Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
danelectro59

World War I

Recommended Posts

As i'm watching a program on The Military Channel titled "Digging Up The Trenches" i'm thinking of how tragically strange WWI really was. I've been interested in it's history for about 25 years now and have done quite a bit of reading about it. The thing that intrigues me is that it started almost by accident and ended in the most peculiar manor, right down to the second. In between was four plus years of the most brutal slaughter the world has ever seen. I firmly believe that it changed history on a global scale more than anything else in the last several hundred years including the Second World War. After all, it's been said that WWII was just the conclusion of the WWI. In fact, I think we are still paying the consequences for it to this day. Anyone else share the same thoughts as I do?

Edited by danelectro59

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As i'm watching a program on The Military Channel titled "Digging Up The Trenches" i'm thinking of how tragically strange WWI really was. I've been interested in it's history for about 25 years now and have done quite a bit of reading about it. The thing that intrigues me is that it started almost by accident and ended in the most peculiar manor, right down to the second. In between was four plus years of the most brutal slaughter the world has ever seen. I firmly believe that it changed history on a global scale more than anything else in the last several hundred years including the Second World War. After all, it's been said that WWII was just the conclusion of the WWI. In fact, I think we are still paying the consequences for it to this day. Anyone else share the same thoughts as I do?

I was also interested in WWI and post war life. I read Archibald Rice's book in which he was describing how brutal and sadistic Austro-Hungarians were to civils.

Both of my grandfathers were in WWI, one as a Serbian soldier who was supposed to be shot, but he was not 21 yet, so they put him in prison (he escaped :hurrah:) and other was Austro-Hungarian soldier. Most of my family's members were imprisoned. :D My dad in WWII.

Anyway,

the thing I don't understand is how could they let the same thing happen again just 20 years after.

I know Serbia, and most other countries lost over half of the population, there was huge inflation in the whole world, and common diseases like flu killed millions of people.

Also, Serbian parliament was accused of planning Franz Ferninad's murder, and they haven't had nothing in common with stupid Gavrilo Princip and the organization he was in.

Ok, I said enough. This is my point of view, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

happy to see other people like history as much as i...hope to be a history teacher one day personally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've honestly had a fascination with WWI, considering the fact its almost forgotten due to WWII. It was a huge moment in terms of history in that is was the first "modern war" and it reshaped Europe to it's near modern day map.

But one of my favorite stories is the Christmas Day Truce. When British/French and German soldiers crossed no man's land on Christmas Day and exchanged gifts, sang songs, played football/soccer and even exchanged contact information. There are even stories of "strategic bombings" which were timed and placed in certain areas so troops would not be killed.

Say what you want about wikipedia, but the information here is full and very interesting. Chirstmas Day Truce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In between was four plus years of the most brutal slaughter the world has ever seen.

WW2 was the most brutal slaughter the world has ever seen.

WW1 = around 10 million deaths, mostly military.

WW2 = 50 million plus deaths, over half of which were civilians.

I firmly believe that it changed history on a global scale more than anything else in the last several hundred years including the Second World War.

My vote also goes to WW2 on that one. WW2 was the single most influential period of history there has ever been. Just look at the technology advances in those 6 years. There has been nothing like it before or since.

Of course, WW1 itself was one of the most significant events in world history but I can't place it above WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is what a total shock WW1 was. WW2 was definitely on a much bigger scale, but it wasn't the first war of its kind. WW1 was so unlike anything that had ever happened before...all the new technology like tanks and gas and bombs, and the mass deaths that they caused...I can't imagine what it would be like to see that unfolding around you. No wonder the Modernist writers were so messed up - I would've had to agree that it seemed like the absolute end of the world if I was there with them. And I guess, in a way, it was. It was the end of how everything was up until that point. Mind-boggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, WW1 itself was one of the most significant events in world history but I can't place it above WW2.

Yes, but there could have been no WWII without WWI. Or at least it would have had to have a different name.

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. I took a WWI class in College. It was easily the finest elective I had...probably because I didn't no jack shit about it at the time. The instructor went back to the Crimean War and kind of tied everything together up to WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
happy to see other people like history as much as i...hope to be a history teacher one day personally

If you're going to teach history, the first thing you need to lose is liking it. It's godawful ugly. I know it's semantics, but seeing "I like history" in a WW1 thread just sounds wrong. I know you know what I mean. I've studied Westen Civ for years, and I can tell you that while I have a passion for the subject, there's little to "like". Worst of the worst. I'd rather read the Bible. At least they could claim "God told us to". Oh wait, that's now too isn't it? History, the most painful (and yet fascinating) of subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather served in WWI in Egypt, Gallipoli and France.

