Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

angrystaffofficer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#161

Post by Steko »

oblio wrote: post #129
readittwice wrote: post #44

> Prussia had recently adopted a new model of rifle: one that was bolt action and so allowed for rapid fire, in comparison to the Austrians’ outmoded muzzle-loading Lorenz rifle-muskets. This really made a long-lasting impression, in Austria today (so 150 years later) we still use the phrase: "the prussians don't shoot that fast". We use it when there is still time and a solution isn't ready yet.

I'm guessing that the meaning is ironic?

It's an admonition that slowing down is ok i.e. 'you're going even faster than the (very fast) Prussian rifles'.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#162

Post by bluejekyll »

hackuser wrote: post #145
bluejekyll wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No debate on any of those points. But, until Pearl Harbor and the Philippines there was no clear pretext for the US to declare war. And had they not attacked, it's not clear that FDR could have gotten congress to declare war. Some of those prominent supporters were significant industrialists like Ford, they would have fought intervention by all means. After Pearl Harbor, there was no debate.

I've heard that too, but how did the draft, Lend-Lease, and the build-up get passed through Congress before Pearl Harbor if there wasn't sufficient support? Maybe the first and third were seen as necessary to protect a neutral country? Or being short of declaring war, they were less objectionable? But I'm just guessing ...

My guess is that most people were already aligned with the Allies, and there was money to be made. I think the arguments for Germany were less of a "let's join Germany" and more of a "let's just not get involved", thereby seeding the European continent to Germany.

But, yes the US had a constant stream of arms being supplied to Britain and Russia during the period before the war.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#163

Post by vacri »

Clubber wrote: post #158
flukus wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

World wars aren't a 1 on 1 fight though. WW1 was a 3 on 2 fight and the US involvement early would have made it 4 on 2, tipping the scales considerably.

Yes, but the US was staunchly isolationist during that period (since it's founding). In fact, the founding fathers wrote extensively about not getting involved in European wars; military isolationism was in our DNA. That's hard to believe today. Wilson actually campaigned on an anti-war platform (as did FDR).

> military isolationism was in our DNA

... You mean apart from the Indian wars which annexed territory, the Mexican-American war which annexed territory, and the Spanish-American war which annexed territory? Then there was the War of 1812, where the US tried and failed to annex Canadian territory. Or the Barbary wars.

The US not wanting to involve itself in internal European wars does not mean it was militarily isolationist. The US has been projecting military power beyond its borders pretty much since its inception. Military power projection is in the US's DNA, not isolationism.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#164

Post by D-Coder »

zeteo wrote: post #120
jcranmer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read a lot of books on the lead-up to WWI, and a few more on the conduct of WWI myself, I must say that the entire thesis comes across as rather forced. First off, it's rather well-known that Germany's fear of a two-front war and encirclement led to much of its preliminary war plan. On the other hand, the circumstances that led up to such a scenario were not preordained from its construction. It was largely a…

Correct, if Germany had continued Bismarck's foreign policy [1] then the next war (if it came) would have looked very different. Antagonizing Russia in the Balkans, France in Morocco, and Britain on the high seas were rather gratuitous moves between 1900 - 1914, driven by Wilhelm II's personality more than by any geopolitical factors. It's amazing how much hubris it took to sink the Second Reich. As far as I can tell…

I saw on an AHC program the German calculation about unrestricted sub warfare: that they could choke Britain in six months, but it would take the US two years to ramp up a real fighting force. So it made good sense, but a miscalculation in a different way.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#165

Post by [deleted] »

vacri wrote: post #163
Clubber wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the US was staunchly isolationist during that period (since it's founding). In fact, the founding fathers wrote extensively about not getting involved in European wars; military isolationism was in our DNA. That's hard to believe today. Wilson actually campaigned on an anti-war platform (as did FDR).

