Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

what was the operational goal and the strategic go

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
shahab6 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 25-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote shahab6 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: what was the operational goal and the strategic go
    Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 02:12
what was the operational goal and the strategic goal  of world war one for the english and usa side?
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 10:06
Originally posted by shahab6

what was the operational goal and the strategic goal  of world war one for the english and usa side?
 
Well, firstly the USA came late onto the scene and the opposition to Germany was mainly from the French and British side and the Russians in the East.
 
However, limiting it to the west as your question said (and for the moment leaving out the USA), we have the German solidly on French and Belgian soil.
 
Operationally then the idea was to drive the Germans back across their borders having defeated their armies. The French would want to recovewr Alsace and Lorraine whilst the British basically wanted to curb German power. If indeed there had been a short war of mobility then no doubt as in other wars there would have been negotiations and a peace settlement.
 
The longer the war went on the more bitter it became and each side resolved that the defeat of the other was the goal and the imposition of various penalties. As the Allies ultimately won this happened.
 
Am original good idea was the League of Nations concept. However, this was badly handled and the US and Russia (at first) abstained and it became practicably unworkable so the ultimate goal of a universal peace was never achieved
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 10:16
I think Britain's goal was to prevent France from collapsing and also to destroy German power.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 11:03
Well that matches with Britain's basic foreign policy attitude which was to prevent any one power becoming totally dominant in Europe.
 
I would use the work curb rather than destroy
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 17:50
Originally posted by Bankotsu

I think Britain's goal was to prevent France from collapsing and also to destroy German power.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar

Well that matches with Britain's basic foreign policy attitude which was to prevent any one power becoming totally dominant in Europe.
 
I would use the work curb rather than destroy
 
I agree, 'curb' or 'limit', not destroy.  The 'destruction' of German 'power' would risk a another power becoming dominant on the continent, which was what Britain consistently sought to avoid.  In fact, this was very much the situation faced leading up to and during WWII.  Britain sought to avoid war, as it was seen as having only 2 possible outcomes - German domination of Europe or the destruction of Germany.  Ultimately, the British were forced to choose the 'least of two evils' with the destruction of Germany.  At least with the assistance of the US (during / after WWII), the Soviet Union was limited to 'domination' of only half of Europe.  Of course, having a totalitarian state that was interested in 'political domination' rather than one interested in 'racial domination / extermination' was also a huge plus for the second option.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 04:27
I prefer "destroy".

At the point in time when Britain declared war against Germany in 1914, I think that the british was thinking of destroying German power, not "curbing" German power.


Edited by Bankotsu - 16-Jun-2008 at 04:28
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 11:34
I guess you can think anything you like, but why would the British abandon several centuries worth of comon historical strategy? Less than a generation before the outbreak in 1914, Britain's major rival was still seen as France, not Germany. The Entente Cordiale was still only ten years old.

Granted that was established, as was the subsequent Triple Entente, as a counterweight to the central European powers, but a too weak Germany would have put things back to where they were pre-1970.

 

Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 06:00
Originally posted by gcle2003

I guess you can think anything you like, but why would the British abandon several centuries worth of comon historical strategy? 

No reason why Britain should abandon a good strategy.

After the defeat of Germany in 1918, Britain also continued this balance of power strategy:


...Britain, after 1918; felt secure, while France felt completely insecure in the face of Germany. As a consequence of the war, even before the Treaty of Versailles was signed, Britain had obtained all her chief ambitions in respect to Germany. The German Navy was at the bottom of Scapa Flow, scuttled by the Germans themselves; the German merchant fleet was scattered, captured, and destroyed; the German colonial rivalry was ended and its areas occupied; the German commercial rivalry was crippled by the loss of its patents and industrial techniques, the destruction of all its commercial outlets and banking connections throughout the world, and the loss of its rapidly growing prewar markets. Britain had obtained these aims by December 1918 and needed no treaty to retain them.

France, on the other hand, had not obtained the one thing it wanted: security. In population and industrial strength Germany was far stronger than France, and still growing. It was evident that France had been able to defeat Germany only by a narrow margin in 1914-1918 and only because of the help of Britain, Russia, Italy, Belgium, and the United States.

France had no guarantee that all these or even any of them would be at its side in any future war with Germany. In fact, it was quite clear that Russia and Italy would not be at its side.

The refusal of the United States and Britain to give any guarantee to France against German aggression made it dubious that they would be ready to help either. Even if they were prepared to come to the rescue ultimately, there was no guarantee that France would be able to withstand the initial German assault in any future war as she had withstood, by the barest margin, the assault of 1914. Even if it could be withstood, and if Britain ultimately came to the rescue, France would have to fight, once again, as in the period 1914-1918, with the richest portion of France under enemy military occupation.

In such circumstances, what guarantee would there be even of ultimate success?

Doubts of this kind gave France a feeling of insecurity which practically became a psychosis, especially as France found its efforts to increase its security blocked at every turn by Britain. It seemed to France that the Treaty of Versailles, which had given Britain everything it could want from Germany, did not give France the one thing it wanted. As a result, it proved impossible to obtain any solution to the two other chief problems of international politics in the period 1919-1929. To these three problems of security, disarmament, and reparations, we now turn...

...Thus France wanted security, while Britain had security. France needed Britain, while Britain regarded France as a rival outside Europe (especially in the Near East) and the chief challenge to Britain's customary balance-of-power policy in Europe.

After 1919 the British, and even some Americans, spoke of "French hegemony" on the Continent of Europe. The first rule of British foreign policy for four centuries had been to oppose any hegemony on the Continent and to do so by seeking to strengthen the second strongest Power against the strongest; after 1919 Britain regarded Germany as the second strongest Power and France as the strongest, a quite mistaken view in the light of the population, industrial productivity, and general organizations of the two countries...

...Because France lacked security, its chief concern in every issue was political; because Britain had security, its chief concern was economic. The political desires of France required that Germany should be weakened; the economic desires of Britain required that Germany should be strengthened in order to increase the prosperity of all Europe.

While the chief political threat to France was Germany, the chief economic and social threat to Britain was Bolshevism. In any struggle with Bolshevist Russia, Britain tended to regard Germany as a potential ally, especially if it were prosperous and powerful...

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/06.html#16



Edited by Bankotsu - 17-Jun-2008 at 06:02
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.