Het is 100 jaar geleden dat het 3e oorlogs jaar van de eerste wereldoorlog voortduurde.
1917 was also dominated by trench warfare as the Allies tried to break the deadlock, with battles at Arras, Ypres (Passchendaele) and at Cambrai, where the Tank Corps made its name. Only in 1918 did movement return to the battlefield. In the spring the Germans launched an all-out offensive before the Americans could arrive in large numbers. Later that year the Allies drove them back, using co-ordinated air-power, artillery and tanks (www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-One-The-Western-Front/).
Important events of 1917 during the fourth and penultimate year of the First World War, including the Battle of Cambrai which saw a surprise tank attack by the British(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
19 Jan
The British intercept and decode a telegram from the German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann to Mexico urging her entry into war against the United States. The American states of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico were to be offered to the Mexican government in return for such assistance
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
In the famous telegram, the German government asked its ambassador to speak with Carranza to convince Mexico to go to war with the U.S., and in return, Germany would inject funds into the Mexican economy and would return to Mexico the states of Arizona, Texas and New Mexico, lost in the war of 1847. When Venustiano Carranza learned of the German offer, he organized a special commission to investigate the matter and make a decision (www.latintimes.com/world-war-1-strange-facts-how-mexico-almost-made-alliance-germany-against-us-196357).
Mexico was a neutral country in the Great War (World War I) that lasted from 1914 to 1918. The Great War broke out in Europe in August 1914 as the Mexican Revolution was in the midst of full-scale civil war between factions that had helped oust General Victoriano Huerta from the presidency earlier that year. The Constitutionalist Army of Venustiano Carranza under the generalship of Alvaro Obregón defeated the army of Pancho Villa in the Battle of Celaya in April 1915 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_in_World_War_I).
The Mexican Revolution (Spanish: Revolución mexicana) was a major armed struggle c. 1910–1920 that radically transformed Mexican culture and government. Although recent research has focused on local and regional aspects of the Revolution, it was a "genuinely national revolution."[2] Its outbreak in 1910 resulted from the failure of the 35-year long regime of Porfirio Díaz to find a managed solution to the presidential succession. This meant there was a political crisis among competing elites and the opportunity for agrarian insurrection.[3] Wealthy landowner Francisco I. Madero challenged Díaz in 1910 presidential election, and following the rigged results revolted under the Plan of San Luis Potosí.[4] Armed conflict ousted Díaz from power and a new election was held in 1911, bringing Madero to the presidency.
The origins of the conflict were broadly based in opposition to the Díaz regime, with the 1910 election, becoming the sparking point for the outbreak of a political rebellion. Elements of the Mexican elite hostile to Díaz, led by Madero, expanded to the middle class, the peasantry in some regions, and organized labor.[5] In October 1911, Madero was overwhelmingly elected in a free and fair election. Opposition to the Madero regime increased from both the conservatives, who saw him as too weak and too liberal, and from former revolutionary fighters and the dispossessed, who saw him as too conservative. In February 1913 Madero and his vice president Pino Suárez were forced to resign, were assassinated, and the counter-revolutionary regime of General Victoriano Huerta came to power, backed by the U.S., business interests, and other supporters of the old order. Huerta remained in power from February 1913 until July 1914, when he was forced out by a coalition of different regional revolutionary forces. Then the revolutionaries' attempt to come to a political agreement following Huerta's ouster failed, and Mexico was plunged into a civil war (1914–1915) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution).
After the Battle of Celaya in April 1915, the violence in Mexico was largely restricted to local fights, especially guerrilla fights in Morelos under the leadership of Emiliano Zapata. The partial peace allowed a new Mexican Constitution to be drafted in 1916 and proclaimed on February 5, 1917. Foreign oil companies felt threatened by the new constitution, which empowered the Mexican government to expropriate natural resources deemed vital to the nation. Mexico was in constant threat of being invaded by the U.S., which wanted to take control of Tehuantepec Isthmus and Tampico oil fields.[1][2][3][4] Germany made several attempts to incite a war between Mexico and the U.S., seen especially in the Zimmermann Telegram affair in January 1917, where the aim was to draw the U.S. into conflict on its southern border rather than join Great Britain and France in the conflict against Germany and its allies.
Mexican neutrality in the Great War reflected a hostility toward the U.S., due to several earlier U.S. interventions in Mexican internal affairs.[5] In February 1913, Victoriano Huerta had conspired with the U.S. ambassador Henry Lane Wilson to oust Francisco I. Madero from the presidency of Mexico. The coup d'état was the culmination of violence in Mexico City, known as the Ten Tragic Days (La decena trágica), in the waning days of the William Howard Taft presidency. President Woodrow Wilson also ordered the invasion of Veracruz in 1914, resulting in the death of 170 Mexican soldiers and an unknown number of civilians.[6][7]
The relationship between Woodrow Wilson and Venustiano Carranza, whose political position had been aided by U.S. recognition in October 1915, allowing U.S. arms sales to Carranza's faction against its main rival General Pancho Villa, was initially cordial. Villa retaliated against the United States, attacking Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. Wilson sent U.S. Army General John J. Pershing into Mexico for punitive action to capture Villa. The Pancho Villa Expedition was a failure, since Villa eluded U.S. forces. Carranza, a strong nationalist, asserted Mexico's sovereignty and ordered the U.S. Army out. U.S. interests were threatened by the proclamation of the Mexican Constitution of 1917 and Mexico was in constant threat of being invaded by the U.S.
These facts marked the participation of Mexico in the Great War.[3][4]
The Carranza government was de jure recognized by Germany at the beginning of 1917 and by the U.S. on August 31, 1917, the latter as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram in an effort to ensure Mexican Neutrality in the Great War.[8][9] After the United States occupation of Veracruz in 1914, Mexico would not participate with the U.S. in its military participation in the Great War, so ensuring Mexican neutrality was the best deal the U.S. could hope for.[5]
Carranza granted guarantees to German companies for keeping their operations open, specifically in Mexico City,[10] but he was at the same time selling oil to the British fleet. In fact, 75 percent of the fuel used by the British fleet came from Mexico.[4][11]
Carranza rejected the proposal of a military alliance with Germany, made via the Zimmermann Telegram, and he was at the same time able to prevent a permanent military invasion from the U.S., which wanted to take control of Tehuantepec Isthmus and Tampico oil fields.[2][3][12] Mexico was producing 55 million barrels of petroleum by 1917.[13] Because 75 percent of the fuel used by the British fleet came from Mexico, Carranza gave the order to set fire to the oil fields in case of a U.S. invasion.[12][14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_in_World_War_I)
The Mexican Revolution (Spanish: Revolución mexicana) was a major armed struggle c. 1910–1920 that radically transformed Mexican culture and government. Although recent research has focused on local and regional aspects of the Revolution, it was a "genuinely national revolution."[2] Its outbreak in 1910 resulted from the failure of the 35-year long regime of Porfirio Díaz to find a managed solution to the presidential succession. This meant there was a political crisis among competing elites and the opportunity for agrarian insurrection.[3] Wealthy landowner Francisco I. Madero challenged Díaz in 1910 presidential election, and following the rigged results revolted under the Plan of San Luis Potosí.[4] Armed conflict ousted Díaz from power and a new election was held in 1911, bringing Madero to the presidency.
The origins of the conflict were broadly based in opposition to the Díaz regime, with the 1910 election, becoming the sparking point for the outbreak of a political rebellion. Elements of the Mexican elite hostile to Díaz, led by Madero, expanded to the middle class, the peasantry in some regions, and organized labor.[5] In October 1911, Madero was overwhelmingly elected in a free and fair election. Opposition to the Madero regime increased from both the conservatives, who saw him as too weak and too liberal, and from former revolutionary fighters and the dispossessed, who saw him as too conservative. In February 1913 Madero and his vice president Pino Suárez were forced to resign, were assassinated, and the counter-revolutionary regime of General Victoriano Huerta came to power, backed by the U.S., business interests, and other supporters of the old order. Huerta remained in power from February 1913 until July 1914, when he was forced out by a coalition of different regional revolutionary forces. Then the revolutionaries' attempt to come to a political agreement following Huerta's ouster failed, and Mexico was plunged into a civil war (1914–1915) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution).
After the Battle of Celaya in April 1915, the violence in Mexico was largely restricted to local fights, especially guerrilla fights in Morelos under the leadership of Emiliano Zapata. The partial peace allowed a new Mexican Constitution to be drafted in 1916 and proclaimed on February 5, 1917. Foreign oil companies felt threatened by the new constitution, which empowered the Mexican government to expropriate natural resources deemed vital to the nation. Mexico was in constant threat of being invaded by the U.S., which wanted to take control of Tehuantepec Isthmus and Tampico oil fields.[1][2][3][4] Germany made several attempts to incite a war between Mexico and the U.S., seen especially in the Zimmermann Telegram affair in January 1917, where the aim was to draw the U.S. into conflict on its southern border rather than join Great Britain and France in the conflict against Germany and its allies.
Mexican neutrality in the Great War reflected a hostility toward the U.S., due to several earlier U.S. interventions in Mexican internal affairs.[5] In February 1913, Victoriano Huerta had conspired with the U.S. ambassador Henry Lane Wilson to oust Francisco I. Madero from the presidency of Mexico. The coup d'état was the culmination of violence in Mexico City, known as the Ten Tragic Days (La decena trágica), in the waning days of the William Howard Taft presidency. President Woodrow Wilson also ordered the invasion of Veracruz in 1914, resulting in the death of 170 Mexican soldiers and an unknown number of civilians.[6][7]
The relationship between Woodrow Wilson and Venustiano Carranza, whose political position had been aided by U.S. recognition in October 1915, allowing U.S. arms sales to Carranza's faction against its main rival General Pancho Villa, was initially cordial. Villa retaliated against the United States, attacking Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. Wilson sent U.S. Army General John J. Pershing into Mexico for punitive action to capture Villa. The Pancho Villa Expedition was a failure, since Villa eluded U.S. forces. Carranza, a strong nationalist, asserted Mexico's sovereignty and ordered the U.S. Army out. U.S. interests were threatened by the proclamation of the Mexican Constitution of 1917 and Mexico was in constant threat of being invaded by the U.S.
These facts marked the participation of Mexico in the Great War.[3][4]
The Carranza government was de jure recognized by Germany at the beginning of 1917 and by the U.S. on August 31, 1917, the latter as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram in an effort to ensure Mexican Neutrality in the Great War.[8][9] After the United States occupation of Veracruz in 1914, Mexico would not participate with the U.S. in its military participation in the Great War, so ensuring Mexican neutrality was the best deal the U.S. could hope for.[5]
Carranza granted guarantees to German companies for keeping their operations open, specifically in Mexico City,[10] but he was at the same time selling oil to the British fleet. In fact, 75 percent of the fuel used by the British fleet came from Mexico.[4][11]
Carranza rejected the proposal of a military alliance with Germany, made via the Zimmermann Telegram, and he was at the same time able to prevent a permanent military invasion from the U.S., which wanted to take control of Tehuantepec Isthmus and Tampico oil fields.[2][3][12] Mexico was producing 55 million barrels of petroleum by 1917.[13] Because 75 percent of the fuel used by the British fleet came from Mexico, Carranza gave the order to set fire to the oil fields in case of a U.S. invasion.[12][14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_in_World_War_I)
The Zimmermann Telegram (or Zimmermann Note) was an internal diplomatic communication issued from the German Foreign Office in January 1917 that proposed a military alliance between Germany and Mexico in the event of the United States' entering World War I against Germany. The proposal was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence. Revelation of the contents enraged American public opinion, especially after the German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann publicly admitted the telegram was genuine on 3 March, and helped generate support for the United States declaration of war on Germany in April.[1]
The message came in the form of a coded telegram dispatched by the Foreign Secretary of the German Empire, Arthur Zimmermann, on 11 January 1917. The message was sent to the German ambassador to Mexico, Heinrich von Eckardt. Zimmermann sent the telegram in anticipation of the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany on 1 February, an act the German government presumed would almost certainly lead to war with the United States. The telegram instructed Ambassador Eckardt that if the United States appeared certain to enter the war, he was to approach the Mexican Government with a proposal for military alliance with funding from Germany.
...
Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a military commission to assess the feasibility of the Mexican takeover of their former territories contemplated by Germany.[4] The general concluded that it would be neither possible nor even desirable to attempt such an enterprise for the following reasons:
The United States was far stronger militarily than Mexico was. No serious scenarios existed under which Mexico could win a war against the United States.
Germany's promises of "generous financial support" were very unreliable. The German government had already informed Carranza in June 1916 that they were unable to provide the necessary gold needed to stock a completely independent Mexican national bank.[5] Even if Mexico received financial support, the arms, ammunition, and other needed war supplies would presumably have to be purchased from the ABC nations (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile), which would strain relations with them, as explained below.
Even if by some chance Mexico had the military means to win a conflict against the United States and reclaim the territories in question, Mexico would have severe difficulty accommodating a large English-speaking population that was better supplied with arms than most populations.
Other foreign relations were at stake. The ABC nations organized the Niagara Falls peace conference in 1914 to avoid a full-scale war between the United States and Mexico over the United States occupation of Veracruz. If Mexico were to enter war against the United States, it would strain relations with those nations.
The Carranza government was recognized de jure by the United States on 31 August 1917 as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram, since recognition was necessary to ensure Mexican neutrality in World War I.[6][7] After the military invasion of Veracruz in 1914, Mexico would not participate in any military excursions with the United States in World War I,[8] thus ensuring Mexican neutrality was the best outcome that the United States could hope for, even if Mexican neutrality would allow German companies to keep their operations in Mexico open.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram)
Arthur Zimmermann (5 October 1864 – 6 June 1940) was State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the German Empire from 22 November 1916 until his resignation on 6 August 1917. His name is associated with the Zimmermann Telegram during World War I. However, he was closely involved in plans to support an Irish rebellion, an Indian rebellion, and to help the Communists undermine Tsarist Russia.
He was born in Marggrabowa, East Prussia, then in the Kingdom of Prussia (present-day Olecko, Mazury, Poland). He studied law from 1884-87 in Königsberg, East Prussia, and Leipzig. A period as a junior lawyer followed and later he received his doctorate of law. In 1893, he took up a career in diplomacy and entered the consular service in Berlin. He arrived in China in 1896 (Canton in 1898), and rose to the rank of consul in 1900. While stationed in the Far East, he witnessed the Boxer Rebellion in China. As part of his transfer to the Foreign Office, he returned to Germany in 1902. A portion of this trip was via railroad across the Continental United States, a fact he would later use to inflate his supposed expertise on the nation.[1]
As acting secretary Zimmerman took part in the so-called Kronrat, the deliberations in 1914, with Kaiser Wilhelm II and Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, in which the decision was taken to support Austria-Hungary after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria at Sarajevo, which ultimately was to lead to the outbreak of war. He later disavowed the name Kronrat since it was the Kaiser's opinion that was decisive in the discussion, but with which Bethmann-Hollweg and Zimmermann concurred.
In late 1914 Zimmermann was visited by Roger Casement, the Irish revolutionary. A plan was laid to land 25,000 soldiers in the west of Ireland with 75,000 rifles. However, the German general staff did not agree. In April 1916 Casement returned to Ireland in a U-boat and was captured and executed. A German ship (the Libau) renamed the Aud, flying Norwegian colours, shipped 20,000 rifles to the south Irish coast, but it failed to link up with the rebels and was scuttled. Planning on this support, a minority of the Irish Volunteers launched the Easter Rising in Dublin. Though the Rising failed, its political effect led on to the Anglo-Irish war in 1919–22 and the formation of the Irish Free State.
On 6 August 1917, Zimmermann resigned as foreign secretary and was succeeded by Richard von Kühlmann. One of the causes of his resignation was the famous Zimmermann Telegram he sent on 16 January 1917. He died in Berlin in 1940 of pneumonia.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Zimmermann)
(http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar1/p/prazimmermanbio.htm)
1 Feb
Germany resumes unrestricted U-boat warfare. All allied and neutral ships were to be sunk on sight. Over the next month close to a million tons of shipping would be lost. Lloyd George orders Royal Navy convoys to protect merchant ships destined for Britain.
3 Feb
The United States of America severs diplomatic ties with Germany.
24 Feb
The Cunard passenger liner S.S. Laconia sailing from New York to Liverpool is sunk off the Irish coast by a German U-boat.
The Zimmermann Telegram is passed to the United States government by the British, it contains details of the German proposal of an alliance with Mexico against America
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
(https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi)
Obviously, Zimmermann's note could not be given to the United States in the clear. The Germans therefore persuaded Ambassador James W. Gerard to accept it in coded form, and it was transmitted on 16 January 1917.[11]
In Room 40, Nigel de Grey had partially deciphered the telegram by the next day.[10] Room 40 had previously obtained German cipher documents, including the diplomatic cipher 13040 (captured in the Mesopotamian campaign), and naval cipher 0075, retrieved from the wrecked cruiser SMS Magdeburg by the Russians, who passed it to the British.[12]
Disclosure of the Telegram would obviously sway public opinion in the United States against Germany, provided the Americans could be convinced it was genuine. But Room 40 chief William Reginald Hall was reluctant to let it out, because the disclosure would expose the German codes broken in Room 40 and British eavesdropping on the United States cable. Hall waited three weeks. During this period, Grey and cryptographer William Montgomery completed the decryption. On 1 February Germany announced resumption of "unrestricted" submarine warfare, an act which led the United States to break off diplomatic relations with Germany on 3 February.[11]
Hall passed the telegram to the Foreign Office on 5 February, but still warned against releasing it. Meanwhile, the British discussed possible cover stories: to explain to the Americans how they got the ciphertext of the telegram without admitting to the cable snooping; and to explain how they got the cleartext of the telegram without letting the Germans know their codes were broken. Furthermore, the British needed to find a way to convince the Americans the message was not a forgery.
For the first story, the British obtained the ciphertext of the telegram from the Mexican commercial telegraph office. The British knew that the German Embassy in Washington would relay the message by commercial telegraph, so the Mexican telegraph office would have the ciphertext. "Mr. H", a British agent in Mexico, bribed an employee of the commercial telegraph company for a copy of the message.
This ciphertext could be shown to the Americans without embarrassment. Moreover, the retransmission was enciphered using the older cipher 13040, so by mid-February the British had not only the complete text, but also the ability to release the telegram without revealing the extent to which the latest German codes had been broken—at worst, the Germans might have realized that the 13040 code had been compromised, but weighed against the possibility of United States entry into the war, that was a risk worth taking. Finally, since copies of the 13040 ciphertext would also have been deposited in the records of the American commercial telegraph, the British had the ability to prove the authenticity of the message to the United States government.
As a cover story, the British could publicly claim that their agents had stolen the telegram's deciphered text in Mexico. Privately, the British needed to give the Americans the 13040 cipher so that the United States government could verify the authenticity of the message independently with their own commercial telegraphic records; however the Americans agreed to back the official cover story. The German Foreign Office refused to consider a possible code break, and instead sent Eckardt on a witch-hunt for a traitor in the embassy in Mexico. (Eckardt indignantly rejected these accusations, and the Foreign Office eventually declared the embassy exonerated.)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram)
Obviously, Zimmermann's note could not be given to the United States in the clear. The Germans therefore persuaded Ambassador James W. Gerard to accept it in coded form, and it was transmitted on 16 January 1917.[11]
In Room 40, Nigel de Grey had partially deciphered the telegram by the next day.[10] Room 40 had previously obtained German cipher documents, including the diplomatic cipher 13040 (captured in the Mesopotamian campaign), and naval cipher 0075, retrieved from the wrecked cruiser SMS Magdeburg by the Russians, who passed it to the British.[12]
Disclosure of the Telegram would obviously sway public opinion in the United States against Germany, provided the Americans could be convinced it was genuine. But Room 40 chief William Reginald Hall was reluctant to let it out, because the disclosure would expose the German codes broken in Room 40 and British eavesdropping on the United States cable. Hall waited three weeks. During this period, Grey and cryptographer William Montgomery completed the decryption. On 1 February Germany announced resumption of "unrestricted" submarine warfare, an act which led the United States to break off diplomatic relations with Germany on 3 February.[11]
Hall passed the telegram to the Foreign Office on 5 February, but still warned against releasing it. Meanwhile, the British discussed possible cover stories: to explain to the Americans how they got the ciphertext of the telegram without admitting to the cable snooping; and to explain how they got the cleartext of the telegram without letting the Germans know their codes were broken. Furthermore, the British needed to find a way to convince the Americans the message was not a forgery.
For the first story, the British obtained the ciphertext of the telegram from the Mexican commercial telegraph office. The British knew that the German Embassy in Washington would relay the message by commercial telegraph, so the Mexican telegraph office would have the ciphertext. "Mr. H", a British agent in Mexico, bribed an employee of the commercial telegraph company for a copy of the message.
This ciphertext could be shown to the Americans without embarrassment. Moreover, the retransmission was enciphered using the older cipher 13040, so by mid-February the British had not only the complete text, but also the ability to release the telegram without revealing the extent to which the latest German codes had been broken—at worst, the Germans might have realized that the 13040 code had been compromised, but weighed against the possibility of United States entry into the war, that was a risk worth taking. Finally, since copies of the 13040 ciphertext would also have been deposited in the records of the American commercial telegraph, the British had the ability to prove the authenticity of the message to the United States government.
As a cover story, the British could publicly claim that their agents had stolen the telegram's deciphered text in Mexico. Privately, the British needed to give the Americans the 13040 cipher so that the United States government could verify the authenticity of the message independently with their own commercial telegraphic records; however the Americans agreed to back the official cover story. The German Foreign Office refused to consider a possible code break, and instead sent Eckardt on a witch-hunt for a traitor in the embassy in Mexico. (Eckardt indignantly rejected these accusations, and the Foreign Office eventually declared the embassy exonerated.)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram)
11 March
British troops capture Baghdad.
15 March
As a consequence of the Russian Revolution, Tsar Nicholas II abdicates.
2 April
U.S. President Woodrow Wilson addresses Congress and asks the House of Representatives to declare war on Germany.
6 April
The United States of America declares war on Germany.
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/)
America entered World War One on April 6th, 1917. Up to that date, America had tried to keep out of World War One – though she had traded with nations involved in the war – but unrestricted submarine warfare, introduced by the Germans on January 9th, 1917, was the primary issue that caused Woodrow Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany on April 2nd. Four days later, America joined World War One on the side of the Allies (www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/america-and-world-war-one/).
The Zimmerman Telegram is often credited with bringing America into World War One in the spring of 1917. In fact, America's involvement was probably inevitable by then.
America had done its best to stay neutral as the world descended into conflict. While he never used the phrase himself, President Woodrow Wilson was re-elected for a second term in office under the slogan ‘the man who kept us out of the war’. Yet although America had not committed troops, her allegiances were becoming clear.
America had begun the war trading with countries on both sides of the conflict. However, British blockades had made it harder for America to do business with Germany and the other Central Powers. At the same time, America’s exports to Britain and France grew, while Wall Street banks loaned large amounts of cash to the Allies, often to buy American goods. American businesses had an increasing stake in the fate of the allies.
Earlier in the war, German U-boats had sunk a number of American ships bound for Britain. In particular, high profile events such as the sinking of the Lusitania passenger liner in 1915 made Americans wary of German power. Only a pledge from Germany to stop attacking passenger ships had prevented America from severing diplomatic relations in 1916.
In 1917 Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, and this – among other reasons – acted as a tipping point. American ships were being sunk, and American civilians were dying on British ships.
Just as importantly, Germany had broken its promises. American honour and credibility were at stake. When Woodrow Wilson went to congress to ask for permission to take America to war, he used Germany’s attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance as an argument for action. But the reality is that America would probably have gone to war even without Germany’s diplomatic blunder (www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zp2q7ty).
De RMS Lusitania was een oceaanstomer van de Cunard Line. Het was gedurende korte tijd het grootste en snelste passagiersschip ter wereld, tot het overtroffen werd door zijn zusterschip de RMS Mauretania.
Het schip raakte vooral bekend doordat het tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog zonder waarschuwing werd getorpedeerd door een Duitse onderzeeër, wat leidde tot verslechterde relaties tussen Duitsland en de (toen nog) neutrale Verenigde Staten.
Op 7 mei 1915 werd het schip tijdens een reis van New York naar Liverpool door de Duitsers tot zinken gebracht in de Atlantische Oceaan, voor de kust van Kinsale, tijdens de duikbotenoorlog. De Duitse onderzeeër U 20 had met een torpedo een gat geschoten in de stuurboordboeg van de Lusitania; kort daarop volgde nog een explosie. Het schip zonk in slechts 18 minuten. Daardoor kon slechts een beperkt aantal sloepen tijdig te water worden gelaten, wat fataal werd voor de meeste passagiers en bemanningsleden.
Volgens de meest waarschijnlijke gegevens kwamen 1.198 van de 1.962 opvarenden om het leven, waaronder 128 Amerikaanse staatsburgers.... De aanval op de Lusitania leidde tot hevige reacties in de Verenigde Staten. Een deel van de Amerikaanse pers riep op tot oorlog tegen Duitsland. De geallieerden wakkerden deze stemming uiteraard aan. De Amerikaanse president Wilson wilde niet zover gaan, maar eiste wel dat Duitsland zich zou verontschuldigen, schadevergoeding zou betalen aan de Amerikaanse slachtoffers; en bovendien zou beloven dat zoiets nooit in de toekomst zou gebeuren.
Duitsland verdedigde zich met er op te wijzen dat de Lusitania een hulpkruiser van de Britse marine was en dat het in eerdere reizen wapens, munitie en troepen had vervoerd. Bovendien had de Duitse ambassade de passagiers in de Verenigde Staten gewaarschuwd dat het schip zich in een oorlogszone zou begeven, waar Britse schepen konden worden aangevallen. Ook droeg het schip in de oorlogszone geen vlag, wat strijdig was met het oorlogsrecht.
Volgens het oorspronkelijke manifest bestond de lading uit 1248 kisten met elk vier shrapnelgranaten, bestemd voor de Britse pounder-snelvuurkanonnen die gebruikt worden bij de rijdende veldartillerie. Er waren ook kisten munitie, munitie-onderdelen en explosieven aan boord voor het Britse leger.[1]
Om de VS te bedaren besliste Duitsland op 9 september 1915 zijn duikbotenoorlog te beperken. Zo zouden passagiersschepen niet meer worden aangevallen.
Daarna verbeterden de Duits-Amerikaanse betrekkingen weer, maar de zaak had tot een anti-Duitse stemming in de Amerikaanse publieke opinie geleid. Toen Duitsland begin 1917 toch weer overschakelde op een onbeperkte duikbotenoorlog, in een poging om aan de wurggreep van de Britse blokkade te ontsnappen, zou het toch in oorlog met de Verenigde Staten geraken. (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitania_(schip,_1907)).
9 April
The Nivelle Offensive begins.
13 April
Canadian troops capture Vimy Ridge. The Canadians had seized ground of great military importance, and inflicted heavy casualties on the German Army.
16 April
Lenin arrives in Russia.
End April
The Nivelle and Chemin des Dames Offensives end in disastrous failures for the French. The high levels of casualties cause unrest throughout the French army with a month long series of mutiny's breaking out. General Nivelle is sacked, ending his career
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
British troops capture Baghdad.
15 March
As a consequence of the Russian Revolution, Tsar Nicholas II abdicates.
2 April
U.S. President Woodrow Wilson addresses Congress and asks the House of Representatives to declare war on Germany.
6 April
The United States of America declares war on Germany.
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/)
America entered World War One on April 6th, 1917. Up to that date, America had tried to keep out of World War One – though she had traded with nations involved in the war – but unrestricted submarine warfare, introduced by the Germans on January 9th, 1917, was the primary issue that caused Woodrow Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany on April 2nd. Four days later, America joined World War One on the side of the Allies (www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/america-and-world-war-one/).
The Zimmerman Telegram is often credited with bringing America into World War One in the spring of 1917. In fact, America's involvement was probably inevitable by then.
America had done its best to stay neutral as the world descended into conflict. While he never used the phrase himself, President Woodrow Wilson was re-elected for a second term in office under the slogan ‘the man who kept us out of the war’. Yet although America had not committed troops, her allegiances were becoming clear.
America had begun the war trading with countries on both sides of the conflict. However, British blockades had made it harder for America to do business with Germany and the other Central Powers. At the same time, America’s exports to Britain and France grew, while Wall Street banks loaned large amounts of cash to the Allies, often to buy American goods. American businesses had an increasing stake in the fate of the allies.
Earlier in the war, German U-boats had sunk a number of American ships bound for Britain. In particular, high profile events such as the sinking of the Lusitania passenger liner in 1915 made Americans wary of German power. Only a pledge from Germany to stop attacking passenger ships had prevented America from severing diplomatic relations in 1916.
In 1917 Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, and this – among other reasons – acted as a tipping point. American ships were being sunk, and American civilians were dying on British ships.
