? As I think the man named Dominic said, was what we got really the best choice, was there no better alternative...?
If a long war was going to be fought, which was CERTAIN when England entered the war, the treaty of Versailles was getting dropped regardless.
That is the problem of the two speakers for the original position, their arguments revolve on "what could have beens".
I actually think the Moderator should have defined his statement more clearly. Is he talking about specific events that could have had different results or more general decisions? There are a thousand shades to that statement that could make the debate impossible to have.

Re: World War I

by MajorMitchell » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:32 pm

I haven't seen the YouTube thingy .. I'm not a YouTube watcher.i.would suggest that England entered the Great War because of it's treaty obligations & other reasons. (popular domestic suppt , public enthusiasm & a belief in a quick war & victory as an example)
By the time England is presented with the choice of entering/not entering the war, it was already too late to not enter imho. The Great War imho starts in the two most disfunctional Absolute Monarchies of the time, Austria & Russia.. Austria drags Germany in, partly due to mutual incompetence & that (German mobilisation & invasion of Belgium) & Russia's​ actions drag in France and England.

Re: World War I

by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:31 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:21 pm
Also, the moderator, in the beginning, most certainly said that we should not involve ourselves in what could of beens, and simply talk about was it all worth it? As I think the man named Dominic said, was what we got really the best choice, was there no better alternative...?
If a long war was going to be fought, which was CERTAIN when England entered the war, the treaty of Versailles was getting dropped regardless.
That is the problem of the two speakers for the original position, their arguments revolve on "what could have beens".

Re: World War I

by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:28 pm

Some links and stuff I have had fun looking into the WWI over the last few years.
Eric Sass 4 years of articles on a week by week on the war:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/29163/wo ... aty-berlin
A podcast on the diplomacy before the of the start of the war:
http://www.wdfpodcast.com/july-crisis-a ... ry-project
A more generalized look at the world before the war and the war itself (podcast):
https://historyofthetwentiethcentury.com/
Dan Carlin's Podcast on the WW1:
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardc ... ageddon-i/
I am still reading the Guns of August so I can not make comment on it but it is considered a classic.

Top