He was 17.

My aunt served in WWII in Australia.

popegypt1916.jpgauntyyvonne.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My grandfather served in WWI in Egypt, Gallipoli and France.

He was 17.

My aunt served in WWII in Australia.

My father was imprisoned 'cause he didn't want to shoot Hungarians. Most of them were his friends.

And after WWII he married a Jew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great pics Reggie.

The thing that always made me shiver was the German siege guns......

w1_naval-railway-battery_1_14in_france_1918.jpg

Even though the trenches get all the publicity, for the first time in history civilians were bombed with guns they couldn't see or hear. Those peasants in Belgium must have peed their pants when bombs the size of Volkswagens were landing on their heads. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're going to teach history, the first thing you need to lose is liking it. It's godawful ugly. I know it's semantics, but seeing "I like history" in a WW1 thread just sounds wrong. I know you know what I mean. I've studied Westen Civ for years, and I can tell you that while I have a passion for the subject, there's little to "like". Worst of the worst. I'd rather read the Bible. At least they could claim "God told us to". Oh wait, that's now too isn't it? History, the most painful (and yet fascinating) of subjects.

ok i understand

i hate history :angry: ( ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Del?

*sends email*

Yes, but there could have been no WWII without WWI. Or at least it would have had to have a different name.

:unsure:

In that larger sense they were really the same war. At the conclusion of WW1 the total realignment of power unfortanatly did not occur. The self serving failure of Britain and France to save Germany from itself toward a greater possible good at the end of WW1 became their own worst nightmare years later.

When you defeat a bad regime but don't care or bother to help rebuild that nation; then you only invite a greater evil regime to be dealt with later.

.

Edited by Del Zeppnile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that larger sense they were really the same war. At the conclusion of WW1 the total realignment of power unfortanatly did not occur. The self serving failure of Britain and France to save Germany from itself toward a greater possible good at the end of WW1 became their own worst nightmare years later.

When you defeat a bad regime but don't care or bother to help rebuild that nation; then you only invite a greater evil regime to be dealt with later.

Hi Del,

You conveniently forgot to give a mention to the good old US of A, so i'll just remind you.

"The League also had other weaknesses : The country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America - refused to join it. As America was the world's most powerful nation, this was a serious blow to the prestige of the League. However, America's refusal to join the League, fitted in with her desire to have an isolationist policy throughout the world."

Apart from the Pacific that is.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/leagueofnations.htm

Britain and France were just as "Bad" a Regime as either Austria, Germany or even the US, but not as bad as Russia or Turkey.

Ditch the "Rose Tinted Glasses" for a "Wide Angle" pair. they will suit better. ;)

Regards to you Sir, Danny

Edit to add.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ww1.htm

Edited by BIGDAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read 'Belleau Wood' and how the Marines walked into the german machine guns, similar to the Tarawa reef in WW2.

All Quiet On The Western Front

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Del,

You conveniently forgot to give a mention to the good old US of A, so i'll just remind you.

"The League also had other weaknesses : The country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America - refused to join it. As America was the world's most powerful nation, this was a serious blow to the prestige of the League. However, America's refusal to join the League, fitted in with her desire to have an isolationist policy throughout the world."

Wilson and the United States Congress ultimately did not join it because it became very apperant from the start that it was a "League of Victors" more than a League of Nations. I don't believe there is one bit of blame to be put at the feet of the United States for either WW1 or WW2. Unless you are saying that by remaining Neutral in the problems of Europe, we were not accepting the role of Global Police force.

Besides, I wouldn't exactly say that the United States was the most powerful nation on Earth in 1918 just yet. Yes we had a powerful industrial economy, but it was still yet to realize it's full potential. And I think you could almost certainly apply that to our military and political might as well. The British Empire was still many years away from folding up it's tent and heading back to the home islands.

Apart from the Pacific that is.

If you are talking about the Philippines and Guam, don't forget that territory came into our possession because we elected to take military action against Spain for decades of abuses in Cuba. Spain refused to grant independence to Cuba despite the will of the Cuban people, so we backed their play.

I don't think any European should ever underestimate Amerca's distaste for European style imperialism, especially in the late 19th century and into the early 20th century. The reasons why we stayed out of the first WW1 for so long; stayed out of the League of Nations; and delayed joining the war against Germany in 1938, is becuase we generally saw no good solution to Europe's hundreds of years of conflicts.

Britain and France were just as "Bad" a Regime as either Austria, Germany or even the US, but not as bad as Russia or Turkey.

Britain and France could have prevented WW2 had they not treated Germany the way they had after WW1. Wilson objected to most of your nation's treatment of Germany, he saw no point in it.

Jump ahead to the conclusion of WW2 and the the aftermath, and look what was done for Germany and Japan at the insistence of the United States. Germany and Japan were rebuilt and became two of the post powerful economies in the world.

Call me a patriot, but I think we were better than the British and the French, especially in view of the post WW1 era.

Ditch the "Rose Tinted Glasses" for a "Wide Angle" pair. they will suit better. ;)

eltonjohn500.jpg

Nah!

context_00001_dirty_harry.jpg

I like my narrow view lenses. I only need to see that which falls into the sight of my target.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like my narrow view lenses. I only need to see that which falls into the sight of my target.

:D

Glock .40cal night light :D

aGlock_compensator.jpg

Edited by Dzldoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The League also had other weaknesses : The country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America - refused to join it. As America was the world's most powerful nation, this was a serious blow to the prestige of the League. However, America's refusal to join the League, fitted in with her desire to have an isolationist policy throughout the world."

Primary Documents: Henry Cabot Lodge on the League of Nations, 12 August 1919

Updated - Sunday, 20 October, 2002

Henry Cabot Lodge, a vociferous Republican opponent (and Senate majority leader) of the Democrat President Woodrow Wilson - considered by many historians today Wilson's political nemesis - was routinely disdainful of Wilson's liberal ideals.

While critical - albeit cautiously so - of Wilson's conduct of America's successful role in World War One, Cabot Lodge saved his greatest ire for Wilson's proposal and sponsorship of the League of Nations. Deeply suspicious of any attempt to unnecessarily involve the U.S. in international political matters Cabot Lodge campaigned ceaselessly against U.S. participation in the League. Cabot Lodge's viewpoint eventually prevailed over that of the increasingly frail president and the U.S. never joined the League.

Reproduced below is a speech given by Cabot Lodge in Washington D.C. on 12 August 1919 in which he set forth his objections to the League.

firstworldwar.com/source/lodge_leagueofnations

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

George Washington, First President of the United States in his farewell address

csamerican.com/Doc.asp?doc=washfarewell

Edited by eternal light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilson and the United States Congress ultimately did not join it because it became very apperant from the start that it was a "League of Victors" more than a League of Nations.

Agreed, but the world was a much different place then than it is today so you cant use todays Moral Highground to justify saying that France and Britain were wrong to want to make Germany pay for the war they started. In those days if any country started a war and lost it expected to be treated as the aggressor and it knew punitive measures would be imposed on it. Britain and France had to make an example of Germanys aggression, although Gremany were only reacting to the Empire Building of Britain and France and Russia and thought itself isolated and in efect Vulnerable to the Economic climate that the others were taking advantage of due to their Empires. So WW1 was only to be expected and inevitable.

I don't believe there is one bit of blame to be put at the feet of the United States for either WW1 or WW2.

Me neither.

Unless you are saying that by remaining Neutral in the problems of Europe, we were not accepting the role of Global Police force.

No i'm not, Britain were in effect the Global Police Force at that time, the USA took that job on post WW2 because you had the biggest fleet, the money and the ambition that you could the job to the requirements that were needed, Britain could no longer do this because of there loss of Empire, status and money.

Besides, I wouldn't exactly say that the United States was the most powerful nation on Earth in 1918 just yet. Yes we had a powerful industrial economy, but it was still yet to realize it's full potential. And I think you could almost certainly apply that to our military and political might as well. The British Empire was still many years away from folding up it's tent and heading back to the home islands.

I would definatly say the the USA were the most powerful Nation on the Planet post ACW 1865, the Armies you lot put together in those five years were world beaters and i think that man for man you were on a level with anything a European country could have assembled.

If you are talking about the Philippines and Guam, don't forget that territory came into our possession because we elected to take military action against Spain for decades of abuses in Cuba.

