was world war one a pointless meatgrinder?

[Platypus]

turn on TV today for the newest addition to the 'most pointless wars' category.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
it actually led to a revolution in military weaponry and tactics as well as national strategy. after I most countries realized the value of technology and machinery. they just didn't want to spend money on it cause they didn't want to start the militarism attitudes that led in part to WWI. however, as WWII became imminent, military leaders pushed for the kind of development to aviod another WWI. some (Germans) got better results than others(French). by the time US entered, they were building ships tanks and planes as fast as they were training people to fight.

anybody remember the maginot line...supposed to be the most decisive and unpenatrable defense ever, enought to make germany not even consider attacking France again. well done frenchies.

The Maginot line was not penetrated - especially considering that the Germans ignored it altogether and attacked France going first thru the Low Countries

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
it actually led to a revolution in military weaponry and tactics as well as national strategy. after I most countries realized the value of technology and machinery. they just didn't want to spend money on it cause they didn't want to start the militarism attitudes that led in part to WWI. however, as WWII became imminent, military leaders pushed for the kind of development to aviod another WWI. some (Germans) got better results than others(French). by the time US entered, they were building ships tanks and planes as fast as they were training people to fight.

anybody remember the maginot line...supposed to be the most decisive and unpenatrable defense ever, enought to make germany not even consider attacking France again. well done frenchies.

Hitler didn't attack the line, he couldn't or he would have broke his army on it. He went around it through belgium and the black forest. Belgium was expected but the forest was believed to be impenatrable (although I believe Hitler proved them wrong on that).

Make no mistake, france had the manpower to stop germany had their generals not been complete and utter unthinking nitwits still living in WWI.

I think the point he was trying to make is that only an idiot relies on fixed defenses. The Maginot Line, while impressive, is a monument to stupidity.

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: JOJOBEAN

Originally posted by: Amol
league of nations . . . hah, that was pretty stupid

better than bush's axis of evil....

ummm . . . the league of nations was kind of like a post-WWI united nations that was thought up by woodrow wilson . . . it was one of his fourteen points

however, the united states themselves didn't join the league since the congress didn't like it

so it dismantled

 

[ndee]

As said before, every war is a waste. The war in Iraq especially.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: ndee
As said before, every war is a waste. The war in Iraq especially.

Nonono... The war in Iraq has been very useful so far as a means to distract people from asking questions about the failure to catch any of those responsible for 9/11.

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: ndee
As said before, every war is a waste. The war in Iraq especially.

Nonono... The war in Iraq has been very useful so far as a means to distract people from asking questions about the failure to catch any of those responsible for 9/11.

two true statements :thumbsup:

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
I think the point he was trying to make is that only an idiot relies on fixed defenses. The Maginot Line, while impressive, is a monument to stupidity.

The Maginot Line is probably the most impressive defensive formation ever built. In our age of superweapons those type of defenses have been minimalized but the power of fixed foritications can easily be shown with the high casulaties in every attack against them. The rather minimal fixed fortificatins on the Normandy Coast caused extensive casualties to the allies. Had Hitler attacked the Maginot line he would have broke his army on it. The reason he was successful is he avoided attacking it and went around it. Had the French generals reacted in a prompt and even slightly effective manner they could have stopped the nazi's from bypassing the line. Don't underplay the effectiveness of the Maginot because Hitler was smart enough to bypass it.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: ndee
As said before, every war is a waste. The war in Iraq especially.

This is not true. War DOES effectively resolve conflict. WW2 put an end to the idea of German domination of Europe. The US Civil War put an end to both slavery in the US, and the concept of a Confederacy. The Revolutionary War put the US on the map in the first place.

In ancient times, the Punic Wars determined whether it was to be Rome or Carthage that was to rule the Mediterranian. Earlier, the Persian Wars in Greece ensured that the Greeks would retain control of their civilization (and thus we now have a Western-style civilization).

So please, please do not state retarded peacenik ideals without having a clue about history.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
I think the point he was trying to make is that only an idiot relies on fixed defenses. The Maginot Line, while impressive, is a monument to stupidity.

The Maginot Line is probably the most impressive defensive formation ever built. In our age of superweapons those type of defenses have been minimalized but the power of fixed foritications can easily be shown with the high casulaties in every attack against them. The rather minimal fixed fortificatins on the Normandy Coast caused extensive casualties to the allies. Had Hitler attacked the Maginot line he would have broke his army on it. The reason he was successful is he avoided attacking it and went around it. Had the French generals reacted in a prompt and even slightly effective manner they could have stopped the nazi's from bypassing the line. Don't underplay the effectiveness of the Maginot because Hitler was smart enough to bypass it.

