# Thoughts on World War I



## BAYLOR (Jul 20, 2014)

About 20 million died,  changed whole map of Europe, several ruling dynasties, The Hapsburg's, The Hohenzollerns, Rominovs, and the Ottoman Empire were all swept away, The League of nation without American participation came into being . 

So do you think that after 100 years we are any wiser about this particular conflict  ?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 21, 2014)

It's seems that when the whole mess started  every thought it be over in a short , a month 3 month 6 months. None of the powers involved figured it would stretch into 4 years.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 21, 2014)

Europes assorted militaries certainly considered the war to be long term. Haig considered was with Germany would last at least five years when writing some time before the war, in 1914 he expected it to last until 1919 with US involvement.

The "over by Christmas" was politician talking rubbish and having no clue what they had started.


----------



## Dave (Jul 21, 2014)

It was the first real mechanised war - tanks, battleships and submarines, aircraft and balloons, tunnels and trenches, automatic weapons, poison gas and flamethrowers. TPTB believed all that new technology would speed it up, but it instead it caused stalemate.

I think the saddest thing is the Pals Battalions which meant that a whole rural village, or a school year group, or a church choir often lost most of their men in a single battle.


----------



## Mirannan (Jul 21, 2014)

One of the saddest things about WWI, and often not mentioned, is that after the carnage most of the surviving young men returned home, thinking that at last they were safe - only for more of them than died in the trenches to die of influenza. Which was probably helped to spread by the chaos of war.


----------



## Susan Boulton (Jul 21, 2014)

Dave said:


> I think the saddest thing is the Pals Battalions which meant that a whole rural village, or a school year group, or a church choir often lost most of their men in a single battle.


 
After WWI it became policy not to allow men from the same area or family to serve together.  My father-in-law first served in the North Staffs  (WWII) before being transferred to the Royal Engineers. He said there were fellas from all over the country in his company.

Had family in the Leeds Pals. Three brothers and one to be brother-in-law.  One vanished in the hell of the first day of the Somme, one lost a leg, two survived. My grandfather was a regular, served all the way through the war and died in 1954 from his wounds (He had been gassed and his lungs badly damaged)


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 21, 2014)

As far as WWI, on being wiser _about_ this particular conflict, I don't know what you mean. As far as I know, scholarship has long and continuously held that a stupid alliance system, a bunch of dying monarchies shambling around, and a crazy kid shooting a guy all sparked it and away everybody went. If you mean being wiser _from_ the conflict, we obviously grew no wiser at all in that it didn't "end all wars". But whereas the League of Nations was a near-total failure, the UN has been an less-total failure and where the victorious powers vengefully crushed the losers the first time and practically necessitated a second round, the victorious powers rebuilt the losers the second time so that no third of the same kind directly followed. Or so the books tell me and, if true, then some things were learned.



Dave said:


> It was the first real mechanised war - tanks, battleships and submarines, aircraft and balloons, tunnels and trenches, automatic weapons, poison gas and flamethrowers. TPTB believed all that new technology would speed it up, but it instead it caused stalemate.



I'd disagree with that and nominate the American Civil War. And that, too, lasted four years, which gave a good hint.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 21, 2014)

Sad really that so many people died because nations couldn't get on with each other. There was no evil empire to battle, no great cause that was being fought over. The greatest thing that came out of the war for the British was something that it wasn't about - social equality. For the first time different classes of people who wouldn't have acknowledged each other in the street now lived, fought and died side by side. Women came out of the kitchen into factories and hospitals and proved that they could do just as good jobs as the men - soon after they got the vote.

So yes there were great triumphs as a result of the war, and British culture was changed (for the better) irrevocably. But as I said , the war was fought, and millions died, because a few leaders (some of them related!) couldn't sit down and talk to each other. Very sad.


----------



## JoanDrake (Jul 22, 2014)

Most historians regard WWI as truly catastrophic and most wars since as being continuations. In a sense we don't have to wonder what it would be like to live in a post-apocalyptic scenario as we have been, since 1914


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 23, 2014)

JoanDrake said:


> Most historians regard WWI as truly catastrophic and most wars since as being continuations. In a sense we don't have to wonder what it would be like to live in a post-apocalyptic scenario as we have been, since 1914



Self inflicted, by all the major powers.  Woodrow Wilson, LLoyd George , George Clemenceau and Vittorio Orlando could have crafted a peace treaty that might have helped prevent a future world war II. They blew it big time. They let personal vendettas, self interests and plain stupidity rule their thinking.


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 23, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Self inflicted, by all the major powers.  Woodrow Wilson, LLoyd George , George Clemenceau and Vittorio Orlando could have crafted a peace treaty that might have helped prevent a future world war II. They blew it big time. They let personal vendettas, self interests and plain stupidity rule their thinking.



Generally agreed, of course, but I was thinking Wilson was against the harsh terms and, not that I'd trust wikipedia by itself, but it confirms what I was thinking.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 23, 2014)

J-Sun said:


> Generally agreed, of course, but I was thinking Wilson was against the harsh terms and, not that I'd trust wikipedia by itself, but it confirms what I was thinking.



Wilson was incredibly naive in understanding the motivations of his various partners in peace. Lloyd George wanted Germany's african colonial possession for the British empire and he had made promises to punish Germany which he couldn't go back on politically. George Clemenceau wanted revenge on Germany for it's defeat in the Franco Prussian wars of which he was a solider in. He wanted back and got Alsace and Lorraine  which germany took from France at the end of that war and Saar Valley thrown in to the deal.  If Clemenceau had died in the Franco/Prussian war, He would have rendered a far more useful service to the world . Vittorio Orlando was looking spoils.


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 23, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Wilson was incredibly naive in understanding the motivations of his various partners in peace.



No dispute there. He was incredibly naive in a lot of things.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 23, 2014)

J-Sun said:


> No dispute there. He was incredibly naive in a lot of things.



Woodrow Wilson was a brilliant man with very high ideals and good intentions.    But, was not a great president. He thought that he alone knew what was best for the country,  Which rendered him incapable of compromise on anything . Wilson  simply couldn't work with people that didn't agree with him , like the Republican party and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge in particular. His going to Europe with his 14 points and no prominent republican in his entourage ended up further alienating them. So, not surpassingly, he failed to get ratification of the Versailles Treaty and America in the the League of Nations.


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 23, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Woodrow Wilson was a brilliant man with very high ideals and good intentions.    But, was not a great president.



No dispute with either of those characterizations either.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 28, 2014)

Today is the 100th anniversary of the start of World war I.


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 28, 2014)

The recent BBC drama mini-series *37 Day*s made the case that the war was inevitable largely because Germany (and more specifically chief of staff Moltke) foresaw Russia becoming much more powerful than them as their industry got going, and, fearing a future attack from Russia, believed they needed to strike whilst Russia was beatable. It's not an idea I'd seen presented previously (and to be honest it wasn't played up much in the series) but if true, it means it would have been almost impossible to prevent the war because Germany  (or, again, Moltke) believed it was necessary to its very survival.

Does this accord with anyone else's understanding?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 28, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> The recent BBC drama mini-series *37 Day*s made the case that the war was inevitable largely because Germany (and more specifically chief of staff Moltke) foresaw Russia becoming much more powerful than them as their industry got going, and, fearing a future attack from Russia, believed they needed to strike whilst Russia was beatable. It's not an idea I'd seen presented previously (and to be honest it wasn't played up much in the series) but if true, it means it would have been almost impossible to prevent the war because Germany  (or, again, Moltke) believed it was necessary to its very survival.
> 
> Does this accord with anyone else's understanding?



At one point Germany  had an alliance with Russia established by Otto Von Bismark. But Kaiser Wilhelm II broke it off because it conflicted with it's alliance with Austria/Hungry, a huge blunder on his part. If that had still been in place, perhaps that might have diminished to chances of a world war or delayed it a few years?


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 30, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> At one point Germany  had an alliance with Russia established by Otto Von Bismark. But Kaiser Wilhelm II broke it off because it conflicted with it's alliance with Austria/Hungry, a huge blunder on his part. If that had still been in place, perhaps that might have diminished to chances of a world war or delayed it a few years?


 
War between Russia and Austria-Hungary (which ultimatelty started the chain reaction of WWI when Russia came in on the side of Serbia) was almost inevitable and it's surprising that it didn't start earlier (1908). Russia showed itself to be severely lacking miltarily (1905) when it fought Japan and was humiliated by Austria-Hungary in the balkans three years later when the Central Power annexed Bosnia. Germany was a prime mover in the ultimate backing down of Russia (by demanding a clear yes or no on a treaty amendment - forcing the Tsar to capitulate) so, even back then, I don't think there was likely to be anything but eventual  conflict between Russia and Germany.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 30, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> Does this accord with anyone else's understanding?



IMO it's more complicated than that - Europe was a bubbling sea of rivalries, and the industrial revolution brought competition to a head - not least to be the industrial market leader of Europe. 

That's why so many countries rushed in to "honour" their treaties - a dashing victory would ensure the dominance of a single industrial power, not simply in Europe, but also the world.

Of course, industrialisation meant it would never go the way everyone might initially imagine.

I'm not sure it would be fair to blame it all on Germany, especially when the country had not long been unified by Bismark. Great Britain still had its imperial mindset, too.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 30, 2014)

It's also worth viewing WW1 as the last great scramble for Empire and not just a European conflict. Japan, for instance, attacked (at the request of their British allies and with around 4000 British troops in tow along with 70000 Japanese) and took German held Tsingtao. This gave them a foothold in China and the impetus to go for more.

It could be argued that this involvement encouraged imperialist Japanese ambitions and led (eventually) to Pearl Harbour. 

Turkey was another area looking to expand and retake  previously lost territories (encouraged by the Germans). 

Even South Africa had ambitions of expansion and fought in German South west Africa. 

So, while the blame cannot be laid solely at Germany's feet, they were pretty near the epicentre of the conflict.


----------



## JoanDrake (Aug 1, 2014)

There was also the fact that lots of military pundits had this really naïve view of the "benefits" of war, this idea that it was all great fun and made the youth more patriotic and disciplined. This wasn't an entirely German idea but my understanding is that many of their military leaders, particularly von Ludendorff, were the ones who pushed it the hardest. This would account for some particularly hard feelings by the French, I would think, who were bled so white of young men in WWI that they hadn't recovered by WWII.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 2, 2014)

Germany went into the war with a policy of terrorising populations and was also guilty of atrocities that you would normally associate with WW2 - executions and deportation of men women and children. This was mainly fuelled by fears of _francotirador _- civilian snipers which were prevailant in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. it was thought that such an action may happen again. Terrorising populations was seen as a method of stopping this. 


The Kaiser at one point suggested herding 90000 slav prisoners on to a peninsula in the Baltic and starving them to death. Some allied units were also guilty of crimes such as the mass shooting of German prisoners who had already surrendered.

I think that the leaders were far from naive when it came to this war but perhaps used the naivete of their own populations to create the manpower reserves needed to fight the war.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 24, 2014)

Brian Turner said:


> IMO it's more complicated than that - Europe was a bubbling sea of rivalries, and the industrial revolution brought competition to a head - not least to be the industrial market leader of Europe.
> 
> That's why so many countries rushed in to "honour" their treaties - a dashing victory would ensure the dominance of a single industrial power, not simply in Europe, but also the world.
> 
> ...



Before WWI there a few  of indications that all was not well in the British Empire. The Second Boer War 1899 to 1901 , The ever growing strife and conflict in Ireland .  The end of of WWI was a at best  a pyrrhic victory for the Empire, They got Germany colonies,  but  that couldn't  offset the cost of fighting that war  nor the loss of men and materials. Didn't decline of the British empire begin around the end of of World War I?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2014)

Coming up on Armistice day


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 23, 2014)

The Christmas Truce of 1914.   The cease fire ,  troops from opposing sides fraternizing celebrating Christmas  together, the next day back to killing each other.  They could agree to stop the shooting  and killing   for one day but not the war.


----------



## Caledfwlch (May 29, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> The Christmas Truce of 1914.   The cease fire ,  troops from opposing sides fraternizing celebrating Christmas  together, the next day back to killing each other.  They could agree to stop the shooting  and killing   for one day but not the war.



This event was the source for something that caused massive disgust and disgrace for an advertising company and its client, Cadburys in the UK during Xmas 2014.

They used an advert set during the legendary football game of Xmas day 1914 to advertise a chocolate bar!!!

Absolutely disgraceful. 

10 years ago, I lived and worked in Normandie and Flanders. I was at a British run châteaux with its barns converted into accomodation blocks, and we hosted and accompanied UK school groups doing either french language/cultural tours in Normandie, and History tours around the Somme and the Ieper Salient in Flanders. And I saw the most magnificent thing!

We were at the Menin Gate in Ieper waiting for the Last Post. A "know it all" middle class Brit was braying to his companions loudly that the "last post" was a Flemish gesture to "all the soldiers and victims of all wars"

A little old Flemish lady went absolutely nuts at him, and even came close to giving him a slap, pointing out that no, it was a Flemish gesture to the dead of Britain and its Empire who came to protect little Belgium from German aggression in 1914. She was proper furious at his misrepresentation of what the daily last Post and the Menin Gate is about.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 29, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> This event was the source for something that caused massive disgust and disgrace for an advertising company and its client, Cadburys in the UK during Xmas 2014.
> 
> They used an advert set during the legendary football game of Xmas day 1914 to advertise a chocolate bar!!!
> 
> ...




They actually used it for an advertising for a Candy bar ?  That is _despicable_.   But then again , so was the whole concept of  Christmas Truce.  Peace on Earth Goodwill to men followed the next day by slaughter and War . I can find nothing to admire about any of that. It would have been A wonderful thing if  the truce could have lead to an ending the war at that point .  Imagine how  many lives might have been saved and how much suffering could have been averted ? But, given the reality of the whole situation , that was never happening.


----------



## Foxbat (May 30, 2015)

The truce was an unofficial agreement between the ordinary soldiers and only covered parts of the front. It had nothing to do with the chain of command on either side. There were reports that many high-ranking officers were furious at the lack of fighting.

A young Charles de Gaulle, for example, wrote of _the lamentable desire of French Infantrymen to leave the enemy in peace_

To those doing the actual fighting, it was simply a chance to forget about killing for a little while. I don't think we should begrudge the ordinary soldier that.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 31, 2015)

Foxbat said:


> The truce was an unofficial agreement between the ordinary soldiers and only covered parts of the front. It had nothing to do with the chain of command on either side. There were reports that many high-ranking officers were furious at the lack of fighting.
> 
> A young Charles de Gaulle, for example, wrote of _the lamentable desire of French Infantrymen to leave the enemy in peace_
> 
> To those doing the actual fighting, it was simply a chance to forget about killing for a little while. I don't think we should begrudge the ordinary soldier that.




It's a sad commentary that so many soldiers died in a  war that was caused by a few selfish and otherwise useless political leaders.

As for Charles de Gaulle, he had no patience for pacifists. So it's not really surprising he felt the way he did.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Jun 1, 2015)

There is a concerted effort by some Historians to "rehabilitate" the Generals of WW1, especially the British/Empire ones. They take a lot of umbrage at what they call the "Lions led by Donkeys Myth" What do you guys think?

They claim that the tactics which had such shocking casualty figures were the only usable ones. I have stood at the Irish Peace Park near Messen, standing in the approx position of the British lines, up towards the higher german positions on the ridge just before the village.

Not a tactical expert, but it was clearly an awful position to assault, uphill against dug in german machine gun emplacements. There was no getting around the fact that those Irish Lads had to go uphil and take the german positions.

But one phrase stands out, as it always does in ww1 battles. Those brave lads were made by their Officers, to WALK.

I can accept an argument for the massed charges against enemy trenches, but to make them walk? That was not a valid tactic, that was organised slaughter by your own side. That was Generals so out of touch and date with the realities of modern warfare, they were using essentially, Napoleonic era foot soldier tactics in a war that deployed 20th century mechanised warfare, albeit in a more primitive form.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 1, 2015)

The same happens in every war. Strategy and Tactics doctrines struggle to keep up with new technology. The mass attacks of previous wars were ineffective against the likes of the machine gun and artillery became much more lethal in WW1 than before.

It was well into the war before the Germans developed units by smaller squad-based actions and away from mass attacks. These then became the staple tactic for WW2.


----------



## Susan Boulton (Jun 1, 2015)

Just a note the advert was made by Sainsburys for their chocolate bar, not Cadburys. It was made in conjuction with the British Legion, all the profits from the bar was given to the Legion. It was part of the poppy appeal 2014.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...istmas-advert-recreates-first-world-war-truce


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 2, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> There is a concerted effort by some Historians to "rehabilitate" the Generals of WW1, especially the British/Empire ones. They take a lot of umbrage at what they call the "Lions led by Donkeys Myth" What do you guys think?
> 
> They claim that the tactics which had such shocking casualty figures were the only usable ones. I have stood at the Irish Peace Park near Messen, standing in the approx position of the British lines, up towards the higher german positions on the ridge just before the village.
> 
> ...



Verdun  1,250,000 casualties  and The Somme another 500,000. They're still finding bodies and unexploded ordinance from those two battles alone.

Then there's  Gallipoli   240,000 - 250,000  casualties there. That one should be filed under category of what were they thinking when they planed that debacle.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 2, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> But one phrase stands out, as it always does in ww1 battles. Those brave lads were made by their Officers, to WALK.
> 
> I can accept an argument for the massed charges against enemy trenches, but to make them walk? That was not a valid tactic, that was organised slaughter by your own side. That was Generals so out of touch and date with the realities of modern warfare, they were using essentially, Napoleonic era foot soldier tactics in a war that deployed 20th century mechanised warfare, albeit in a more primitive form.



This is a bit of a myth - actually some battalions decided to run, others walked. But there was reason for walking and it probably would have depended on the bit of no-mans land that they had to traverse. The reason was a great many of the waves of assault were hauling large amounts of stuff on their backs, everything they thought they would need when they got there - so running a long distance over lumpy terrain with an extra 50kg, or whatever, on your back (on top of your standard kit btw) would have likely exhausted everyone and if there were Germans to fight at the other end, you don't want to be needing a breather. (In fact this was a common feature of battles throughout the ages - unless you had a horse or a chariot, or were wearing practically nothing, then charges that got to sprint or running speed involving heavily armoured men on foot would only occur when you got very close to the enemy. It was why the bow and especially the horse+bow was such a devastating weapon system against massed ranks of spearmen/hoplites)

My guess is (and I don't have any evidence for this assertion, other than commonsense) is that if the German lines were relatively close, then I suspect running towards the lines would probably have been allowed as the impact of a short 'dash' would have been less tiring (and I _do _know running did take place.)

Of course in theory the vast artillery barrages were supposed to clear out the first lines of Germans, remove all the barbed wire etc..., so they were told there would only be a few dazed survivors, hence walking was deemed acceptable. With hindsight of course this was total bunk, although how could one tell until they tried it?

Another reason is, especially for the battles of 1916 - starting with the Somme, the British Conscript Army was very inexperienced and there just wasn't enough time to train them properly (and I mean both officers and men - chain of command and communications was probably one of the biggest failings in the Somme) as the French were screaming for pressure to be taken off Verdun. To coordinate safer and more devastating attacks (such as slipping into no mans land at night _during_ the barrage and waiting much closer to the German front lines, or to do a walking barrage) required experience and discipline that the British Army had no time to give these men. So they put their faith in a plan with the 'big guns' hoping that they'd smash the enemy and this would protect their green troops.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 3, 2015)

As far as I understand it, walking was part of the precaution taken to avoid becoming a victim of the 'walking' or 'creeping' barrage which was ceveloped in WW1. The idea was that before the enemy had time to recover from the artillery, the infantry was upon them. The soldiers had to stay slightly behind this wall of fire for their own protection.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 3, 2015)

Foxbat said:


> As far as I understand it, walking was part of the precaution taken to avoid becoming a victim of the 'walking' or 'creeping' barrage which was ceveloped in WW1. The idea was that before the enemy had time to recover from the artillery, the infantry was upon them. The soldiers had to stay slightly behind this wall of fire for their own protection.



Which was a skill in itself to try and do - otherwise you could well be shelled by your own side if you mixed up your times and where you were supposed to be, or if you were unexpectedly delayed the barrage would creep off without you and you would be potentially caught out in no-mans land unprotected. (Which unfortunately did happen.) Hence with inexperienced troops at first, where trying a creeping barrage was a likely to fail, they tried the 'pound the hell out of the Bosche and hope that works' strategy.

What they really needed was someone to invent a portable radio set so that it could all be coordinated in real time...

...although fundamentally what everyone really needed was to not to have fought this utterly pointless war.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 3, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> ...although fundamentally what everyone really needed was to not to have fought this utterly pointless war.


 
I agree.
Unfortunately, looking at the history and arms race leading up to the conflict makes it look like war was inevitable.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 3, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> What they really needed was someone to invent a portable radio set so that it could all be coordinated in real time...


The French did, based on improved version of a valve they got from USA
The UK copied that valve and it was basis of first radios for Broadcast Radio from 1921

The Marconi Co. Supplied UK with portable wagon mounted radio systems for the Boer War!
http://www.r-type.org/articles/art-020.htm

By 1916 The UK was making their own R-Type for the war effort.

In the Russian-Japanese War (8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905), the Japanese used Radio very well, but the Russians foolishly kept radio silence on their ships and sacrificed control. They lost most of their navy. It was the first war covered in real time by a Journalist/Radio Expert. An American on a Chinese Junk, permitted to accompany the Japanese, with a shore based station.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 3, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> The French did, based on improved version of a valve they got from USA
> The UK copied that valve and it was basis of first radios for Broadcast Radio from 1921



Way off topic Ray, but seeing as we've managed to arrive here - but I just read an article in Fortean Times yesterday on 'Rogue Oscillators' on how the first radio services were prone to heterodyning - causing peoples radio sets to squeal and howl a bit like off-key theremins (At least that's what I took from the article!) Seemed to cause a great deal of harrumphing and anguish from the British radio listening public at the time. Perhaps the first form of electronic trolling was involved too!

Unfortunately the article is not in electronic form - at least not in _free_ electronic form. You'd have to buy the magazine (FT 327 in case you are desperate).


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 3, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> just read an article in Fortean Times yesterday on 'Rogue Oscillators'


There are better free articles, but summary is below.

The GPO had to approve radio sets because of this until an RF stage became common.

1) The Superhet (Super-hetrodyne) didn't become common till late 1935, though they do exist from 1926, the problem was the "reaction" control, which as it's advanced increases the sensitivity and the volume. Go too far and it's actually oscillating at the transmitter frequency.
2) Till RF preamps became common, usually based on the S.G. (Screen Grid valve) in 1929, the RF/Detector/Reaction stage was connected direct to the long aerial wire. Most sets used long aerial wires. Thus the interference would be radiated efficiently.

The UK due to per valve socket tax and less money, used 1, 2 or 3 valve sets 1922 to 1928, from 1929 the four valve model became common: RF SG, DET triode, AF preamp triode and output Triode, from 1931 commonly a a Pentode.
USA often used six valves. Even triode RF preamp, so interference wasn't so common.

The Radio Times warned people to use their Reaction control sensibly.

I have a 1929 suitcase portable with a loop aerial and speaker in the lid. It has 3 sets of replica batteries, Broadcast and Short wave (which is actually LW and MW). It works better on AM than any radio out of Dixons/Currys or Tesco on AM and the R4 LW sounds better than DAB version of R4 LW.  The rechargeable Filament battery would have needed recharged every 30 hrs at a Cycle shop (c.f. 6 hours many DAB sets) 120V HT battery about 250 hours. The 9V Grid Bias pack would have lasted shelf life, no significant current is consumed from it.   It has two knobs to tune, a reaction knob and the wave change moves clockwise or anticlockwise from 12 O'Clock to select MW/LW and increase volume.

(I was a BBC Communications Engineer, then Electronics design before I was a serious programmer).


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 3, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> There are better free articles, but summary is below.



What was wrong with the article? I thought it was very informative and nicely written. More focused on the human side of things rather than the technical I suppose, if that's your thing


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 3, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> What was wrong with the article?


I only meant better in sense of free, you suggested a pay wall. I haven't seen the fortean one. I have however read many others since 1970s. (I got the Radio "bug" in 1965 from listening to Luxemburg, getting an old WWII bomber receiver and playing with my dad's borrowed Brennell tape recorder. About the same time I transitioned from Famous Five & Biggles to the Grown Up SF&F my mum was getting from Library. My Dad was more into Literature, though gave me loads of Myth & Legend, True Adventure and History related books to read.

There are quite a few surviving  contemporary accounts.

People could get their radio confiscated by the Post Office (who regulated radio and ran phones till  BT separated a separate ministry created prior to ofcom).

It doesn't sound like usual Fortean Times fodder.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 3, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I only meant better in sense of free, you suggested a pay wall.



Ah no, there used to be a FT website that printed most of the magazine articles as they came out - but that was cut back a year ago, and now they just have forum, blog and subscription stuff (with a few taster pages, but not full articles.)

Sometimes the author reprints the article elsewhere, but he does not appear to have done in this case. Which means, I suppose it is a traditional pay wall, as you have to purchase the magazine to access it 



Ray McCarthy said:


> It doesn't sound like usual Fortean Times fodder.



If you mean UFOs, hairy ape men and ghosts, they still have those as standard of course, but they tend to do all sorts of weirdness and little forgotten bits of history or fields. Like explaining about the radio oscillators.

Anyway I shall stop talking about this suggest we go back on topic...


----------



## J Riff (Jun 8, 2015)

Grampa had stories. He was Scottish though so mostly we coont unnerstand what he was on about.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 22, 2016)

Plastic surgery came out of the War.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Sep 3, 2016)

Very late to this thread, but an interesting read. I find the Great War the only thing in history other than the Atlantic Slave Triangle that can move me to tears. 


<off topic>
One thing that seems a little hysterical is the bemoaning of the Xmas match to sell a product. Do we feel that way when Caesar's betrayal is co-opted by some 'we won't let you down' company? Or the myriad other examples of historical plunder and murder of millions that time has softened and allowed to be taken advantage. Is Paul McCartney forgiven for the (hatefully privileged) _Pipes of Peace_ song because it was about the temporary truce? Or because it's Paul McCartney and not a massive chain?

In 100 years' time whose to say a private Firefighting firm don't make some reference to Sept 11? 

pH


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Sep 11, 2016)

REF: Baylor.
I agree with you 100%.
Using the Christmas Day truce of 1914 to advertise chocolate is a new low.
I found the whole thing truly disgusting!!!
While they are at it why not also use the liberation of Belson for the same thing!!!
You could have smiling Tommies handing out bars to skeletal prisoners.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Sep 11, 2016)

REF: Baylor.
As you say, plastic surgery and a lot of other things have come about because of war.
Sadly there is nothing like war for accelerating technology.
Computers, the jet engine, rocketry, radar, sonar to name but a few!


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2016)

Today's Armistice Day  98 years ago this war came a an end.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Nov 14, 2016)

Unfortunately it did not turn out to be the war to end all wars!


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 14, 2016)

BigBadBob141 said:


> Unfortunately it did not turn out to be the war to end all wars!



It didn't because the victors desired to be petty, stupid, greedy and shortsighted.


----------



## Ajid (Nov 15, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> It didn't because the victors desired to be petty, stupid, greedy and shortsighted.


WHAT!!!!! 

I don't know where to begin with that statement.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 15, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> It didn't because the victors desired to be petty, stupid, greedy and shortsighted.



I just notice my comment  it should be It didn't because the victors *chose *to petty,stupid, greedy and shortsighted.   




Ajid said:


> WHAT!!!!!
> 
> I don't know where to begin with that statement.



The word desired was a typo. 

It was a mistake.


----------



## Ajid (Nov 15, 2016)

Indeed, all is almost forgiven.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 15, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> It's seems that when the whole mess started  every thought it be over in a short , a month 3 month 6 months. None of the powers involved figured it would stretch into 4 years.


Pretty much what they thought about the (American) Civil War, don't you think? And Viet Nam? Maybe Iraq? And now Afghanistan...?


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 15, 2016)

Null_Zone said:


> Europes assorted militaries certainly considered the war to be long term. Haig considered was with Germany would last at least five years when writing some time before the war, in 1914 he expected it to last until 1919 with US involvement.
> 
> The "over by Christmas" was politician talking rubbish and having no clue what they had started.


And that's the point: Politicians always need to take the most optimistic view...and sometimes they have the power to force generals to back them up in their opinions.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 15, 2016)

Mirannan said:


> One of the saddest things about WWI, and often not mentioned, is that after the carnage most of the surviving young men returned home, thinking that at last they were safe - only for more of them than died in the trenches to die of influenza. Which was probably helped to spread by the chaos of war.



Not the young men only.
There was a world-wide influenza epidemic that seems to have started during the war, and then mushroomed after the way -- when it came to the USA, it apparently killed several members of my family, for instance. That kind of thing was known to happen every once in a while, and no one had figured out how to see it coming or what to do about it...and no one seems to know for sure whether the men coming home actually spread the virus, or if that was coincidence.

But it is also not at all unusual, in History, for more soldiers to die of disease than of wounds...again, the (American) Civil War is an instance. Likely at least part of the reason is that men who mostly lived on farms, separated by the fields from the next farm, were suddenly thrust into a situation in which they lived at very close quarters with more people than many of them had ever seen in their lives -- and with abysmal sanitation. Ugh!


