MovieChat Forums > Paths of Glory (1957) Discussion > Can someone explain World War I to me?

Can someone explain World War I to me?


It's humbling to admit this, but I'm a 28-year-old U.S. resident and I know very, very little about World War I. I have the sketchiest of sketches. I know it was fought in the early 1900s, and involved people with pointy helmets, but not much more than that.

Anyway, I really would like to better understand this very significant part of history, but I've found the Wikipedia articles hard to follow (a little too factual, maybe). Is anyone out there able to give me sort of a general summary in plain language I could use as a road map for future studies? (Who, what, where, and most importantly why)

I know this is an odd request, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask!

reply

Why? Too many muscle bound boys with too much time in their hands and nothing to do with their muscles.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

I skipped through the "history lessons," and liked your reply, and mine, best.

Human Rights: Know Them, Demand Them, Defend Them

reply

I understand that your comment can be read as a joke, but simplified views in history and politics lead to misunderstandings and give room for propaganda and indoctrination. For instance, the knowledge of average Americans of historical conflicts in any part of Europe (the Balkans, Ukraine ...) leaves much to be desired.

reply

The core issue was one of self-determination competing with the goals of imperialism. The history of man is the story of conquest. What sparked WWI was the continued unresolved issues of who governed whom, what the lines on the map should look like, who controlled the resources, wealth and power and what the language and cultures of an area should be, that had gone on for centuries and even longer than that. This was compounded by an elaborate set of treaties and alliances between the various countries and empires that were involved, which were set into motion like falling dominoes once Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Accompanied by destructive technology on a scale never seen before, while still clinging to some old methods of warfare, it developed into a stalemate slugfest that went on for four years, 1914-1918. Once the tide had turned in favor of the Western Allies, an armistice was struck, The Treaty of Versailles, which left the vanquished German Empire broken and embittered, ultimately leading to WWII.

The Austria-Hungary Empire annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. This upset many of the Southern European Slavic peoples and also ticked-off the Russian Tsar. This area had long been battled over by Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia wanted to get out from domination by Austria and were looking to their Slavic ties to Russia to become a Yugoslavian state. In an attempt to destabilize Austrian control, terrorist groups (or freedom fighters, depending on your POV) like the Black Hand were formed. It was under this context that Princip, a Bosnian, assassinated the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand (and his wife, Sophie). Oddly, Ferdinand was a progressive for his time and was looking toward more peaceful methods of resolution of minority grievances and more local rule within the Austrian Empire, to better insure the continuation of the empire for the time when he would become Emperor. Regardless, Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the assassination and ultimately declared war on Serbia after first giving Serbia an unrealistic set of ultimatums, to which Serbia would never completely capitulate.

Thus the dominoes began to fall, with Germany on Austria's side and Russia backing the Slavs of Serbia, fueled by opportunism on Germany's side in an attempt to strike at Russia before she could build up an army that Germany could never defeat. France was Russia's ally and so . . . While Great Britain was not bound by treaty, they could not afford to remain neutral as they needed to stay on favorable terms with France and Russia, as they were invested in maintaining their world-wide empire, as well as preventing Germany from taking the dominant role in Europe. The rest of the world-wide conflict unfolded from here.

Perhaps the rest of this article will make more sense now, IDK. simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I Certainly there have been volumes written about all this and there are other theories, such as a pretense by Germany to become a bigger empire across the globe. While I may have played a little loose with some of the history, I think most of Western history takes a similar view.

If you'd rather watch a documentary, I would highly recommend the 2003 TV mini-series The First World War, available on DVD. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426688/



"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." 2001: A Space Odyssey

reply

[deleted]


-Actually, Great Britain WAS bound by a treaty


"The Treaty of London (1839) between Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria and France on one hand, and the Netherlands on the other, pledged all parties to respect and defend the perpetual neutrality of Belgium."

You may be correct, but I believe this is one of those finer points of international law, of which I'll readily confess my ignorance. While Germany was a successor state of Prussia, it wasn't a signatory of the treaty. I'm certainly not defending Germany's actions and believe GB did "the right thing". I'll gladly bow to anyone with greater knowledge if GB WAS bound at that point.

"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." 2001: A Space Odyssey

reply

[deleted]

The rest is history. Apparently the Kaiser was confident that Germany could take on France AND Russia AND Italy AND Britain AND later, the United States, and WIN.


I recently read a book on German war planning based upon German papers written before the war. Kaiser Wilhelm felt that Germany should have a global empire similar to that of the British and French. Of course, by 1900, most any place on the planet that was desirable as a colony and already been taken. As Germany grew, the Kaiser felt that German prestige should as well and he militarized Germany. This activity made the British, French, and Russians nervous and they too began to militarize.