You're really not getting it.

Yes, the Maginot Line is very very impressive in execution. I said as much. Unfortunately it was also ultimately useless. You act like it took an act of genius on Hitler's part to avoid an immensely strong deffensive fortification. That's just common sense. You drive around a wall, not through it.

Furthermore, do you know why Hitler was able to avoid the Line? Because if was FIXED in fvcking place. That's the problem with fixed deffenses. You can go around them. Do you understand? Unless your fixed defenses are supported by geography that makes your front the only, and I mean ONLY, way in then they can be avoided and rendered useless. Then you've wasted immense resources on something that's sitting there gathering dust. Fixed defenses are for a$$holes. It's that simple.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: ndee
As said before, every war is a waste. The war in Iraq especially.

This is not true. War DOES effectively resolve conflict. WW2 put an end to the idea of German domination of Europe. The US Civil War put an end to both slavery in the US, and the concept of a Confederacy. The Revolutionary War put the US on the map in the first place.

In ancient times, the Punic Wars determined whether it was to be Rome or Carthage that was to rule the Mediterranian. Earlier, the Persian Wars in Greece ensured that the Greeks would retain control of their civilization (and thus we now have a Western-style civilization).

So please, please do not state retarded peacenik ideals without having a clue about history.

Just because something gets resolved doesn't mean wars aren't huge wastes, of both resources and life. There are other means to resolving conflicts, which granted sometimes requires a little force, but not on a scale of a real war.

The latter half of the 19th century in Europe (the Victorian Age of England for instance) was a time of great peace and prosperity. WWI was pointless because of a stupid and relatively insignificant (at least to most of Europe) event (the assassination of the one Archduke) and was escalated by stupid backhanded alliances (that are akin to those in wrestling as they're both very stupid and are often changing).

WWII was a direct result of WWI (well mostly the Treaty of Versailles). It made Germany and its main allies bitter (because they though that things would go back to how they were before in the Victorian Age where Europe would be mostly peaceful). Italy was bitter because they were left out of the spoils. The cost put to Germany was too much for them to bare (thus killing their economic foundation). The French were left fearful of future German aggression (and they caved in easily to Germany in WWII because the leaders were people who fought in WWI and witnessed firsthand how horrible a great modern war could be, and thus would rather forfeit than go through it again). England was waning as a superpower, but were desperately trying to cling to their past achievments. America was rising as a great power (mostly due to the fact that they supplied the European powers with so much in WWI, and were still doing so, and in part that they suffered relatively little loss in WWI).

How many millions were killed and wounded in WWI? How much was achieved? WWI did not solve anything, it only showed the countries what the face of modern warfare looked like, which led to WWII and the even greater slaughter that took place there.

Sure the WW solved problems, but it also gave rise to new ones. If WWII hadn't happend, would the nuclear arms race have taken place (and thus would there be tens of thousands of weapons that posess such a horrifying destructive power that a single one could take out millions in one fell swoop)?

Luckily, time heals many wounds, and in time, people, see reason. Were it not for the long dragged out nature of the cold war and no real conflict, people wouldn't have realized that the last thing we need is so many weapons of mass destruction, ready at the push of a button.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Just because something gets resolved doesn't mean wars aren't huge wastes, of both resources and life. There are other means to resolving conflicts, which granted sometimes requires a little force, but not on a scale of a real war.

Warfare treats human lives and material resources as expendable if the act of expending them accomplishes a tactical purpose. If you wish to call that expense "waste", then you're welcome to do so, but I think you would be incorrect. ATOT poster ndee made his statement (and perhaps I'm assuming too much here) as if war itself was nothing but waste, with no actual purpose, and in that I believe he is incorrect, as history shows.

Yes, there are other ways of resolving conflict. But war is sometimes necessary, as there come times in human history when two or more groups with conflicting purposes can find no other way to resolve those conflicts without killing each other.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: rahvin


The Maginot Line is probably the most impressive defensive formation ever built.

Chinese Wall > *.*

IMO WWI was the war that ended the classic historic way of viewing the world, and WWII was the first large war in the new world.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: rahvin


The Maginot Line is probably the most impressive defensive formation ever built.

Chinese Wall > *.*

IMO WWI was the war that ended the classic historic way of viewing the world, and WWII was the first large war in the new world.

