# When a man's Honor meant something ...



## michaelmaltby (Sep 3, 2013)

WW1 soldier released from German prison camp to see his dying mother by the Kaiser on the promise that he returned to his cell... and he did | Mail Online


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 3, 2013)

How we could use more men like that today.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Sep 3, 2013)

Those were different times. The last of the "Knights", if you will.
It truly ended at the beginning of the 20th century. Those type of things are not likely to be seen again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2013)

Wow what a story!


----------



## Readie (Sep 4, 2013)

I agree. That was the time when a man's word was his bond.


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 4, 2013)

Great story!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 4, 2013)

This being one year from the 100th WWI anniversary, I think it is constructive to focus on what made WW1 such a catastrophe ... such a _WORLD _War.
In an unrelated thread -- 1913, Last August of Peace -- one poster has emphasized that there was no peace in 1913, that vicious wars were raging per usual, and his is a fair and valid point. But what made WWI so _western-civilization-destroying_ was how it spun out of control. From a terrorist assassination in Sarajevo to 'the world'. It was _this_ that was unprecedented .... the product of new technologies, new political realities and prolonged build-up and feinting over more than 20 years.

As we watch the situation in Syria, in the summer of 2013, I have to wonder and fear the possibility that the gassing of his own people by Syrian President Assad could trip an escalating chain reaction of actions and reactions. While the White House seems (officially, at least) unwilling to recognize reality -- the reality nonetheless is that the M.E. is in the midst of a war between Sunni and Shia power brokers: Saudi Arabia and Iran. A 'surgical' strike by _any_ third party is _not going to alter that reality_. Assad's father brutalized his opponents just as Saddam Hussein did with his. Both keeping the lid on delicate, fragmented pseudo countries that owe their very existence to the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. As indeed does Israel

In 1914 - Russia _escalated_ the tension between Serbia and the Austrian Empire and its allies by playing the Pan Slav Big Brother protector card. In hindsight, if Russia and Germany _had both stayed out _of the politics and posturing after the assassination, the whole thing could have been contained.
But words provoke words, actions provoke actions ... and so it goes.

This has the makings of conflagration .... in this summer of 2013.

MM


----------



## Readie (Sep 5, 2013)

WW1 was the first European war that involved so many civilians 'volunteering' or being conscripted. Failure to go to the front meant a white feather and deep shame. There were other events like Jutland showing that the RN was not invincible and the Zeppelin raids on Britain heralded 'total war'.
More than that it was the sheer attrition rate that still shocks us here. I cannot image what it must have felt like to have somehow got through WW1, the depression only to have to face another conflict in 1939.


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2013)

Readie said:


> the Zeppelin raids on Britain heralded 'total war'.



Exactly why Germany was one of several powers who wouldn't allow the "balloon clause" into the Hague Conventions. Only 556 people were killed by the Zeppelin bombing (and 857 by bombs dropped from aircraft) but the reaction was out of all proportion to the casualties and damage done. There's not much chivalry to be found here.

When on 2nd September 1916, a British pilot, Lieutenant W. Leefe-Robinson, of 39 Squadron RFC, flying a B.E. 2c, actually shot down a Schutte-Lanz airship, Serial # S.L.11, in flight over the town of Cuffley, North of the city of London, a feat for which he received a V.C. 10,000 people turned up to see the wreckage! 
He was not the first. On the 6th June 1915, an attempt by three Zeppelins to bomb Southern England was aborted due to bad weather and a British fighter pilot, Sub-Lieutenant Warneton, was able to destroy one of them with a bomb, over the Belgian City of Ghent. He too was awarded the Victoria Cross.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 5, 2013)

IMHO Why waste honor on the POS Kaiser, who arguably was responsible for plunging the world into the bloodbath that was WWI? It was this kind of honor, or obedience if you will, that allowed such slaughter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2013)

Capt. Vick said:


> IMHO Why waste honor on the POS Kaiser, who arguably was responsible for plunging the world into the bloodbath that was WWI? It was this kind of honor, or obedience if you will, that allowed such slaughter.



To put all the blame on the Kaiser and Germany is pretty simplistic. There were so many factors and all the major nations had their fingers intertwined in it.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 5, 2013)

Yeah, you're probably right Chris, but I still think the Kaiser was a POS, but hey I liked the movie "Pearl Harbor" so there's that...


----------



## dutchman (Sep 5, 2013)

You know I like this thread. I agree that in those days a mans word was his bond and handshake sealed a deal. But it was also a day when society shunned dishonest behavior. If your reputation was a bad one no one wanted to have anything to do with you. Now we measure a person by their wealth and power, no matter how they got it! 
The funny thing is that honesty and honor could still be the norm, if we put value on it again. But in our world today honesty is taken as weakness and everyone takes advantage of it. Pretty sad where we've ended up.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Sep 5, 2013)

Capt. Vick said:


> IMHO Why waste honor on the POS Kaiser, who arguably was responsible for plunging the world into the bloodbath that was WWI? It was this kind of honor, or obedience if you will, that allowed such slaughter.


Kaiser Wilhelm II was a jerk. There is no argument. But there was more to it than just that. There were many more idiots involved. It goes back to various treaties, and assurance agreements that were in place in 1900's European diplomacy.
If the Central powers had prevailed, The Kaiser would have been known as a great leader, and possibly, a unifier of the European continent as we know it now.
Just sayin'!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2013)

Back in those days, a man's honor of high value. Even courts of law recognized a handshake as a legal binding agreement.

As far as Europe at the turn of the century is concerned, it was a serious powder keg with many fuses waiting to be lit...

The colonial powers were jostling each other, complicated alliances that were changing almost by the day and the civilians were becoming inspired by a new socialist movement. It was simply a matter of time before it all erupted into a sh!tstorm.


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 5, 2013)

What an awesome story.


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 5, 2013)

The individual's honour is one thing. Honour of the military is a completely different story.
What would happen today if a POW was released under the same circumstances? 
He'd be locked up for desertion the instant he tried to return.


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2013)

Zeppelin bombs or the Western Front?


----------



## Marcel (Sep 7, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To put all the blame on the Kaiser and Germany is pretty simplistic. There were so many factors and all the major nations had their fingers intertwined in it.


Yup, in my opinion, France and Russia are especially responsible for WW1. Wilhelm actually has been trying to avoid the stuff, so blaming him would be plainly wrong in my eyes. Unfortunately this could not be said about all german leaders.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 7, 2013)

Historian Margaret Macmillan on 1914 and Syria today:


Historian Margaret MacMillan on what the


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 7, 2013)

Really my friend?

Would this have anything to do with him living out the rest of his days in your country? Maybe time enough to improve his PR? Just asking...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2013)

No I think Marcel is just not naive enough to see the one sidedness and incorectness of putting all the blame on Germany. He sees the whole picture, not just a portion of it that many want to believe.

Just saying...


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 7, 2013)

From the Wiki: Causes of World War I

The main causes of World War I, which began in central Europe in late July 1914, included many factors, such as the conflicts and hostility between the great European powers of the four decades leading up to the war. Militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism played major roles in the conflict as well. The immediate origins of the war, however, lay in the decisions taken by statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914 caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (the Archduke of Austria Hungary) and his wife Sophie by Gavrilo Princip, an irredentist Serb and member of the Serbian nationalist organization, the Black Hand.

The crisis came after a long and difficult series of diplomatic clashes between the Great Powers (Italy, France, Germany, the British Empire, the Austria-Hungarian Empire and Russia) over European and colonial issues in the decade before 1914 that had left tensions high. In turn these diplomatic clashes can be traced to changes in the balance of power in Europe since 1867. The more immediate cause for the war was tensions over territory in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary competed with Serbia and Russia for territory and influence in the region and they pulled the rest of the Great Powers into the conflict through their various alliances and treaties.

Some of the most important long term or structural causes are: the growth of nationalism across Europe, unresolved territorial disputes, an intricate system of alliances, the perceived breakdown of the balance of power in Europe, convoluted and fragmented governance, the arms races of the previous decades, previous military planning, imperial and colonial rivalry for wealth, power and prestige, and economic and military rivalry in industry and trade – e.g., the Pig War between Austria and Serbia. Other causes that came into play during the diplomatic crisis that preceded the war included misperceptions of intent (e.g., the German belief that the United Kingdom would remain neutral) and delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications.

The various categories of explanation for World War I correspond to different historians' overall methods. Most historians and popular commentators include causes from more than one category of explanation to provide a rounded account of the causes of the war. The deepest distinction among these accounts is between stories that see it as the inevitable and predictable outcome of certain factors, and those that describe it as an arbitrary and unfortunate mistake. In attributing causes for the war, historians and academics had to deal with an unprecedented flood of memoirs and official documents, released as each country involved tried to avoid blame for starting the war. Early releases of information by governments, particularly those released for use by the "Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War" were shown to be incomplete and biased. In addition some documents, especially diplomatic cables between Russia and France, were found to have been doctored.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 7, 2013)

I don't recall ever using Germany in any of my replies to this thread. I simply stated that I believe the Kaiser was a POS (Not excluding any other leaders of the day) and added that he was ARGUABLY responsible for World War I. Too simplistic? Probably, but I'm open to being schooled. In fact most of my knowledge comes from Guns of August and World War I by I believe Beavor. Anyway, I believe this kind soul, it was revealed later, believed everything was done for the honor of the arch dukes country and that war should be avoided. But what did he do, because he was so honorable? Promptly invaded Belgium on his way to France...class act. And I'm naive? Oh, so he must have done all he could to stop it huh? My bad.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2013)

Capt. Vick said:


> I don't recall ever using Germany in any of my replies to this thread. I simply stated that I believe the Kaiser was a POS (Not excluding any other leaders of the day) and added that he was ARGUABLY responsible for World War I. Too simplistic? Probably, but I'm open to being schooled. In fact most of my knowledge comes from Guns of August and World War I by I believe Beavor. Anyway, I believe this kind soul, it was revealed later, believed everything was done for the honor of the arch dukes country and that war should be avoided. But what did he do, because he was so honorable? Promptly invaded Belgium on his way to France...class act. And I'm naive? Oh, so he must have done all he could to stop it huh? My bad.



I don't think anyone is saying that he did not share responsibility in the matter. The responsibility however goes back much further than the Kaisers time. The Allied powers did nothing to avoid a war as well. If he is a POS for those reasons, then so are the others...

That is why I say simplistic.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 8, 2013)

Capt. Vick said:


> Really my friend?
> 
> Would this have anything to do with him living out the rest of his days in your country? Maybe time enough to improve his PR? Just asking...


 well, no. Wilhelm was not much liked here. His presence here was a nuisance. He himself as a person was not very likable. And I myself am like my country in that war a neutral. But fact is that Wilhelm didn't like many of the actions that his government and military did. He was always weary of provoking France. He didn't like the sending of the Panther to Tanger and also still tried to stop the war with France a day before it broke out. 

I wouldn't call you naive, but fact is that the origin of the Great War is complicated. The opinion is much distorted by the Allieds at the end of the war and they gave a much simpler explanation that is easier swallowed by the public mass.


----------



## Readie (Sep 8, 2013)

Quite right Marcel Chris.

WW1 was almost a certainty, huge egos,arrogance, and unsettled disputes, tensions and suspicion.
Combine that with military ambition and might...plus a very effective proganda machine and you have war.
The campaign as envisaged by all leaders was a cut and thrust mobile war.... not the static attrition that it quickly decended into.
I cannot believe that any country would want that.
Trouble is... once you start how do you end it??
A problem in 1914 as much as it is today.


----------



## Readie (Sep 8, 2013)

BBC - History - British History in depth: A New Enemy

Have a read through this.

We who strike the enemy where his heart beats have been slandered as 'baby killers' ... Nowadays, there is no such animal as a noncombatant. Modern warfare is total warfare.
—Peter Strasser

Strasser was ahead of his time and limited only by the early technology. 

If you spin forward to WW2, this a transcript of a conversation.


REV. JOHN COLLINS 
We began the war in the defense of humanity, with God on our side! 
SIR ARTHUR 'BOMBER' HARRIS 
Did *He* tell you that? He didn't tell *me*. 
REV. JOHN COLLINS 
I think it so! 
SIR ARTHUR 'BOMBER' HARRIS 
You're privileged, Collins. I was just told to win the war with every means at my disposal, but not God. 

I have been trying to find out if Harris took inspiration from Strassers single mindedness and sheer determination.
I'll say this, if Strasser was in charge of the LW in WW2 things may well have turned out differently.


----------



## Wayne Little (Sep 8, 2013)

Wish we could still have the good old days...when the world wasn't fricking as screwed up as it is now....


----------



## Marcel (Sep 8, 2013)

Nice stuff, John. I believe the fear for Germany was irreal, as the Germans never even came close to match the British strength in fleet. Too bad the British had people like Grey in power, his paranoia made things worse and ended Up in the UK joining the war.



Wayne Little said:


> Wish we could still have the good old days...when the world wasn't fricking as screwed up as it is now....


I believe things were screwed then as much as it is now. Hence the possibility to start a war that defied all what is human. Things were not better back then, just different. The act of the man in the first post is an exeption. We still have those exeptions today.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 8, 2013)

I wish we all could have a beer and some thing to eat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2013)

A few more hours my friend...


----------



## Marcel (Sep 8, 2013)

Capt. Vick said:


> I wish we all could have a beer and some thing to eat.


 
Well, come over here and I'll buy


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 8, 2013)

Capt. Vick said:


> I wish we all could have a beer and some thing to eat.


 


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> A few more hows my friend...


 


Marcel said:


> Well, come over here and I'll buy



I'll eat and drink to that!


----------



## Readie (Sep 8, 2013)

Me too 

Pity we cannot all met at some point half way across the Atlantic and have a bloody good old fashioned piss up


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2013)

Agreed


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 8, 2013)

This made think of this Battle of Hürtgen Forest: Temporary Cease-Fires Allowed Assistance for the Wounded Soldiers
When you first and foremost, were a fellow human being, brother in arms, and what uniform you wore, meant nothing....


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 8, 2013)

Readie said:


> Me too
> 
> Pity we cannot all met at some point half way across the Atlantic and have a bloody good old fashioned piss up



Could always 'borrow' a Lancaster, fly over in style!  
If not that perhaps a Dehavilland Comet?


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 8, 2013)

Readie said:


> Me too
> 
> Pity we cannot all met at some point half way across the Atlantic and have a bloody good old fashioned piss up



That is just too cool to contemplate. Like winning the lotto. 8)


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 8, 2013)

Well, let's first win BIG and then we'll have the piss up of the millennia!


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 8, 2013)

I can't even buy a lottery ticket. Effing Kaiser took all my money! POS! I still don't know why you guys love him so much!


----------



## meatloaf109 (Sep 8, 2013)

It's the cool mustache.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 8, 2013)

Not the helmet then??


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 8, 2013)

Enough of this eatin' and drinkin' .......

"...I believe the fear for Germany was irreal ..."

Marcel, my friend, I beg to differ.  Germany was _spoiling_ for a fight ... no doubt about it. The Franco Prussian war gave the Germans a heady taste of what they could expect as a unified nation ... from an aggressive, well executed coup de main. But in fairness to Germany, _others_ were spoiling for war _too. _ France wanted revenge for the F-P disaster. Russia wanted a chance to recoup her lost prowess after the Russo-Japan humiliation (and near revolution). Newly nationalized Italy was dreaming of Empire. And byzantine, corrupt Austro-Hungary was willing to fight to hang on to what she had in the way of Empire.

Who _wasn't_ itching for a war in Europe. Only England. She was at the peak of Empire. Had fought a number of wars against 'colonials' of various colors and skill-levels, and didn't need to prove anything to anyone.

If England had had the good sense to let the Kaiser 'at it' .... on European _soil_ ... not at _sea_ .... European history and world history would be a very different story today ..... and non the worse for it, I'm betting.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 8, 2013)

We'd still have bacon!


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 8, 2013)

Here here! Three cheers for bacon old boy!


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 8, 2013)

Hip, hip!


----------



## meatloaf109 (Sep 8, 2013)

Hooray!


----------



## meatloaf109 (Sep 8, 2013)

Lucky13 said:


> Not the helmet then??


All of the Germans were wearing cool hats back then. You are aware that "Picklehaube" translates as "Pointy hat", yes? 
"Has everyone got their pointy hat?, Then let the war begin!" Only the Kaiser with his cool mustache could make everyone keep a straight face after hearing that.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 8, 2013)

Even the gays?


----------



## Marcel (Sep 9, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Enough of this eatin' and drinkin' .......
> 
> "...I believe the fear for Germany was irreal ..."
> 
> ...


Okay, granted. Germany was trying too hard to play the big boy. And even England was itching for a war. Their foreign minister Grey did all he could to get England into the European war. The government even lied at the declaration of war when they stated that they had the obligation to help Belgium becuse of the threaty of 1839. This was not true, they were just itching to join.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Enough of this eatin' and drinkin' .......


Why the hell not?

Leave all that posturing, finger pointing and idle threats to the politicians and we'll all meet at the local watering hole and swap lies, trade insults and have a fine time.



Lucky13 said:


> Not the helmet then??


The "Haube" is a must...period. Accept no substitute.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 9, 2013)

"...we'll all meet at the local watering hole and swap lies, trade insults and have a fine time..." 

"...posturing, finger pointing and [making] idle threats.."


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 9, 2013)

I would have to agree. We all need pointy helmets...and bacon! And cool upper lip hair.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 9, 2013)

F*ck it, let's all dress up as the Kaiser!


----------



## Readie (Sep 9, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Enough of this eatin' and drinkin' .......
> 
> "...I believe the fear for Germany was irreal ..."
> 
> ...




While England may not have been spoiling for a fight, there was an arms race with the 'new enemy' Germany and a lot of British paranoia about a German invasion.
I agree that if Germany had let the RN have the seven seas we probably not been so keen to fight. But, to expand any empire the Germans needed a navy to equal / beat the RN. So, I go back to my point into another post... WW1 was inevitable.
It ridiculous with hindsight that intelligent nations could walk into such a socially changing and devastating war.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Sep 9, 2013)

Lucky13 said:


> F*ck it, let's all dress up as the Kaiser!


You will have to grow the cool mustache!


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 9, 2013)

Borrow one like Terry's old.....soup strainer then....


----------



## Marcel (Sep 9, 2013)

Readie said:


> While England may not have been spoiling for a fight, there was an arms race with the 'new enemy' Germany and a lot of British paranoia about a German invasion.
> I agree that if Germany had let the RN have the seven seas we probably not been so keen to fight. But, to expand any empire the Germans needed a navy to equal / beat the RN. So, I go back to my point into another post... WW1 was inevitable.
> It ridiculous with hindsight that intelligent nations could walk into such a socially changing and devastating war.


Don't believe the others take this thread very serious, old boy  But good post. Agreed.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 9, 2013)

I smell Kaiser-fest 2014!!!!


----------



## parsifal (Sep 9, 2013)

The reasons for WWI are complex, and indeed there is no universally acknowledged theory as to who was responsible. 


Determining who was the aggressor nation or alliance is easier. It started with a political assassination, saw the victim (Austria) begin a pogrom on a nation allied to Russia, which then saw mobilzatiuon of Russia, france, germany and finally britain (to protect Belgium). The actual first shots and agressive acts were carried out by Germany and Austria. Therein lies your two nations responsible for the outbreak of the war. Other countries are guilty of posturing, brinkmanship and poor judgement. These two nations were the two clowns that actually started the shooting first (along with, perhaps, the nation of Serbia).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2013)

And the others were the clowns who because of thrir actions allowed a political climate to lead to war.

2 sides to the coin...


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 9, 2013)

Wouldn't be surprised, that grudges were held between countries, since the Napoleonic Wars, there were a few involved then...

United Kingdom
Austria (1800–1805, 1809, 1813–1815)

Hungary (1809)
Russia (1804–1807, 1812–1815)
Prussia (1806–1807, 1812–1815)
Spain (1808–1815)
Portugal (1800–1807, 1809–1815)
Sweden (1804–1809, 1812–1815)
Sicily
Papal States
Regency of Algiers
Qajar dynasty (1807–1812)
Sardinia
Netherlands (1815)
Brunswick
Tuscany
Switzerland
French Kingdom
Hanover
Nassau
Bavaria
Württemberg
Tyrol
Montenegro (1806–1814)

...and:

France
Italy
Grand Duchy of Warsaw
Polish Legions
Holland
Etruria
Principality of Lucca and Piombino
Naples
Swiss Confederation
Confederation of the Rhine
Bonaparte Spain (1808–1813)
Spain (1803–1808.)
Denmark–Norway
Ottoman Empire (1806–1812)
Austria (1809–1813)
Russia (1807–1812)
Prussia (1807–1812)
Sweden (1809–1812)
Qajar dynasty (1804–1807, 1812–1813)

Co-belligerent
United States (War of 1812)


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2013)

The Balkan countries were not friends with eath other, which also complicated things within the alliances.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 9, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The Balkan countries were not friends with eath other, which also complicated things within the alliances.


And France and Russia signed a threaty in which they specificly show that the wanted war with Germany.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 9, 2013)

As Wiki put it:

The prime cause of World War I being the hostility between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, it isn't surprising that some of the earliest fighting took place between Serbia and its powerful neighbour to the north: Austria-Hungary. Serbia held out against Austria-Hungary for more than a year before it was conquered in late 1915.
Dalmatia was a strategic region during World War I that both Italy and Serbia intended to seize from Austria-Hungary. Italy entered the war in 1915 upon agreeing to the Treaty of London that guaranteed Italy a substantial portion of Dalmatia.

Allied diplomacy was able to bring Romania into the war in 1916 but this proved disastrous for the Romanians. Shortly after they joined the war, a combined German, Austrian and Bulgarian offensive conquered two-thirds of their country in a rapid campaign which ended in December 1916. However, the Romanian and Russian armies managed to stabilize the front and hold on to Moldavia.

In 1917, Greece entered the war on the Allied side, and in 1918, the multi-national Army of the Orient, based in northern Greece, finally launched an offensive which drove Bulgaria to seek peace, recaptured Serbia and finally halted only at the border of Hungary in November 1918.

Balkans Campaign (World War I) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2013)

Marcel said:


> And France and Russia signed a threaty in which they specificly show that the wanted war with Germany.


And that's why the Germans made the pre-emptive strike against France, gambling on Russia being slow to react. The Germans were hoping to be allowed to move through Belgium to strike France where they weren't fortified, like they were along the Franco-German frontier. 

Interestingly enough, France asked Belgium to allow them to move thier forces through to attack Germany and Belgium turned them down as well. Germany simply beat them to the punch and while Germany had initial successes against the French, they had to divert thier forces to the east to counter the unexpected Russian offensive. Doing so cost the Germans the manpower they had been counting on to knock the French out early so they could concentrate on the Russians.

Everything went downhill quickly from there...


----------



## Readie (Sep 9, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Don't believe the others take this thread very serious, old boy  But good post. Agreed.



We can continue a civilised conversation Marcel. After all WW1 and its devastating effects affected people in Europe and the British colonies a lot more than than America.
I must admit that I'm fascinated by the lead up to, the war itself, the massive social change, the end of an era where wars were fought just by professionals and the aftermath.
My lad is taking 'British Wars' as part of his A level history... so. I'm in my element helping him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The Balkan countries were not friends with eath other, which also complicated things within the alliances.



Thet still aren't to this day.


----------



## Readie (Sep 9, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> And that's why the Germans made the pre-emptive strike against France, gambling on Russia being slow to react. The Germans were hoping to be allowed to move through Belgium to strike France where they weren't fortified, like they were along the Franco-German frontier.
> 
> Interestingly enough, France asked Belgium to allow them to move thier forces through to attack Germany and Belgium turned them down as well. Germany simply beat them to the punch and while Germany had initial successes against the French, they had to divert thier forces to the east to counter the unexpected Russian offensive. Doing so cost the Germans the manpower they had been counting on to knock the French out early so they could concentrate on the Russians.
> 
> Everything went downhill quickly from there...



Sounds like WW2 too Dave, No country can fight the Russians and the allies.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 9, 2013)

"....the others were the clowns who, because of their actions, allowed a political climate to lead to war ...."

Sounds like Syria _today_. So tell me - who's the ALPHA male here..?


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 9, 2013)

D*mn! They look uncomfortable...


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2013)

wow...that's a photo for the books...

Past photos of meetings between U.S. presidents and Russian/Soviet leaders at least looked more up-beat...even ones with Khruschev


----------



## Marcel (Sep 9, 2013)

Readie said:


> We can continue a civilised conversation Marcel. After all WW1 and its devastating effects affected people in Europe and the British colonies a lot more than than America.
> I must admit that I'm fascinated by the lead up to, the war itself, the massive social change, the end of an era where wars were fought just by professionals and the aftermath.
> My lad is taking 'British Wars' as part of his A level history... so. I'm in my element helping him.


I started to develop an interest in the prelude to WW1 the last few years. In the NL they don't pay much attention to that war as we didn't participate. But the path to WW1 is actually much more interesting then that to WW2 and actually serves as a prelude to the latter.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 9, 2013)

Had a good series about this on the Discovery, History or National Geographic a while back, about all that went on up to WWI....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 9, 2013)

When politicians (and countries) start using war to burnish their reputation, when they say one thing and mean another, you know the world is heading for real trouble. For example, this:


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 9, 2013)

....and weren't they inspired by the Taranto attack by RN?


----------



## Readie (Sep 9, 2013)

Marcel said:


> I started to develop an interest in the prelude to WW1 the last few years. In the NL they don't pay much attention to that war as we didn't participate. But the path to WW1 is actually much more interesting then that to WW2 and actually serves as a prelude to the latter.



I agree Marcel. In order to start to understand the lead up to WW1 any national pride has to put aside and the actions of all looked at dispassionately. 
Its true to say that Britain was a different country after WW1. One of great changes was women working and having an independent life and income.
I cannot image a situation in 2013 where the British army would tolerate the loss of 20,000 in one day. Nor, would society accept the losses on all sides.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2013)

Okay guys, lets not let this take a dive into modern politics, you know we don't allow that here for a reason...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 9, 2013)

I guess the "dive" was my post # 7:

"... As we watch the situation in Syria, in the summer of 2013, I have to wonder and fear the possibility that the gassing of his own people by Syrian President Assad could trip an escalating chain reaction of actions and reactions. While the White House seems (officially, at least) unwilling to recognize reality -- the reality nonetheless is that the M.E. is in the midst of a war between Sunni and Shia power brokers: Saudi Arabia and Iran. A 'surgical' strike by any third party is not going to alter that reality. Assad's father brutalized his opponents just as Saddam Hussein did with his. Both keeping the lid on delicate, fragmented pseudo countries that owe their very existence to the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. As indeed does Israel

In 1914 - Russia escalated the tension between Serbia and the Austrian Empire and its allies by playing the Pan Slav Big Brother protector card. In hindsight, if Russia and Germany had both stayed out of the politics and posturing after the assassination, the whole thing could have been contained.
But words provoke words, actions provoke actions ... and so it goes.

This has the makings of conflagration .... in this summer of 2013."

So be it.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 9, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And the others were the clowns who because of thrir actions allowed a political climate to lead to war.
> 
> 2 sides to the coin...



Good points. And i largely agree. I was trying to apply a very narrow definition...."who fired the first shots = the aggressor". Not a great definiation to apply I admit


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2013)

Like it's been said before, Europe was a powder keg with many fuses waiting to be lit.

It was simply a matter of time before someone blinked. It just so happend that Archduke Ferdinand was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

If it wasn't that incident, it would have been something else. Perhaps a shipping accident, a train derailment or an accidental gunshot across a border by an edgy soldier...hard to say what an alternate trigger could have been, but the fact remains that it would have eventually happened.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Good points. And i largely agree. I was trying to apply a very narrow definition...."who fired the first shots = the aggressor". Not a great definiation to apply I admit



And yes I do agree with you as well in general terms.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 11, 2013)

"....If it wasn't that incident, it would have been something else. Perhaps a shipping accident, a train derailment or an accidental gunshot across a border by an edgy soldier...hard to say what an alternate trigger could have been ...."

Indeed. Who knows. Perhaps an attack on a German radio station by Polish "commandoes" .... no, wait, that ones been used.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 11, 2013)

Never has a family feud cost so much in human life....


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 11, 2013)

Indeed...


----------



## Marcel (Sep 12, 2013)

I starting reading through my ww1 books again. What a horrific war. Lives were thrown away like paper napkins. Take for instance the 3rd battle of Ieperen, fought in july 1917: in 10 days, the British lost 340.000 casualties and the Germans 250.000. The line only moved 8km. During the whole war, the fights around the Ypres Salient claimed 1.000.000 lives 
And people still wanted to fight again 20 years later. I guess that shows that people just don't learn.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 12, 2013)

I like this simple round-up: World War I - RationalWiki


----------



## Marcel (Sep 12, 2013)

Capt. Vick said:


> I like this simple round-up: World War I - RationalWiki



Great site 

Like this quote about the summary of the war:

```
The Russians were rushin' the Prussians;
The Prussians were crushin' the Russians.
The Balkans were balkin' and Turkey was squawkin'
Rasputin disputin' and Italy hootin'.
The Boches all bulled Bolshevikis;
The British were watching the sea.
But the good Lord I'm thankin'
The Yanks started yankin',
And yanked Kaiser Bill up a tree.
```


----------



## Readie (Sep 14, 2013)

Ummm.... I think it would be fairer to say that Kaiser yanked himself up the tree by taking on too much....


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 14, 2013)

Should have gone to the bierpalast instead old boy....


----------



## Readie (Sep 14, 2013)

Or built better tanks


----------



## silence (Sep 15, 2013)

Marcel said:


> And people still wanted to fight again 20 years later. I guess that shows that people just don't learn.



I think that might be a little strong. The way I understand it is:

In 1914 most citizens of the belligerents were excited about going off to war and figured they'd give the foe a good pummeling and would be home by Christmas. Bells were ringing and parades marching and all that sort of crap. Then the horror set in.

In 1939, huge portions of the populations of the belligerents (including AFAIK Nazi Germany) still had vivid memories of the carnage of the "Great" War. There were no bells ringing, no ticker-tape parades, just an international collection of normal people who held their breath as the great plunge down began. If war had truly been wanted, I don't think there would have been a Munich nor an Anschluss and France would have marched into the Rhineland in '36.

"On, on, on cried the leaders at the back."


----------



## Readie (Sep 18, 2013)

silence said:


> I think that might be a little strong. The way I understand it is:
> 
> In 1914 most citizens of the belligerents were excited about going off to war and figured they'd give the foe a good pummeling and would be home by Christmas. Bells were ringing and parades marching and all that sort of crap. Then the horror set in.
> 
> ...



The Germans slept walked into Nazi ideology, the frightening thing is that not every German was that keen on Hitler. The French hid behind the Maginot line and the British watched and hoped it would all just go away....
As for wanting to fight, well... we had no choice.
I cannot speak for France and the Netherlands. Its different being invaded.
The biggest irony is that securing European liberty bankrupted Britain (again).


----------



## silence (Sep 18, 2013)

Readie said:


> The Germans slept walked into Nazi ideology, the frightening thing is that not every German was that keen on Hitler. The French hid behind the Maginot line and the British watched and hoped it would all just go away....
> As for wanting to fight, well... we had no choice.
> I cannot speak for France and the Netherlands. Its different being invaded.
> The biggest irony is that securing European liberty bankrupted Britain (again).



I would say that Britain did in fact have a choice: it well could have abandoned Poland just like Czechoslovakia. Perhaps Britain and France could have moved against Germany immediately and broken Germany had they have had the political will in '39. Perhaps Britain (and France) should have declared war on the USSR when they invaded Poland to get their share of the spoils, or maybe when the USSR moved on Finland (though they may have laughing too hard at the ass-kicking little Finland dealt to the Russian bear to do anything). Britain had a number of alternate choices she could have (I'm sure some say should have) made.

But regardless of the "what-ifs" and "should haves", Britain made the hard, self-sacrificing moral choice with the result that she sacrificed her empire in pursuit and attainment of a higher cause.


----------



## Readie (Sep 18, 2013)

silence said:


> I would say that Britain did in fact have a choice: it well could have abandoned Poland just like Czechoslovakia. Perhaps Britain and France could have moved against Germany immediately and broken Germany had they have had the political will in '39. Perhaps Britain (and France) should have declared war on the USSR when they invaded Poland to get their share of the spoils, or maybe when the USSR moved on Finland (though they may have laughing too hard at the ass-kicking little Finland dealt to the Russian bear to do anything). Britain had a number of alternate choices she could have (I'm sure some say should have) made.
> 
> But regardless of the "what-ifs" and "should haves", Britain made the hard, self-sacrificing moral choice with the result that she sacrificed her empire in pursuit and attainment of a higher cause.



There are always choices. Every country made its own choice and had to live with the consequences.
The ripples of those choices are still felt today in Europe.


----------



## silence (Sep 18, 2013)

Readie said:


> There are always choices. Every country made its own choice and had to live with the consequences.
> The ripples of those choices are still felt today in Europe.



Exactly. Its all too rare when someone makes the morally right choice rather than the easy one.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Sep 18, 2013)

Not to get "political", but the U.S. used to be just that; morally right in helping other countries.
Lately,... well, I'm not so sure.
Back to modeling!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 19, 2013)

Technically, with the lessons learned from other's mistakes over the past 2,000 years (at the very least), you'd think that humanity would have fugured out how to avert armed conflict long before now.

But sadly, this is not the case.


----------



## silence (Sep 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Technically, with the lessons learned from other's mistakes over the past 2,000 years (at the very least), you'd think that humanity would have fugured out how to avert armed conflict long before now.
> 
> But sadly, this is not the case.



But when you consider how quiet its been in Europe since '45 (not counting the former Yugoslavia: its/they're in a class all their own) and take into account all the bloodshed dating back to the Romans and before, perhaps there is reason to hope.


----------



## Readie (Sep 19, 2013)

silence said:


> But when you consider how quiet its been in Europe since '45 (not counting the former Yugoslavia: its/they're in a class all their own) and take into account all the bloodshed dating back to the Romans and before, perhaps there is reason to hope.



The EU has drawn European countries together and gone a long way to healing the historical rifts.
Its been worth it for that reason alone.

The end of the cold war helped too.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 19, 2013)

an Englishman being positive about the EU is quite refreshing


----------



## Readie (Sep 19, 2013)

Marcel said:


> an Englishman being positive about the EU is quite refreshing




There is a lot about the EU that I don't agree with but, its a fact that Britain needs to be in the EU as a trading partner and we benefit from EU migration too.
Its a modern world Marcel and even the English have to move with the times


----------



## silence (Sep 19, 2013)

Readie said:


> There is a lot about the EU that I don't agree with but, its a fact that Britain needs to be in the EU as a trading partner and we benefit from EU migration too.
> Its a modern world Marcel and even the English have to move with the times



I promise I won't tell your fellow countrymen you said that - at least until I need something from you!


----------



## Marcel (Sep 19, 2013)

Readie said:


> Its a modern world Marcel and even the English have to move with the times


----------



## Readie (Sep 19, 2013)

silence said:


> I promise I won't tell your fellow countrymen you said that - at least until I need something from you!


 


Marcel said:


>




Haha...

England is changing, as is every modern country, some changes are good...others not so good.
We should concentrate on the important things not being endlessly distracted by paff.


----------

