I would like to elaborate on Question 5.
Personally, I wonder how any progress was made in WWI. In a scenario dominated by trench warfare, why was each side not desperately developing new technology? If one side recieved the order to go on the offensive, they charged, the men knowing that it would be their end. The majority of the soldiers followed orders to the death. When they approached the enemy's front, they were shot down by machine-gun-equipped men hiding in trences. If by some miracle they made it past the first line, they found a second, even a third. They were at an impossible stalemate. I feel like it should have been number one priority to develop the technology to overcome this deathly obstacle, and that millions of lives were lost in vain.
This has come up a number of times. Perhaps it comes down to technology that was effective for defensive purposes, but not quite offensive purposes.
ReplyDeleteSee the following post and comments for more elaboration:
http://grade12hotakatec.blogspot.com/
http://grade12hotathereset.blogspot.com/
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI thought about this for a while as well, and I'be come to the conclusion that maybe the world wasn't quite ready wepons/technology-wise for a war like this, and they wern't really used to this kind of war, and so didn't know what to do or what to expect..
I think that there were some technologies were being developed at the time, but I don't think that any major ground-breaking technology was even in the incubating process, like the atomic bomb was for World War I. I think that there may have been an effort to get guns to fire faster, have bigger magazines, etc (something for which I can not confidently state), but in a war where the technology is already so devastating, I'm not sure if it's really that big of a difference.
ReplyDelete