Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Inhuman? Ludicrous. War is inhuman, celebrating the death of a generation with military pomp is inhuman, politicians using one of the world's greatest human tragedies to try and restore some vague sham of national pride(which their own self-serving troughing destroyed in the first place) based on hollow jingoism is inhuman. Believing that said tragedy should be marked with solemn respect and contemplation rather than a ing party could only be marked as inhuman using the most Orwellian of doublespeak.

When WW1 began my great-grandfather had seven brothers, by the time it finished he was an only child, so don't tell me I'm ing "inhuman" because I don't think that's a reason to throw a bloody party.

I didn't say you were inhuman. I said your position was inhuman and its hard to call it anything else when it at its core denies human agency. No one knew in 1914 what WWI was going to become. It's abundantly clear that by 1918, Europe and the world was at a loss for what happened. Honoring the deaths of millions by celebrating life is not the same thing as celebrating killing and disrespecting tragedy. You think these vets went to Iwo Jima to celebrate how they tried to kill each other?. They didn't They went there to honor those who were killed and remember that they are alive.

Treating tragedy like a crime against all human beings for all eternity on the other hand...

Are politicians using the event to pound their chests? Of course they are their politicians. Shame on them. But there's a couple million more people in your country who are not politicians, and maybe they have the right to celebrate the fallen and honor them in whatever way they see fit. If they want to do that by celebrating their lives rather than their deaths, you have no right to rail against them.

EDIT: And FYI, one side of my family has been in American since the Mayflower. I've had ancestors die in every American war and conflict (I'm kind of like Lieutenant Dan, but way sexier). Probably everyone in Europe is related to multiple people who died in WWI. You're not special and you have no special right to be outraged or upset. The British Government was not sitting behind its big nicely carved desk contemplating how it could kill a few million people. No one knew that was going to happen and demonizing them for it after the fact whether you like it or not is inhuman.

Not at all.

Go visit the Southern United States where lots of people still are personally affected by a war that happened over a 150 years ago. Whether you agree with it or not, a war that has devastated a family (even in what you consider the distant past) can reverberate for generations.

Which explains many of the Souths social ills, but a red neck sitting in his chair with a beer moaning about how the south lost the war and profoundly effected him in on a personal level in 2014 is a little childish.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
WW1 was the result of decades of imperialist struggle. There were no 'good' and 'bad' sides in it, all sides were equally bad.

I wouldn't call WW1 the result of any sort of imperialism. More that all the right ingredients were combined to create tragedy. What we saw was the industrialized world stockpiling new technological weapons that had not truly been tested, combined with Anarchist movements in many other countries (the Black Hand were one such group, as they were directly/indirectly the cause of the Archduke's death), combined with "old fashioned" or Napoleonic diplomacy, we also have the fact that most of the Ruling Class of Europe were inter-related and as such were playing family politics.

What ends up, as we know is one of the most horrifying wars the world has ever seen.

 LordofHats wrote:

Not at all.

Go visit the Southern United States where lots of people still are personally affected by a war that happened over a 150 years ago. Whether you agree with it or not, a war that has devastated a family (even in what you consider the distant past) can reverberate for generations.

Which explains many of the Souths social ills, but a red neck sitting in his chair with a beer moaning about how the south lost the war and profoundly effected him in on a personal level in 2014 is a little childish.

I wasn't necessarily talking about the just beer swilling rednecks. Lots of Americans, North and South, were profoundly affected by the American Civil War and whether you think it's "childish" for the descendants of those people to harbor feelings and resentment about what happened, it exists and should be recognized and understood.

Just like families that were devastated by WWI.

 LordofHats wrote:

Which explains many of the Souths social ills, but a red neck sitting in his chair with a beer moaning about how the south lost the war and profoundly effected him in on a personal level in 2014 is a little childish.

the problem with that statement there, is that much, or most of those rednecks will never admit the south actually lost the war. There's a whole "historical movement" if you want to call them such, called Lost Causers, and many more who maintain that they were in the right the whole time, etc. etc.

I'm not sure how you could argue WW1 wasn't about Imperialism (or WWII for that matter).In the early 20th century, war and German thought On War (pun intended) was very much in line with Clauswitz's statement "war is politics through other means." Except they took that really literally. The entire war started as a means to inforce German and Austria-Hungry's positions in Europe by destroying Serbia. Of course, Russia couldn't abide by that, and if Russia wouldn't abide by it, France wouldn't abide by it so on and so forth. That has everything to do with Imperialism. The only sane man in the room was István Tisza who everyone promptly ignored. EDIT: Germany realized the whole thing was going to explode from the get go, which is why they didn't dick around when the war started while most everyone else was trying to resolve the conflict via negotiation. Austrian thought on the war before it started though seems markedly inept to the realities of European politics in 1914.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:Lots of Americans, North and South, were profoundly affected by the American Civil War and whether you think it's "childish" for the descendants of those people to harbor feelings and resentment about what happened, it exists and should be recognized and understood.

Just like families that were devastated by WWI.

It's one thing to note that your life has been heavily influenced by the lives of those before you, but after 100 years, its a little late for righteous rage on issue. That's not helpful in the slightest to anyone. Being resentful is normal, but it also needs to be recognized when normal behavior is taken to far into the irrational.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:the problem with that statement there, is that much, or most of those rednecks will never admit the south actually lost the war. There's a whole "historical movement" if you want to call them such, called Lost Causers, and many more who maintain that they were in the right the whole time, etc. etc.

Don't get me started on the War of Northern Aggression thing. I went to High School in North Carolina EDIT: And in North Carolina, Virginia wasn't 'south enough' to count as truely Southern

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not sure how you could argue WW1 wasn't about Imperialism (or WWII for that matter).In the early 20th century, war and German thought On War (pun intended) was very much in line with Clauswitz's statement "war is politics through other means." Except they took that really literally. The entire war started as a means to inforce German and Austria-Hungry's positions in Europe by destroying Serbia. Of course, Russia couldn't abide by that, and if Russia wouldn't abide by it, France wouldn't abide by it so on and so forth. That has everything to do with Imperialism. The only sane man in the room was István Tisza who everyone promptly ignored. EDIT: Germany realized the whole thing was going to explode from the get go, which is why they didn't dick around when the war started while most everyone else was trying to resolve the conflict via negotiation. Austrian thought on the war before it started though seems markedly inept to the realities of European politics in 1914.

By my statement of WW1 wasn't about Imperialism, I meant that in their use of "Napoleonic diplomacy", they viewed war as merely an extension of diplomacy, as war was still run by "gentlemen" and diplomacy was a "gentlemen's game"... I think that post-WW1, we saw a shift in diplomatic thinking, and war became more of a "last resort" as opposed to a mere extension of politics.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

By my statement of WW1 wasn't about Imperialism, I meant that in their use of "Napoleonic diplomacy", they viewed war as merely an extension of diplomacy, as war was still run by "gentlemen" and diplomacy was a "gentlemen's game"... I think that post-WW1, we saw a shift in diplomatic thinking, and war became more of a "last resort" as opposed to a mere extension of politics.

Ah okay. Apologies. I'd agree. If we can identify positives of WWI, its that western attitudes on war changed completely. Using war to advance dubious political goals ceased to be acceptable, even when those pursing conflict played the just cause game. We could also accept that the World Wars ended Imperialism in the west, which I guess is, sort of positive...

If we consider being tyrannically oppressed by your own leaders preferable to being tyrannically oppressed by someone else's a thousand miles away XD

Granted, other than Austria and Germany, I don't think everyone automatically wanted war. Many realized it was inevitable because Austria would never back down (Churchill was not one of these people ). The July Crisis showed a lot of hard work by many people to try and avert the conflict, even among those who knew it couldn't be averted. That's wasn't just a show for the sake of the people. There were many outside Austrian and Germany politics who hoped to avoid the war however narrow that hope may be.

Austria honestly was brain dead thinking that the war would be limited to them, Germany, and Russia. Germany was probably the shrewdest of the bunch at the end of the month, barring the miscalculation that Britain would side with them early on.

World War One was probably the last war which was still fought in a 'shot and pike' type of attitude, except it was cannon and infantry.

I don't think anyone would have expected it to be the massive cluster-feth that it turned out too be. We had ships which could fire shells over the horizon at other ships who could do the same back. Yet they still tried to line up side by side and shoot the living hell out of each other.

Soldiers lined up on the field of battle and marched at each other over and over again, except rather than weapons which could only fire a few times a minute, you had machine guns which were equal to thousands of men.

It's a shame that it turned out the way it did, it doesn't have any relevance any more, partly because WWII had a definitive 'bad-guy' whereas no one really knows who is to blame for WWI. Sure we pinned it on the Germans at the end of it all (blame France for that, if we had listened to the Americans, it might have been a whole different story, but alas alternate realities and all that jazz) but it wasn't their fault, it was just a massive powder keg which was set off accidentally.