Just as importantly, Germany had broken its promises. American honour and credibility were at stake. When Woodrow Wilson went to congress to ask for permission to take America to war, he used Germany’s attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance as an argument for action. But the reality is that America would probably have gone to war even without Germany’s diplomatic blunder (www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zp2q7ty).
De RMS Lusitania was een oceaanstomer van de Cunard Line. Het was gedurende korte tijd het grootste en snelste passagiersschip ter wereld, tot het overtroffen werd door zijn zusterschip de RMS Mauretania.
Het schip raakte vooral bekend doordat het tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog zonder waarschuwing werd getorpedeerd door een Duitse onderzeeër, wat leidde tot verslechterde relaties tussen Duitsland en de (toen nog) neutrale Verenigde Staten.
Op 7 mei 1915 werd het schip tijdens een reis van New York naar Liverpool door de Duitsers tot zinken gebracht in de Atlantische Oceaan, voor de kust van Kinsale, tijdens de duikbotenoorlog. De Duitse onderzeeër U 20 had met een torpedo een gat geschoten in de stuurboordboeg van de Lusitania; kort daarop volgde nog een explosie. Het schip zonk in slechts 18 minuten. Daardoor kon slechts een beperkt aantal sloepen tijdig te water worden gelaten, wat fataal werd voor de meeste passagiers en bemanningsleden.
Volgens de meest waarschijnlijke gegevens kwamen 1.198 van de 1.962 opvarenden om het leven, waaronder 128 Amerikaanse staatsburgers.... De aanval op de Lusitania leidde tot hevige reacties in de Verenigde Staten. Een deel van de Amerikaanse pers riep op tot oorlog tegen Duitsland. De geallieerden wakkerden deze stemming uiteraard aan. De Amerikaanse president Wilson wilde niet zover gaan, maar eiste wel dat Duitsland zich zou verontschuldigen, schadevergoeding zou betalen aan de Amerikaanse slachtoffers; en bovendien zou beloven dat zoiets nooit in de toekomst zou gebeuren.
Duitsland verdedigde zich met er op te wijzen dat de Lusitania een hulpkruiser van de Britse marine was en dat het in eerdere reizen wapens, munitie en troepen had vervoerd. Bovendien had de Duitse ambassade de passagiers in de Verenigde Staten gewaarschuwd dat het schip zich in een oorlogszone zou begeven, waar Britse schepen konden worden aangevallen. Ook droeg het schip in de oorlogszone geen vlag, wat strijdig was met het oorlogsrecht.
Volgens het oorspronkelijke manifest bestond de lading uit 1248 kisten met elk vier shrapnelgranaten, bestemd voor de Britse pounder-snelvuurkanonnen die gebruikt worden bij de rijdende veldartillerie. Er waren ook kisten munitie, munitie-onderdelen en explosieven aan boord voor het Britse leger.[1]
Om de VS te bedaren besliste Duitsland op 9 september 1915 zijn duikbotenoorlog te beperken. Zo zouden passagiersschepen niet meer worden aangevallen.
Daarna verbeterden de Duits-Amerikaanse betrekkingen weer, maar de zaak had tot een anti-Duitse stemming in de Amerikaanse publieke opinie geleid. Toen Duitsland begin 1917 toch weer overschakelde op een onbeperkte duikbotenoorlog, in een poging om aan de wurggreep van de Britse blokkade te ontsnappen, zou het toch in oorlog met de Verenigde Staten geraken. (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitania_(schip,_1907)).
9 April
The Nivelle Offensive begins.
13 April
Canadian troops capture Vimy Ridge. The Canadians had seized ground of great military importance, and inflicted heavy casualties on the German Army.
16 April
Lenin arrives in Russia.
End April
The Nivelle and Chemin des Dames Offensives end in disastrous failures for the French. The high levels of casualties cause unrest throughout the French army with a month long series of mutiny's breaking out. General Nivelle is sacked, ending his career
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
Nivelle, who had replaced Joseph Joffre in December 1915 as head of all French forces, had tenaciously argued for a major spring offensive in spite of powerful opposition in the French government, at one point threatening to resign if the offensive did not go ahead. He was convinced that by implementing the tactics he had used to considerable success at Verdun during the French counter-attacks in the fall of 1916, on a greater scale, the Allies could achieve a breakthrough on the Western Front within 48 hours (www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nivelle-offensive-ends-in-failure).
The Nivelle Offensive started in April 1917 and continued until May 1917. The huge offensive, involving 1.2 million men, was the plan of Robert Nivelle, Commander-in-Chief of the French Army. By the time the Nivelle Offensive was over, tens of thousands of Allied troops had been killed or wounded; the French Army had been pushed to mutiny in over half its divisions and Nivelle had been sacked.
The logic behind the Nivelle Offensive was not dissimilar to the logic behind the Somme campaign in 1916. Nivelle believed that a huge and overwhelming attack against the Germans would result in victory within 48 hours with just 10,000 casualties.
Nivelle had achieved popularity among French politicians as the man who had recaptured the fort at Douaumont during the Battle of Verdun. Not only had this made him a national hero, it also led to Nivelle getting support for his ideas at the very top – such as Aristide Briand, the French Prime Minister. When Nivelle announced his plan for a huge attack on German lines that would be so overwhelming that it would swamp them within 48 hours, Briand announced his support for it. Hubert Lyautey, the French War Minister, was not so keen and resigned. Sir Douglas Haig, mindful of what had happened at the Somme, also opposed the plan. Regardless of this, it went ahead (www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/battles-of-world-war-one/the-nivelle-offensive/).
The Nivelle Offensive in 1917, was a Franco-British offensive on the Western Front in the First World War. The French part of the offensive was intended to be strategically decisive, by breaking through the German defences on the Aisne front within 48 hours, with casualties expected to be around 10,000 men. A preliminary attack was to be made by the French Third Army at St. Quentin and the British First, Third and Fifth armies at Arras, to capture high ground and divert German reserves from the French fronts on the Aisne and in Champagne. The main offensive was to be delivered by the French on the Chemin des Dames ridge (the Second Battle of the Aisne, La bataille du Chemin des Dames, Seconde bataille de l'Aisne and Doppelschlacht Aisne-Champagne), with a subsidiary attack by the Fourth Army (the Third Battle of Champagne, the Battle of the Hills or Battle of the Hills of Champagne). The final stage of the offensive was to follow the meeting of the British and French armies, having broken through the German lines, with a pursuit of the defeated German armies towards the German frontier.
The Franco-British attacks were tactically successful; the French Third Army of the Groupe d'armées du Nord captured the German defences west of the Hindenburg Line (Siegfriedstellung) near St. Quentin from 1–4 April, before further attacks were repulsed. The British Third and First armies achieved the deepest advance since trench warfare began, along the Scarpe river in the Battle of Arras, which inflicted many losses on the Germans, attracted reserves and captured Vimy Ridge to the north. The main French offensive on the Aisne began on 16 April and also achieved considerable tactical success but the attempt to force a strategically decisive battle on the Germans failed and by 25 April the main offensive was suspended.
The failure of the Nivelle strategy and the high number of French casualties led to mutinies and the dismissal of Nivelle, his replacement by Pétain and the adoption of a defensive strategy while the French army recuperated and was rearmed. Fighting known as the Battle of the Observatories continued for local advantage all summer on the Chemin des Dames and along the Moronvilliers heights east of Reims. In late October the French conducted a limited-objective attack on the west end of the Chemin-des-Dames in the Battle of La Malmaison, which forced the Germans to retire across the Ailette valley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nivelle_Offensive).
For th[e] attack, known as the Second Battle of the Aisne, the French used tanks in great numbers for the first time; by the end of the first day, however, 57 of 132 tanks had been destroyed and 64 more had become bogged down in the mud. All in all, the French suffered 40,000 casualties on April 16 alone, a loss comparable to that suffered by the British on the first day of the Somme offensive of July 1, 1916. It was clear from the start that the attack had failed to achieve the decisive breakthrough Nivelle had planned: over the next three days, the French made only modest gains, advancing up to seven kilometers on the west of the front and taking 20,000 German prisoners. On the rest of the front, progress was significantly slower, and Nivelle was forced to call off the attacks on April 20 (www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nivelle-offensive-ends-in-failure).
French casualties at the Battle of Verdun were greater than those at the Second Aisne. So why was Nivelle replaced – especially as 20,000 Germans had been captured along with 147 German artillery guns? It was because people had expected so much more as a result of the boasts/promises made by Nivelle himself. When these failed to materialise, Nivelle had to pay the price. Whereas the French had expected large casualties at Verdun, they had been told that the Germans would collapse on the Western Front within 48 hours of the start of the offensive and that there would be no more than 10,000 casualties. With over 300,000 casualties, Nivelle’s reputation was severely undermined. It was left to Pétain to reinvigorate the French Army on the Western Front while Nivelle was posted to Africa in December 1917 (www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/battles-of-world-war-one/the-nivelle-offensive/). (www.firstworldwar.com/battles/aisne2.htm)
28 May
U.S. Brigadier General Pershing leaves New York for France.
7 June
The British detonate 19 large mines containing some 455 tonnes of explosive under the Messines Ridge in Belgium. The resulting explosions could be heard as far away as London and Dublin. More than 10,000 German soldiers are killed and much of the fortifications along the ridge are destroyed, as well as the town of Messines itself.
26 June
The first U.S. troops, men of the 1st Division, begin to arrive in France.
27 June
Greece enters the war on the side of the Allies.
2 July
U.S. Brigadier General Pershing makes his first request for an army of 1,000,000 men.
6 July
Aquaba is captured by Arabs led by T.E.Lawrence (of Arabia).
11 July
Brigadier Pershing revises his army request figures upwards 'slightly' to 3,000,000 men.
31 July
The main offensive of the Third Battle of Ypres (Passchendaele) begins. The Allies suffered about thirty-two thousand casualties - killed, wounded or missing - in this one action
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
General of the Armies John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing (September 13, 1860 – July 15, 1948) was a senior United States Army officer, most famous as the commander of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) on the Western Front in World War I, 1917–18. He rejected British and French demands that American forces be integrated with their armies, and insisted that the AEF would operate as a single unit under his command, although some American divisions fought under British command, and he also allowed all-black units to be integrated with the French army. American forces first saw serious battle at Cantigny, Chateau-Thierry, Belleau Wood, and Soissons. To speed up the arrival of the doughboys, they embarked for France leaving the heavy equipment behind, and used British and French tanks, artillery, airplanes and other munitions. In September 1918 at St. Mihiel, the First Army was directly under Pershing's command; it overwhelmed the salient which the German Army had held for three years. For the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, Pershing shifted roughly 600,000 American soldiers to the heavily defended forests of the Argonne, keeping his divisions engaged in hard fighting for 47 days, alongside the French. The Allied Hundred Days Offensive, which the Argonne fighting was part of, resulted in Germany calling for an armistice. Pershing was of the opinion that the war should continue and that all of Germany should be occupied in an effort to permanently destroy German militarism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing).
Before the Passchendaele offensive could be launched, one important preliminary step was required – the removal of the Germans from the Messines ridge to the south. Unless this was done, the enemy would be able to observe preparations for the major offensive. Haig planned a bite-and-hold operation – an attack with strictly limited objectives. The New Zealand Division was among those selected for the assault on the ridge and the village of Messines.
The carefully prepared attack was a striking success. It began at 3.10 a.m. on 7 June 1917 with the explosion of huge mines that had been placed under the German lines by hard-working tunnellers. Almost immediately, New Zealand troops of 2nd and 3rd (Rifle) brigades left their trenches and advanced towards the ridge in front of them, on which lay the ruins of Messines village. Australian and British troops on either side of them did the same. Following hard behind a meticulously planned sequence of standing and creeping barrages, these troops crossed no man’s land in minutes.
Everything went to schedule, and by 7 a.m. the New Zealanders had cleared Messines of the enemy. Taking over the advance, 1st Brigade pushed beyond the village. A German counter-attack in the early afternoon was repulsed. Australian troops then moved through to secure the final objective line 1.5 kilometres beyond the crest.
The capture of Messines was achieved with relatively few casualties. German artillery fire had been disrupted in the early stages and had had little impact on the advancing troops. As the day wore on, though, German guns began to bombard the newly captured areas with increasing ferocity, and many New Zealand and Allied troops were killed. By the time the New Zealand Division was relieved on 9 June, it had 3700 casualties, including 700 dead (http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/new-zealanders-in-belgium/messines-preliminary).
The Battle of Messines (7–14 June 1917) was an offensive conducted by the British Second Army, under the command of General Sir Herbert Plumer, on the Western Front near the village of Messines in West Flanders, Belgium, during the First World War.[a] The Nivelle Offensive in April and May had failed to achieve its more ambitious aims, led to the demoralisation of French troops and the dislocation of the Anglo-French strategy for 1917. The offensive at Messines forced the Germans to move reserves to Flanders from the Arras and Aisne fronts, which relieved pressure on the French. The tactical objective of the attack at Messines was to capture the German defences on the ridge, which ran from Ploegsteert (Plugstreet) Wood in the south, through Messines and Wytschaete to Mt. Sorrel, to deprive the German 4th Army of the high ground south of Ypres. The ridge commanded the British defences and back areas further north, from which the British intended to conduct the "Northern Operation", to advance to Passchendaele Ridge, then capture the Belgian coast up to the Dutch frontier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Messines_(1917)).
The Mines in the Battle of Messines comprised a series of mines dug by tunnelling companies of the Royal Engineers under the German 4th Army (General Friedrich Bertram Sixt von Armin) lines near the village of Mesen (Messines in French, historically used in English) in Belgian West Flanders during the First World War. The mines were detonated at the start of the Battle of Messines (7–14 June 1917), creating 19 large craters. The joint explosion of the mines at Messines ranks among the largest non-nuclear explosions of all time. The evening before the attack, General Sir Charles Harington, Chief of Staff of the Second Army (General Sir Herbert Plumer), remarked to the press, "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography". The Battle of Messines marked the zenith of mine warfare. On 10 August 1917, the Royal Engineers fired the last British deep mine of the war, at Givenchy-en-Gohelle near Arras.[a]
As part of allied operations in the Ypres Salient, British mining against the German-held salient at Wijtschate near Messines had begun in spring 1915, with diggings 4.6–6.1 metres (15–20 ft) below the surface.[2][b] The concept of a deep mining offensive was devised in September 1915 by the Engineer-in-Chief of the BEF, Brigadier George Fowke, who proposed to drive galleries 18–27 metres (60–90 ft) underground. Fowke had been inspired by the thinking of Major John Norton-Griffiths, a civil engineer, who had helped form the first tunnelling companies and introduced the quiet clay kicking technique.[2]
In September 1915, Fowke proposed to dig under the Ploegsteert–Messines (Mesen), Kemmel–Wytschaete (Wijtschate) and Vierstraat–Wytschaete roads and to dig two tunnels between the Douve river and the south-east end of Plugstreet (Ploegsteert) Wood, the objectives to be reached in three to six months. ... Co-ordinated by the Royal Engineers, the mine galleries were dug by the British 171st, 175th and 250th Tunnelling companies and the 1st Canadian, 3rd Canadian and 1st Australian Tunnelling companies, while the British 183rd, 2nd Canadian and 2nd Australian Tunnelling companies built dugouts (underground shelters) in the Second Army area.[6] Sappers dug the tunnels into a layer of "blue clay" 24–37 metres (80–120 ft) below the surface, then drifted galleries (horizontal passages) for 5,453 metres (5,964 yd) to points beneath the position of the German Group Wytschaete, despite German counter-mining.[7][8][c] German tunnellers came within metres of several British mine chambers and, well before the Battle of Messines, found La Petite Douve Farm mine.[10] On 27 August 1916, the Germans set a camouflet, which killed four men and wrecked the chamber for 120 metres (400 ft); the mine had been charged and the explosives were left in the gallery. A gallery of the Kruisstraat mine, begun on 2 January 1916, had been dug for 690 metres (750 yd) and was flooded by a camouflet explosion in February 1917, after which a new chamber was dug and charged next to the flooded mine.[11] The British diverted the attention of German miners from their deepest galleries by making many minor attacks in the upper levels.[12]
The BEF miners eventually completed a line of deep mines under Messines Ridge that were charged with 454 tonnes (447 long tons) of ammonal and gun cotton.[7] Two mines were laid at Hill 60 on the northern flank, one at St Eloi, three at Hollandscheschur Farm, two at Petit Bois, single mines at Maedelstede Farm, Peckham House and Spanbroekmolen, four at Kruisstraat, one at Ontario Farm and two each at Trenches 127 and 122 on the southern flank.[13][14] A group of four mines was placed under the German strongpoint Birdcage at Le Pelerin, just outside Ploegsteert Wood. The large mines were at St Eloi, charged with 43,400 kilograms (95,600 lb) of ammonal, at Maedelstede Farm, which was charged with 43,000 kilograms (94,000 lb), and Spanbroekmolen on one of the highest points of the Messines Ridge, which was filled with 41,000 kilograms (91,000 lb) of ammonal. The mine at Spanbroekmolen was set 27 metres (88 ft) below ground, at the end of a gallery 520 metres (1,710 ft) long.[15]
Geology of the British deep mine at Ontario Farm
When detonated on 7 June 1917, the blast of the mine at Spanbroekmolen formed the "Lone Tree Crater" with a diameter of 76 metres (250 ft) and a depth of 12 metres (40 ft).)[15] The mine at Ontario Farm did not produce a crater but left a shallow indentation in the soft clay, after wet sand flowed back into the crater.[11][16][17] Birdcage 1–4 on the extreme southern flank in the II Anzac Corps area, were not required because the Germans made a local retirement before 7 June. Peckham 2 was abandoned due to a tunnel collapse and the mine at La Petite Douve Farm was abandoned after the German camouflet blast of 27/28 August 1916. The evening before the attack, Harington, the Second Army Chief of Staff, remarked to the press, "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography".[18]
Two days after the battle, General Maximilian von Laffert the Gruppe Wijtschate commander was sacked and the German official history, Der Weltkrieg (volume XII, 1939), placed the mines, which were unprecedented in size and number, second in a list of five reasons for the German defeat. In an after-action report, Laffert wrote that had the extent of the mine danger been suspected, a withdrawal from the front trench system to the Sonne Line, half-way between the First and Second lines, would have been ordered before the attack, since the cost inflicted on the British by having to fight for the ridge justified its retention.[23] In 1929, Hermann von Kuhl lamented the failure to overrule the 4th Army commanders on 30 April and prevent "one of the worst tragedies of the war".[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_in_the_Battle_of_Messines_(1917))
Op 31 juli 1917 begon de Britse veldmaarschalk sir Douglas Haig aan zijn Derde Slag om Ieper om de Duitsers de genadestoot toe te brengen.
De Derde Slag om Ieper, ook bekend als de Slag om Passendale (en internationaal bekend als Passchendaele), was een grote veldslag die in 1917 tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog door Britse, ANZAC en Canadese troepen enerzijds en het Duitse leger anderzijds werd uitgevochten aan de Ieperboog.
Zijn plannen, die hij ondanks tegenwerking van de Britse premier David Lloyd George wist door te zetten, bestonden erin het Duitse 4e leger van generaal Sixt von Armin ten val te brengen, langs de kust op te rukken en noordwaarts richting Oostende en Zeebrugge te trekken om de havens, in die tijd door de Entente-machten abusievelijk aangezien voor de gevaarlijkste Duitse onderzeebootbases, te heroveren.
Daarvoor liet hij het Britse 5e leger van generaal Hubert Gough in de richting van Pilkem aanvallen over de hogere waterscheiding, in het noordwesten gesteund door het Franse 1e leger van generaal François Anthoine en in het zuiden door het Britse 2e leger van generaal Herbert Plumer. Voor het eerst werd een groot aantal tanks ingezet, om precies te zijn 216 Mark IV-tanks. De Duitsers waren op de hoogte van de plannen en trokken een grote hoeveelheid artillerie en reserves bij de frontsector samen. Ze legden zes hoofdweerstandslijnen aan met een totale diepte van tien kilometer. Omdat het voorjaarsoffensief van de Franse generaal Robert Nivelle was mislukt en daardoor het moreel was gebroken, waren de Fransen niet in staat de Britten daadwerkelijk te ondersteunen. Daardoor hadden de geallieerden niet het numerieke overwicht dat nodig was voor een doorbraak (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derde_Slag_om_Ieper).
The Battle of Passchendaele (Third Battle of Ypres, Flandernschlacht and Deuxième Bataille des Flandres) was a major campaign of the First World War, fought by the Allies against the German Empire.[a] The battle took place on the Western Front, from July to November 1917, for control of the ridges south and east of the Belgian city of Ypres in West Flanders, as part of a strategy decided by the Allies at conferences in November 1916 and May 1917. Passchendaele lay on the last ridge east of Ypres, 5 miles (8.0 km) from a railway junction at Roulers, which was vital to the supply system of the German 4th Army.[b] The next stage of the Allied plan was an advance to Thourout–Couckelaere, to close the German-controlled railway running through Roulers and Thourout.
Further operations and a British supporting attack along the Belgian coast from Nieuwpoort, combined with Operation Hush (an amphibious landing), were to have reached Bruges and then the Dutch frontier. The resistance of the 4th Army, unusually wet weather, the onset of winter and the diversion of British and French resources to Italy, following the Austro-German victory at the Battle of Caporetto (24 October – 19 November), enabled the Germans to avoid a general withdrawal, which had seemed inevitable in early October. The campaign ended in November, when the Canadian Corps captured Passchendaele, apart from local attacks in December and the new year. In 1918, the Battle of the Lys and the Fifth Battle of Ypres were fought before the Allies occupied the Belgian coast and reached the Dutch frontier.
A campaign in Flanders was controversial in 1917 and has remained so. The British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, opposed the offensive, as did General Ferdinand Foch the French Chief of the General Staff. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, commanding the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), did not receive approval for the Flanders operation from the War Cabinet until 25 July. Matters of dispute by the participants, writers and historians since the war, have included the wisdom of pursuing an offensive strategy in the wake of the Nivelle Offensive, rather than waiting for the arrival of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) in France.
The choice of Flanders over areas further south or the Italian front, the climate and weather in Flanders, the choice of General Hubert Gough and the Fifth Army to conduct the offensive, debates over the nature of the opening attack and between advocates of shallow and deeper objectives, have also been controversial. The passage of time between the Battle of Messines (7–14 June) and the Battle of Pilckem Ridge (31 July, the opening move of the Third Battle of Ypres), the extent to which the internal troubles of the French armies motivated British persistence with the offensive, the effect of the weather, the decision to continue the offensive in October and the human cost of the campaign on the soldiers of the German and British armies, have also been argued over ever since (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Passchendaele).
The First Battle of Passchendaele on 12 October, was another Allied attempt to gain ground around Passchendaele. Heavy rain and mud again made movement difficult and little artillery could be brought closer to the front. Allied troops were exhausted and morale had fallen. After a modest British advance, German counter-attacks recovered most of the ground lost opposite Passchendaele.[118] There were 13,000 Allied casualties, including 2,735 New Zealanders, 845 of whom had been killed or lay wounded and stranded in the mud of no-man's-land. In lives lost in a day, this was the worst day in New Zealand history.[119] At a conference on 13 October, Haig and the army commanders agreed that attacks would stop until the weather improved and roads could be extended, to carry more artillery and ammunition forward for better fire support.[120] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Passchendaele)
The Second Battle of Passchendaele was the culminating attack during the Third Battle of Ypres of the First World War. The battle took place in the Ypres Salient area of the Western Front, in and around the Belgian town of Passchendaele, between 26 October and 10 November 1917. The Canadian Corps relieved the exhausted II Anzac Corps, continuing the advance started with the First Battle of Passchendaele and ultimately capturing Passchendaele village.[3] Beyond gaining favourable observation positions, the battle was intended to gain drier winter positions on higher ground.[4]
The assault position was directly south of the inter-army boundary between the British Fifth and Second Armies. As a result, the Canadian Corps was to attack with support of formations from the British Fifth Army to the north and the I Anzac Corps and X Corps to the south. The offensive was executed in a series of attacks each with limited objectives, delivered at intervals of three or more days. The execution dates of the phases were tentatively given as 26 October, 30 October and 6 November with a final smaller action on 10 November.[5] To permit time to facilitate inter-divisional relief, there was a planned seven-day pause between the second and third stages during which time the Second Army was ordered to take over the section of the Fifth Army front adjoining the Canadian Corps, so that the central portion of the assault could proceed under a single command.[6]
The attack was successful in capturing the German-held high ground along the Passchendaele–Westrozebeke ridge but the campaign was forced to end just short of Westrozebeke. No further attempt was made to build on the momentum of the attack. The significant victory of the Austro-German forces against the Italian Army at the Battle of Caporetto and the forthcoming Battle of Cambrai forced the British into a parallel diversion of resources away from the sector and make an end to offensive actions in the Ypres Salient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Passchendaele).
In a German General Staff publication, it was written that "Germany had been brought near to certain destruction (sicheren Untergang) by the Flanders battle of 1917".[133] In his Memoirs of 1938, Lloyd George wrote, "Passchendaele was indeed one of the greatest disasters of the war ... No soldier of any intelligence now defends this senseless campaign ...".[134] In 1939, G. C. Wynne wrote that the British had eventually reached Passchendaele Ridge and captured Flandern I Stellung; beyond them were Flandern II and Flandern III (which was nearly complete). The German submarine bases on the coast had not been captured but the objective of diverting the Germans from the French further south, while they recovered from the Nivelle Offensive of April, had succeeded.[135]
In 1997, Griffith wrote that the bite and hold system kept moving until November, because the BEF had developed a workable system of offensive tactics, against which the Germans ultimately had no answer.[136] A decade later, Sheldon wrote that relative casualty figures were irrelevant, because the German army could not afford great numbers of losses or to lose the initiative, by being compelled to fight another defensive battle on ground of the Allies' choosing. The Third Battle of Ypres pinned the German army to Flanders and caused unsustainable casualties.[137] At a conference on 13 October, a scheme of the Third Army for an attack in mid-November was discussed. Byng wanted the operations at Ypres to continue, to hold German troops in Flanders.[138] The Battle of Cambrai began on 20 November, when the British breached the first two parts of the Hindenburg Line, in the first successful mass use of tanks in a combined arms operation.[139] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Passchendaele)
Op 31 juli begon het aanhoudend te regenen en de volgende dag had iedereen de hoop al opgegeven. De Britse artilleriebombardementen met 3019 kanonnen verstoorden de afwatering, maar de meeste Duitse kazematten bleven intact. De troepen kwamen nergens vooruit door de modder en op 2 augustus 1917, na een opmars van maximaal twee kilometer, lag het offensief stil. Duitse tegenaanvallen dreven de Britten weer gedeeltelijk terug. Pas op 16 augustus 1917 werd de opmars hervat... De Britse pers werd eerst wijsgemaakt dat een grote overwinning was behaald. Toen echter bleek hoeveel gewonden er naar de Britse hospitalen werd gebracht, viel de mislukking niet langer te verbergen en stortte aan het thuisfront het moreel in.
Een maand later, na een gevechtspauze tijdens een periode van warm weer die de grond opdroogde, verschoof het offensief op 22 september 1917 weer zuidwaarts en viel het Britse 2e leger van generaal Herbert Plumer aan op de heuvelrug ten oosten van Ieper. Hij koos voor een methodische aanval over een smal front, begeleid door gordijnvuur. De concentratie aan manschappen en artillerie was zo groot dat de voorste Duitse linie weggevaagd werd.
Tot 25 september 1917 streed hij zo bij de steenweg Ieper-Menen. Beide zijden verloren zo'n 20.000 man. De verliesverhouding verbeterde voor de Britten, maar de terreinwinst was slechts 1000 meter. Op 26 september 1917 verloor het geallieerde leger 17.000 manschappen bij de verovering van het Polygoonbos. Plumer eindigde het offensief op 4 oktober 1917 met de verovering van Broodseinde. Dit kostte 26.000 geallieerde soldaten het leven. De Duitse verliezen waren even groot.
Ondertussen raakte het Duitse opperbevel sterk verontrust. Omdat het artillerievuur alle Duitse eenheden uitdunde, die in de laatste weerstandlinies verdicht waren, had het Duitse leger in Vlaanderen in feite de helft van zijn gevechtskracht verloren. De divisies verloren hun samenhang toen zelfs bij de kleinste eenheden nog een derde van de manschappen werd uitgeschakeld. De Duitsers overwogen zich terug te trekken en besloten de laatste linies niet meer ten koste van alles te heroveren. (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derde_Slag_om_Ieper).
Van 4 oktober tot 9 oktober 1917 was het de beurt aan de Australiërs om bij Tyne Cot aan te vallen. Ze werden echter door het noodweer gehinderd. Een week eerder dan normaal brak het rustige herfstweer en voortdurende slagregens maakten het terrein volledig onbegaanbaar. De omstandigheden waaronder nu gevochten werd, behoren tot de slechtste uit de wereldgeschiedenis. Generaals aan beide zijden beschreven het terrein als een hel op aarde. De offensieven werden echter niet afgelast. De helft van het terrein bestond nu uit modder waar men slechts kon lopen door er plankieren aan te leggen; de andere helft was water waarin duizenden halfvergane lijken ronddreven. Gewonden waren reddeloos verloren en zakten in het slijk weg.
Het was dan ook niet verwonderlijk dat de Australiërs geen noemenswaardige vooruitgang boekten, ondanks een verlies van 13.000 man. Ze veroverden echter toch nog de eerste Duitse frontlinie en de daaromheen liggende kazematten en bunkers.
Veldmaarschalk Haig bleef vastbesloten om bij Ieper vóór de winter tot een doorbraak te komen. Op 12 oktober 1917 viel hij Passendale aan, maar zonder succes. Opnieuw verloor men zo'n 13.000 man. Omdat er geen vooruitgang werd geboekt, bleven duizenden gewonden stervend in het niemandsland achter. Op 14 oktober stonden de Duitsers toe dat lijken en gewonden opgehaald werden. Op 26 oktober 1917 probeerden de Canadese korpsen het opnieuw maar hun opmars was traag door de modder en het Duitse gifgas.
...
Op 6 november 1917 leek er aan de Derde Slag om Ieper een eind te komen doordat Passendale, op dat moment niet meer dan een rode vlek in de modder, viel. De volgende dag bezocht voor het eerst een stafofficier, luitenant-generaal Launcelot Kiggell, in een auto het front. Hij barstte in tranen uit en mompelde: Good God, did we really send men to fight in that? (Goede God, hebben wij mannen hiernaartoe gestuurd om hierin te vechten?) Het antwoord was: 'It's worse further up on...' (Verderop is het erger...). ....
Sir Douglas Haig kreeg de schuld omdat hij niet de gewenste doorbraak kon forceren. Hij dacht dat de Duitse troepen op instorten stonden en wilde daarom niet opgeven. Hij bleef echter aan als Brits opperbevelhebber in Frankrijk.
Met deze slag werd het hoofddoel bereikt om een belangrijk deel van het Duitse leger door de Britse artillerie uit te schakelen. In aanmerking nemend dat zonder kanonvuur de normale verliesratio in deze omstandigheden ongeveer één op tien zou geweest zijn, is het succes van de Britse artillerie inderdaad opmerkelijk. Het was eigenlijk een geplande uitputtingsslag, waarbij de optimistische doelstellingen van Haig maar een voorwendsel waren om de onwillige politici over te halen. Desalniettemin geldt de slag tegenwoordig, meer nog dan de Slag om de Somme, als hét voorbeeld van een zinloze aanval.
De slag was afgelopen op 10 november 1917. Behalve de uitputting van het Duitse leger had de slag vooral negatieve effecten aan de zijde van de Entente. De nu gevormde saillant bij Passendale was eigenlijk onverdedigbaar en de Canadezen die haar gedurende de winter desalniettemin behielden, leden daarbij verschrikkelijke verliezen door Duits vuur. Doordat de meeste reserves verbruikt waren, kon Haig op 20 november het succes van de tanks in de Slag om Kamerijk niet uitbuiten. De politici waren van walging over de slachting vervuld en weigerden versterkingen naar het front in Vlaanderen te sturen. Daardoor werd het Britse leger erg kwetsbaar bij het Duitse voorjaarsoffensief. In april 1918 ging alle terreinwinst weer in korte tijd verloren in de Vierde Slag om Ieper.
(https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derde_Slag_om_Ieper).
Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck uit het West-Vlaamse Ingelmunster – bekend van het gamma Kasteel – lanceert naar aanleiding van de 100-jarige herdenking van de Eerste Wereldoorlog een nieuw blond bier: Passchendaele.
Passchendaele is een heerlijke, blonde dorstlesser van hoge gisting met een laag alcoholgehalte (5,2 Vol.). Het bier dankt zijn pittige afdronk aan een blend van geselecteerde Belgische hop, gekweekt in de frontstreek zelf (www.passchendaelebeer.be/nl/).
The Great Beer... one minute of silence 50cl of respect... Ik vind het wat smakeloos.
Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck
Ingelmunstersestraat 46 8870 Emelgem (Izegem) België (www.vanhonsebrouck.be/nl/)
BIER GEBROUWEN IN HET GEHEUGEN VAN DE DE SLAG VAN PASSENDALE 1917
De Passchendaele verrast door de rijke smaak die je eerder van een sterker bier zou verwachten. De Passchendaele valt meteen op door de volle, romige smaak, evoluerend naar licht tintelend tegen het gehemelte en eindigend met het mild droogtrekken van de tong. Deze lichte doordrinker opent de weg naar het complexe smakenpalet van een hogegistingsbier.
5.2% ABV | 6°C “Een dorstlesser met diepgang.” Xavier Van Honsebrouck (www.vanhonsebrouck.be/nl/passchendaele/)
Het bier smaakt als een ambachelijke ale. Het is goudgeel en een witte schuimkraag. De smaak is niet bietter of moutig, eerder zoet. Zou het zo ook hebben gesmaakt in de oorlog? Als ik het verhaal van Van Honsebrouck nalees, herken ik daar wel wat in. Het heeft een volle, romige (want geen waterig mondgevoel) smaak. Het is licht tintelend en in de afdronk is er een mild bittertje op de tong. Eerlijk gezegd vind ik het een beetje een tegenvaller om zo een zoet bier te drinken...
Wat vinden anderen?
zvikar (5282) - Ramat Gan, ISRAEL - NOV 4, 2016
Yellow, small head, aroma of corn, malt, caramel, sourish, flavor of corn, malt, oxidized, sweetish, light bodied (www.ratebeer.com/beer/passchendaele/217381/).
Rubin77 (1153) - Bratislava, SLOVAK REPUBLIC - NOV 3, 2016
F: big, white, good retention. C: deep gold, clear. A: malt, grassy, biscuit, bread, caramel, hint of banana. T: malt, light orange, hint of grassy, caramel, bread, light sourness, medium body, normal carbonation, light roasted tones but nothing very special (www.ratebeer.com/beer/passchendaele/217381/).
thanatosti (1517) - Culemborg, NETHERLANDS - OCT 17, 2016
Clear light golden with a thin white head. grainy aroma. Taste is medium sweet and mouthfeel is thin, even considering the low ABV. If I didn’t know better I would assume it to be a pale lager or pilsener. Bland and boring (www.ratebeer.com/beer/passchendaele/217381/).
DJoer (1197) - NETHERLANDS - SEP 6, 2016
Medium white head, clear coloured body, hops herb some burned like malts hay some swert like smell, medium carbonation and bitter malts some burned malts a bit nutty aftertaste (www.ratebeer.com/beer/passchendaele/217381/)
Trolleo (1401) - Pula / Zagreb, CROATIA - APR 7, 2016
Clear golden color, aroma of malt and sugar. Sweet-ish and fruity taste, thin to medium body, average carbonation. Easy and drinkable stuff. (www.ratebeer.com/beer/passchendaele/217381/)
Average, aroma van mout en suiker met een zoete smaak. Ja, dat is eigenlijk best een tegenvaller en zo bezien past het bier bij de geschiedenis van de eerste wereldoorlog. Het is een bitterzoete tegenvaller.
British and Canadian forces finally reach Passchendael and so the Third Battle of Ypres ends.In the three and half months of the offensive, British and Empire forces had advanced barely five miles and had suffered horrendous casualties
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
While the battle of Passchendaele was being fought, Douglas Haig approved a plan to take on the Germans by sweeping round the back of Cambrai and encircling the town. The attack would use a combination of old and new – cavalry, air power, artillery and tanks that would be supported by infantry. Cambrai was an important town as it contained a strategic railhead. In front of it lay the very strong Hindenburg Line – a defensive position in which the Germans put a great deal of trust. The plan included an attack on the Hindenburg Line and the use of three cavalry divisions that would encircle Cambrai, thus cutting it off. While Haig’s plan won the approval of some, others were less than inspired that it included tanks as these new weapons had yet to prove their worth in battle in the eyes of some (www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/battles-of-world-war-one/the-battle-of-cambrai/) (https://incredibleimages4u.blogspot.nl/2011/04/ww1-battle-of-cambrai-tanks-used-for.html).
7 Nov
On the Alpine Front between Italy and Austria-Hungary, the 12th, and final Battle of Isonzo ends in terminal failure for the Italian army. Austria-German forces (among them a young Erwin Rommel) breakthrough at Caporetto. Italian losses total more than 300,000. At least 60,000 soldiers from both sides were killed by avalanches.
The Bolsheviks overthrow the Russian government and install a Communist one under Lenin.
20 Nov
Battle of Cambrai begins with a surprise mass tank attack by the British. This demonstrated for the first time that the impenetrable German Hindenburg Line could in fact be breached
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
The year 1917 was not ending in a positive way for the Allied Forces. The British and French Spring offensives did not bring the expected results and progress in the war. The French Army had been so badly overcome that it was rendered unable to engage in any useful combat. Sir Douglas Haig offered to control the Western Front with his Army while the French Army recovered. The modest success in Flanders could not be considered as a decisive victory. The situation at the other war fronts was changing. The Russian Empire had just collapsed and peace was being negotiated with the Bolsheviks. The German Divisions were now not needed and were to be shortly sent to the Western Front to reinforce the existing troops. The Italians had done well, but then suffered a critical situation after a German-Austrian attack launched on Caporetto on the 24th of October. It appeared that the Germans were testing and improving a new attack tactic based on short, but very violent, artillery bombardment followed immediately by a strong infantry advance. In Great Britain, to help the war effort, public opinion was very impatient to hear some long awaited good news from the Front Line
An innovative plan for a raid of short duration was designed by Lieutenant-Colonel J.F.C.Fuller. His plan was presented to Sir Julian Byng. The idea was to attack in a style totally different to the conventional principles of battle. A massive number of tanks would play a leading role in breaking through the German Hindenburg Line reputedly considered as virtually impregnable. The Infantry would then rapidly consolidate the breakthrough with the Cavalry following to exploit the situation and make rapid progress. The plan was completely based on very careful secret preparation and surprise. It was so attractive that when presented to Sir Douglas Haig, he approved a major battle action in the Cambrai sector using a large number of tanks (www.tank-cambrai.com/english/battle-of-cambrai.php).
The Battle of Cambrai, fought in November/December 1917, proved to be a significant event in World War One. Cambrai was the first battle in which tanks were used en masse In fact, Cambrai saw a mixture of tanks being used, heavy artillery and air power. Mobility, lacking for the previous three years in World War One, suddenly found a place on the battlefield – though it was not to last for the duration of the battle (www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/battles-of-world-war-one/the-battle-of-cambrai/).
Battle of Cambrai – November 20 – December 7, 1917. As autumn creeps to winter and we enter the anniversary period of this struggle, my mind once more turns to this battle... Cambrai is often mislabeled as the first large-scale use of tanks. It wasn’t, tanks had been used in battle since the autumn of 1916. It was the first use of tanks in a combined arms strategy – where infantry, airpower, artillery, and armor worked on concert. The battle was not the grand strategic victory that the British had envisioned, but it was a foreshadowing of the blitzkrieg attacks that would dominate the early stages of WWII.... The battle itself started out stunningly well for the BEF. Six infantry divisions were supported by an unprecedented 437 tanks. The tanks were equipped to lay fascines, bundles of sticks, across the trenches. The vision was clear, the tanks could creep across the trenches with the infantry in close support. Earlier use of tanks alone had proved that they were vulnerable without infantry support. The tanks were able to bring their guns to bear at deadly point blank ranges on the German defenders.
The battle initially was a stunning success, if anything it was too successful. The heavily defended Hindenburg Line was broken (https://blainepardoe.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/battle-of-cambrai/).
The surprise was total. Many gaps were made in the Hindenburg system. Nine thousand German prisoners were taken. At midday some of the tanks had reached their final objective. The Infantry successfully consolidated the position and waited for the Cavalry who received their orders too late to advance, except at Masnières where the Germans had mined a bridge which rendered the crossing of the Canal impossible for the tanks. All attempts by the Cavalry and Infantry on that sector were tragically decimated (www.tank-cambrai.com/english/battle-of-cambrai.php).
While by modern standards five miles was nothing, in the later years of the Great War it was stunning.
Then the problems set in. The tanks began to break down in large numbers. The British, for all of their planning, had not allocated the proper number of troops to exploit the breach in the German lines. The Germans, employing new troops “Stormtroopers” and tactics, were able to counterattack and eventually would erase the British gains (https://blainepardoe.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/battle-of-cambrai/).
Usually preceding an advance there would be a long artillery barrage, this would alert the defenders that an attack was coming and enable them to be ready. The Germans were taken completely by surprise and the tanks broke through the line very quickly. Because of the speed of the success of the tanks, the British were unable to take advantage of the break in the line as there were not enough men in the area. The Germans eventually retook the land gained by the tanks. Even though the battle of Cambrai did not gain permanent ground, it proved that the tank could be used effectively and successfully. Tanks were soon to be used frequently as an offensive weapon in battle (www.schoolshistory.org.uk/gcse/firstworldwar/firstworldwartimeline/1917/november.htm).
De slag bij Cambrai was een veldslag aan het westfront tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog. De slag vond plaats van 20 november tot 7 december 1917 en werd uitgevochten tussen het Britse rijk en het Duitse Keizerrijk. Tijdens de slag werden voor het eerst met succes tanks ingezet door de Britten, de Britse aanval demonstreerde dat de Hindenburglinie doorbroken kon worden. De Duitse tegenaanval liet de waarde van nieuwe infanterie tactieken zien welke later gebruikt zouden worden tijdens de Kaiserschlacht. Basil Henry Liddell-Hart noemde de veldslag "one of the landmarks in the history of warfare, the dawn of a new epoch."[1](een van de mijlpalen in de geschiedenis van oorlogvoering, het begin van een nieuw tijdperk.) (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slag_bij_Cambrai_(1917)).
Shot up English tank in the village of Fontaine Notre Dame, from the tank battle west of the city of Cambrai. December 1917. Northern France.
This often seen photo appears in Jack Sheldon's brilliant book The German Army at Cambrai captioned as thus:
"Tank B28 'Black Arrow' knocked out near the main crossroads in Fontaine Notre Dame. The Germans posing beside it are completely oblivious to the dead Tommy lying at their feet.". Black Arrow II was tank No. 2080 and was part of No 6 Section, 5th Coy.
The Battle of Cambrai (called the Battle of Cambrai, 1917 by the Battlefield Nomenclature Committee; also sometimes referred to as the First Battle of Cambrai) was a British offensive and German counter-offensive battle in the First World War. Cambrai, in the Nord département (Nord-Pas-de-Calais), was an important supply point for the German Siegfried Stellung (known to the British as the Hindenburg Line) and capture of the town and the nearby Bourlon Ridge would threaten the rear of the German line to the north. Major General Henry Tudor, Commander, Royal Artillery (CRA) of the 9th (Scottish) Division, suggested trying out new artillery-infantry techniques on his sector of the front. During preparations, J. F. C. Fuller, a staff officer with the Tank Corps, was in the process of looking for a place to use tanks as raiding parties. General Julian Byng, commander of the British Third Army, decided to combine both plans into the attack.[a]
Despite British success on the first day, mechanical unreliability, German artillery and infantry defences exposed the frailties of the Mark IV tank. On the second day, only about half of the original number of tanks were available. Subsequent British progress was limited. In the History of the Great War the British official historian W. Miles and modern scholars do not place exclusive credit for the first day on tanks but discuss the concurrent evolution of artillery, infantry and tank methods.[3] Numerous developments since 1915 matured at Cambrai, such as predicted artillery fire, sound ranging, infantry infiltration tactics, infantry-tank co-ordination and close air support. The techniques of industrial warfare continued to develop and played a vital part during the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918, along with replacement of the Mark IV tank with improved types.[4] The rapid reinforcement and defence of Bourlon Ridge by the Germans, as well as the subsequent counter-attack were also notable achievements, which gave hope that an offensive strategy could end the war before American mobilisation became overwhelming.[5] ... The battle is sometimes described as the first use of large numbers of tanks in combat, or even as the first use of tanks at all. Although it was the first successful combined arms operation on a large scale, the first use of tanks occurred in September 1916 at the Battle of Flers–Courcelette.[1] The French and British armies had deployed tanks in large numbers earlier in 1917, although to considerably less effect.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cambrai_(1917))
by George Coppard (Author) (www.amazon.co.uk/Machine-Cambrai-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304352586)
By 4pm the tanks had advanced seven miles, affecting the most rapid advance of the war. To put this in perspective, a similarly sized penetration had taken three months and cost 250,000 casualties. The deadlock of trench warfare was broken; The Tank Corps had swung open the door to the `green fields beyond` and in doing so, sealed their place in history.
This was the moment when fresh troops should have poured through the gap. But mobile reserves were not available in sufficient numbers or in time to exploit the situation. Likewise the Cavalry, for whom special routes had been prepared, found it impossible to advance in the face of barbed wire and machine-gun fire so the advance petered out. When the German Army counter-attacked at the end of the month they recaptured much that had been gained and the front reverted to the kind of destructive slogging match that so characterised the Western Front in the First World War (http://tank100.com/training-combat/cambrai/).
The result of the battle was virtually a status quo, but with very heavy casualties on both sides. The British had 44,000 casualties including more than 20,000 wounded and 7,048 missing. They lost to the enemy, 9,000 prisoners, 165 guns, 600 machine guns and more than 90 tanks. The Germans had 41,000 casualties including 11,000 prisoners. 145 guns and 456 machine guns fell into British hands.
The 1917 Battle of Cambrai changed the whole face of warfare for ever and restored the hopes of the Allies. The long held stalemate war had ended (www.tank-cambrai.com/english/battle-of-cambrai.php). Een jaar later werd er weer gevochten... (zie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cambrai_(1918))
Er is ook bier naar vernoemd.
La Choulette Battle of Cambrai
Brewed by La Choulette
Style: Bière de Garde
Hordain, France
Serve in Stem glass, Tulip
ABV: 6%
COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION
La bière "Battle of Cambrai" a été créée pour commémorer cet évènement et rendre hommage à l’armée britannique (www.ratebeer.com/beer/la-choulette-battle-of-cambrai/333215/).
erickok (5483) - Leuven, BELGIUM - MAY 26, 2015
Sweet malts, industrial feel, sugary. Simplistic mouthfeel, only lifted a bit by the heavy carbonation. It’s okay but hopelessly old fashioned and overshadowed by virtually every craft beer that’s available nowadays. (75cl bottle from Saveur Bière) (www.ratebeer.com/beer/la-choulette-battle-of-cambrai/333215/)
Blanche De Cambrai | Brasserie La Choulette
Brewed by: Brasserie La Choulette
France
lachoulette.com
Style: Herbed / Spiced Beer
Alcohol by volume (ABV): 5.00%
Availability: Year-round
Notes / Commercial Description: No notes at this time.
Added by dirtyskunk on 12-05-2011 (www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/1682/76005/)
Na de tegenvaller van Passchendaele van Van Honsebrouck ga ik me hier niet aan wagen, wat vinden anderen?
pours a very hazy, lemon yellow to light brown colour, with on top a thin fizzy, white collar full of carbon. Aromas of pale, bready malts with lightly tangy citrus. Tastes of wheat & malt as well as citrus and mild spices. Moderate sweet and light acetic flavour. Medium palate.
Jerseyislandbeer, May 31, 2016 (www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/1682/76005/)
corked and caged. Beneath an illustration of a woman driving a car in front of a giant clock with turbaned guards (?) it says Biere Artisanale Sur Lie (with sediment) and on the back it has a brief description and history of the beer.
Pale, cloudy straw colored, almost grey actually, somewhat strange looking. It's so opaque it's almost milky. Nice fluffy white head bubbles up as it's poured but disappears quickly leaving no lacing.
Very spicy nose with some coriander and pepper, almost too much. Also some lemon and tangerine citrus going on, and a brighter, almost berry-like fruitiness.
Big, juicy, bright fruit flavors are forward, followed by some spiciness which is more subdued than the nose thankfully. Lemongrass, coriander, cardamom. Definitely a wit in the finish, a little dry from the spice, with just a touch of hop bitterness that rounds things out nicely.
Nice little carbonated prick at first, but for a wheat beer it's a touch thin.
Overall a decent wit. Kind of like a spicier, fruitier Hoegaarden that still manages to be less sweet and filling.
dirtyskunk, Dec 05, 2011 (www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/1682/76005/)
The United States declares war on Austro-Hungary.
9 Dec
The British capture Jerusalem from the Turks. Edmund Allenby enters the city on foot in respect for the Holy City and quickly posts guards to protect all the sites held sacred by the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/).
The history of the Ottoman Empire during World War I began with the Ottoman surprise attack on the Russian Black Sea coast on 29 October 1914. Following the attack, Russia and its allies, France and Britain, declared war on the Ottomans. There were several important Ottoman victories in the early years of the war, such as the Battle of Gallipoli and the Siege of Kut.
In 1915, as the Russian Caucasus Army continued to advance into eastern Anatolia,[116] the Ottoman government started the deportation of its ethnic Armenian population, resulting in the death of approximately 1.5 million Armenians in the Armenian Genocide.[117] The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labour, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches leading to the Syrian desert. Driven forward by military escorts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire#Defeat_and_dissolution_.281908.E2.80.931922.29)
The Gallipoli Campaign, also known as the Dardanelles Campaign, the Battle of Gallipoli or the Battle of Çanakkale (Turkish: Çanakkale Savaşı), was a campaign of World War I that took place on the Gallipoli peninsula (Gelibolu in modern Turkey) in the Ottoman Empire between 25 April 1915 and 9 January 1916.
The Gallipoli Campaign, also known as the Dardanelles Campaign, the Battle of Gallipoli or the Battle of Çanakkale (Turkish: Çanakkale Savaşı), was a campaign of World War I that took place on the Gallipoli peninsula (Gelibolu in modern Turkey) in the Ottoman Empire between 25 April 1915 and 9 January 1916.
...
The main landings were made at 'V' Beach, beneath the old Seddülbahir fortress and at 'W' Beach, a short distance to the west on the other side of the Helles headland. The covering force from the Royal Munster Fusiliers and Hampshires landed from a converted collier, SS River Clyde, which was run aground beneath the fortress so that the troops could disembark via ramps to the shore. The Royal Dublin Fusiliers landed at 'V' Beach from open boats. At 'W' Beach, the Lancashire Fusiliers also landed in open boats, on a shore overlooked by dunes and obstructed with barbed wire. On both beaches the Ottoman defenders occupied good defensive positions and inflicted many casualties on the British infantry as they landed. Troops emerging one by one from sally ports on the River Clyde were shot by machine-gunners at the Seddülbahir fort. Of the first 200 soldiers to disembark, only 21 men reached the beach.[92]
As at Anzac, the Ottoman defenders were too few to defeat the landing but inflicted many casualties and contained the attack close to the shore. By the morning of 25 April 1915, out of ammunition and left with nothing but bayonets to meet the attackers on the slopes leading up from the beach to the heights of Chunuk Bair, the 57th Infantry Regiment received orders from Kemal, commanding the 19th Division: "I do not order you to fight, I order you to die. In the time which passes until we die, other troops and commanders can come forward and take our places".[93] Every man of the regiment was either killed in action or wounded. As a sign of respect, the 57th Regiment no longer exists in the Turkish Army.[93]
...After the landings, little was done by the Allies to exploit the situation and apart from a few limited advances inland by small groups of men, most troops stayed on or close to the beaches. The Allied attack lost momentum and the Ottomans had time to bring up reinforcements and rally the small number of defending troops.[98]
... Conditions at Gallipoli grew worse for the soldiers on both sides and summer heat and poor sanitation resulted in an explosion in the fly population. Eating became extremely difficult as unburied corpses became bloated and putrid. The precarious Allied bases were poorly situated, which caused supply and shelter problems. A dysentery epidemic spread through the Allied trenches at Anzac and Helles, while the Ottomans also suffered heavily from disease which resulted in many deaths.[167]
...
The defeat of Serbia during the autumn 1915 phase of the Serbian Campaign prompted France and Britain to transfer troops from the Gallipoli Campaign to Greek Macedonia. The Macedonian Front was thus established in an effort to support the remnants of the Serbian army to conquer Vardar Macedonia.[168]
Following the failure of the August Offensive, the Gallipoli campaign drifted. Ottoman success began to affect public opinion in the United Kingdom, with news discrediting Hamilton's performance being smuggled out by journalists like Keith Murdoch and Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett.[169] Disaffected senior officers such as General Stopford also contributed to the overall air of gloom. The prospect of evacuation was raised on 11 October 1915 but Hamilton resisted the suggestion, fearing the damage to British prestige. He was dismissed as commander shortly afterwards and replaced by Lieutenant General Sir Charles Monro.[170] Autumn and winter brought relief from the heat but also led to gales, blizzards and flooding, resulting in men drowning and freezing to death, while thousands suffered frostbite.[171]
...
The situation at Gallipoli was complicated by the entry of Bulgaria into the war on the side of the Central Powers. In early October 1915 the British and French opened a second Mediterranean front at Salonika, by moving three divisions from Gallipoli,[175] and reducing the flow of reinforcements.[169] A land route between Germany and the Ottoman Empire through Bulgaria was opened,[176] enabling Germany to supply heavy artillery to devastate the Allied trench network, especially on the confined front at Anzac, as well as modern aircraft and experienced crews.[177] In late November an Ottoman crew in a German Albatros C.I shot down a French aircraft over Gaba Tepe[177] and two Austro-Hungarian artillery units, the 36. Haubitzbatterie and 9. Motormörserbatterie arrived, providing a substantial reinforcement of the Ottoman artillery.[2][178] Monro recommended evacuation to Kitchener who in early November visited the eastern Mediterranean.[169] After consulting with the commanders of VIII Corps at Helles,[179] IX Corps at Suvla,[151] and Anzac, Kitchener agreed with Monro and passed his recommendation to the British Cabinet, who confirmed the decision to evacuate in early December.[180]
The evacuation was the best-executed segment of the entire Allied campaign.[182][183] Suvla and Anzac were to be evacuated in late December, the last troops leaving before dawn on 20 December 1915. Troop numbers had been slowly reduced since 7 December 1915 and ruses, such as William Scurry's self-firing rifle,[184] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign#Landings)
The Siege of Kut Al Amara (7 December 1915 – 29 April 1916), also known as the First Battle of Kut, was the besieging of an 8,000 strong British-Indian garrison in the town of Kut, 160 kilometres (100 mi) south of Baghdad, by the Ottoman Army. In 1915 its population was around 6,500. Following the surrender of the garrison on 29 April 1916, the survivors of the siege were marched to imprisonment at Aleppo.[1]
...
British leaders attempted to buy their troops out. Aubrey Herbert and T.E. Lawrence were part of a team of officers sent to negotiate a secret deal with the Ottomans. The British offered £2 million (£122,300,000 in 2016) and promised they would not fight the Ottomans again, in exchange for Townshend's troops. Enver Pasha ordered that this offer be rejected.[6]
The British also asked for help from the Russians. General Baratov, with his largely Cossack force of 20,000 was in Persia at the time. Following the request he advanced towards Baghdad in April 1916, but he turned back when news reached him of the surrender.[7]
General Townshend arranged a ceasefire on the 26th and, after failed negotiations, he simply surrendered on 29 April 1916 after a siege of 147 days. Around 13,000 Allied soldiers survived to be made prisoners. Historian İlber Ortaylı states that "Halil Pasha acted like a gentleman to the surrendering British officers" and offered "to take the PoWs up towards the north in river boats in case fuel could be provided from British bases nearby."[8] The offer was rejected by the British. 70% of the British and 50% of the Indian troops died of disease or at the hands of their Ottoman guards during captivity.[citation needed] Townshend himself was taken to the island of Heybeliada on the Sea of Marmara, to sit out the war in relative luxury. The author Norman Dixon, in his book On the Psychology of Military Incompetence, described Townshend as being "amused" by the plight of the men he had deserted, as if he had pulled off some clever trick. Dixon says Townshend was unable to understand why his friends and comrades were ultimately censorious over his behaviour.[9]
In British Army battle honours, the siege of Kut is named as "Defence of Kut Al Amara" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kut).
The Battle of Jerusalem occurred during the British Empire's "Jerusalem Operations" against the Ottoman Empire, when fighting for the city developed from 17 November, continuing after the surrender until 30 December 1917, to secure the final objective of the Southern Palestine Offensive during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I. Before Jerusalem could be secured, two battles were recognised by the British as being fought in the Judean Hills to the north and east of the Hebron–Junction Station line. These were the Battle of Nebi Samwill from 17 to 24 November and the Defence of Jerusalem from 26 to 30 December 1917. They also recognised within these Jerusalem Operations, the successful second attempt on 21 and 22 December 1917 to advance across the Nahr el Auja, as the Battle of Jaffa, although Jaffa had been occupied as a consequence of the Battle of Mughar Ridge on 16 November.[1]
This series of battles was successfully fought by the British Empire's XX Corps, XXI Corps, and the Desert Mounted Corps against strong opposition from the Yildirim Army Group's Seventh Army in the Judean Hills and the Eighth Army north of Jaffa on the Mediterranean coast. The loss of Jaffa and Jerusalem, together with the loss of 50 miles (80 km) of territory during the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) advance from Gaza, after the capture of Beersheba, Gaza, Hareira and Sheria, Tel el Khuweilfe and the Battle of Mughar Ridge, constituted a grave setback for the Ottoman Army and the Ottoman Empire.[2]
As a result of these victories, British Empire forces captured Jerusalem and established a new strategically strong fortified line. This line ran from well to the north of Jaffa on the maritime plain, across the Judean Hills to Bireh north of Jerusalem, and continued eastwards of the Mount of Olives. With the capture of the road from Beersheba to Jerusalem via Hebron and Bethlehem, together with substantial Ottoman territory south of Jerusalem, the city was secured. On 11 December, General Edmund Allenby humbly entered the Old City on foot through the Jaffa Gate instead of horse or vehicles to show respect for the holy city. He was the first Christian in many centuries to control Jerusalem, which is a very important site for many faiths. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Lloyd George described the capture as "a Christmas present for the British people". The battle was a great morale boost for the British Empire.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jerusalem) (www.firstworldwar.com/battles/jerusalem.htm)
The Battle of Jerusalem brought about the official end of Ottoman occupation in Israel (Palestine). Otherwise known as "Jerusalem Operations", this particular campaign last from November to December, 1917. During the Jerusalem Operations (Battle of Jerusalem), the British army successfully userped the 7th and 8th Ottoman armies, driving them from the Judean Hills, and the Mediterranean Coast just north of the city of Jaffa. As a result of these successful land grabs, British forces were able to capture and secure the holy city of Jerusalem. Perhaps one of the most reknown stories to surface from this battle involves British General Edmund Allenby, who out of respect for the holy significance of Jerusalem, dismounted his horse at the Jaffa Gate and entered the city on foot. The British Empire's conquest of Jerusalem in 1917 was labeled as "a Christmas present for the British people". General Allenby (pictured below) stated, "The wars of the crusaders are now complete. The battle was a great moral victory for the British Empire." (www.christians-standing-with-israel.org/jerusalem-operations-battle-allenby-1917.html)
The British, led by General Edmund Allenby, who had arrived from the Western Front the previous June to take over the command in Egypt, entered the Holy City two days later under strict instructions from London on how not to appear disrespectful to the city, its people, or its traditions. Allenby entered Jerusalem on foot—in deliberate contrast to Kaiser Wilhelm s more flamboyant entrance on horseback in 1898—and no Allied flags were flown over the city, while Muslim troops from India were dispatched to guard the religious landmark the Dome of the Rock.
In a proclamation declaring martial law that was read aloud to the city s people in English, French, Arabic, Hebrew, Russian and Greek, Allenby assured them that the occupying power would not inflict further harm on Jerusalem, its inhabitants, or its holy places. “Since your city is regarded with affection by the adherents of three of the great religions of mankind and its soil has been consecrated by the prayers and pilgrimages of multitudes of devout people, I make it known to you that every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayerwill be maintained and protected according to the existing customs and beliefs of those to whose faith they are sacred.” (www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jerusalem-surrenders-to-british-troops) (www.timesofisrael.com/when-the-british-captured-the-holy-land/)
TE Lawrence Thomas Edward Lawrence CB DSO FAS (16 August 1888 – 19 May 1935) was a British author, archaeologist, military officer, and diplomat. He was renowned for his liaison role during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The breadth and variety of his activities and associations, and his ability to describe them vividly in writing, earned him international fame as Lawrence of Arabia—a title used for the 1962 film based on his wartime activities.
Lawrence was born out of wedlock in Tremadog, Wales in August 1888 to Thomas Chapman (who became, in 1914, Sir Thomas Chapman, 7th Baronet), an Anglo-Irish nobleman from County Westmeath, and Sarah Junner, a Scottish governess who was herself illegitimate. Chapman had left his wife and first family in Ireland to live with Junner, and they called themselves Mr and Mrs Lawrence. In the summer of 1896, the Lawrences moved to Oxford, where Lawrence attended high school, then in 1907-1910 studied History at Jesus College. Between 1910 and 1914 he worked as an archaeologist, chiefly at Carchemish, in what is now Syria.
Soon after the outbreak of war he joined the British army and was stationed in Egypt. In 1916, he was sent to Arabia on an intelligence mission and quickly became involved with the Arab Revolt, serving, along with other British officers, as a liaison to the Arab forces. Working closely with Emir Faisal, a leader of the revolt, he participated in and sometimes led military activities against the Ottoman armed forces, culminating in the capture of Damascus in October 1918.
After the war, Lawrence served until 1922 as a diplomat, working both with the British government and with Faisal. In 1922, he retreated from public life and spent the years until 1935 serving as an enlisted man, mostly in the Royal Air Force, with a brief stint in the Army. During this time, he wrote and published his best-known work, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, an autobiographical account of his participation in the Arab Revolt. He also translated books into English and completed The Mint, which was published posthumously. He corresponded extensively and was friendly with well-known artists, writers, and politicians. For the RAF, he participated in the design of rescue motorboats.
Lawrence's public image resulted in part from the sensationalised reporting of the Arab revolt by American journalist Lowell Thomas, as well as from Seven Pillars of Wisdom. In 1935, Lawrence was fatally injured in a motorcycle accident in Dorset. ... Lawrence was portrayed by Peter O'Toole in the 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia, for which he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._E._Lawrence)
22 Dec
Bolshevik Russia opens peace negotiations with Germany at Brest-Litovsk (now Brest, Belarus).
(www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/World-War-1-Timeline-1917/)
World War One was to have a devastating impact on Russia. When World War One started in August 1914, Russia responded by patriotically rallying around Nicholas II.
Military disasters at the Masurian Lakes and Tannenburg greatly weakened the Russian Army in the initial phases of the war. The growing influence of Gregory Rasputin over the Romanov’s did a great deal to damage the royal family and by the end of the spring of 1917, the Romanovs, who had ruled Russia for just over 300 years, were no longer in charge of a Russia that had been taken over by Kerensky and theProvisional Government. By the end of 1917, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin had taken power in the major cities of Russia and introduced communist rule in those areas it controlled. The transition in Russia over the space of four years was remarkable – the fall of an autocracy and the establishment of the world’s first communist government..... Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s. His womanising was well known and he was considered by many to be debauched. How many of the stories are true and how many exaggerated will never be known, because after his death people felt free enough from his power to tell their own stories. However, his simple reputation while he was alive was enough to do immense damage to the Romanov’s.
Rasputin was a great believer in the maintenance of autocracy. If it was to be diluted, it would have negatively affected his position within Russia’s social hierarchy.
Ironically, with the devastation that World War One was to cause in Russia, it was Rasputin who advised Nicholas not to go to war as he had predicted that Russia would be defeated. As his prophecies seemed to be more and more accurate, his influence within Russia increased. Rasputin had always clashed with theDuma. They saw his position within the monarchy as a direct threat to their position. Alexandra responded to their complaints about Rasputin’s power by introducing legislation that further limited their power. ... Rasputin also involved himself in the war itself. He insisted that he looked at the plans for prospective campaigns and that he knew about the timing of the plans so that he could pray for its success. This was a gift for the sophisticated German Intelligence Service.
Ministers who criticised Rasputin or who disagreed with his policies were summarily dismissed. ... While chaos ensued at home, the war at the front was going badly. Poland was lost to the Germans in 1916 and they advanced to just 200 miles from Moscow. It became clear that the morale of the ordinary Russian soldier was extremely poor and desertion became a growing problem. Food supplies were poor and erratic. As the front line got closer to the home front, it became obvious to many that both fronts were in total chaos.... On December 30th 1916, Rasputin was assassinated by Prince Yusipov. Alexandra bullied her husband into ordering an imperial funeral – something reserved for members of the royal family or senior members of the aristocracy or church.
Senior members of the royal family touted for how much support there would be for Alexis to rule with a regent – a clear indication that they recognised the reign of Nicholas could not go on. Grand Duke Paul sent a letter to the army generals at the front to ascertain their views on whether Nicholas should be replaced. However, there was so much intrigue taking place that it is difficult to exactly know who said what to whom.... On March 12th, those in a bread queue, spurred on by the cold and hunger, charged a bakery. The police fired on them in an effort to restore order. It was to prove a very costly error for the government as around the city about 100,000 were on strike and on the streets. They quickly rallied to the support of those who had been fired on. Nicholas ordered that the military governor of the city, General Habalov, should restore order. ... On March 13th, more soldiers were ordered on to the streets to dispel the strikers. They saw the size of the crowds and returned to their barracks, thus disobeying their orders.
... On March 14th, rumours swept through the city that soldiers from the front were being sent in to put down the uprising. The Duma established a Provisional Government in response to this perceived threat. The important Petrograd Soviet gave its support to the Provisional Government on the condition that it summoned a constituent assembly, universal suffrage was to be guaranteed and that civil rights were to be enjoyed by all.
In reality, the Provisional Government in Petrograd had little to fear from troops at the front. Discipline was already breaking down and thousands of soldiers deserted. The Petrograd Soviet had sent an instruction to the front that soldiers should not obey their officers and that they should not march on the capital.... The March revolution was not a planned affair. Lenin was in Switzerland, the Bolsheviks did not even have a majority in the Petrograd Soviet and the Duma had not wanted the end of the Romanovs.
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/russia-1900-to-1939/russia-and-world-war-one/).
Imperial stout, ook bekend als Imperial Russian stout, is een zeer zwaar type bier en kenmerkt zich met een zeer donkere kleur. Zo is een typische Imperial Russian Stout al minimaal 80 EBC en bevat het minimaal 7-8% alcohol, maar 12% tot 14% is niet ongewoon.
Ook is het bier vrij bitter met een bitterheidsfactor van ongeveer 50 tot 90 IBU (International Bitterness Unit).
Over deze karakteristiek sterke en zware bierstijl wordt vaak gezegd dat hij gebrouwen zou zijn met veel alcohol, mout en hop om de lange zeereis naar Rusland vanuit het Verenigd Koninkrijk te overleven. Sommigen beweren zelfs dat de bieren zo veel alcohol zouden bevatten omdat ze anders op de barre wateren van de Oostzee zouden bevriezen. Bierschrijver Martyn Cornell haalt evenwel aan dat dit niet mogelijk is, omdat de zee waarop de schepen voeren bij de temperaturen die nodig zijn om een bier te laten bevriezen, zelf ook zou bevriezen en dus niet bevaarbaar zou zijn.[1]
Cornell toont ook aan dat er voorlopig geen tastbaar bewijs bestaat dat de term 'imperial' in dit geval zou slaan op het Russisch keizerlijk hof, hoewel hij dit zelf ook wel aanneemt. Keizer Peter I van Rusland zou in 1698 Londen hebben bezocht en er zodanig hebben genoten van de porters (of stouts, die volgens Cornell heden ten dage inwisselbare begrippen zijn) dat hij de export ervan naar zijn land zou hebben bevolen. Daar werd de stijl ook populair, maar de hoge alcoholtolerantie van de Russen zorgde ervoor dat ze gedurende de 18de eeuw hun eigen versies ervan brouwden. Die onderneming bleek echter geen groot succes: de bieren die op Russische bodem werden geproduceerd waren van dusdanig zwakke kwaliteit dat de porters die uit Engeland werden geïmporteerd erg populair bleven.
De verhalen over de hoge Russische alcoholtolerantie deden al snel de ronde in Engeland, en het is bewezen dat al sinds de 18de eeuw sterke stouts (of porters) vanuit Engeland naar Rusland werden geëxporteerd om aan hun vraag naar sterke bieren te voldoen. Daar werden ze naar verluidt gedronken als een edele drank vergelijkbaar met champagne, en niet als goedkoop bier voor de werkende klasse zoals dat in Engeland het geval was. Het Britse bier was zelfs zo geliefd dat er voor porters een exclusieve uitzondering werd gemaakt in een Russisch handelsembargo uit 1822 op West-Europese handelsgoederen.
De naam van keizerin Catharina II van Rusland is onlosmakelijk met de stijl verbonden. Van haar werd gezegd dat ze bijzonder tuk geweest zou zijn op de Britse producten en dus ook de massale import ervan zou hebben bevolen. Na haar dood zou de exporthandel naar Rusland vrijwel exclusief in handen zijn gevallen van de Belgische zakenman Albert Le Coq, die in 1808 een bierfirma oprichtte in Londen.[2] Later zou hij zich specialiseren in de export naar Rusland en een tweede bedrijf oprichten te Tartu in het huidige Estland, dat toen nog onder het Russische keizerrijk viel (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_stout).
When Peter the Great opened Czarist Russia to the West in the early 18th century, dark ales called "Porter" were all the rage in England. Porters, named after the working class who devoured them, were relatively easy-drinking brews with a small percentage of highly roasted malt. The result was a dark brown, toffee-flavored libation fit for mass consumption. Arthur Guinness took the idea to Ireland, increased the dark, coffee-tinted profile and added “Extra Stout” to his label, thus creating another new beer style.
Peter the Great fell in love with stouts during his 1698 trip to England, and he requested that some be sent to the Imperial court in Russia. Much to the embarrassment of the English, the beer had spoiled somewhere along its tedious thousand-mile journey! Determined as always to save face, the Barclay brewery of London came to the rescue by rapidly increasing the amount of alcohol and hops for their second effort. The result was an inky black concoction with enough warmth and complexity to immediately become a sensation throughout Russia. The “Russian Imperial Stout” had been born and quickly became popular throughout European Russia.
Empress Catherine the Great of Russia (1729-1796) was very much a fan of Imperial Stout. One notable supplier was Thrale’s Anchor Brewery in the parish [district] of Southwark, a mile or two up river from John Courage Brewery’s site. In 1796 Thrale’s supplied Imperial Stout "that would keep seven years" to the Empress of Russia. ... She also ordered some of her supply from The John Courage Brewery. The John Courage Brewery continued to brew its Imperial Stout, with the boast on its label that it was originally brewed by Imperial order of Catherine, up until the 1990s. While hugely popular through the 19th century, Porters had fallen away completely from consumer's tastes by the end of the 20th Century. The style may have disappeared altogether were it not for the newfound bravado and quirkiness of the emerging craft brewing scene in the U.S. Anxious to brew all things intense, extreme and obscure, many small batch American brewers began resurrecting and re-inventing the old Russian genre. Today’s versions are even bigger and bolder than the originals (www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/ImperialStout.html) (www.theromanovfamily.com/romanov-family-did-you-know/).
Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout
Produced in the tradition of 18th Century English brewers who supplied the court of Russia’s Catherine the Great, Old Rasputin seems to develop a cult following wherever it goes. It’s a rich, intense brew with big complex flavors and a warming finish.
The Old Rasputin brand image is a drawing of Rasputin with a phrase in Russian encircling it—A sincere friend is not born instantly.
How hard it is to make and keep a good friend.
–”Jericho,” Joni Mitchell
Vital Statistics
Style: Russian Imperial Stout
Color: Black
ABV: 9%
Bitterness: 75 IBUs
(www.northcoastbrewing.com/beers/year-round-beers/old-rasputin-russian-imperial-stout/?ao_confirm)
The Old Rasputin brand image is a drawing of Rasputin with a phrase in Russian encircling it—A sincere friend is not born instantly (www.beermenus.com/beers/26634-north-coast-old-rasputin-russian-imperial-stout).
The North Coast Brewing Company is a brewery and pub in Fort Bragg, California, USA.
The North Coast Brewing Company was founded in 1988. Mark Ruedrich is the company's president and brewmaster. In 1994, they acquired the rights to Acme beer.
In 2012, North Coast was the 42nd largest craft beer producer in the United States based on volume.[2]
North Coast Brewing Company currently has 19 active beers.[3] Old Rasputin has received several awards at the World Beer Cup and the 2012 Gold Medal at the Stockholm Beer Festival.
Old Rasputin[4] - a Russian-style imperial stout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Coast_Brewing_Company)
Romanov Russian Imperial Stout
Bend Brewing Company
Stout - Other
10.5% ABV 70 IBU
(https://untappd.com/b/bend-brewing-company-romanov-russian-imperial-stout/690572)
(www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/361/136212/)
Romanov Russian Imperial Stout sör 12% Fóti Sörfőzde 0,5l
Gyártó: Fóti Kézműves Sörfőzde
Cikkszám: FOT115
Készlet információ: Nincs készleten (http://kezmuves-csemege.hu/romanov-russian-imperial-stout-sor-foti-sorfozde-fot115)
Dus ondanks dat we de eerste wereldoorlog vaak afschilderen als een zinloze oorlog die niks echt veranderde is dat niet geheel waar. Vele rijken zijn ingestort mede door de eerste wereldoorlog. Zowel de Russische als Duitse keizerrijk, als dat van Oostenrijk-Hongarije zijn ingestort. Ook de Europese grenzen veranderden.... Dus misschien was alk dat bloedvergieten niet geheel zinloos, maar ... nee wacht, het was echt zinloos. De veranderingen die volgden in landsgrenzen en dergelijke wat hebben die voor goeds gebracht? Nou ja, 100 jaar later wat herinneringsbieren...
World War One was to have a devastating impact on Russia. When World War One started in August 1914, Russia responded by patriotically rallying around Nicholas II.
Military disasters at the Masurian Lakes and Tannenburg greatly weakened the Russian Army in the initial phases of the war. The growing influence of Gregory Rasputin over the Romanov’s did a great deal to damage the royal family and by the end of the spring of 1917, the Romanovs, who had ruled Russia for just over 300 years, were no longer in charge of a Russia that had been taken over by Kerensky and theProvisional Government. By the end of 1917, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin had taken power in the major cities of Russia and introduced communist rule in those areas it controlled. The transition in Russia over the space of four years was remarkable – the fall of an autocracy and the establishment of the world’s first communist government..... Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s. His womanising was well known and he was considered by many to be debauched. How many of the stories are true and how many exaggerated will never be known, because after his death people felt free enough from his power to tell their own stories. However, his simple reputation while he was alive was enough to do immense damage to the Romanov’s.
Rasputin was a great believer in the maintenance of autocracy. If it was to be diluted, it would have negatively affected his position within Russia’s social hierarchy.
Ironically, with the devastation that World War One was to cause in Russia, it was Rasputin who advised Nicholas not to go to war as he had predicted that Russia would be defeated. As his prophecies seemed to be more and more accurate, his influence within Russia increased. Rasputin had always clashed with theDuma. They saw his position within the monarchy as a direct threat to their position. Alexandra responded to their complaints about Rasputin’s power by introducing legislation that further limited their power. ... Rasputin also involved himself in the war itself. He insisted that he looked at the plans for prospective campaigns and that he knew about the timing of the plans so that he could pray for its success. This was a gift for the sophisticated German Intelligence Service.
Ministers who criticised Rasputin or who disagreed with his policies were summarily dismissed. ... While chaos ensued at home, the war at the front was going badly. Poland was lost to the Germans in 1916 and they advanced to just 200 miles from Moscow. It became clear that the morale of the ordinary Russian soldier was extremely poor and desertion became a growing problem. Food supplies were poor and erratic. As the front line got closer to the home front, it became obvious to many that both fronts were in total chaos.... On December 30th 1916, Rasputin was assassinated by Prince Yusipov. Alexandra bullied her husband into ordering an imperial funeral – something reserved for members of the royal family or senior members of the aristocracy or church.
Senior members of the royal family touted for how much support there would be for Alexis to rule with a regent – a clear indication that they recognised the reign of Nicholas could not go on. Grand Duke Paul sent a letter to the army generals at the front to ascertain their views on whether Nicholas should be replaced. However, there was so much intrigue taking place that it is difficult to exactly know who said what to whom.... On March 12th, those in a bread queue, spurred on by the cold and hunger, charged a bakery. The police fired on them in an effort to restore order. It was to prove a very costly error for the government as around the city about 100,000 were on strike and on the streets. They quickly rallied to the support of those who had been fired on. Nicholas ordered that the military governor of the city, General Habalov, should restore order. ... On March 13th, more soldiers were ordered on to the streets to dispel the strikers. They saw the size of the crowds and returned to their barracks, thus disobeying their orders.
... On March 14th, rumours swept through the city that soldiers from the front were being sent in to put down the uprising. The Duma established a Provisional Government in response to this perceived threat. The important Petrograd Soviet gave its support to the Provisional Government on the condition that it summoned a constituent assembly, universal suffrage was to be guaranteed and that civil rights were to be enjoyed by all.
In reality, the Provisional Government in Petrograd had little to fear from troops at the front. Discipline was already breaking down and thousands of soldiers deserted. The Petrograd Soviet had sent an instruction to the front that soldiers should not obey their officers and that they should not march on the capital.... The March revolution was not a planned affair. Lenin was in Switzerland, the Bolsheviks did not even have a majority in the Petrograd Soviet and the Duma had not wanted the end of the Romanovs.
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/russia-1900-to-1939/russia-and-world-war-one/).
Imperial stout, ook bekend als Imperial Russian stout, is een zeer zwaar type bier en kenmerkt zich met een zeer donkere kleur. Zo is een typische Imperial Russian Stout al minimaal 80 EBC en bevat het minimaal 7-8% alcohol, maar 12% tot 14% is niet ongewoon.
Ook is het bier vrij bitter met een bitterheidsfactor van ongeveer 50 tot 90 IBU (International Bitterness Unit).
Over deze karakteristiek sterke en zware bierstijl wordt vaak gezegd dat hij gebrouwen zou zijn met veel alcohol, mout en hop om de lange zeereis naar Rusland vanuit het Verenigd Koninkrijk te overleven. Sommigen beweren zelfs dat de bieren zo veel alcohol zouden bevatten omdat ze anders op de barre wateren van de Oostzee zouden bevriezen. Bierschrijver Martyn Cornell haalt evenwel aan dat dit niet mogelijk is, omdat de zee waarop de schepen voeren bij de temperaturen die nodig zijn om een bier te laten bevriezen, zelf ook zou bevriezen en dus niet bevaarbaar zou zijn.[1]
Cornell toont ook aan dat er voorlopig geen tastbaar bewijs bestaat dat de term 'imperial' in dit geval zou slaan op het Russisch keizerlijk hof, hoewel hij dit zelf ook wel aanneemt. Keizer Peter I van Rusland zou in 1698 Londen hebben bezocht en er zodanig hebben genoten van de porters (of stouts, die volgens Cornell heden ten dage inwisselbare begrippen zijn) dat hij de export ervan naar zijn land zou hebben bevolen. Daar werd de stijl ook populair, maar de hoge alcoholtolerantie van de Russen zorgde ervoor dat ze gedurende de 18de eeuw hun eigen versies ervan brouwden. Die onderneming bleek echter geen groot succes: de bieren die op Russische bodem werden geproduceerd waren van dusdanig zwakke kwaliteit dat de porters die uit Engeland werden geïmporteerd erg populair bleven.
De verhalen over de hoge Russische alcoholtolerantie deden al snel de ronde in Engeland, en het is bewezen dat al sinds de 18de eeuw sterke stouts (of porters) vanuit Engeland naar Rusland werden geëxporteerd om aan hun vraag naar sterke bieren te voldoen. Daar werden ze naar verluidt gedronken als een edele drank vergelijkbaar met champagne, en niet als goedkoop bier voor de werkende klasse zoals dat in Engeland het geval was. Het Britse bier was zelfs zo geliefd dat er voor porters een exclusieve uitzondering werd gemaakt in een Russisch handelsembargo uit 1822 op West-Europese handelsgoederen.
De naam van keizerin Catharina II van Rusland is onlosmakelijk met de stijl verbonden. Van haar werd gezegd dat ze bijzonder tuk geweest zou zijn op de Britse producten en dus ook de massale import ervan zou hebben bevolen. Na haar dood zou de exporthandel naar Rusland vrijwel exclusief in handen zijn gevallen van de Belgische zakenman Albert Le Coq, die in 1808 een bierfirma oprichtte in Londen.[2] Later zou hij zich specialiseren in de export naar Rusland en een tweede bedrijf oprichten te Tartu in het huidige Estland, dat toen nog onder het Russische keizerrijk viel (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_stout).
When Peter the Great opened Czarist Russia to the West in the early 18th century, dark ales called "Porter" were all the rage in England. Porters, named after the working class who devoured them, were relatively easy-drinking brews with a small percentage of highly roasted malt. The result was a dark brown, toffee-flavored libation fit for mass consumption. Arthur Guinness took the idea to Ireland, increased the dark, coffee-tinted profile and added “Extra Stout” to his label, thus creating another new beer style.
Peter the Great fell in love with stouts during his 1698 trip to England, and he requested that some be sent to the Imperial court in Russia. Much to the embarrassment of the English, the beer had spoiled somewhere along its tedious thousand-mile journey! Determined as always to save face, the Barclay brewery of London came to the rescue by rapidly increasing the amount of alcohol and hops for their second effort. The result was an inky black concoction with enough warmth and complexity to immediately become a sensation throughout Russia. The “Russian Imperial Stout” had been born and quickly became popular throughout European Russia.
Empress Catherine the Great of Russia (1729-1796) was very much a fan of Imperial Stout. One notable supplier was Thrale’s Anchor Brewery in the parish [district] of Southwark, a mile or two up river from John Courage Brewery’s site. In 1796 Thrale’s supplied Imperial Stout "that would keep seven years" to the Empress of Russia. ... She also ordered some of her supply from The John Courage Brewery. The John Courage Brewery continued to brew its Imperial Stout, with the boast on its label that it was originally brewed by Imperial order of Catherine, up until the 1990s. While hugely popular through the 19th century, Porters had fallen away completely from consumer's tastes by the end of the 20th Century. The style may have disappeared altogether were it not for the newfound bravado and quirkiness of the emerging craft brewing scene in the U.S. Anxious to brew all things intense, extreme and obscure, many small batch American brewers began resurrecting and re-inventing the old Russian genre. Today’s versions are even bigger and bolder than the originals (www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/ImperialStout.html) (www.theromanovfamily.com/romanov-family-did-you-know/).
Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout
The Old Rasputin brand image is a drawing of Rasputin with a phrase in Russian encircling it—A sincere friend is not born instantly.
How hard it is to make and keep a good friend.
–”Jericho,” Joni Mitchell
Vital Statistics
Style: Russian Imperial Stout
Color: Black
ABV: 9%
Bitterness: 75 IBUs
(www.northcoastbrewing.com/beers/year-round-beers/old-rasputin-russian-imperial-stout/?ao_confirm)
The Old Rasputin brand image is a drawing of Rasputin with a phrase in Russian encircling it—A sincere friend is not born instantly (www.beermenus.com/beers/26634-north-coast-old-rasputin-russian-imperial-stout).
The North Coast Brewing Company is a brewery and pub in Fort Bragg, California, USA.
The North Coast Brewing Company was founded in 1988. Mark Ruedrich is the company's president and brewmaster. In 1994, they acquired the rights to Acme beer.
In 2012, North Coast was the 42nd largest craft beer producer in the United States based on volume.[2]
North Coast Brewing Company currently has 19 active beers.[3] Old Rasputin has received several awards at the World Beer Cup and the 2012 Gold Medal at the Stockholm Beer Festival.
Old Rasputin[4] - a Russian-style imperial stout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Coast_Brewing_Company)
Romanov Russian Imperial Stout
Bend Brewing Company
Stout - Other
10.5% ABV 70 IBU
(https://untappd.com/b/bend-brewing-company-romanov-russian-imperial-stout/690572)
(www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/361/136212/)
Romanov Russian Imperial Stout sör 12% Fóti Sörfőzde 0,5l
Gyártó: Fóti Kézműves Sörfőzde
Cikkszám: FOT115
Készlet információ: Nincs készleten (http://kezmuves-csemege.hu/romanov-russian-imperial-stout-sor-foti-sorfozde-fot115)
Dus ondanks dat we de eerste wereldoorlog vaak afschilderen als een zinloze oorlog die niks echt veranderde is dat niet geheel waar. Vele rijken zijn ingestort mede door de eerste wereldoorlog. Zowel de Russische als Duitse keizerrijk, als dat van Oostenrijk-Hongarije zijn ingestort. Ook de Europese grenzen veranderden.... Dus misschien was alk dat bloedvergieten niet geheel zinloos, maar ... nee wacht, het was echt zinloos. De veranderingen die volgden in landsgrenzen en dergelijke wat hebben die voor goeds gebracht? Nou ja, 100 jaar later wat herinneringsbieren...
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten