Part 1 was very interesting. I thought I was quite knowledgeable about WW1, but I learnt a lot.
This week on the blog: we've discussed what caused the WWI trench stalemate and why 'just going on the defensive' wasn't a solution. What about all of the other possible solutions? Was this a solvable problem? In 1940 maybe, but not in 1918.https://acoup.blog/2021/09/24/collections-no-mans-land-part-ii-breaking-the-stalemate/ …
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Enjoyed part 1 hugely. It answered a lot of my questions. Maybe part 2 will include ‘Why did they not make peace’?
-
Alas no. But as I noted in Part I, "Not having a WWI" was the true winning strategy of WWI. Alas, it was found hard and not tried.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Learned a lot from this one, as always. Also wanted to let you know that your new footnote implementation works really well on mobile devices - thanks!
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Nice. I'm curious to see how the "logic of trench warfare" applies to the preceding and following conflicts.
-
With better french generalship, could Franco-Prussian war have ended up in a similar trench stalemate? (Especially if both sides respected Belgian neutrality)
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Where do Sir Ian Hamilton and Major General Aylmer Hunter-Weston fall on the worst generals of the war list? (I'm never quite clear where to assign blame for the bungling at Cape Helles.)
-
For that matter, was there ever a possibility of a *strategic* way out -- through the Black Sea, or Salonika, or even helping the Italians? Since in some sense the stalemate came down to too much force in too little space, so both sides could "string the table".
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Does this make the Russian Revolution the second most decisive action of the war?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
A question about your earlier Vicky II article: If we want a rough date for when peer interstate war stopped being profitable, wouldn't 1850 be a good ballpark estimate for advanced industrial societies? That's when the waning of pre-Modern System tactics began when... 1/2
-
...as you say in the chem weapons piece, attacking up the middle stopped being a particularly effective tactic (although it could still work sometimes) That suggests that's roughly when (feasibly net-profitable) decisive one-sided victories started becoming harder and harder 2/2
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.