1918 - the year of offensives

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Agreed!



If I had not been in the Alps this weekend, I think I would have loved to have driven up to Verdun. I am sure they always have a nice remembrance.
 
Just a quick note guys. I havent finished the information for this thread as yet, will get back to finishing it eventually. Wanted to include some of the operations (including planned ops) by the RN, and also some of the aerial stuff as well. But am engaed in some othjer stuff in the "three fighters" thread at the moment.

Patience is a virtue guys.....
 



Edwardian British society had demarcations that were thoroughly broken down by the needs of WW1. Women working in munitions factories, the equalisation of the trench and so on.
Any lingering naivety about 'war' and the ordinary man's trust in those above him were destroyed once and for all.
Not to mention the after effects of demobilisation and the hardships of the 1920's.
This aspect of WW1 is often over looked but, in some ways, has left a more lasting legacy than the horrors of the battles themselves.
BBC - History - The Home Front in World War One

John
 
Interesting link, Readie. The "Home Front" was something that neither France nor Germany "developed" in quite the same way as Britain (and the Commonwealth countries). My very anglo Canadian-born Mom -- born in 1899 -- was working in munitions by 1916. Her Dad and two older brothers were overseas by then.

The BBC article does a good job of explaining the effect of that war on UK society: "... The Home Front meant that by 1918, World War One had become truly a people's war, and we should not be surprised, therefore, that the nation's first Labour government was elected shortly afterwards, in 1924.

And Mr. Churchill experienced the same effect in 1945 ....


MM
 

That's right Michael,

The whole concept of the 'post WW2 dream' was built on Beveridge's vision and the eradication of the ills of the previous decades (want, ignorance, idleness, squallor disease).
My father, having been demobbed in '47 and my grandparents ( WW1 vets) fervently hoped that the British people would never suffer the appalling conditions of the earlier part of the 20th century.
Bevan had the people's mandate to deliver.

As a side note, we are outraged at the recent Chinese report blaming our cherished welfare state for our malais.
No post war British government, whatever political party, dare to seriously meddle with our health service, benefit system state education.

I think that the greatest gifts we have been given by our forefathers sacrifices are our liberty and our welfare state.

John
 
Like earthquakes ... societies that have been severely stressed rebound and readjust after massive trauma, through aftershocks. England held it together in the face of Empire-loss and financial ruin, but you can only expect the vessel to go to the well so often .. the aftershocks are still rippling.

Time to discover yourselves again. God save our next young King and Queen.

MM
 
Last edited:

Very true Michael, and thank you.
The legacy of Blair and his concept of 'Cool Britannia' have done more harm to our self esteem than virtually anything else and while it was very trendy at the time people are realising the truth now...and smarting.
Having said that, I believe that this Remembrance Sunday was the best supported I can recall. The entire city centre of Plymouth stopped for 2 minutes, people, buses, taxi's...everyone. The country came together to celebrate, reflect and be grateful without feeling embarrassed.

John
 
Last edited:

Well put, John. The NHS is one of the best things created post-war for residents of the UK.

While we don't commemorate Remembrance Day on 11/11 here in New Zealand there are many who think we should do more to remember the day, at least. Our remembrance day is ANZAC Day on 25 April, so we don't need two remembrance days.

Like all nations that took part in WW1, New Zealand suffered accordingly; we lost the largest number of people to the war per head of population than any other country. In some communities, every male between a certain age was wiped out. Sensibly and not before time, the Education board has introduced WW1 to the curriculum for young school children, so they can learn what 'Passchendaele' really meant.

 
nuuumannn said:
Sensibly and not before time, the Education board has introduced WW1 to the curriculum for young school children, so they can learn what 'Passchendaele' really meant.
Click to expand...

About time as you rightly say. Here WW1 WW2 and a sensible curriculum have enabled a new generation of Brits to understand the sheer scale of the conflicts.
I have my father's North Africa Italy war diary, my mother's RAF fighter command diary and my grandfather's WW1 whistle and binoculars to show my 3 children. They add a personal touch that helps them in their project work. There are also a raft of awkward questions about the Nazi's, Germans and other Axis countries that need an honest answer.
The Holocaust is not shied away from, as much as you can it is just presented as facts without any spin.
There has been a certain amount of historical re writing in Europe but, not here I'm glad to say.
The British and our valued friends around the English speaking world should never forget and even as the world changes I would hope our bond survives.
John
 
Why did the Kiwis separate from the Aussies , whose decision was it the Kiwis or the Brits
 
The formation of Australia as a nation was the result of a plebiscite taken at the end of the 19th century. There had to be a majority in favour of federation in every colony that participated. The successful Yes vote was the result of hard campaigning by people like sir Henry Parkes. Participation in the vote was a decision to be made by each colony individually, and explains some of the strange arrangements for the protection of States Rights. The most strange of all are the arrangements for our upper house of parliament, which disproportionalty favours representation by the smaller states. This was done so the larger dtates like NSW could not dominate the house at the expense of the other smaller states.

