Timeline for Why didn't trench warfare produce a similar stalemate on the eastern front in World War I?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2016 at 17:27 | comment | added | Anaryl | I can't chat at the moment Gangus I have to work and I don't have a spacebar at this current time. My typing is quite awful as a result especially in real time. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 10:06 | comment | added | Gangnus | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 9:33 | comment | added | Anaryl | Could you clarify what you mean by this? I get the impression English is not your first language (not that there's anything wrong with that) | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 9:25 | comment | added | Gangnus | @Anaryl Edited. Thank you. But still, having no result in some single aspect does not mean having no inventions. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 9:24 | history | edited | Gangnus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 248 characters in body
|
| Aug 2, 2016 at 9:13 | comment | added | Anaryl | "But never England/France. Every their success was the result of politics and economics, but never of some clever warfare. " Second paragraph. If that's not what you meant, I recommend you edit it for clarity, as pugsville also drew that interpretation. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 9:12 | comment | added | Gangnus | @Anaryl I never said E/F did not innovate! Where had I said that? Please, react to the real text, not imagined by you. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 9:11 | comment | added | Anaryl | "The trench war doesn't mean there are no movements at all." No, but the term stalemate does which is what is being discussed here. Even modern armies entrench. What's being discussed is "why did the Western Front devolve into a stalemate?" | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 8:27 | comment | added | Anaryl | The English and French did innovate, by 1918 they had developed the ability to carry out fully combined arms operations, such as the integration of air and armour, rolling artillery barrages. Arguing the Allies never innovated is simply untrue. | |
| Aug 2, 2016 at 7:38 | history | edited | Gangnus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 24 characters in body
|
| Aug 2, 2016 at 7:32 | comment | added | Gangnus | @Anaryl What about some arguments? | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 17:09 | comment | added | Anaryl | "But never England/France. Every their success was the result of politics and economics, but never of some clever warfare. " Utterly false. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 16:14 | comment | added | Doctor Zhivago | You had more than "trench warfare" with the West. German U-boats were absolutely deadly commerce raiders in World War 1. Because French Brittany held though they couldn't breakout into the Atlantic. So all the Powers...Germany, Austria. Romania, France, Britain...all were locked in a "death's embrace." The American experience in its Civil War provides similar issues...but with a completely different result. The USA wouldn't fight another one of "those things" ever again whereas Europe would have World War 2 a scant 20 years later. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 16:08 | history | edited | Gangnus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2016 at 15:49 | comment | added | Gangnus | @pugsville 1. Please, point the place in my text where I disagree with the fact that "equipment changed throughout the war."! 2. The target of attack is to move forward. They were attacking, you said it well. But without results. And the results are what is counted. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 15:40 | comment | added | pugsville | @Gangnus - "England/France fought defensively mostly - it is well seen simply by looking at the map. Even their attack looked more as defence." quite false for most of the period the Britain and France were attacking and they learned much and doctrine, equipment changed throughout the war. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 15:30 | comment | added | Gangnus | @Smith I am not saying they did it badly. They did it their way. They overpowered by economics. They did it well enough - they won. Only USA did it better. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 15:27 | comment | added | Gangnus | @pugsville I did not say they haven't invent something. I said they hadn't invent something that allowed to break the trench stalemate. Neither tanks nor better planes nor gases helped. Stormgroups or attack without artillery preparation DID help, but they were not their inventions. England/France fought defensively mostly - it is well seen simply by looking at the map. Even their attack looked more as defense. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 15:01 | comment | added | Smith | I generally agree with this answer. The East did see a lot more maneuver, but not ALL the time. If armies are taking a break and not going to move for awhile, they'll dig in. The East had such long distances and opportunities for dynamic action that breaking loose from trenches was not hard. In the West, I can see the argument that Britain and France never figured it out despite the innovations they tried, although I'd hedge it a bit - by 1918 French troops were doing better. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 12:31 | comment | added | pugsville | " But never England/France. Every their success was the result of politics and economics, but never of some clever warfare." false, there was constant innovation and clever warfare on the western front. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 11:30 | history | answered | Gangnus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |