| 1914 - 1918 09:16 - Aug 4 with 10958 views | Discodroid |
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!--An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
One Hundred Years Today.
UNIMAGINABLE.
RIP today of all days .
thoughts and prayers to all sides and the lost loved ones. [Post edited 4 Aug 2014 9:16]
|  |
| " I guess in four or five years, the new generation's music will be .. electronics, tapes. I can kind of envision .. maybe one person .. with a lot of machines, tapes, and electronics setups, singin or speaking .. and using machines " James Douglas Morrison | 1969 |
| |  |
| 1914 - 1918 on 08:38 - Aug 5 with 2219 views | Discodroid |
| 1914 - 1918 on 07:09 - Aug 5 by johnhoop |
One of the saddest things I've seen recently was when a couple of weeks ago I went over to visit a park near where I live in Hillingdon where they'd planted an area of poppies as a memorial to the First World War dead. I'd seen the splash of colour through the trees from the road and strolled over to Ickenham for a closer look.
On arrival there I was shocked to find that about half the area of poppies that had been planted had been trampled down into the ground. I felt angered and saddened in equal measure and it left me with a feeling of bitterness towards those who could carry out such an act.
It is re-assuring after that to read this thread and be made aware of the great respect which so many of my fellow posters have for those who sacrificed their lives 100 years ago. |
 | |
| " I guess in four or five years, the new generation's music will be .. electronics, tapes. I can kind of envision .. maybe one person .. with a lot of machines, tapes, and electronics setups, singin or speaking .. and using machines " James Douglas Morrison | 1969 |
| |
| 1914 - 1918 on 08:54 - Aug 5 with 2199 views | johann28 |
In a nutshell, to prevent Germany dominating Europe, which, apart from a handful of pacifists, most at the time (and again in 1939) thought was a cause well worth fighting for. |  | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 09:13 - Aug 5 with 2185 views | onlyrinmoray |
aaaaah now I understand... all makes sense, shame about the ostrich. Thanks for that
Blackadder brilliance as usual |  | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 09:18 - Aug 5 with 2180 views | robith |
By 1917 the troops were already digging up the rotting remains of those who died 14-15. The upper powers told them they were digging up soldiers from the Napoleonic wars so as not to affect morale |  | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 09:38 - Aug 5 with 2164 views | robith |
2 factors really combined with a classic blend of domestic distraction and imperial landgrabbing.
First - peace had been maintained in Europe since the Congress of Vienna in 1815 based on the principle of the balance of power - that with four empires - Britain, France, A-H and Russia, war would be avoided as no one side could out power the other two. Worked ok, until the unification of Germany in the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. Suddenly you had an industrial powerhouse smack bang in the middle of Europe, bustling for its place in the world and completely disjointed the balance of power.
Secondly, the Austro-Hungarian and Russian (and Ottoman but they joined later) empires were falling apart. For the Hapsburgs this was mostly manifested in Slavic nationalism, a cause Russia had solidarity with. So when the assassination happens you have Austria who want to come down hard, Russia who wants to support to distract people from the ongoing economic crisis (also Nicholas II was very weak willed - he would agree with the last person who spoke) and Germany who are prepared to risk war as they think they can win, handing Austria a "blank cheque" (much debated historically if it actually was so)
From there the alliance system spins out with the imperial powers after their interests. Germany actually foiled themselves as their government system wasn't joined up so you had an army whose whole focus was beating France and Russia but plan was determined on Britain staying neutral but then a navy in an arms race with Britain antagonising her.
France has been engulfed in scandal ever since the Dreyfuss affair, so the opportunity to re-right defeat in 1871 and retake Alsace-Lorraine from Germany is a great cover up.
Britain has Ireland on the brink of civil war, and an upstart Germany threatening hegemony at sea which is the cornerstone of British foreign policy. There are also those in the India and Commonwealth Offices who hope to lure the Ottomans into the war to carve up the Middle East (in fact the British India forces acted almost independently through the war, fighting their own colonial strive to take the choicest cuts of the Ottoman's non Turkish lands).
There's a lot of historiographical debate about how responsible Britain was for the war - a lot is in The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson who is a bit of a troll hack but there is some mileage on it. Basically if Britain had aggressively stated her position on Belgian neutrality then it's arguable Germany wouldn't have attacked and backed Austria down. A few days before they went in, Germany sought out the foreign office for their position and got a wishy washy non committal response, which they took as "not interested". German official were stunned when Britain declared war, as it basically German defeat inevitable.
Basically an age old tale of land, greed and deception. I do find it weird seeing Cameron saying let's not forget the values the war was fought on. The democracy angle was something ret-conned in to make it appealing to the US. It was a conflict about the hegemony of imperial interests | | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 09:39 - Aug 5 with 2162 views | robith |
what patent nonsense. To even vaguely conflate it with 1939 is insulting | | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 09:41 - Aug 5 with 2160 views | robith |
Oh god what an idiot i pressed reply to topic not post and now I look dead stupid | | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 09:43 - Aug 5 with 2155 views | robith |
| 1914 - 1918 on 08:54 - Aug 5 by johann28 |
In a nutshell, to prevent Germany dominating Europe, which, apart from a handful of pacifists, most at the time (and again in 1939) thought was a cause well worth fighting for. |
Also plenty of people didn't think that was a good idea in 1939 since via appeasement they basically had handed control of Europe to Germany to try and force them at the Soviets | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 1914 - 1918 on 09:59 - Aug 5 with 2138 views | Metallica_Hoop |
Was watching the service while playing World of tanks, I thought it was very well done. |  |
| Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent |
| |
| 1914 - 1918 on 10:34 - Aug 5 with 2115 views | johann28 |
| 1914 - 1918 on 09:39 - Aug 5 by robith |
what patent nonsense. To even vaguely conflate it with 1939 is insulting |
I'd stand by the comment. Different, thoroughly despicable, regime in Germany certainly, but the motives for British entry (to prevent German hegemony in Europe) were broadly the same. | | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 10:43 - Aug 5 with 2107 views | robith |
| 1914 - 1918 on 10:34 - Aug 5 by johann28 |
I'd stand by the comment. Different, thoroughly despicable, regime in Germany certainly, but the motives for British entry (to prevent German hegemony in Europe) were broadly the same. |
British entry in 1914 was about hegemony at sea and vis a vis British colonial holdings, particularly in Africa. If Germany hadn't gone through Belgium there's a strong chance Britain wouldn't have entered the war
British entry in 1939 was the realisation that they had massively gotten it wrong and this extremist state couldn't be controlled. After all, by 1939 they'd handed most of Europe to Hitler, and repeatedly brought France to heel who were much more aggressive but economically couldn't afford to not have Britain's support (see: French non entry into the Spanish civil war) | | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 11:08 - Aug 5 with 2100 views | johann28 |
| 1914 - 1918 on 10:43 - Aug 5 by robith |
British entry in 1914 was about hegemony at sea and vis a vis British colonial holdings, particularly in Africa. If Germany hadn't gone through Belgium there's a strong chance Britain wouldn't have entered the war
British entry in 1939 was the realisation that they had massively gotten it wrong and this extremist state couldn't be controlled. After all, by 1939 they'd handed most of Europe to Hitler, and repeatedly brought France to heel who were much more aggressive but economically couldn't afford to not have Britain's support (see: French non entry into the Spanish civil war) |
I'm not sure you can easily separate the sea / colonies / Belgian / European issues. The prevailing view these days (eg in the recent volumes by Macmillan and Clark) seems to be that the Belgium invasion was a mere pretext for the interventionists in Britain to bolster their case for joining France - so in other words if Germany hadn't gone through Belgium then they would have found some other reason - it would have merely delayed British entry. German control of the Belgian ports was obviously considered directly threatening to Britain, but so was a wider German domination of Europe to the Empire as a whole.
The Nazis admittedly had a great deal of sympathy in Britain in the 30s - if only because of the perceived 'greater evil' in Russia, but it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that most of Europe had been handed over (Austria and Sudetenland?). France hadn't been aggressive since 1923, and were extremely weak in the 30s, which compounded the problem from a British perspective. I agree that there was a change of mind in 1939 along the lines that a realisation that Germany couldn't be controlled, but that's exactly my point - a fear that there was more to lose than gain by backing Germany against Russia. [Post edited 5 Aug 2014 11:10]
| | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 11:25 - Aug 5 with 2090 views | onlyrinmoray |
LFWs board is an education  | | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 11:33 - Aug 5 with 2084 views | robith |
| 1914 - 1918 on 11:08 - Aug 5 by johann28 |
I'm not sure you can easily separate the sea / colonies / Belgian / European issues. The prevailing view these days (eg in the recent volumes by Macmillan and Clark) seems to be that the Belgium invasion was a mere pretext for the interventionists in Britain to bolster their case for joining France - so in other words if Germany hadn't gone through Belgium then they would have found some other reason - it would have merely delayed British entry. German control of the Belgian ports was obviously considered directly threatening to Britain, but so was a wider German domination of Europe to the Empire as a whole.
The Nazis admittedly had a great deal of sympathy in Britain in the 30s - if only because of the perceived 'greater evil' in Russia, but it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that most of Europe had been handed over (Austria and Sudetenland?). France hadn't been aggressive since 1923, and were extremely weak in the 30s, which compounded the problem from a British perspective. I agree that there was a change of mind in 1939 along the lines that a realisation that Germany couldn't be controlled, but that's exactly my point - a fear that there was more to lose than gain by backing Germany against Russia. [Post edited 5 Aug 2014 11:10]
|
Well argued counter points, my apologies, I was bit bruff as from your original posts I thought it was throwaway guff. I still disagree, but history is in the interpretation!
My only addition regards is on the appeasement stuff - Britain in essence secured Spain for the Axis side (though they didn't enter the war, and tbh would've been a hindrance anyway, it definitely swung the balance of power). Blum had agreed to intervene but was called to London and told that if it lead to war with Germany France was on her own. Blum apparently had to call the Republican leaders in tears to say they couldn't help. France also entered into a mutual alliance with the Soviets which British influence pulled the plug on (Lloyd George spoke in parliament supporting Hitler on the matter). Appeasement wasn't just about the actual land ceded - they handed the impetus and momentum of the continent to the Nazis that by 1939 most of Europe was directly in their sphere of influence.
But this is a first world war thread, I don't mean to disrespect the nature of the thread having a lengthy discussion about historiographical interpretations. Let's save this for 2039! | | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 11:50 - Aug 5 with 2072 views | johann28 |
| 1914 - 1918 on 11:33 - Aug 5 by robith |
Well argued counter points, my apologies, I was bit bruff as from your original posts I thought it was throwaway guff. I still disagree, but history is in the interpretation!
My only addition regards is on the appeasement stuff - Britain in essence secured Spain for the Axis side (though they didn't enter the war, and tbh would've been a hindrance anyway, it definitely swung the balance of power). Blum had agreed to intervene but was called to London and told that if it lead to war with Germany France was on her own. Blum apparently had to call the Republican leaders in tears to say they couldn't help. France also entered into a mutual alliance with the Soviets which British influence pulled the plug on (Lloyd George spoke in parliament supporting Hitler on the matter). Appeasement wasn't just about the actual land ceded - they handed the impetus and momentum of the continent to the Nazis that by 1939 most of Europe was directly in their sphere of influence.
But this is a first world war thread, I don't mean to disrespect the nature of the thread having a lengthy discussion about historiographical interpretations. Let's save this for 2039! |
Apology accepted - no problem - I still think there's a fair degree of overlap between 14 and 39, given that the primary reason for British involvement was protection of its global interests - whether or not this makes intervention justifiable or not depends on your point of view, but there was undoubtedly wide support for the cause in Britain in both years as a result - there's rather too much on the media giving the impression that everyone thought the war was futile. I obviously didn't mean to be insulting to anyone - to lose a single life in any war is obviously always a tragedy. | | | |
| 1914 - 1918 on 13:57 - Aug 5 with 1840 views | EalingRanger |
| 1914 - 1918 on 10:34 - Aug 5 by johann28 |
I'd stand by the comment. Different, thoroughly despicable, regime in Germany certainly, but the motives for British entry (to prevent German hegemony in Europe) were broadly the same. |
The great irony of all of this is that Germany has achieved that 'hegemony' in Europe anyway. Despite the efforts of those two wars to prevent it from occurring.
The First World War caused the second one. A relatively benign German hegemony in Europe from 1914 onwards is, to my mind, preferable to the horrors of Nazism that are the direct result of the 1914-1918 war. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
