Battle for Nanking

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

@buffnut453:

"... the way the Germans, themselves, thought they were treated after WWI. The country was effectively neutered, given no opportunity to defend itself properly. There were various land-grabs by the Allies, particularly the French, which continued long after WWI had ended"

Hey - lets move the yardsticks back to the Franco-Prussian war - when the French were humiliated and had territory seized by the Germans. I mean - if we are going to accept "sorry for myself" arguments - why start with 1918 .

Was France vindictive as Hell in 1918? Was there hatred for the "Bosch"? - damn right there was. Was it justified ... well it was just as valid as the way Germans felt they were treated.

You have to draw a line somewhere, buffnut, and accept that each of us is responsible for our choices and our actions. Blaming others doesn't cut it.

My grand dad and two uncles didn't go to France in 1914 to return again in 1939 because the Germans hadn't learned a thing from the first go-round. But the uncles DID go back to war in 1939 - grand dad died in '39 - disgusted and disappointed, I'm sure.

MM
 
Last edited:
@Marcel:

"... France and Russia were cooking this up for Germany for years. They cornerd Germany to start agressions. "

Please start a thread on this, Marcel, I'd love to know more .

MM
 
michaelmaltby said:
@Marcel:

"... France and Russia were cooking this up for Germany for years. They cornerd Germany to start agressions. "

Please start a thread on this, Marcel, I'd love to know more .

MM
Click to expand...

Hi Michael,

Good idea. But it's a long story and as you might know, quite complex. As soon as I have time, I'll try to start one.
 
Last edited:


MM

I'm not blaming others nor am I justifying actions. The problem of looking back in history is that we view things from how they are now not how they might have been had things gone differently. You can't look at international relations or wars without going into the history - often way back into the history - to truly understand why things happened the way they did and why people made the decisions they made (and that's not excusing responsibility nor indicating that any perspective is any more or less valid than another).
 
Excellent point. The peace that was imposed on Germany at versailles was nasty, by todays standards. By the standards applicable pre-League of nations, it was actually pretty tame.

In some sense, Germany was lucky to continue to exist as a separate state after WWI. They could easily have ended up as provinces of france, Germany and her other neighbours, in much the same way as Austria was carved up
 
@parsifal:

Absolutely right - just don't tell the Germans that. A tougher stance in 1918 WOULD have altered history.

@buffnut: "... The problem of looking back in history is that we view things from how they are now not how they might have been"

Perhaps - but some of us are old enough to have heard first hand from our mothers and uncles - participants - what actually happened. I am not looking back, I am remembering vividly what I was told. And I was told precisely so I would remember.. Germany wanted to go through Belgium to seal off France, they told Germany "let us through and we won't harm you, resist and we'll hurt you." Belgium resisted and Germany wreaked terrible vengeance on them.

Recently BikerBabe posted colour photos of WW1. I urge all of you to look at them. What stands out to my eye is Germany's preparation for the war, the fortifications etc., the smug complacency of the officers, and the backdrop of already wrecked (Belgian) cities. (And yes, I know these photos were posed so they are hardly "natural" but they were carefully composed to convey a reality)

I have spent my life testing and measuring WHAT I WAS TAUGHT against what I have learned for myself. I think I am more than accommodating of the German point-of-view, and see shortcomings in the Allied position, but, after a lifetime of reading I still believe that in both wars everything started with German aggression and treachery. To rationalize or revisionize that is just to indulge in some kind of fantasy -- and it is unhelpful. It is impossible for people to make accurate assessments of world conditions TODAY when they are being fed misinformation about the recent past.

I am not an existentialist. I do not believe morality is "relative" although I do understand there are times when people have to do what they have to do. So - call me old fashioned or brain washed - but that's the way I see things. Yes, my family fought on the winning side, but by God they paid a terrible price for coming to the aid of Belgium.

MM
 
Last edited:
MM,

The information you were provided with by your family as a youth is their perception and understanding of a situation. Your identification of smugness and complacency in certain posed pictures is your interpretation based on that perception. This is not rationalizing nor revising, and I agree that German aggression was a pivotal issue in the spark for WWi and WWII, but the basis of our world view is a function of human nature centered on our experiences and memories. Unfortunately, our experiences are often only a small part of the big picture, or are based on what we are allowed to read by those who publish books, while our memories are highly fallible even at short remove from the events we are describing.

Historians often suffer from a deterministic bent when they examine events that led to a particular decision or crisis. We often look for the "one big thing" that caused an otherwise unavoidable crisis when, in reality, it was often a complex chain of inter-related conditions and decisions by multiple individuals. There is a tension between structure (ie the constraints which limit freedom to act) and agency (whcih is the freedom to act). International political treaties form part of the structure and are intended to prevent or limit nations' freedom to act, including individual acts of aggression. Origins of crises are often found in the interplay between these elements, even going back before the treaties were signed into the, often long-running, antipathy between nations or peoples.