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 15, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> Self inflicted, by all the major powers.  Woodrow Wilson, LLoyd George , George Clemenceau and Vittorio Orlando could have crafted a peace treaty that might have helped prevent a future world war II. They blew it big time. They let personal vendettas, self interests and plain stupidity rule their thinking.



That's just a little too simplistic, I think -- to say that kind of thing, you have to assume that those four leaders were in fact in charge in their countries. But -- I'm no expert, but common sense tells me  -- the most likely scenario is that all four of those leaders were leaders only because they had the support of a political organization or establishment behind them...I suspect that any of those leaders who tried to craft a peace might well have been thrown out on their ears.
Industrialists had many reasons to want war at that time -- both to sell a lot of guns and ammo, and to get a shot at taking over land, in the form of what used to be called colonies...
Lots of money to be made in wars, if you were in the right place and had the right (bloody) frame of mind...


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 15, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> They actually used it for an advertising for a Candy bar ?  That is _despicable_.   But then again , so was the whole concept of  Christmas Truce.  Peace on Earth Goodwill to men followed the next day by slaughter and War . I can find nothing to admire about any of that. It would have been A wonderful thing if  the truce could have lead to an ending the war at that point .  Imagine how  many lives might have been saved and how much suffering could have been averted ? But, given the reality of the whole situation , that was never happening.



Will you be surprised to find out that I disagree on this? To me, it smacks of people (in this case, men, but never mind...) taking a courageous step to back away from the awful situation into which they had been thrust. I do admire those men for putting down the guns for a day. And while it's sad that they were back to war the next day, they were still courageous and warm-hearted on at least that one day -- which was better than their leaders ever were.
It was an unfortunately temporary attack of sanity, and I admire it.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 15, 2016)

Caledfwlch said:


> There is a concerted effort by some Historians to "rehabilitate" the Generals of WW1, especially the British/Empire ones. They take a lot of umbrage at what they call the "Lions led by Donkeys Myth" What do you guys think?
> 
> They claim that the tactics which had such shocking casualty figures were the only usable ones. I have stood at the Irish Peace Park near Messen, standing in the approx position of the British lines, up towards the higher german positions on the ridge just before the village.
> 
> ...


I agree entirely with your words on donkeys -- and it's shocking to me to realize how much this echoes the (American) Civil War...in fact, this is one of the reasons why some historians have suggested that the American Civil War was the "first modern war." Alas, the lessons were apparently not learned fast enough...
In both of those wars, I do wonder that the men who were so foolishly sent out to die seldom, if ever, turned around and went the other way...social pressures, I suppose. But they had guns, after all...
Maybe one of the hidden facets of human evolution is learning to develop a self-protective skepticism about being led...


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 15, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> That's just a little too simplistic, I think -- to say that kind of thing, you have to assume that those four leaders were in fact in charge in their countries. But -- I'm no expert, but common sense tells me  -- the most likely scenario is that all four of those leaders were leaders only because they had the support of a political organization or establishment behind them...I suspect that any of those leaders who tried to craft a peace might well have been thrown out on their ears.
> Industrialists had many reasons to want war at that time -- both to sell a lot of guns and ammo, and to get a shot at taking over land, in the form of what used to be called colonies...
> Lots of money to be made in wars, if you were in the right place and had the right (bloody) frame of mind...




Yes all them made promises of one sort of another.  George Clemenceau  who had been captured in the Franco/ Prussian like france wanted revenge and to get Alsace/ Loraine which Germany took.  He would have rendered a far more useful service to his country and the world had he died in the Franco/Prussian war. He promised the french public  that that would even  the score with Germany .  Lloyd George  wanted Germany's african Colonies and wanted to weaken Germany.  One of his famous speech in which compared Germany to an orange and would squeeze it until the Pip squeak. Woodrow Wilson of who i the world safe for his ideals ( which were not in sync with large segments of the American public or the Republican party)saw imperialist Germany as a affront to his so called ideals.  Vitro Orlando of Italy was just looking for spoil.  Yes they made promises and the press was on them from beginning to end. The press at the demanded punishment for Germany and the stoked up the public to demand it as well.

But evne in the face of all this they could have done alot better then they did.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 15, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> Yes all them made promises of one sort of another.  George Clemenceau  who had been captured in the Franco/ Prussian like france wanted revenge and to get Alsace/ Loraine which Germany took.  He would have rendered a far more useful service to his country and the world had he died in the Franco/Prussian war. He promised the french public  that that would even  the score with Germany .  Lloyd George  wanted Germany's african Colonies and wanted to weaken Germany.  One of his famous speech in which compared Germany to an orange and would squeeze it until the Pip squeak. Woodrow Wilson of who i the world safe for his ideals ( which were not in sync with large segments of the American public or the Republican party)saw imperialist Germany as a affront to his so called ideals.  Vitro Orlando of Italy was just looking for spoil.  Yes they made promises and the press was on them from beginning to end. The press at the demanded punishment for Germany and the stoked up the public to demand it as well.
> 
> But evne in the face of all this they could have done alot better then they did.



Yes. We're not yet a civilized species, but we're much advanced over those people. (It may be skin-deep only, alas!)


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 15, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> Will you be surprised to find out that I disagree on this? To me, it smacks of people (in this case, men, but never mind...) taking a courageous step to back away from the awful situation into which they had been thrust. I do admire those men for putting down the guns for a day. And while it's sad that they were back to war the next day, they were still courageous and warm-hearted on at least that one day -- which was better than their leaders ever were.
> It was an unfortunately temporary attack of sanity, and I admire it.




I don't admire this not one bit.   They celebrated Christmas together , spread good cheer and then next day go back to killing each other as if never happened.  I find that sickening.


----------



## Ajid (Nov 15, 2016)

I believe there is more to us than that.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 15, 2016)

Ajid said:


> I believe there is more to us than that.



Yes and all of it for no good reason.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 15, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> Yes. We're not yet a civilized species, but we're much advanced over those people. (It may be skin-deep only, alas!)