Agreed. WWI saw the invention of the tank along with the extenive use of machine gunnery and artillery, whereas WWII saw blitzkrieg (mechanized coordinated assault with land + air forces).

WWII saw the introductions of the jet fighter (although they came into their own during the Korean War later on), the ballistic missile, and, in the Pacific Theater, the emergence of the aircraft carrier as the lynchpin of warfare at sea (replacing the battleship).

WWII saw a return to mobility on the battlefield, and in this environment fixed fortifications were, as the French found out, of little use.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Just because something gets resolved doesn't mean wars aren't huge wastes, of both resources and life. There are other means to resolving conflicts, which granted sometimes requires a little force, but not on a scale of a real war.

Warfare treats human lives and material resources as expendable if the act of expending them accomplishes a tactical purpose. If you wish to call that expense "waste", then you're welcome to do so, but I think you would be incorrect. ATOT poster ndee made his statement (and perhaps I'm assuming too much here) as if war itself was nothing but waste, with no actual purpose, and in that I believe he is incorrect, as history shows.

Yes, there are other ways of resolving conflict. But war is sometimes necessary, as there come times in human history when two or more groups with conflicting purposes can find no other way to resolve those conflicts without killing each other.

Well said.

There are times in every war where either a certain battle or engagement is a total waste and there's no reason for it, but there are plenty of other times when it is for something.

I'm not calling the millions of lives lost to war a waste (even though I did), as they didn't die for nothing, but its oft times senseless at best.

I'm not anti-war (because, well forgive me, but war is perhaps the most interesting thing of all human nature, the risks we take, the mistakes we make, the ingenuity, the courage, the....well I could go on and on, but we'll just say that it brings out the best and worst in mankind), but I'm pro peace. This is in reference to war in general and not about the "war" that was fought recently.

I think there was more I was gonna say, but I can't pull it from my mind at the moment, so I'll just end there.

 

[realsup]

WWII was a direct result of WWI (well mostly the Treaty of Versailles). It made Germany and its main allies bitter (because they though that things would go back to how they were before in the Victorian Age where Europe would be mostly peaceful). Italy was bitter because they were left out of the spoils. The cost put to Germany was too much for them to bare (thus killing their economic foundation). The French were left fearful of future German aggression (and they caved in easily to Germany in WWII because the leaders were people who fought in WWI and witnessed firsthand how horrible a great modern war could be, and thus would rather forfeit than go through it again). England was waning as a superpower, but were desperately trying to cling to their past achievments. America was rising as a great power (mostly due to the fact that they supplied the European powers with so much in WWI, and were still doing so, and in part that they suffered relatively little loss in WWI).

Actually the US was recovering from The Great Depression. Far from being a "Great Power".

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: realsup

WWII was a direct result of WWI (well mostly the Treaty of Versailles). It made Germany and its main allies bitter (because they though that things would go back to how they were before in the Victorian Age where Europe would be mostly peaceful). Italy was bitter because they were left out of the spoils. The cost put to Germany was too much for them to bare (thus killing their economic foundation). The French were left fearful of future German aggression (and they caved in easily to Germany in WWII because the leaders were people who fought in WWI and witnessed firsthand how horrible a great modern war could be, and thus would rather forfeit than go through it again). England was waning as a superpower, but were desperately trying to cling to their past achievments. America was rising as a great power (mostly due to the fact that they supplied the European powers with so much in WWI, and were still doing so, and in part that they suffered relatively little loss in WWI).

Actually the US was recovering from The Great Depression. Far from being a "Great Power".

You do realize that there was over a decade between the end of WWI and the Great Depression right? In that time, America experienced a time of rapid economic expansion as well as the fruits of booming industry. Also, the Great Depression led to another time of great industry. Plus, who do you think helped make a considerable amount of the equipment, weapons, and machinery used early on by the European allies?

At the very worst, America was doing much better than most of Europe (our "Great Depression" was nothing compared to Germany's, who experienced inflation that would explode your mind, like hundreds of thousands of percents).

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: realsup

WWII was a direct result of WWI (well mostly the Treaty of Versailles). It made Germany and its main allies bitter (because they though that things would go back to how they were before in the Victorian Age where Europe would be mostly peaceful). Italy was bitter because they were left out of the spoils. The cost put to Germany was too much for them to bare (thus killing their economic foundation). The French were left fearful of future German aggression (and they caved in easily to Germany in WWII because the leaders were people who fought in WWI and witnessed firsthand how horrible a great modern war could be, and thus would rather forfeit than go through it again). England was waning as a superpower, but were desperately trying to cling to their past achievments. America was rising as a great power (mostly due to the fact that they supplied the European powers with so much in WWI, and were still doing so, and in part that they suffered relatively little loss in WWI).