As stated above, WWII was certainly caused by aggression by the Axis powers but there were causes for that aggression, either real or perceived by the aggressors, which prompted the decisions and actions of the Axis leaders and their peoples. War doesn't spring from some big-bang to occupy a previous political vacuum, rather it is an extension of conflicting political and cultural positions and idealogies that, in the belief of at least one nation's stated position, cannot be resolved by other means.
 
@ buffnut:

Of course everything is relative old chap.

Dulce Et Decorum Est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!– An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.–
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Wilfred Owen
 

Attachments

  • shock.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 96
For those of us who haven't a clue re: Latin, can somebody please translate the last line? Otherwise....very gripping poem. Feels like I'm right there in the trenches with them.
 
Thank you, VB (I went to public schools in South Georgia, where English was considered a foreign language class along with Spanish and French. The French teacher pretty much knew how to order wine, and surrender.)!!! Knowing that makes the poem all the more poignant. Gonna have to add it to my archives....
 

RA

from wiki

The title and the Latin exhortation of the final two lines are drawn from the phrase "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" written by the Roman poet Horace in (Ode III.2.13):[2]

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:
mors et fugacem persequitur virum
nec parcit inbellis iuventae
poplitibus timidove tergo.

"How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country:
Death pursues the man who flees,
spares not the hamstrings or cowardly backs
Of battle-shy youths."

These words were well known and often quoted by supporters of the war near its inception and were, therefore, of particular relevance to soldiers of the era.

In 1913, the first line, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, was inscribed on the wall of the chapel of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.[3] In the final stanza of his poem, Owen refers to this as "The old Lie".[4]
 

RA

from wiki

The title and the Latin exhortation of the final two lines are drawn from the phrase "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" written by the Roman poet Horace in (Ode III.2.13):[2]

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:
mors et fugacem persequitur virum
nec parcit inbellis iuventae
poplitibus timidove tergo.

"How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country:
Death pursues the man who flees,
spares not the hamstrings or cowardly backs
Of battle-shy youths."

These words were well known and often quoted by supporters of the war near its inception and were, therefore, of particular relevance to soldiers of the era.

In 1913, the first line, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, was inscribed on the wall of the chapel of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.[3] In the final stanza of his poem, Owen refers to this as "The old Lie".[4]
 
It takes a very special kind of man to keep fighting, knowing they have no chance of surviving.

The commander of the Guard at waterloo, I forget his name, replied to offers to surrender with the words...."The guard does not surrender, it dies!" And then it did, to a man.

The greatest incentive for coldiers, isnt the high sounding ideals and catchcries that got them to join. Its usually very simple....the desire to survive. men fight to try and stay alive.
 
A short story about people not afraid to die:

During the Battle of Sutjeska, during summer of 1943, German, Italian and quisling forces were trying to encircle and destroy the HQ of Tito's partisans (and Tito himself, obviously). One of Tito's units, 2nd Dalmatian brigade was guarding the extraction of the HQ. After days of attacks of more numerous number, their reply to the HQ offering reinforcements was: "We have lost 3/4 of our number, but count at as as a full-strength unit".
Eventually, the HQ got away from Axis forces (cca 120 000 vs. 20 000 partisans).

Now one might think that soldiers of the brigade were hard-boiled communists and what not. The core of brigade was born after this:
After Axis occupation of Kingdom of Yougoslavia, the island of Iž was under Italian control. So they confiscated olive oil, the main souce of income of people of the island. The locals broke in the warehouse, reclaiming the oil. The Italians responded with army unit, recapturing the oil, and took young man as hostages. Now the locals got real angry, and attacked Italians, liberating the hostages and, of course, the oil. Now, knowing that next time Italians land their units at island the issues might went very bad, decided to leave the island and join Tito.
 

Actually, Parsifal, more than merely wanting to survive (which is an entirely human desire), it's often the case that soldiers continue to fight because they don't want to let their mates down. The bonds between soldiers can be incredibly strong, so much so that men will stand shoulder-to-shoulder to face certain death because that's what all their mates are doing around them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The D-Day Naval Gun Battle
Replies
0
Views
744
MIflyer
M
C
looking for information on some servicemen.
Replies
0
Views
259
coffman
C
A
Realistic options for Japan 1937-41
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
yosimitesam
Luftwaffe Officers Career Summaries for 2023
Replies
1
Views
1K
Crimea_River
Japanese WWII Flag….one more for the ages.
Replies
5
Views
1K
StackedWings
Menu
Log in
Register