New Zealand had considered participation in federation, but its people rejected union at some point and have remained quite fiercely independant ever since.

The British never imposed Federation on any part of Australia, though the Colonial Secretary had to approve it. Initially the british had opposed union, which had started as early as 1867, but did eventually give their stamp of approval for it. The first legislative moves toward union occurred in 1883. A big influence that drove Fedration was the fear of Russian aggression and defence generaly. The second was fiscal and economic issues.

A good discussion as to why NZ did not join the Federation can be found here.....

Ged Martin - Australia, New Zealand and Federation, 1883-1901 - Section C
 
I think my question was misinterpeted , why did the Kiwis leave the ANZACs was it a choice of the Kiwis or Brits. As you probably are aware the Brits were more inclined to use the colonies as replacements for their units , and I'm assuming the Aussies were much like the Canadians in the fact they wished to keep there units as a single force rather then being used piecemeal
 
Are you referring to the reorganization that basically disolved II Corps deployment, transferring some assets (Mostly Australian) to I Corps, and the remainder (including the NZ Div) to 12 Corps ( a British Army formation)? If so, the decision was a mixture of British and Australian input. Monash and others worked exceedingly hard for the retention of Australian as a single formation and were successful in achieving that national objective. Manpower shortages made it impossible to retain two ANZAC Corps, so the decision was made to reduce the Australian committment to a single, but larger Corps. The New Zealnders never committed or formed a Corps level command, so they probably didnt get much say where their divisionwas sent, though I am sure they were consulted, just as the Aussies didnt get much say which army their Corps was attached to (though once again they were extensively consulted on this very issue) . The New Zealanders did, however retain the right to keep their divisional assets concentrated (more or less....they did provide some non-divisional assets for I Corps, whilst we provided an even greater non-divisional attachment for II Corps...this was done quite willingly bwetween the ANZAC partners as far as I am aware.....our co-operation remained very tight despite the separation of the two armies after the reorganization....)
 
Regarding Parsifal's answer about the two nations; before NZ became a Dominion, it was governed by New South Wales. NZ, however was never a penal colony! The troops tasked with guarding the prisoners were sent to NZ on holiday to Russell in the far north (once the capital), where local whores gave them all manner of stds and the soldiers gave the natives alcohol, influenza and rifles.

Winston Churchill on Australia; "You can't make a decent nation out of convicts and Irishmen"!
 
Its true....churchill never thought much of australia, or its troops. In 42 he was quite willing to try and override our governments wishes and divert the only trained troops in the eastern hemisphere to Burma, against our wishes.

Churchill unwittingly probably had more to do with the formation of the ANZUS alliance than any other british leader
 
Yep, from my understanding, Churchill and John Curtin never really hit it off. Curtin was too brash for Churchill; he preferred Peter Fraser's understated charm. Interestingly, Fraser and FDR became friends, to the extent that Elenor made a visit during the war and stayed at Fraser's house. Fraser was quite a visionary, and while you might suspect, not wrongly that Churchill's prejudice was influential in the formation of ANZUS, Fraser made alliances with the USA during WW2 against the wishes of Great Britain purely based on the fact that America was closer, and this was before Pearl Harbour. Fraser was quite the strategist and a brilliant mind. He was widely admired around the world. I guess the thing about Fraser was he came after Savage, who was also very well liked at the time; his death came as quite a shock to the nation.
 
Churchill was a devious old bugger.
I wouldn't underestimate his cunning in making remarks about Australia..
Remember he was a man of war, not peace.

John
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
Unraveling the Myth of Sgt. Alvin York: The Other Sixteen
Replies
1
Views
622
Gnomey
Can anyone identify this plane from this June 1918 German footage?
Replies
5
Views
1K
German WWII Archive
British Fighters of WW1
Replies
5
Views
453
Max Volume
The Vintage Aviator Ltd Hangar
Replies
10
Views
2K
nuuumannn
Battle of Jutland....
Replies
0
Views
436
Lucky13
Menu
Log in
Register