vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I think the "Seven Years War" (which IMHO was the frst true World War) also had a profound impact on the British Empire as it greatly extended it's realm.
What exactly did WW2 in Europe Accomplish?
- Thread starter carbonlifeform
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
yep but now you have a new nobility
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I would say WWII also brought into sharp understanding the meaning of predjuice and racism. I think there was a moral shift afterwards.
Yeah, the self imposed elites of our nation. Usually, with the biggest mouths and the least productiivity.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Call me wierd 
but I actually believe the 20th Century was a three-act play:
WWI - including the Russian revolution, collapse of empires etc. etc - including the acceptance of Japan as an ally
WW2 - from non aggression pact through to the A bombs on Japan
Cold War - America (and allies) in nuclear standoff with former WW2 ally (but ideological enemy) the USSR - in th end America's winning weapon is the capitalist Free Market system and the productivity, creativity and motivation that goes with it.
So - in my mind, the whole century has been about the shifting concept and implementation of Empire and Interests -
Since 9-11 - well, frankly, we have returned to the Middle Ages and the Holy Wars between Islam and Christianity.
In 1962 when I was studying the Middle Ages at university, I wouldn't have believed that events like the Battle of Tours would ever matter in the modern world. I guess I was wrong .... it was always under the surface, waiting to bubble up when the pressure came off.
MM
but I actually believe the 20th Century was a three-act play:WWI - including the Russian revolution, collapse of empires etc. etc - including the acceptance of Japan as an ally
WW2 - from non aggression pact through to the A bombs on Japan
Cold War - America (and allies) in nuclear standoff with former WW2 ally (but ideological enemy) the USSR - in th end America's winning weapon is the capitalist Free Market system and the productivity, creativity and motivation that goes with it.
So - in my mind, the whole century has been about the shifting concept and implementation of Empire and Interests -
Since 9-11 - well, frankly, we have returned to the Middle Ages and the Holy Wars between Islam and Christianity.
In 1962 when I was studying the Middle Ages at university, I wouldn't have believed that events like the Battle of Tours would ever matter in the modern world. I guess I was wrong .... it was always under the surface, waiting to bubble up when the pressure came off.
MM
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Since world war I is being discussed. I can't for the life of me understand why the war wasn't ended in 1916 when it became clear that any outcome would be utterly pyrrhic for both sides. If I was the Kaiser I'd have wanted out of that war from the second the disastrous battle of the Marne concluded.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Kennedys , Bush family just off the topAnd who is that? the Kennedys or the Jacksons?
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
Neither side was in a position to back down. The French would not see the war ended until they had reclaimed all of thier occupied territory, and it would have been morally indefensible for the UK to throw the towel while Belgium was still occupied - after all, Belgium was the stated cassus belli of the British government. The Germans had large chunks of Europe under thier control - sue for peace and it's all lost. Not what the folks back home want to hear after you've taken 450,000 casualties to hold on to a few miles of the Somme and even more taking Verdun.
Also, I don't believe that either side saw the war as unwinnable in 1916. The RN could claim to have the war in the North Sea in the bag, as Jutland conclusively demonstrated that Germany could not lift the blockade by battlefleet action. The British believed, even after the Somme, that the 'Big Push' could succeed if yhey had more men, more guns and more shells. The French were also confident about their chances for sucess after the setbacks of 1914-15, and had Verdun not happened, the Somme would have been a mainly French battle. As for the Germans, they realised if they could just hold on to what they had and outlast the Entente in the casualty game, they could probably keep what they had captured. So no-one saw the war as unwinnable, or had a case for withdrawal that they could sell to the public. Too much had been lost by that stage for half-measures to be accepted - after late 1915, I think all sides realised that the matter could only end with one faction being eliminated.
Nobody gives a dang about the Bush's over here.
Is that how the Presidents family are portrayed outside of the country? That is interesting.
Last edited:
river
Airman
Hi,
Most people over here have liittle respect or love for most Presidents, and think even less of their fiscal and foreign policies.
river
Nobody gives a dang about the Bush's over here.
Most people over here have liittle respect or love for most Presidents, and think even less of their fiscal and foreign policies.
river
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Sorry River ... "over here". Where's that, please
MM
MM
parsifal
Colonel
all the elements for achieving victory were there, it was just that people didnt yet know how to put it all together.
At sea, the U-Boat would come within an ace of defeating the allies. The most effective defence was the convoy, but it took some time for this to sink in . The battlefeets mostly cancelled each other out, but since the british fleet was better positioned, and was stronger in numbers it was given the defacto control of the seas (this was a strategy never really explored by the Germans after Jutland.....an attempt to wrest control of the seas by way of surface battle)
On land was where the major changes were occurring. The machine gun was the overwhelming firepower of the batlefield. The traditional killer of small arms, was artillery, but in WWI the techniques of how to achieve this were badly misread until the very end of the war. The Allies appear to have lost sight of the fact that the object was not so much to tackle and destroy the front lines so much, as to keep the enemy busy whilst the friendly infantry advanced at night, in small groups, accross no-mans land, to penetrate the enemy line, and then push on through that breach with the aim of exploiting into the enemy rear areas. Each side held pieces of the jigsaw. The Germans developed the idea of short duration rapid fire artillery bombardments, and then slightly after that the formation of special assault Infantry teams (Sturmbattalion or Stosstruppen) that hit the enemy defences at a concentrated point, rather than across a broad front. These tactics were first employed by a German called Von Hutier at Riga in 1917, and were later used in the 1918 offensive.
In an echo of the 2nd war, the German supply system and manpower levels broke down which was their ultimate undoing.
For the allies, the solution incorporated the German ideas (eventually, as men such as John Monash began to have an effect on tactical concepts). However grafted on to that was the use of tanks, to provide cover for the elite Infantry formations as they crossed no mans land. The idea of the tank as an Infantry support weapon had been born, and eventually its was very successful. Grafted onto that, but never really attempted, because of the armistice was the idea of using Tanks and motorized Infantry as break through weapons.
Both of these basic concepts....tanks and renewed tactics were under development. For a host of reasons both sides thought they could win in 1916....not so much because the repective high commands embraced these new concepts, but because each side believed they could break the deadlock....the Germans with their efforts on the eastern front, and in the battle of attrition at Verdun, and the allies with their big pushes at the Somme and the so called "Nivelle Offensive" The Russians too believed that victory was in their grasp under Brusilov.
In short, there was no possibility of an armistice in 1916.
At sea, the U-Boat would come within an ace of defeating the allies. The most effective defence was the convoy, but it took some time for this to sink in . The battlefeets mostly cancelled each other out, but since the british fleet was better positioned, and was stronger in numbers it was given the defacto control of the seas (this was a strategy never really explored by the Germans after Jutland.....an attempt to wrest control of the seas by way of surface battle)
On land was where the major changes were occurring. The machine gun was the overwhelming firepower of the batlefield. The traditional killer of small arms, was artillery, but in WWI the techniques of how to achieve this were badly misread until the very end of the war. The Allies appear to have lost sight of the fact that the object was not so much to tackle and destroy the front lines so much, as to keep the enemy busy whilst the friendly infantry advanced at night, in small groups, accross no-mans land, to penetrate the enemy line, and then push on through that breach with the aim of exploiting into the enemy rear areas. Each side held pieces of the jigsaw. The Germans developed the idea of short duration rapid fire artillery bombardments, and then slightly after that the formation of special assault Infantry teams (Sturmbattalion or Stosstruppen) that hit the enemy defences at a concentrated point, rather than across a broad front. These tactics were first employed by a German called Von Hutier at Riga in 1917, and were later used in the 1918 offensive.
In an echo of the 2nd war, the German supply system and manpower levels broke down which was their ultimate undoing.
For the allies, the solution incorporated the German ideas (eventually, as men such as John Monash began to have an effect on tactical concepts). However grafted on to that was the use of tanks, to provide cover for the elite Infantry formations as they crossed no mans land. The idea of the tank as an Infantry support weapon had been born, and eventually its was very successful. Grafted onto that, but never really attempted, because of the armistice was the idea of using Tanks and motorized Infantry as break through weapons.
Both of these basic concepts....tanks and renewed tactics were under development. For a host of reasons both sides thought they could win in 1916....not so much because the repective high commands embraced these new concepts, but because each side believed they could break the deadlock....the Germans with their efforts on the eastern front, and in the battle of attrition at Verdun, and the allies with their big pushes at the Somme and the so called "Nivelle Offensive" The Russians too believed that victory was in their grasp under Brusilov.
In short, there was no possibility of an armistice in 1916.
river
Airman
Hi,
Australia.
However, let me add, that most people I know find the average American to be pleasant, down to earth and quite a nice person. I don't think you can judge the people of a country by their governmental policies.
river
Sorry River ... "over here". Where's that, please
Australia.
However, let me add, that most people I know find the average American to be pleasant, down to earth and quite a nice person. I don't think you can judge the people of a country by their governmental policies.
river
michaelmaltby
Colonel
" ... I don't think you can judge the people of a country by their governmental policies."
In democracies, River, the government represents the general will of the people.... so, if I can't judge people (in democracies) then I guess it isn't true that people get the governments they deserve.
How's your new PM? He seems to be catching on real fast to what Mr. Howard knew
MM
In democracies, River, the government represents the general will of the people.... so, if I can't judge people (in democracies) then I guess it isn't true that people get the governments they deserve.
How's your new PM? He seems to be catching on real fast to what Mr. Howard knew
MM
river
Airman
Hi,
We ostensibly have a 2 party government, so it is sort of like watching a perpetual car race between Ford and GM. It gets kind of boring seeing the same two manufacturers going about the track.
You always are picking the lesser of two evils, rather than something that is new and different.
Our new PM is okay, and I prefer him to the previous PM. I find that the longer a party is in power the worse they become and the more out of touch they are, and hubris seeps in.
river
We ostensibly have a 2 party government, so it is sort of like watching a perpetual car race between Ford and GM. It gets kind of boring seeing the same two manufacturers going about the track.
You always are picking the lesser of two evils, rather than something that is new and different.
Our new PM is okay, and I prefer him to the previous PM. I find that the longer a party is in power the worse they become and the more out of touch they are, and hubris seeps in.
river
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"it is sort of like watching a perpetual car race between Ford and GM.." .
I sorta know what you mean ... but that's starting to change ... just as the auto business has.
Cheers,
MM
Toronto
.I sorta know what you mean ... but that's starting to change ... just as the auto business has.
Cheers,
MM
Toronto
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
40 years ago I'd believe you, in this day and age so called "elite US families who you might want to label as monarchs, have had their power and influence dwindle. I'm not saying that money can't buy power in any country or society, but just look at folks like William Kennedy Smith, Michael C. Skakel (a Kennedy) Joe Nachcho and more recently Jenna Bush - I don't care how much money you have, in the US you could be a member of one of those power elite families, but in these days you are not above the law.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Its no different in any country some people are more equal then others