Well, who to blame for WWI isn't that hard (in the sense of, who principally agitated the conflict). Germany spent every waking moment from the second Ferdinand was killed to the start of the war ensuring the war happened. Now, Austria might have backed off in the end without German support, maybe, but Austria likewise really wanted that war. Britain at least tried to mediate to prevent the war. Germany sabotaged the mediation, they lied about knowing of Austria's Ultimatum before Austria issued it, they actively encouraged Austria to pursue the war knowing that Austria had no idea as to the storm on the horizon, and they actually laughed about Britains attempts to negotiate. Reading some of the personal papers of several German officials, most notably Gottlieb von Jagow* and key members of the German military paints an exceedingly abhorrent picture of what Germany knew they were doing.

For all the bitching Germany did after the Treaty of Versailles about how all the blame was put on them, a hefty amount of blame really does fall on them for knowing more than other countries what was coming and actively orchestrating its fruition (though like I said before, they initially thought Britain would remain neutral of tacitly support them and Jarow believed the war would be more localized than it became). The Treaty of Versailles was harsh and so vengeful as to be an anti-peace treaty more than anything, but Germany really did make the war happen.

*This is the same guy who was one of the principle planners of one of the greatest strategic blunders of human warfare; The Zimmerman Telegram.

It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.

 LordofHats wrote:
If we can identify positives of WWI, its that western attitudes on war changed completely. Using war to advance dubious political goals ceased to be acceptable, even when those pursing conflict played the just cause game.

Now we just use war to advance dubious economic goals. I fail to see how that's an improvement.

 Frank&Stein wrote:


Now we just use war to advance dubious economic goals. I fail to see how that's an improvement.

When I say dubious political goals, I mean going to war for things like national pride, or to bring civilization to the savage, or to one up some other country by showing how powerful you were destroying some other third country. These excuses ceased to be acceptable after WWI, save a few countries who went on to agitate another world war later. In the US they already were kind of unacceptable, which is why Wilson had to paint the war as a war for democracy.

I have 0 doubt war will continue to be fought for other dubious reasons, just not the same ones we threw around in 1914.

There was another Empire that was destroyed at the end of WWI, the German Empire. Yet we still forced the treaty upon it's successor, the Weimar Republic. Turkey still remained, as did the USSR and Austria and Hungry, why did nothing as bad happen to them?

 welshhoppo wrote:
There was another Empire that was destroyed at the end of WWI, the German Empire. Yet we still forced the treaty upon it's successor, the Weimar Republic.

The German government during the war and immediately after was pretty much the same government. They had a small revolution and the royalty stepped down yes, but mostly the state lived on with many of the same people and system in control. The other three literally collapsed and disappeared which is why the Allies started cutting them up after the war but not so much with Germany. EDIT: It's kind of like the transition from the USSR to the Russian Federation. They repackaged the product but on the inside not much changed. Major changes wouldn't sweep the Weimar Republic until after Versailles passed in part as a response to Versailles.

Don't mistake me. The Treaty of Versailles was wrong, but Germany saying they were blamed for an inevitable war that wasn't their fault is a lie. The German government directly and purposefully took actions that lead to the war and they knew the war was going to happen.

Turkey still remained, as did the USSR and Austria and Hungry, why did nothing as bad happen to them?

Russia withdrew from the war because of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 which overthrew the Tsarist government and killed the royal family and many state officials. The USSR however would not come to be for a few more years in 1922. Russia at the end of the war was anarchy plunged in the Russian Civil War.

Austria-Hungry likewise completely collapsed overnight and literally ceased to exist which is why a single state became 10 in 1918. EDIT: In retrospect, one of America's greatest mistakes in the 20th century was helping to destroy Austria-Hungry rather than helping it stabilize itself. 1939 could have been a very different year.

The Ottoman Empire was finished and kind of limped about, but the Ottoman Government held little power before the war and afterwards held none, and France and Britain obligingly swooped in and cut up the cake for themselves.

Germany as a state still functioned (more or less, they weren't really what anyone would call well function, just sufficiently functioning), which is why none of these things happened to it and why it was easy to pass Versailles, when all the other 'bad guys' were dead and in pieces (not Russia so much. its just that you can't really deal with a lawless land).

As an academic who specialises in this exact period and subject, there's simply far too much in this thread in terms of information which is accurate and inaccurate for me to respond to, without taking up the rest of the night.

So I'll simply say that a) would be crass, b) inaccurate, and c) just about right.

 LordofHats wrote:
Austria-Hungry

Austria is hungry?
Hungry for another World War? Just look at those Austrians, pretending to an innocent minor country, acting all cheerful with their Lederhosen and scenic mountain landscapes. They are just plotting the next World War!
All World Wars until now were started by Austrians. I think it is safe to assume we won't have another World War until an Austrian gets involved.

I can't help it It's like whenever someone brings up the Ottoman Empire and I instantly think of Thanksgiving Dinner



If Hungary wants its name spelled properly they could at least make it easy like Turkey Or feed me some Turkey.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Austria-Hungry

Austria is hungry?
Hungry for another World War? Just look at those Austrians, pretending to an innocent minor country, acting all cheerful with their Lederhosen and scenic mountain landscapes. They are just plotting the next World War!
All World Wars until now were started by Austrians. I think it is safe to assume we won't have another World War until an Austrian gets involved.

I remember a quote saying that Austria's greatest achievement was convincing the world was convincing the world that Beethoven was Austrian, and Hitler was German.

WWI is always a sticky point for me. It really kicked off a lot of world changing events that we are still dealing with today. I think an interesting question is what would the world be like if WWI didn't happen?

Conceivably a much higher global population. Without Empires falling does modernism ever really take place? Without war to drive technology where would we be?

Wasn't that posted back on page 1? Yep, Kronk posted it in about the 4th post.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
snip

OT would be less of a powder keg if more threads had pictures that enjoyable

 motyak wrote:
Wasn't that posted back on page 1? Yep, Kronk posted it in about the 4th post.

Kind of what I figured, but Kronks spoiler isn't opening for me.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Wasn't that posted back on page 1? Yep, Kronk posted it in about the 4th post.

Kind of what I figured, but Kronks spoiler isn't opening for me.

Did you buy him a drink first?

I think that one issue that is very little known, or simply glossed over, and which I am only now beginning to read about and study, is just how bad off the Serbian situation was. From about 1890 til the start of the War in 1914, Serbia went through several bloody/violent coups to replace governments.. hell the same guy was king 2 or 3 times! There was this sort of pressure cooker situation going on where there were many militant attitudes towards a Serb state that was "pure".. By that I dont mean Hitler's sort of purity, but rather they wanted their borders to reflect where "true Serbs" inhabited the land. This meant carving a sizable chunk out of Austria-Hungary and a few other countries as well (but really they wanted the piece belonging to Austria)

There really is a ton to the whole situation. I mean, various elements of the military based in Sarajevo were actively training/recruiting/sending on missiions various guerrilla cells to operate in, and undermine the governments in the localities they were after, hoping to spark civil wars in which these areas would break away from their non-Serb "oppressors" and they could welcome these guys in with open arms, etc.

Yeah Serbia was a big mess (all the Balklands were really when the Ottomans got forced out). The Serbian King actually seems to me as an okay guy, but his government was really only behind him when they found it convenient. After all none of them really gave a damn about him, its just that everyone else had a King, so clearly they needed one too.

I've always found the debate about who was behind the assassination baffling. There's the Bosnia alone camp, which seems to ignore all evidence, the Black Hand camp, which everyone seems to know best, and the Serbian Military Intelligence conspiracy camp, which seems to just ignore that most members of the Black Hand were Serbian Military intelligence. To Serbia's credit, the rest of the government didn't seem to know what they were planning till it was too late, but they also didn't seem overtly concerned until the artillery shells were lining up on the other side of the border XD

Of course it should be celebrated. The birth of air power.

 Seaward wrote:
Of course it should be celebrated. The birth of air power.

And who doesn't love a little slice of;

I'm a Tombstone man, myself.

 Seaward wrote:
Of course it should be celebrated. The birth of air power.

Amen to that.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.

St. Germain and Trianon were just as harsh and arbitrary as Versailles, and explicitly assigned blame to Austria and Hungary, so how do you come to this conclusion?

 Allod wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's also worth noting that by the end of the war, Tsarist Russia and Austria-Hungry, and the Ottoman Empire as well) no longer existed, and naturally no one could really assign blame to them for anything. That left Germany all alone at the angry party when everyone else was looking for someone to blame.

St. Germain and Trianon were just as harsh and arbitrary as Versailles, and explicitly assigned blame to Austria and Hungary, so how do you come to this conclusion?

The Treaty of Versailles included a War Guilt clause that forced the German government to officially accept blame for the war. While the other treaties were pretty harsh, Germany bore the brunt in that, by agreeing to be liable for the war, they were then forced into paying the billions in reparations (not that most of it was ever paid).

I think there is a lot of truth in the concept that Germany made a small war a huge one. Austria-Hungary had little to no interest in going west, while Germany were ready to roll through Belgium and France, the former of which brought Britain and her empire/allies into the war and made it truly a World War. So while they didn't start it, Germany did escalate the conflict to the level it came to.