To quote Pogo Possum " I guess they had to have a second one to decide who won the first. "


----------



## Ajid (Nov 15, 2016)

Look on this site alone, look at your arguments with Cathbad on the trump thread. You'd still die to defend the other. Humanity can overcome this mess. Look above, I've said it before and will again, you can see a space station built by countries, all of which have been at war with one another at some point.


----------



## Ajid (Nov 15, 2016)

There is no human on this planet that if I were to talk to about family or desire wouldn't have something in common with me.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 16, 2016)

Ajid said:


> Look on this site alone, look at your arguments with Cathbad on the trump thread. You'd still die to defend the other. Humanity can overcome this mess. Look above, I've said it before and will again, you can see a space station built by countries, all of which have been at war with one another at some point.


As I said, more or less, before: we're getting better. We may yet be civilized!


----------



## MWagner (Nov 17, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> It didn't because the victors desired to be petty, stupid, greedy and shortsighted.



I disagree. The mistake the Entente made was not to push on into the heart of Germany. When things went pear-shaped for the Germans, Hindenberg and Ludendorff were able to hand off the problem to the civilian government, and then later blame the armistice on a 'stab in the back' from the politicians. And the German people bought this, because the armistice was signed with the German army intact and no enemy troops on German soil.

I've seen letters from Canadian soldiers, who at the time of the armistice were spearheading the drive through occupied Belgium, complaining bitterly that stopping now meant they'd be 'back in 20  years doing it all over again.' And they were absolutely correct. The stab in the back accusation became the rallying cry of the Nazis, and fuelled their rise to power and revival of German militarism.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 17, 2016)

MWagner said:


> I disagree. The mistake the Entente made was not to push on into the heart of Germany. When things went pear-shaped for the Germans, Hindenberg and Ludendorff were able to hand off the problem to the civilian government, and then later blame the armistice on a 'stab in the back' from the politicians. And the German people bought this, because the armistice was signed with the German army intact and no enemy troops on German soil.



Agree, it is this duplicitous saving face that sowed the seeds of 1939. Ludendorff and Hindenberg, who were defacto ruling Germany in 1918, both knew their army was beaten - it was just a matter of time - so they essentially quit and passed off responsibility to the civilian government (a body that had held no real power in the war). They technically knew they were beaten, but they didn't want the 'disgrace' of actually losing.  

It is true that the entente, especially France, were immediately harsh on the terms. However at time France had lost about one in ten of its male population (and we're not counting wounded) because of a war that had Prussian aggression at its core. 

It's easy, almost a hundred years from then, to have some cool hindsight knowing what transpired. I know there were some voices that asked if the allies should be a bit more lenient at the time, however would you have a similar thoughts knowing that so much death and destruction had been suffered?


----------



## MWagner (Nov 17, 2016)

Venusian Broon said:


> It is true that the entente, especially France, were immediately harsh on the terms. However at time France had lost about one in ten of its male population (and we're not counting wounded) because of a war that had Prussian aggression at its core.



And while the conditions imposed by Versailles were initially harsh, most were subsequently dialled back. Germany never came close to paying the reparations demanded by the treaty.



Venusian Broon said:


> It's easy, almost a hundred years from then, to have some cool hindsight knowing what transpired. I know there were some voices that asked if the allies should be a bit more lenient at the time, however would you have a similar thoughts knowing that so much death and destruction had been suffered?



There was tremendous pressure for the victors to reap some reward from the horrific sacrifices. And in fact, the reason Germany pressed in the late stages of the war themselves was to ensure that they gained something from those loses in the form of the territory they had captured. In 1918 they rebuffed peace feelers that proposed a White Peace (status quo pre-War).

It's also worth recognizing that the Allied approach to war with the Germans in WW2 - press on to absolute conquest readily apparent to every German citizen - ensured that Germany didn't start a third war.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Nov 17, 2016)

MWagner said:


> I disagree. The mistake the Entente made was not to push on into the heart of Germany. When things went pear-shaped for the Germans, Hindenberg and Ludendorff were able to hand off the problem to the civilian government, and then later blame the armistice on a 'stab in the back' from the politicians. And the German people bought this, because the armistice was signed with the German army intact and no enemy troops on German soil.
> 
> I've seen letters from Canadian soldiers, who at the time of the armistice were spearheading the drive through occupied Belgium, complaining bitterly that stopping now meant they'd be 'back in 20  years doing it all over again.' And they were absolutely correct. The stab in the back accusation became the rallying cry of the Nazis, and fuelled their rise to power and revival of German militarism.



I'm intrigued by just how much that sounds like the end of the Kuwait rescue war...


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 18, 2016)

Venusian Broon said:


> Agree, it is this duplicitous saving face that sowed the seeds of 1939. Ludendorff and Hindenberg, who were defacto ruling Germany in 1918, both knew their army was beaten - it was just a matter of time - so they essentially quit and passed off responsibility to the civilian government (a body that had held no real power in the war). They technically knew they were beaten, but they didn't want the 'disgrace' of actually losing.
> 
> It is true that the entente, especially France, were immediately harsh on the terms. However at time France had lost about one in ten of its male population (and we're not counting wounded) because of a war that had Prussian aggression at its core.
> 
> It's easy, almost a hundred years from then, to have some cool hindsight knowing what transpired. I know there were some voices that asked if the allies should be a bit more lenient at the time, however would you have a similar thoughts knowing that so much death and destruction had been suffered?




At the time and given the carnage  of the war and the anger , generosity and leniency would gone out the window. Good point.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 18, 2016)

MWagner said:


> And while the conditions imposed by Versailles were initially harsh, most were subsequently dialled back. Germany never came close to paying the reparations demanded by the treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The allies originally expected Germany to pay 33 billion in war reparations , which they never got and were never going to  get for reasons both economic and political.    George Clemenceau wanted  and got Alsace/Loraine and payback for the Franco Prussian war and got  tthe Saar Valley and economically weakened Germany in the bargain . Lloyd George  , Germany's colonial  Possession in Africa and a militarily weakened Germany.  Woodrow Wilson his 14 points for what little they ended  up being worth to him politically .  Vittorio Orlando of  Italy  was looking for rewards for supporting the allies.   All of them made promises to punish Germany and economically ruin them so that they would never be a threat again and in the process  boxed themselves in when it came time to settle accounts.