Actually the US was recovering from The Great Depression. Far from being a "Great Power".

umm Great Depression started in 1929

WWI was 1914-1918

ever heard of the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION? sure, it hit britain before the states, but it benefited the U.S. much more

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
You're really not getting it.

Yes, the Maginot Line is very very impressive in execution. I said as much. Unfortunately it was also ultimately useless. You act like it took an act of genius on Hitler's part to avoid an immensely strong deffensive fortification. That's just common sense. You drive around a wall, not through it.

Furthermore, do you know why Hitler was able to avoid the Line? Because if was FIXED in fvcking place. That's the problem with fixed deffenses. You can go around them. Do you understand? Unless your fixed defenses are supported by geography that makes your front the only, and I mean ONLY, way in then they can be avoided and rendered useless. Then you've wasted immense resources on something that's sitting there gathering dust. Fixed defenses are for a$$holes. It's that simple.

I understand what you are saying I think you are just completely Naive on the course of the war as a result of the line. The Magnoit diverted an entire army into what was believed to be one narrow corridor. A cooridor that contained an unbreakable fortress (unless you allow the enemy to land guliders on it in the middle of the night). Had the french army reacted with any sort of response like the british were telling them to they could have stopped Hilter.

Do you realize the magnitude of that? The line was so powerful that he couldn't attack through it, as a result he had to concentrate his attack through belgium. This gave england and france an entire country as a buffer and a fairly narrow corridor to fight over and france didn't have to devote all their armies to protecting one of the longest shared borders in all of europe.

It was only the mistake of the French generals that gave him france with such little effort, once the reports of the breaktrhough in the blackforest reached them they should have fallen back to prevent the enemy coming up their backside and smashing them between two forces. Because of their failure to act that got trapped at dunkirk and were evacuted in the largest naval evacuation in history and France was lost.

To disregard the role the line played in the war is a disservice, without it in place hitler could have invaded france at any point and France would have had to spread their armies out extensively. THe line gave them a chance (which the failed at miserably) but you disregard the tactical value of the line because of the failure not of the line but the men in charge.

It is true today that such fixed formations are of little use given the powerfull weapons we have today but in WWII those bunkers were harded against all ordinance that could be fired at the time. This allowed a fairly small force to man the defenses while the armies could stand back and wait for any break through or attempt and it undoubtable altered Hitlers entire strategy.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: ndee
As said before, every war is a waste. The war in Iraq especially.

Nonono... The war in Iraq has been very useful so far as a means to distract people from asking questions about the failure to catch any of those responsible for 9/11.

so you believe that Sadam's removal wasn't justified by the 17 broken UN resolutions?... and you believe that Iraq's social system wasn't fueling a sentiment of anti-westernism... (see: chopping the heads off of american's on TELEVISION)? i see.

edit: fixed punctuation and word awkwardness

 

[Al Neri]

as for the topic. WWI was inevitable, all the tension was built up and the secret alliances (triple alliance/triple entante) made europe a powder keg.... just needed a spark, and it was a marginal monarch's assasination to enable all those secret alliances to be invoked hence simply its as if : I declare war you on, my friend declares war on you, your friend declares war on me, my friends friends get involved, etc. Old world tactics new world weaponary = massive amounts of deaths, but much tension eased (and then europe making another mistake punishing germany so heavily which was a huge factor leading to a heavy depression, enabling the weimar republic to ultimately fail and allow for the rise of a dictator to take over power assessing all the blame away from Germany leading to WWII.

 

[StageLeft]

I was always a big fan of it. To me it represented, from a military standpoint, the entrance into modern warfare. You had lots of real artillery, machine guns, the first big conflict with planes, even if not so many of them. There was playing around with chemical warfare, tanks, all that good stuff. It really kicked ass.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: SkoorbIt really kicked ass.

I guess you haven't spent much time in a mud-soaked rat-infested trench waiting for the whistle to tell you to climb out and 100 yds towards a machine gun.

 

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: SkoorbIt really kicked ass.

I guess you haven't spent much time in a mud-soaked rat-infested trench waiting for the whistle to tell you to climb out and 100 yds towards a machine gun.

I don't think anyone on here has.

 

[Promethply]

It definitely was, eventhough most of the soldiers on both sides died from a flu epidemic rather than the actual fighting.