Neiberg: 1917: Global war Flashcards
Does Neiberg believe attrition was a deliberate strategy?
No. “Although some historians have attempted to find in
attrition a war-winning strategy, none of the battles of 1917 had attrition as its primary strategic purpose.”
If attrition was not a strategic goal, then were any of the campaigns of 1917 strategic successes?
No (but he might be primarily focusing on the Western Front). “With a few notable exceptions, therefore, the campaigns of 1917 were strategic failures. Even those that achieved operational success, such as the Canadian/British seizure of Vimy Ridge in April or the German/Austro-Hungarian shattering of the Italian line at Caporetto in October, failed to achieve any long-lasting strategic success. … Both the French on the Chemin des Dames and the British in Belgium fought battles that ground their armies down without materially changing the situation in the West. That they also ground down the German army is undeniable, but it does not change the fact that at the end of the year the Allies believed themselves no closer to victory than at the start.”
What were the two transitions in 1917 (one military, the other geopolitical)?
(1) The start of a shift from the infantry-based age of mass assaults to the mechanical, combined-arms approach
that featured infantry working with aviation, artillery and armour in various combinations. This transition showed the fulfilment of the Industrial Revolution and its impacts on war. (2) The growth of the United States and Russia to superpowers.
How did the United States stand after WWI?
“Although it demobilised its army after the war, the United States emerged as the world’s unquestioned financial power and industrial giant.”
How did the Germans react to the “Verdun catastrophe”?
They replaced General Erich von Falkenhayn with Generals Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff, the successful duumvirate from the Eastern Front, who rationalized their lines to the Hindenburg Line (as the British called it) / Siegfried Line (as the Germans called it) so it could be better defended with fewer soldiers.
What was the main result of unrestricted submarine warfare
The entry of the US into the war (though the Zimmermann Telegram, published in March 1919, which offered a German alliance with Mexico was the final straw before Wilson asked Congress to declare war in April 1919)
Why was unrestricted submarine warfare ultimately unsuccessful
The Germans did not have enough U-boats, and the Allied navies adopted convoys where destroyers could protect merchant ships.
What were the differences between Lenin and Kerensky regarding the war effort.
Lenin wanted to end the war “under almost any circumstances”, while Kerensky wanted to continue fighting.
What caused the collapse of Russian support for the war?
Kerensky turned to General Alexei Brusilov, who had led
Russia’s successful offensives in 1916 In July Brusilov led two Russian armies in a massive offensive that enjoyed some early success but then fizzled out with men deserting from
the army by the thousands.
How did the Germans react to the failure of Brusilov’s offensive?
They pushed East, but only as far as their supply lines would take them. They then opened negotiations from a position of strength and in the ensuing Treaty of Brest-Litovsk they seized more than 1 million square miles of Russian territory, along with enough raw materials to compensate for some of the losses suffered from the British blockade.
Did the German realise great benefits from eliminating their
largest front?
No. “Political upheaval in Russia and in Ukraine made the Eastern Front unstable, and resistance on the part of the local populace to German seizures of grain threatened to prevent the Germans from taking everything that they wanted. As a result, the Germans had to deploy more men in the East than they had originally planned, even if major combat there had ended.”
What was the preparatory engagement before the the attack on the Chemin des Dames? Was it successful?
Vimy Ridge. It was a great success for the Canadian Corps, as the Germans considered it ‘impregnable’.
Was the French offensive at Chemin des Dames successful?
No. “Nivelle had expected tanks and airplanes to help make his artillery more effective, but the cloudy, rainy weather grounded the planes and most of the tanks broke down in the difficult terrain. As a result, German machine guns remained virtually intact and they inflicted murderous casualties on attacking French units. Nivelle continued to send in reinforcements in hopes of breaking the lines, but that decision only increased the bloodshed. Instead of gaining six miles, as Nivelle had promised, his attack gained less than 600 yards. Even combat-hardened units, like the elite Senegalese regiments, broke and ran. Rather than stop the offensive after forty-eight hours as he had pledged to Painlevé, Nivelle kept going. … Having planned for 15,000 casualties, French medical services instead had to deal with more than 100,000. With Nivelle still unwilling to call a halt, the French government stepped in and ordered the offensive stopped.”
What were some effects of the failure of the French offensive at Chemin des Dames?
(1) The British opposed French proposals to create a unified command for the Western Front. (2) Mutiny; “tens of thousands of men refused to obey their officers’ orders to attack. Most of them remained in their trenches, however, and pledged that they would still defend French soil, but that they would no longer attack under such murderous circumstances.”
What was happening on the French home front during Chemin des Dames?
Strikes. French leadership feared the strikes were connected to the mutinies.
