The Great War

[Richard Hakluyt]

@dps - The British Indian army was also tiny throughout the 19th century, a quick google gives the figure of 155,000.........IIRC 57,000 of these were European troops.

[Kleves]

The Brits tend to get away with this in the history books while less serious errors like alleged Haigian incompetence or Gallipoli get attention. Seems to me that the decision to not bring an army to an army fight was a much bigger blunder and had much bigger consequences.

How were the Brits to know that the French would get so soundly crushed in the opening months by the Germans? Even more importantly, how were they to know that the Russian Steamroller would get Hindenburged? How were the Brits to know that  the millions that France + Russia could put into the field would not be enough? They didn't need a huge army, because their allies had huge armies - bigger armies, in fact, then their adversaries.

[Capetan Mihali]

Seems to me that the decision to not bring an army to an army fight was a much bigger blunder and had much bigger consequences.

But you have to keep in mind that they would have put themselves at an immediate disadvantage.

[The Brain]

The Brits tend to get away with this in the history books while less serious errors like alleged Haigian incompetence or Gallipoli get attention. Seems to me that the decision to not bring an army to an army fight was a much bigger blunder and had much bigger consequences.

How were the Brits to know that the French would get so soundly crushed in the opening months by the Germans? Even more importantly, how were they to know that the Russian Steamroller would get Hindenburged? How were the Brits to know that  the millions that France + Russia could put into the field would not be enough? They didn't need a huge army, because their allies had huge armies - bigger armies, in fact, then their adversaries.

The French didn't get soundly crushed in the opening months, luckily for the Brits.

Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.

[Ideologue]

From 1815-1914 Britain had a tiny army costing virtually nothing whilst running a huge empire, the fleet was not that expensive either, for most of the period other countries did not even compete. The chickens may have come home to roost in 1914, though arguably the French and Russians should have had more then enough troops to deal with Germany, but the benefits of low taxation for an entire century should not be underestimated.

I bet I could understimate 'em.

[Kleves]

What I'm saying is that, in 1914, the population of Russia was ~ 170 million, while that of France was ~ 40 million. Germany had ~ 68 million and A-H had ~52 million. Total, the Central Powers were outnumbered by around 90 million. Why should the British have expected that the added weight of their manpower would matter? You could argue that the British should have been willing to pay their share of blood from the start, but I don't think it's fair to say that they should have foreseen that they would need to tap so deeply into the national manpower pool to sustain France and Russia.

[Ideologue]

Because one Russian has rarely, if ever, been worth one properly-equipped, properly-trained, and properly-motivated soldier.

[The Brain]

What I'm saying is that, in 1914, the population of Russia was ~ 170 million, while that of France was ~ 40 million. Germany had ~ 68 million and A-H had ~52 million. Total, the Central Powers were outnumbered by around 90 million. Why should the British have expected that the added weight of their manpower would matter? You could argue that the British should have been willing to pay their share of blood from the start, but I don't think it's fair to say that they should have foreseen that they would need to tap so deeply into the national manpower pool to sustain France and Russia.

If France and Russia quickly defeats Germany on their own then Britain indeed doesn't need a mass army. If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed. If no quick victory occurs then a big British army is necessary for the slogging match and you risk French collapse while creating it. I don't see how anything other than a quick French/Russian defeat of Germany would mean that a big British army wasn't necessary. In addition a quick defeat of Germany would obviously be a lot more likely with a British mass army.

Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.

[crazy canuck]

Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.

Why would it have to be quick.  If Russia and France can win by attrition while the British fleet starves Germany isnt that also a win for Britain?

[crazy canuck]

Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.

Aint hindsight swell?

[The Brain]

Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.

Why would it have to be quick.  If Russia and France can win by attrition while the British fleet starves Germany isnt that also a win for Britain?

You can certainly find increasingly unlikely scenarios where somehow Germany gets defeated through blind luck. They make poor plans though.

[The Brain]

Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.

Aint hindsight swell?

Except it wasn't hindsight for mighty military geniuses like for instance Sweden, which got rid of its 17th century recruiting system and switched to universal conscription in 1901.

[Tonitrus]

Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.

Aint hindsight swell?

Except it wasn't hindsight for mighty military geniuses like for instance Sweden, which got rid of its 17th century recruiting system and switched to universal conscription in 1901.

Which mass army did Sweden lead to victory after 1901?

[The Brain]

Most other European countries had grasped that mass armies were the present. Britain believed that they magically could do without one. This nearly cost them the war and certainly made the road to victory a lot harder than it could have been. Classic blunder, and like many blunders it made sense from a peacetime convenience perspective.

Aint hindsight swell?

Except it wasn't hindsight for mighty military geniuses like for instance Sweden, which got rid of its 17th century recruiting system and switched to universal conscription in 1901.

Which mass army did Sweden lead to victory after 1901?

I don't follow.

[Razgovory]

What I'm saying is that, in 1914, the population of Russia was ~ 170 million, while that of France was ~ 40 million. Germany had ~ 68 million and A-H had ~52 million. Total, the Central Powers were outnumbered by around 90 million. Why should the British have expected that the added weight of their manpower would matter? You could argue that the British should have been willing to pay their share of blood from the start, but I don't think it's fair to say that they should have foreseen that they would need to tap so deeply into the national manpower pool to sustain France and Russia.

Well that's somewhat deceptive.  Since the Russian empire is continuous unlike the French, German, and British empires you are including all their subjects.  However, many of these subjects are not militarily useful.  They can't be equipped, or mustered very well and some are actively hostile.