1915 WWI question

[wildthing]

I had someone ask me this question today. Lets see if your up to it. In 1915 there was a great event that happened in Turkey. This event harmed many people. What was it?

 

[Agrippa]

There's quite a few potential answers. The Gallipoli invasion occurred in 1915, lots of people died there. There was also a Russian invasion from the Caucasus. Not only did that invasion kill quite a few people, it helped sparked the Armenian genocide which resulted in the deaths of (depending who you ask) about a million people. We also had a British invasion in Mesopotamia. Essentially, no matter how you look at it, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a good place to be in 1915.

 

[wildthing]

There's quite a few potential answers. The Gallipoli invasion occurred in 1915, lots of people died there. There was also a Russian invasion from the Caucasus. Not only did that invasion kill quite a few people, it helped sparked the Armenian genocide which resulted in the deaths of (depending who you ask) about a million people. We also had a British invasion in Mesopotamia. Essentially, no matter how you look at it, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a good place to be in 1915.

Gallipoli was the answer that I came up with. She had Armenian Genocide issue. So what can you all tell me about it. I was going to write a resarch paper on it but end up writing about the Invasion of Belgium and the German treatment of Beligian citizens.

Even the Germans would agree that the Ottoman Empire was not the place to be.

Good work Agrippa, you have studied that time before?

 

[oldrooster]

I would have to say Gallipoli, it was one of Winston Churchills illfated adventures to break the stalemate on the western front.

 

[Injured Soldier]

I would have to say Gallipoli, it was one of Winston Churchills illfated adventures to break the stalemate on the western front.

Gallipoli wasn't Winston's adventure. Sure, he took the blame for it, and he wasn't opposed to it. But that blame was ill-placed. Winston was First Lord of the Admiralty, Gallipoli was the first attempt by the army to allow the navy to break through the Dardanelles. The diplomatic course beforehand shows that there are at least four or five people before Winston who should have got the boot. Foremost among them was the Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener. But shortly after Gallipoli he was dead anyway. The diplomatic problems concerning the Middle East in Britain during the First World War is described well in David Fromkin's book A Peace to End all Peace.

As for the answer, I have nothing more to add to Agrippa's suggestions. Armenian genocide would have been my first choice, suprising for an Australian.

 

[wildthing]

As for the answer, I have nothing more to add to Agrippa's suggestions. Armenian genocide would have been my first choice, suprising for an Australian.

Not really the answer did not suprise me at all. Prehaps Australia has a large Armenian population in the cities.

Before April 24,1915 conservative estimates state that their were about 3 million Armenians that lived in Armenia and Turkey. 8 years later (1923) 1.5 million Armenians were still alive but scattered in places like United States, Palestine, Lebanon, France and Brazil, along with Armenia and Turkey.

We will never know the exact number of victims because Armenian brith records were destroyed and Turkey kept no records of what happened.

 

[Injured Soldier]

Not really the answer did not suprise me at all. Prehaps Australia has a large Armenian population in the cities.

Not really. But I was referring to the fact that the Gallipoli campaign is the most famous battle in Australian history, in fact in 6 minutes time is ANZAC day here, which is on the day the Gallipoli campaign started. Most Australians like Americans would barely have even heard of the Armenian Genocide.

Before April 24,1915 conservative estimates state that their were about 3 million Armenians that lived in Armenia and Turkey. 8 years later (1923) 1.5 million Armenians were still alive but scattered in places like United States, Palestine, Lebanon, France and Brazil, along with Armenia and Turkey.

We will never know the exact number of victims because Armenian brith records were destroyed and Turkey kept no records of what happened.

Even Hitler reasoned the Holocaust by saying "who remembers what happened to the Armenians?" Personally I think the inferred 1.5 million Armenians is too high, the numbers were always kept low by previous massacres (yes, this wasn't a one off thing, just larger), others were spared by funnily enough serving in the army (the worst Turkish casulties in WWI were in the Caucusus campaign in 1914, where about 85-95% of the army were lost). But as you said, we'll never even have figures like that of the Holocaust, and even those are extremely varied. Even now a Turkish historian might flatout deny there ever was such a thing (although he would definately acknowledge something happened).

 

[wildthing]

Not really. But I was referring to the fact that the Gallipoli campaign is the most famous battle in Australian history, in fact in 6 minutes time is ANZAC day here, which is on the day the Gallipoli campaign started. Most Australians like Americans would barely have even heard of the Armenian Genocide.

Even Hitler reasoned the Holocaust by saying "who remembers what happened to the Armenians?"

Gallipoli Campaign had a lot of sturctural problems if I remember correctly. The one that stood out in my mind was the poorly provided troops. Everything was in short supply food, care and hospital ships. The other thing was in poor supply was the thing that the army uses, ammo. Great Britian at that time was having an hard time supplying needs to the soldiers in France at that time when you addrd the needs of another campaign you will have problems. I think the planner did not plan on how pucky the Truks would be too.

it is sad how quickly people forget about stuff. Stuff like soldiers paying the price for freedom. I work with under grad students and I sometimes think that record history begain in 1980's.

 

[jgarden]

Gallipoli was a fiasco from beginning to end. After landing, the leadership dithered and failed to secure the heights immediately, allowing the Turks to reinforce their superior position. The only successful event for this attack was the retreat.

 

[oldrooster]

It however proved that the stalemate in WW1 would only be decided on the western front.

 

[Injured Soldier]

It however proved that the stalemate in WW1 would only be decided on the western front.

What about the Salonika Front in November 1918? That knocked Bulgaria out of the war, and Churchill, Wilson, and even Ludendorff saw it for what it was, a defeat for the German Army that placed it in an irretrievable position in the southwest. This is how a German army that wasn't broken on the Western Front lost the war, and with the Americans firmly in the West, there was not a single troop to spare.

 

[oldrooster]

By 1918, the food blockade had taken its toll. Plus the German soldier of 1918 was not the same as 1914, revolutionary thought was spreading and the only real thought was survival. The last German offensive in the west failed and with it any hopes of even a negotiated settlement. The argument that the army wasn't broken was spread after the war to place blame on the politicians at home. If the Allies would have pressed their final offensives to their logical conclusion, they would have went to Berlin. they were still operating by old rules of warfare. A mistake not repeated in WW2.

 

[Injured Soldier]

By 1918, the food blockade had taken its toll. Plus the German soldier of 1918 was not the same as 1914, revolutionary thought was spreading and the only real thought was survival. The last German offensive in the west failed and with it any hopes of even a negotiated settlement. The argument that the army wasn't broken was spread after the war to place blame on the politicians at home. If the Allies would have pressed their final offensives to their logical conclusion, they would have went to Berlin. they were still operating by old rules of warfare. A mistake not repeated in WW2.

The same old Allied propaganda excuses that applied during the war is what was applied after. Yes Germany was blockade, no people starved though. The situation caused by the blockade of foodstuffs in Germany in WWI was similar to the situation of the blockade of Japan in WWII. Sure, it caused hardship and was longer than the latter's case, but in itself it didn't break the country.

Revolutionary thought among the soldiers of Germany was way behind that of the Allies. In 1917 early Britain, France and Russia had a change of government due to pressures from the army that the war caused, later in Russia it became even more obvious. Revolutionary thought didn't affect German soldiers any more than it affected Allied soldiers.

The story that the army was broken was spread by the Allies to soothe nerves at home in Britain and France. Think about how you'd react if your country had fought for four long years, faced the most horrible hardship, your sons and friends died in it, and the government then admitted that it had done little to break the enemy's army. The army wasn't even pushed back on German soil.

Pushed their offensives to the final conclusion to Berlin? Sounds eerily like the tall tales of both sides propaganda of 1914 and 1915 to me. I was actually told the other day I was too cynical for my age. But that is what comes from studying history and politics too much.

 

[wildthing]

The real defeat of Germany did not happen on the battlefield, it lost the war on another front. That is the ineffective use of the press. By 1915 the German had lost the war of the press. Britian and France control of press, the stories it told about the occuption of Beligium would be hard to beat. Also the idea that Germany was trying to get Mexico involoved with there war effort has merit. Germans were selling arms to many nation pior to the war. (having owning and shooting Mauser rifles I can attest to there realiablity and accuracy) There customers were many of the South and Central American countries. Germans thought wrongly that they could use them. The other factor was the sinking of the Lusitannia and other ships that drew us into the war.