Yes I am talking about the Philippines and Guam, and you mention the "Abuses of Spain" in Cuba, then want about the "US Abuses"? Why did the US invade the Newly Formed Filipino Government and then go on to massacre 600,000 people on Luzon alone, is this the Democratic World that the US are so proud of? The Philipines are thousands of miles away from the US yet you came their for what? To Expand your Empire, yet you have the gall to say and i quote, "I don't think any European should ever underestimate Amerca's distaste for European style imperialism, " so what? you make up an Imperialistic Empire of your own and think you are better than the European Empire Builders, well you arent, your just the same only you cant see it because your still wearing those Rose Tinted Glasses. ;)

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM

Spain refused to grant independence to Cuba despite the will of the Cuban people, so we backed their play.

And the US refused to grant independence to the CSA despite the will of the Confederate people, so we "didnt" backed their play. Pot calling the kettle black, double standards apply, the American dream becomes the American Nightmare for others i would say.

I don't think any European should ever underestimate Amerca's distaste for European style imperialism, especially in the late 19th century and into the early 20th century. The reasons why we stayed out of the first WW1 for so long; stayed out of the League of Nations; and delayed joining the war against Germany in 1938, is becuase we generally saw no good solution to Europe's hundreds of years of conflicts.

So if Americia has such distaste for "European style imperialism" why set up an "American style Imperialism" if Imperialism is wrong then it is wrong, be it British, French, Russian, Spanish, American or the USSR, or do you think that Americia can do no wrong? I for one dont, you mimic all the distastefull elements of all the other Imperialists before you, thats why we are in the god awful world mess we are in, because of Imperialism in all its guises.

Britain and France could have prevented WW2 had they not treated Germany the way they had after WW1. Wilson objected to most of your nation's treatment of Germany, he saw no point in it.

Britain and France needed to teach Germany and any other country that tried their luck at gaining terrotory through war, a lesson, they failed maybe because they didnt go far enough when Germany re-entered the Rhur and started to re-arm. But remember in those days to be a "War Machine" was the thing to be, just like now really with Americia and Russia posturing at each other instead of doing what is right, see its easy being the Worlds Policaman isnt it? NOT.

Jump ahead to the conclusion of WW2 and the the aftermath, and look what was done for Germany and Japan at the insistence of the United States. Germany and Japan were rebuilt and became two of the post powerful economies in the world.

Germany and Japan became two of the post powerful economies in the world for many reasons, one being the Marshall Plan, another is that it is far easier to rebuild from Ruins than to do it when you are still quite strong as a Nation, another still is that their Governments payed for any loss that their Countries Manufacturers lost while selling their goods overseas, especially in Britain. We made it better for your economy to loose a war than to win one.

Call me a patriot, but I think we were better than the British and the French, especially in view of the post WW1 era.

"You Patriot" You may well have been better post WW1, but you have never got over the way you treated the Red Indian Tribes for the previous 150 years, your lack of anything constructive on Slavery in these times too, the Millions of innocent people that have died at the hands of your Military since you formed you nation in 1776 or so. The mistakes your country made then are still being made today, why, because you are a Middle Class Society Nation that cares little for Working Class Society Nations, well thats my take on it anyway, please feel free to comment on anything you dont agree with.

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilson and the United States Congress ultimately did not join it because it became very apperant from the start that it was a "League of Victors" more than a League of Nations. I don't believe there is one bit of blame to be put at the feet of the United States for either WW1 or WW2. Unless you are saying that by remaining Neutral in the problems of Europe, we were not accepting the role of Global Police force.

Besides, I wouldn't exactly say that the United States was the most powerful nation on Earth in 1918 just yet. Yes we had a powerful industrial economy, but it was still yet to realize it's full potential. And I think you could almost certainly apply that to our military and political might as well. The British Empire was still many years away from folding up it's tent and heading back to the home islands.

Quite right. The US hadn't really been involved in too many foreign skirmishes with ground forces up until that point. Our strength lied within our naval forces, which still lagged behind Britain and Germany. What The Kaiser and his brain trust (Hindenburg and Ludendorf) knew was that America had fresh, eager young troops by the millions to send over and face a war weary German army. When Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war in April, 1917, it immediately put the Central Powers on a timetable to defeat the Allies or at least sue for a decent settlement. Hence, the Big Push in March of 1918 which nearly worked.

I could go on an on about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...