Enter the German General Staff - they realized around 1908-1910 that the French and Russian military buildups would eventually surpass the German buildup. They began to fear that by 1916 the French and Russians would be strong enough to mount a coordinated attack against Germany and defeat her.

While what the Kaiser thought wasn't described, the German General Staff prior to 1914 didn't believe they could win a two-front war against the French and Russians, let alone with the British, Italians, and Americans thrown into the mix. By 1914, they thought their only hope was to delay the Russians in the east (since they would be slower to mobilize) while executing a quick knock-out blow of the French in the west. With the French defeated, they could then use their rail net to throw all their efforts against the Russians. Of course, it didn't work out that way but given that the French held at the Marne, it was a near run thing.

I don't think it's accurate to portray the Germans as thinking they could take on the world and win. Granted, the Kaiser's desire to build a German Empire had provoked the French and Russian response (and a naval arms race with the Brits) and it was a situation of their own making, but I don't see it as a naked power grab by the Germans. From their point-of-view, they were boxed in by powerful enemies and felt threatened. If they waited too long to go on the offensive, they feared they would find themselves in a desperate defensive struggle on two fronts.

So, who knows? If Germany had shown restraint by not attacking France/Russia in 1914, there may very well have been aggression by France/Russia against Germany a couple years later to keep her from becoming too powerful.


reply

[deleted]

"There may very well have been aggression by France/Russia against Germany a couple years later".

And the main factor that drove Germany to seek war in summer 1914, was the fear that in a few year's time, Russia would become too powerful for them to defeat. They weren't entirely ready, but chose to take their chances as the opportunity presented itself.


"The situation in Rusia became infinitely worse because of the communist takeover there".

It's questionable if it became much worse at all as Tsarist Russia was collapsing precisely due to extreme poverty and misery of everyone besides the aristocracy.





"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]

Firstly, mind cutting out the hysterics and the offensive tone? Secondly...

"If you can't see the difference between the Tsar and Lenin".

Both of their hands were bloody, but unlike Lenin, Nicholas II was dim, stubborn, incompetent and interested in little else besides retaining his absolute power.


"How much worse off the people of Russia were under Communism as compared to life under Tsar".

Things can hardly get much worse than they were during the final years of monarchy; I mean, why the hell do you think the revolution occurred in the first place?




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]

"And do you think Lenin ever gave a damn about the common people?"

It is probably accurate to say though that his ambition exceeded personal gain or lust for power, and, in his twisted way, he did care about Russia's future. However, the methods he used in order to secure this supposedly better future, were obviously unacceptable to say the least and, personally, I think he was a very creepy guy.


"The Communists were heck of a lot worse than the Tsar ever was".

Which communists? The history of Soviet Union isn't exactly monolithic, with there having been many distinct periods and all. Stalin's reign was about the worst nightmare one can imagine, but things did mellow out comparatively and improved considerably later on and, incidentally, the 1960's-1970's may well have been the best, most stable time Russian lower/middle classes have ever experienced in terms of economic safety and well being. Yes, life generally sucked, especially from the human rights and personal freedoms point of view, but at least folks didn't have to worry about there being no bread to put on the table.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

There were civil war and famine under Communism not Czarism.

reply

Britain and Germany hated and distrusted each other to begin with...


While I don't doubt this I find it surprising, considering Britain's royal ties with Germany. Or were they ancient history by then?

reply

Not sure what "to begin with" is supposed to mean here, but Germany and Britain had of course been major colonial rivals for a few decades. As for the family relations, the Emperors of Germany and Russia were actually close relatives yet that didn`t stop them from going to war with each other, so...



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Not true. If there was hatred and mistrust between any two major European players, it was between Great Britain and Russia, countries which had spent the major part of the 19th century at war. There was, however personal mistrust and dislike between Kaiser Wilhelm II (Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia), now acknowledged to have been almost certainly mentally unstable, and his cousin George V of the United Kingdom. Irascible, irresolute, and infirm 'Kaiser Bill' was dominated by his military advisors, notably Hindenburg and Ludendorff, was desperate to prove himself an imperious and autocratic ruler, and, by virtue of his Prussian military education, believed, not only in Germany's invulnerability, but also in her historic right to rule over much of free Europe. He was disliked, or at least ignored (perhaps worse) by most of his extended family, and believed that his two cousins (George V and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia) were continually plotting against him. His frustration at being sidelined (as he saw it) in European politics, and naivety, led to his only independant foray into foreign affairs, which led to the Treaty of Björkö, signed with Tsar Nicholas in July 1905, in which he attempted to break Russia's alliance with France. Although the treaty itself was worthless, some have speculated that this reveals Wilhelm's overarching ambition very much earlier, and explains his eagerness, some nine years later, in using the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, as a lever to bully Austria-Hungary into declaring war against Serbia.
In 1914, Russia was perceived to be the enemy by the British people (although not by the political classes), but Wilhelm's invasion of Belgium (and the subsequent polemic address delivered to Parliament by Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary to Herbert Asquith, Britain's Prime Minister, in July 1914) catalyzed and polarised anti-German sentiment to such an extent, that, when the King declared war on Germany at midnight on August 3rd, the crowds massed outside Buckingham Palace met the news with singing and cheering... Little did they imagine that war would last over four years, and would cost the Empire more than one million dead, and a further two million wounded...