France and England had control of our press and pretty much control of the News. We need to understand that France and UK had lost the war on the western front. They had little effect intaking back territiory that was lost to the Germans. It was the American Army that would defeat the German army. The German Army and the army of France and England were tried too. The German Plans had called for the War to be short, perhaps a few weeks (Schlieffen plan) The Plan never took in account of a stalmate or trench warfare.

General Persing felt he could march all the way to Berlin this would be a little too ambitious. Remember the war ended with an armistice which lead to the treaty of Versailles, a very oneside document. (the decoration for the start up of WWII, WWII was just part two of WWI)

The Naval Blockade of Germany was effective. People did not starve but it did cause them much misery. By causing misery you can effectivly trun the peoples heart from their government. Naval blockade was more effective because of errors that the German navy made at Jutland.

 

[Oliver]

We need to understand that France and UK had lost the war on the western front. They had little effect intaking back territiory that was lost to the Germans. It was the American Army that would defeat the German army.

If by this you mean that the addition of fresh troops at that moment was decisive in that it enabled the allies to take the offensive and move the front back to Belgium, then I agree with you.

But reading the quote above, one would (or could) think that the British and French armies were collapsing and that the US army was the only one to take the offensive or at least break german defense. This is far from the truth.
Actually, the BEF had already stopped the german offensive in the north, and when the allied counter-offensive took place, the number of US troops involved was not yet at its maximum.

There's little doubt that without US troops, this counter-offensive would not have been as decisive (or at least would have taken much more time and lives). There's also little doubt that the threat of a US involvement is what pushed Ludendorff to this offensive which proved so costly for the Germans.
But to say that "France and UK had lost the war on the western front" seems really exaggerated IMHO.

 

[wildthing]

If by this you mean that the addition of fresh troops at that moment was decisive in that it enabled the allies to take the offensive and move the front back to Belgium, then I agree with you.

But reading the quote above, one would (or could) think that the British and French armies were collapsing and that the US army was the only one to take the offensive or at least break german defense. This is far from the truth.
Actually, the BEF had already stopped the german offensive in the north, and when the allied counter-offensive took place, the number of US troops involved was not yet at its maximum. (In June 1918, 85,000 US troops took part in the first battles of the counter-offensive).

There's little doubt that without US troops, this counter-offensive would not have been as decisive (or at least would have taken much more time and lives). There's also little doubt that the threat of a US involvement is what pushed Ludendorff to this offensive which proved so costly for the Germans.
But to say that "France and UK had lost the war on the western front" seems really exaggerated IMHO.

I would agree that I will need to tighten up what I said. The meaning would be in reference to 1914. Stupid tactices on both sides cost to many human lives. But by 1918 the war had changed in some degree stalled German offenseive and counter offenseive by the Allies would bring about "peace".

Your point is well taken. With some degree I will take responsibility for the remarks leading to the wrong conclusion.

 

[Oliver]

Stupid tactices on both sides cost to many human lives.

So true!

But by 1918 the war had changed in some degree stalled German offenseive and counter offenseive by the Allies would bring about "peace".

The war has changed several times:
_ in the very begginning when trench warfare appeared and put a halt to big armies movements (though not to costly offensives).
_ In 1917 when the Germans retreated to a well fortified defense line.
_ again in early 1918 when they resumed offensive by fear of a larger US involvment.
_ and later in 1918 when the allies took the offensive.

All this makes it difficult to venture into "what ifs" and say what would have happenned had the US not been involved, and even more so if you take into account the effect of the eastern front, or the use of new weapons like tanks which were begginning to be used for large offensive against trenches in 1918 (see Ypres IIRC).

The only thing everyone can agree on is that it would have been more difficult for the allies to break the stalemate. Other than that...

 

[oldrooster]

If Germany had not had such useless allies, Austria-Hungary especially, they might of had a chance. Basically no one had banked on the war lasting as long as it did. It really became a who can wait the longest fight.

 

[Freodin]

If Germany had not had such useless allies, Austria-Hungary especially, they might of had a chance. Basically no one had banked on the war lasting as long as it did. It really became a who can wait the longest fight.

If Germany had not had Austria as an ally, the war would not have happened.

But Germany did lose the war on the military side - not by battle, but by exhaustion. They were simply outproduced by the Allied industry.

 

[oldrooster]

Austria was to WW1, Italy was to WW2.