HistoryExtra
type: channel
link: https://www.historyextra.com
description: Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
date: 2024-04-05T13:18:06.000Z
update period: hourly
update frequency: 1
update base: 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00
items: Is the Eastern Front the forgotten theatre of World War One?
items: Alternate history: what if the Schlieffen plan had been successful?
items: 10 WW1 generals you should know about
items: Revolution on the western front
items: The western front: a cauldron of innovation
items: Operation Alberich: the story of Germany’s retreat in 1917
items: The forgotten triumphs of Passchendaele
items: Debate: Is British history too fixated with the story of the world wars?

Is the Eastern Front the forgotten theatre of World War One?
type: item
date: 2024-04-05T13:18:06.000Z
creator: Professor Nick Lloyd
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: In both size and ferocity, the fighting on the eastern front from 1914–17 outdid even the western front. So why, asks Nick Lloyd, has eastern Europe become the forgotten theatre of the First World War?
encoded: It was “incomparably the greatest war in history. In its scale, in its slaughter, in the exertions of the combatants, in its military kaleidoscope, it far surpasses by magnitude and intensity all similar human episodes.” Winston Churchill wrote these words in the early 1930s, in his six-volume chronicle of what was at the time the most terrible conflict of them all: the First World War. But Churchill didn’t have the trenches of France and Belgium in mind when committing this particular description to print. He was instead referring to the titanic battle for supremacy that unfolded in eastern Europe. Today, when we think of the First World War, images of blood-soaked battles of the western front almost immediately spring to mind. This terrible deadlock has come to define how historians, and the public more generally in the west, have understood the conflict. Bloody and seemingly inconclusive clashes – at the Somme, Verdun and Passchendaele – have become instrumental to the memory of what George Kennen called “the great seminal catastrophe” of the 20th century. Read more | The forgotten triumphs of Passchendaele But the First World War was always much bigger than the western front. It stretched out into the Middle East, across Africa, on the high seas. It spilled over into the European colonial possessions in east Asia. And it triggered a four-year cataclysm across East Prussia, Poland and Galicia, as the Allies, led by the Russian empire, embarked on a mighty struggle with the Central Powers, dominated by Germany and Austria-Hungary. Although the outcome of the First World War would ultimately be determined in the west, its origins can only be understood by looking at the power dynamics of eastern Europe and the Balkans. A blank cheque When a Serbian nationalist gunman murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, it sparked an international crisis that drew in the great powers. Russia moved to protec…

GettyImages-79375991-CMYK-e0d9ea3.jpg
width: 6497
height: 4824

Alternate history: what if the Schlieffen plan had been successful?
type: item
date: 2023-08-07T16:51:12.000Z
creator: Professor Nick Lloyd
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: Nige Tassell and Professor Nick Lloyd consider the alternative shape of the 20th century had Germany’s bold military strategy not failed
encoded: Revised back in 1905 by Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen, the Schlieffen Plan was a military strategy deployed by Germany in 1914 with the aim of winning the war in Europe in swift fashion. Rather than engage with France on its border, German troops would take a circuitous route through Belgium and the Low Countries in order to outflank and envelop the French army, forcing a quick surrender. With the French threat removed, Germany would then relocate its forces to nullify Russia in the east. Based on a misguided prediction that Britain wouldn’t step in to defend Belgium, the plan failed, leading to a protracted stalemate on the battlefields of western Europe and a four-year world war that is estimated to have claimed up to 15 million lives. Nick Lloyd, professor of modern warfare at King’s College London and author of The Western Front: A History of the First World War (Viking, 2021), is in no doubt that the successful execution of the Schlieffen Plan would have avoided such a catastrophic amount of casualties. “Had it achieved its aims and knocked France out of the war, then the Western Front as it became known would not have existed. The British Expeditionary Force could not have continued without French support and would have been forced to leave the continent very quickly, akin to the scenes witnessed in the summer of 1940.” More from our alternate history series What if... the Cuban Missile Crisis had escalated? What if... Napoleon had defeated Russia? What if... George III had not 'lost' the colonies? What if... the Spanish Armada had landed in England? What if... Alexander the Great hadn't died so young? What if... Argentina had won the Falklands War? What if... Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon’s first son had lived? What if... Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor? As well as the heavy death toll having been avoided, Europe would not have suffered from the crippling economic damage caused by the First World War. “If the war had come to a conclusion in 1914…

GettyImages566461787-67c3d3b.jpg
width: 2953
height: 2298

10 WW1 generals you should know about
type: item
date: 2023-05-05T08:43:29.000Z
creator: Professor Nick Lloyd
subject: First World War
subject: Period
description: So often derided for their perceived incompetence and ignorance that resulted in countless deaths, the military leaders of the First World War may have struggled to adapt to a new type of conflict, but were they really ‘donkeys’? Nick Lloyd highlights the careers of 10 generals on the Western Front
encoded: The generals of the First World War, particularly those that served on the Western Front in France and Belgium, have collectively been condemned throughout the last century as a dangerously myopic bunch. They were incapable of fighting effectively, and repeatedly ordered their men to undertake futile offensives that gained little more than a few square miles of shell-shattered ground. As such, these generals are often referred to as ‘donkeys’. The truth, however, is more complicated. Over recent years, revisionist historians have begun to question the ‘lions led by donkeys’ claim, arguing that these men were hard done by when it came to posterity since they faced an unending series of fiendishly difficult challenges. Chief among them was the need to coordinate evolving weapon systems of unprecedented lethality and strength, including artillery, machine guns, tanks, and air power. Read more | A–Z of the First World War This had to be done with only limited mobility and without the communications technology that would have allowed for rapid exploitation of any success. They also had to organise military activity within a complex strategic environment in which they had to work alongside politicians, in order to find some way out of one of history’s most devastating wars. Here is a brief guide to 10 of the most important generals on the Western Front: General Joseph Joffre France’s field commander between 1914 and 1916, Joffre did not look like a soldier; he never missed a meal and so had a notable paunch. Yet he possessed a grasp on military operations that was essential to France’s survival. His decision to fight at the first battle of the Marne in September 1914 proved to be a turning point in the early stages of the war as it prevented a quick German victory. Although over the following two years he was unable to beat the German Army, Joffre deserves his place as one of the most significant soldiers of the 20th century. Colonel-General Helmuth von Moltke <img src="h…

GettyImages-154448900-4bd66da-e1682069590377.jpg
width: 620
height: 412

Revolution on the western front
type: item
date: 2021-03-11T15:52:56.000Z
creator: Professor Nick Lloyd
subject: 20th Century
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: The western front has long been synonymous with futility and deadlock. Yet, argues Nick Lloyd, the great battles of 1914–18 triggered a period of enormous innovation – one that ultimately ushered in a new age of warfare
encoded: Listen to this article: The western front occupies a fixed and unchanging position in our memory of the First World War. It is synonymous with trenches and bloody, futile combat; a place of barbed wire and poison gas, of massed artillery batteries and machine-guns, mud and blood. It was where the armies of Germany and France, the United Kingdom and America (alongside a host of minor powers and colonial possessions) placed the bulk of their military strength and where they suffered the majority of their casualties. This arena of combat left a legacy of commemoration and remembrance that continues to influence our attitudes to the war to this day. That the western front was the most important theatre in the First World War is surely beyond doubt. Allied victory in France and Belgium ensured that Germany could not win the war (despite defeating Russia on the eastern front and Serbia in the Balkans) and that the British, French and Americans would go on to shape the postwar settlement at Versailles. But what is up for debate is the western front’s reputation for stalemate and futility. I would argue that, far from being a stale and unchanging arena devoid of strategy or innovation, the battles fought in France and Belgium witnessed an astonishing degree of change and development – on both the German and Allied sides. The western front was a cauldron of war in which modern warfare was forged. Going to ground The central problem on the western front between 1914 and 1918 was the relationship between firepower and space. The armies of 1914 possessed weapons of enormous power: quick-firing artillery, modern magazine-fed rifles, and machine-guns, but only limited ability to move quickly when they left their railheads. Although manoeuvre was possible, once armies were engaged in combat, infantry rapidly went to ground and began digging trenches or foxholes to escape the lethal fire-swept zone between the two forces. This created a major problem for commanders who needed to mo…

GettyImages-640459917-2a66136.jpg
width: 4116
height: 3229

The western front: a cauldron of innovation
type: item
date: 2021-03-10T12:09:37.000Z
creator: Professor Nick Lloyd
subject: 20th Century
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: Nick Lloyd reveals how the First World War’s western front was shaped by transformative military and technological advancements
encoded: In the popular imagination, the western front of the First World War has long been synonymous with futility and deadlock. But Nick Lloyd, author of new book The Western Front, argues that this was far from the case. It was in fact a cauldron of innovation and an epic struggle against the odds, shaped by transformative military and technological advancements. Nick Lloyd is the author of The Western Front: A History of the First World War (Viking, 2021) Buy now on Amazon Buy now on Waterstones Buy now on Bookshop.org