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

reply

What isn`t true? It`s pretty basic knowledge that Germany sought to challenge Britain`s role as the world`s leading colonial empire and its naval supremacy - a key to this domination - in particular (although, admittedly, this had little to do with the actual onset of WW1). And talking of hatred or resentment, there was plenty of that between the Germans and the French, especially from the latter`s side, for obvious historical reasons.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]

There are inevitably simplifications which could be disputed, but pretty good summary for an extraordinarily question from a soosedly educated chap...good on him for asking though

reply

Oh my goodness,can't you see that the poster wrote an extremely lazy question? What are books for? If the poster is unfamiliar with actual books,there is plenty of information on the Internet,although an intelligent person should always vet the source and glean information from more than one than one source. Actually, the same advice applies to books as well, which is why libraries exist. If the poster is so ignorant that he is unaware of either research option, then he grew up under a rock. I simply have no patience with a person unwilling to learn on his own. He reminds me of the kid that never studied for a test and then wanted to copy my answers. LAZY!

reply

Thank you

reply

To the best of my knowledge...

There were two alliances in Europe in the early 20th century, the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy). They didn't particularly like each other for a multitude of reasons, which resulted in an arms race. This culminated in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by the Serbians in 1914, which sparked the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia, the Russian declaration of war on Austria and the German declaration of war on Russia and France due to complex reasons. Italy didn't get involved. The reason it became a 'World War' is because of the countries' large empires.

The German plan was to quickly defeat France on the west before the Russians could mobilise and attack them from the east. They marched through Belgium, which inadvertently brought the British into the war due to an old and forgotten treaty between Britain and Belgium. This brought the German advance to a standstill, and led to the trench warfare depicted in Paths of Glory.


Nothing much happened between 1914-17, except for millions of deaths, mostly due to the awful conditions of the trenches and (arguably) the outdated views of the officers in this first 'modern war'. The Russians pulled out after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, but by this time Germany and its allies were severely weakened and they had inadvertently brought America into the mix. By the time the US had brought any major number of troops over, the Germans were forced to surrender on the 11th November 1918, resulting in the Treaty of Versailles, which crippled Germany and basically set up the conditions for the rise of the Nazis.

About 40 million people were dead or wounded in all. A further 50-100 million people died of Spanish flu that was helped spread due to the war in 1918.

That's it in a nutshell.

reply

That really helps. I know it's a broad outline, but it's a good "skeleton" for me to go on! Thanks for doing that!

reply

Those were both great summaries, but it helps to know some of the impact. The League of Nations imposed cripplingly large reparations on Germany after the war, basically making them pay for the expenses incurred by the Allies. In order to meet its debts, the German gov't printed money, literally, by the truckload, leading to insane inflation rates. The money literally wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, and stories of people buying bread with wheelbarrows full of money are not exaggerated. Example: I have a German postage stamp from 1932 for 12 million marks.

This, combined with several other factors, created an environment where Hitler could, and did, thrive. The Germans were eager to regain their past dignity, avenge past wrongs, and blame a scapregoat (the Jews) for their problems.

Other important impacts of the Great War: setting the stage for the creation of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Bolshevik revolutions in Russia & China, and the death of empire.

An interesting fact: more men were lost in the first day of the Gallipoli campaign (which is also a great movie) than in the whole of the Vietnam War on the American side.

reply

The war reparations weren't the main problem. The main problem was that the Weimar Republic, Germany's new government, refused to tax its wealthiest landowners, the aristocracy, and rich industrialists (does this sound familiar? It should) in order to pay its own war expenses, which it had borrowed money to finance during WWI, and to pay the war reparations, which were perfectly legitimate. (Read the chapter on Versailles in William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Shirer was in Germany during the 20s, 30s and 40s.)

Another bit of history is that Germany had forced France to pay Germany's war expenses for the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. France buckled down, everyone paid heavy taxes, and as a result they paid the debt off several years early. Because every European war since 1860 had been a result of Prussian/German Empire aggression, the WWI reparations charged to the aggressors were internationally agreed in 1919 to be fair and just.

Inflation did pay its part, but if Germany had raised taxes from its citizens who could afford it, that inflation wouldn't have happened.

Also, from 1925 to 1929, Germany had a great resurgence. They got loans from the United States and other countries to pay the reparations, but they were paying them back and their economy was doing very well. During this time, the Nazi Party didn't do well at all. They only got their resurgence during the worldwide Depression, which as we know was caused by the same kind of de-regulated markets and banking practices as our 2008 crash, plus the fact that accelerated and vast differences between the very rich and the poor de-stabilizes an economy.

Blaming WWII on the Versailles Treaty is accepting Hitler's "spin." Just because he said a lot of things that inflamed many Germans does not make them true.

reply

[deleted]

Okay, well, was it fine for the German Empire not to pay its own war expenses during WWI? Keep in mind that Marx's ideas were NOT part of the government at that time. Far from it.

If not, then how should the German Empire have raised the money needed for the war?



reply

[deleted]

No, I didn't say anything about Marxism. That was only your mistaken interpretation.

You didn't win your argument or your case. I don't concede. But I'm bowing out of this discussion, because it's become the opposite of useful.

reply

[deleted]

You're resorting to calling me names and you insist on putting me in a box. It isn't worth my time to try to have a conversation with someone who doesn't want to converse, only to postulate.

What you're calling truth is just a lot of dogma. That is not truth.

By the way, I'm a big fan of Winston Churchill. So we have something in common.

Peace.

reply

[deleted]

Having read several biographies of Winston and one of his mother, I know that.

reply



I agree with you the versailles point. the germans defulted on so much of the payments that it did not have as big an economic impact as often stated by casual observers.


Your correct the french payed the Prussians more in real terms than they had got in return.

Another interesting point, the treaty of Brest-litovisk (spelling) was really swinging and hard faced.

reply

"Another interesting point, the treaty of Brest-litovisk (spelling) was really swinging and hard faced."

Is that the treaty ending the Franco-Prussian war of 1870? What do you mean by "swinging and hard-faced"?

reply

Another good summary. I'm learning a lot here, more than usual on an IMDB forum. How about a good bibliography?

reply

Taking away an eighth of Germany Germany should surely have been enough.

reply

Good summary. A little footnote to this, a recent medical article concludes that the Spanish flu was brought to Europe by an American GI.

reply

An excellent book about how the war actually came about is Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August". It may be one of the most influential books of this century because of who it influenced. The insights in this book were well known to President Kennedy and he credited it with helping him avoid slipping into the same process during the Cuban missile crisis.

reply

Just an additional point that very often gets over-looked regarding WW1....it was also a family argument that got out of hand. The King of Great Britain, the German Kaiser and the Russian Tsar were all first cousins i.e grandsons of Queen Victoria. Her habit of marrying off her many children into the various national royal houses of the time unfortunately backfired, culminating in the horrendous years of 1914 - 1918. The existing tangle of treaties at the time meant that once one nation declared war on another a domino effect happened, dragging virtually the entire world into the war.

reply

Read the book "To End All Wars, A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion 1914 - 1918" by Adam Hochschild.

reply

WWI encyclopedia articles used to end with the declaration that the Southern Slavs had achieved their ideal of nationhood with the creation of Yugoslavia--in other words, the assassination of FF had achieved its desired result.
It took seven decades, but finally FF and Sophia have been avenged.


God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

reply

ignorant american piece of *beep*

reply

And the--obviously unwitting--agents of that revenge were TITO and MILOSEVIC.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

reply

I do not feel like typing long essays. My short explanation for World War I is: unchecked nationalism.

reply

"Unchecked imperialism" would be more accurate, I think.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Just to re-ignite the discussion. If France had decided on a preemptive attack against Germany they would have been well advised to attack through Belgium so as to leave the Maginot Line as a defence in case of retreat. If this had happened would not Great Britain have been forced to declare war on France because of her obligations through the Treaty of London. What would the succeeding years have looked like then?

reply

[deleted]

The conditions leading up to WW1 were astoundingly similar to the Cold War. The only major difference is that one ended peacefully and the other ended with the largest war in history at the time.
Think back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would have happened if US ships torpedoed the Soviet ships? It could start a global war. That's exactly what happened when Franz Ferdinand (axis) was assassinated in Serbia (allied territory).

reply

F.Ferdinand was not killed IN Serbia. He was killed in Bosnia, which was occupied by Austria-Hungary. In that time, population of Bosnia were almost 100% Serbs ( orthodox, muslim and catholic, later divided in three separate nations ). And it was just lame excuse for the attack on Serbia and Montenegro that it was planned a years before. Something like NATO bombing in 1999.- cook up some reason, justify yourself and you can grab all you want.

reply

"In that time, population of Bosnia were almost 100% Serbs".

Not sure I follow this here - where were all the Bosniaks at? And the Croatian minority?



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]