> military isolationism was in our DNA ... You mean apart from the Indian wars which annexed territory, the Mexican-American war which annexed territory, and the Spanish-American war which annexed territory? Then there was the War of 1812, where the US tried and failed to annex Canadian territory. Or the Barbary wars. The US not wanting to involve itself in internal European wars does not mean it was militarily isola…

[deleted]

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#166

Post by jcranmer »

jsnell wrote: post #127
kristianc wrote: post #8

If this is up your street, may I recommend Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon, which has over ten hours of podcast material exploring the lead up to the first world war. Probably the best podcast I've ever downloaded, and insane that it's available for nearly free. http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-bluepri...

Blueprint for Armageddon is probably Carlin's weakest series. It tries to cram too much into too little time, and ends up almost incoherent unless you're already very familiar with the details from elsewhere. You walk away with the idea that fighting that war must have been pretty horrible, but not much else. I've read a lot of WWI books, and _A World Undone_ by G.J. Meyer was easily the best. Would recommend that to…

I've not read A World Undone (although after seeing the suggestions, I'm adding it to my to-read list). I did like Peter Hart's The Great War immensely, though, and recommend that as the best book on the actual campaigns of the war that I've read.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#167

Post by aetherspawn »

Many believe 1914 is a Bible prophecy... it is fascinating because some interpreted that the world would end on that exact year using numbers of years provided by a 3000 year old prophecy, and we actually got a world war. That would be like the Maya 2012 hype actually happening.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#168

Post by Clubber »

vacri wrote: post #163
Clubber wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the US was staunchly isolationist during that period (since it's founding). In fact, the founding fathers wrote extensively about not getting involved in European wars; military isolationism was in our DNA. That's hard to believe today. Wilson actually campaigned on an anti-war platform (as did FDR).

> military isolationism was in our DNA ... You mean apart from the Indian wars which annexed territory, the Mexican-American war which annexed territory, and the Spanish-American war which annexed territory? Then there was the War of 1812, where the US tried and failed to annex Canadian territory. Or the Barbary wars. The US not wanting to involve itself in internal European wars does not mean it was militarily isola…

Look up the definition of isolationism.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#169

Post by zeteo »

jcranmer wrote: post #160
zeteo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, if Germany had continued Bismarck's foreign policy [1] then the next war (if it came) would have looked very different. Antagonizing Russia in the Balkans, France in Morocco, and Britain on the high seas were rather gratuitous moves between 1900 - 1914, driven by Wilhelm II's personality more than by any geopolitical factors. It's amazing how much hubris it took to sink the Second Reich. As far as I can tell…

In mid-1917, the French army mutinied and was likely unable to resist a concentrated German offensive if it came; the British pushed on a major offensive in Flanders in part to prevent the Germans from realizing this. In 1918 (by which time the French army had recovered from mutinies), the Germans tried their Spring Offensive. And it failed for pretty much the same reason their original push in 1914 failed: their log…

Agreed that the French mutinies presented a unique opportunity for the Germans but it's hard to predict how it would have played out. Would the Kerensky Offensive have done better if the Germans had sent more troops attack the French? Would the French troops have rallied if confronted with an actual German offensive?

Regarding 1918, the Germans were pushing so hard and getting stretched because the AEF was streaming in [1]. (American divisions were involved in plugging holes at the Second Marne BTW.) The Germans had a superiority of 300,000 men going into spring 1918, and inflicted 150,000 more casualties than they took during the Spring Offensive. Unlike 1914, there was no rush to beat the French before the Russians mobilized. If it wasn't for the US intervention, it would have been offensive after offensive until the Entente caved in.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_the_Aisne

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#170

Post by mcguire »

xenadu02 wrote: post #133
quirkafleeg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even a case of "blowback" - such as could be argued about 19th century US imperialism and militarisation in Asia leading to it being dragged into WWII by Japan - his argument seems little more than the USA became a united country in 1866, and that united country would later show up five minutes before the end of two world wars to show Europe how it's done, saving everyone's ass[1]. By that reasoning, everyth…

The US Civil war did preserve a powerful United States but its impact was probably much greater in showing how modern wars would be fought, with much less lining up with muskets and firing in orderly lines and far more repeating rifles and rapid movements. You could also say Sherman's march presaged "total war". Railroads and steam power changed logistics forever. The transition was far from complete though.

Don't forget the trench warfare around Richmond.
Post reply on HN