Pod-Nick-Lloyd-WL-c83f872.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

Operation Alberich: the story of Germany’s retreat in 1917
type: item
date: 2020-01-08T11:54:36.000Z
creator: Professor Nick Lloyd
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: TV interest
description: The story of Operation Alberich – Germany’s retreat into the Hindenburg Line – occupies a relatively minor place in histories of the First World War. Yet the story of the retreat, featured in Sam Mendes’s new blockbuster film 1917, takes us out of the claustrophobic trenches to face the greater forces at work that would determine the outcome of the war. Dr Nick Lloyd explains…
encoded: This week, the movie 1917 comes to UK and US cinemas. Directed and produced by Oscar-winner Sam Mendes, 1917 tells the story of two British soldiers, Schofield and Blake. The men are in a race against time to deliver a message calling off a doomed attack in which the lives of hundreds of men, including Blake’s own brother, are at stake. Set in April 1917, the movie focuses on a little-known period of the First World War on the western front, when the German Army conducted a major retreat from positions they had occupied throughout 1915 and 1916 into a new, specially-built defensive position: this was known as the Hindenburg Line. The story of Operation Alberich – Germany’s retreat into the Hindenburg Line – occupies a relatively minor place in histories of this period, which often focus on the devastating events in Russia that were taking place at the same time (the February Revolution that began Russia’s descent into Bolshevik tyranny, for example). Operation Alberich is often seen as a minor annex to the allied campaign on the Somme in 1916, or simply as a prequel to the spring offensives of 1917 that provoked mutinies in the French Army. In fact, it marked an important phase in the Great War and revealed how much had changed since the opening round of fighting in August and September 1914. The First World War: Was it worth it? The forgotten triumphs of Passchendaele What did Germany retreat in 1917? By the end of 1916, the First World War was more than two years old and there was no indication that it would end any time soon. Throughout the year, heavy and sustained fighting had taken place at Verdun and the Somme, twin battles that produced spiralling casualties but did little to bring about a decision for either side. In late August 1916, the German Chief of the General Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, was replaced by Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, assisted by his deputy, Erich Ludendorff. Both men had been brought in to provide a fresh assessment of Germany’s …

Trees-2-e892104.jpg
width: 800
height: 530

The forgotten triumphs of Passchendaele
type: item
date: 2019-12-13T08:30:44.000Z
creator: Professor Nick Lloyd
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: It may have become a symbol of pointless slaughter but the infamous 1917 offensive saw Allied forces inflict a series of shattering defeats on their German foes. Nick Lloyd explores...
encoded: For 100 years, the third battle of Ypres – more commonly known as Passchendaele – has symbolised the horror, slaughter and futility of the First World War. No other battle, not even the Somme or Verdun, has acquired such a horrific reputation. The battle was, so it was said, fought knee-deep in mud and water, with British and Commonwealth troops being sacrificed by stubborn commanders for useless gains. The historian AJP Taylor memorably called it “the blindest slaughter of a blind war”, and subsequent generations of historians have done little to challenge this depressing narrative. There is, however, much more to the third battle of Ypres than is popularly assumed. In this centenary year (2017) it is absolutely vital to look again at the battle and consider it afresh. When writing a new history of Passchendaele, I was struck by just how much of the fighting did not conform to the popular image of the battle – the mud and folly – and how effective the British Army had become by 1917. Who was involved in the First World War? Who was on each side? The great misconceptions of the First World War In particular, it is illuminating to focus on the forgotten middle phase of the fighting – between 20 September and 4 October – which reveals another, much more compelling, story. Not only did these battles bring the German army to the brink of defeat, they also illustrated how the campaign should have been fought since the beginning of the attack. Together they offer a different side to the battle: an unknown battle of Passchendaele. Paralysis by mutiny The battle emerged after the spring of 1917 when the British and French armies on the western front were facing a particularly bleak time. The French spring offensive – the so-called Nivelle Offensive – had failed spectacularly, and during April and May serious outbreaks of indiscipline and mutiny paralysed the French army. With French troops demanding better conditions and pay, more leave and an end to mindless offensives, it…

GettyImages-113633227-e9037ed.jpg
width: 5660
height: 4632

Debate: Is British history too fixated with the story of the world wars?
type: item
date: 2019-06-24T11:15:36.000Z
creator: Professor Nick Lloyd
subject: 20th Century
subject: First World War
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Second World War
description: Historians Dr Nick Lloyd and Dr Tracy Borman consider the significance of the First and Second World Wars in British history and debate whether we in Britain are too fixated with the story of the world wars
encoded: Dr Nick Lloyd: “The world wars’ central place in British memory and identity is right, proper and perfectly understandable” It has become fashionable to decry Britain’s interest in the First and Second World Wars as an unhealthy obsession – a kind of jingoistic and militaristic nostalgia for the nation’s status as a global power. But this would be a petty and uncharitable assessment of the magnitude of such events and of Britain’s pivotal role within them. There is no doubting the central place that the world wars occupy in Britain’s national memory. Every year on 11 November, we stand silently to remember those who fell – a tradition that first began in 1919 to commemorate the signing of the armistice that ended hostilities on the western front. Read more | 5 things you need to know about Armistice Day In Britain the world wars are the defining events of our modern history, as definitive as the Reformation and the Civil War were in the 16th and 17th centuries. The First and Second World Wars marked the greatest collective endeavour in Britain’s history, when almost the entire population played their part. From soldiers and sailors; airmen and air women; munitions workers and bus drivers; miners and farmers, the world wars transformed the nature of the British state and the citizen’s relationship to it. In 1914 (as historian AJP Taylor famously wrote), “a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman”. The coming of war would alter this forever, bringing with it (among other things) conscription, rationing and censorship, the Defence of the Realm Act, the mass employment of women in industry, the bombing of London, the shelling of coastal towns and the beginning of British summer time. The country would never be the same again. When the First World War broke out in August 1914, it marked the beginning of a new age of mass slaughter, total war and revolution that would o…

Churchill-speech-2-0a78685-e1683643427908.jpg
width: 556
height: 426