Perhaps they should have  at the very least,  skipped the War Guilt Clause?


----------



## Ajid (Nov 18, 2016)

The carnage of the First World War still leaves horrific scars. The red zone alone Zone rouge - Wikipedia is a testament to this fact. To continue to subject the cause and results of such a conflict is of course correct. But none of us here today can understand the desire to avoid such a conflict again whilst maintaining other national interests.

What we can do, is ensure as the for the last of the generation that fought in that war, who are passing on now or soon to, we try to place our selves in such a position and remember that to many they were men just fighting for their country on each side. It can be to easily forgotten in our day to day lives.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 18, 2016)

Ajid said:


> The carnage of the First World War still leaves horrific scars. The red zone alone Zone rouge - Wikipedia is a testament to this fact. To continue to subject the cause and results of such a conflict is of course correct. But none of us here today can understand the desire to avoid such a conflict again whilst maintaining other national interests.
> 
> What we can do, is ensure as the for the last of the generation that fought in that war, who are passing on now or soon to, we try to place our selves in such a position and remember that to many they were men just fighting for their country on each side. It can be to easily forgotten in our day to day lives.



Many  of us , myself included can't help but look at both wars with anger and anguish that they happened at all and that so many died senselessly and horribly . So many millions of people didn't get to have full lives.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 4, 2018)

This year will see the 100th anniversary of the Armistice.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 5, 2018)

In looking back at some previous comments in this thread, I came to think a bit more about the comments about Hinderberg and Ludendorf having ducked responsibility for the war by "quitting."
On second thought...
Maybe it was smart (from their point of view) tactics: by taking themselves out of the picture, they kept the allies from entering Germany and levelling its war/industrial base. Bad for the world, ultimately. But not necessarily some cowardly avoidance of responsibility...?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 5, 2018)

2DaveWixon said:


> In looking back at some previous comments in this thread, I came to think a bit more about the comments about Hinderberg and Ludendorf having ducked responsibility for the war by "quitting."
> On second thought...
> Maybe it was smart (from their point of view) tactics: by taking themselves out of the picture, they kept the allies from entering Germany and levelling its war/industrial base. Bad for the world, ultimately. But not necessarily some cowardly avoidance of responsibility...?



It was such an tragic and epic waste of lives . All for nothing .


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 5, 2018)

No, not for nothing. 
Or so I believe...

There is meaning in things like

In Flanders fields the poppies grow
Between the crosses, row on row...


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 5, 2018)

2DaveWixon said:


> No, not for nothing.
> Or so I believe...
> 
> There is meaning in things like
> ...



Millions didn't get to have full lives because of the malevolent stupidity of those in charge.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 5, 2018)

Millions never get full lives regardless of whether there's a war, or not.
One way or another, for whatever reason, people die -- many of them early. Call it fate, the hand of God, evolution, or mere Chance -- it's not only pointless, but counterproductive, to rail against it.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 6, 2018)

2DaveWixon said:


> Millions never get full lives regardless of whether there's a war, or not.
> One way or another, for whatever reason, people die -- many of them early. Call it fate, the hand of God, evolution, or mere Chance -- it's not only pointless, but counterproductive, to rail against it.



Your absolutely right Dave.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 6, 2018)

What, you're not even going to argue with me????


----------



## sknox (Jan 6, 2018)

I sort of agree with Dave here. If we call wars pointless, then it cheapens the deaths and sacrifices made by those who endure them. 

OTOH, the whole rhetoric is peculiarly modern. I don't think anyone spoke of the heroes of the Thirty Years War, or of the brave sacrifices of those who fought the Saxons. In most treatments, they're simply wars.

OTOOH, there is a long and convoluted tradition of the Just War theory. Those who fight in a just war are morally superior to those who fight in an unjust one.

It's humans, so it's complicated.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 6, 2018)

My underlying point was that it seems meaningless, to me, to rail against deaths that occur in wars, as "a waste," when lots of people die of other causes than war, but just as needlessly.
I'm not sure this is the place to discuss the worth of every human life. 
I think that Baylor's plaint was that so many of those who died in WWI died as the result of sheer stupidity on the part of their leaders, who so often sent them into lethal situations without demonstrating any interest in keeping them alive, in protecting them.
This is not exactly unprecedented...
And maybe it's really a political point.


----------



## logan_run (Jan 6, 2018)

It was supposed to be the war that ends all wars then there was  2.


----------



## sknox (Jan 7, 2018)

It was also supposed to save democracy, and look how well that succeeded. But wars rarely achieve their stated goals. Indeed, a good many wars didn't even have stated goals.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 7, 2018)

sknox said:


> It was also supposed to save democracy, and look how well that succeeded. But wars rarely achieve their stated goals. Indeed, a good many wars didn't even have stated goals.



The Hohenzollerns  in Germany, The Hapsburghs in AustriaHungry, The Romanov's In Russia and  The Ottomans all those ruling dynasties swept away.


----------



## sknox (Jan 7, 2018)

Swept away, but not exactly saved for democracy. But WWI was indeed the fall of eagles.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 7, 2018)

sknox said:


> Swept away, but not exactly saved for democracy. But WWI was indeed the fall of eagles.



It was the beginning of the slow unraveling of the British Empire.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 7, 2018)

BAYLOR said:


> It was the beginning of the slow unraveling of the British Empire.


Very debatable - I personally think it wasn't. The British Empire had peaked and was going to go into decline no matter what.

Also I'm not sure it was a war to 'save democracy'. That might have been said afterwards as a justification...but when you have the democracies of the world teaming up with the most autocratic state on the planet at the time, Russia, I think this kinda blows that justification out of the water.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 7, 2018)

Whatever goals a war might have started out with, they always seem to yield to expediency, don't they?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 7, 2018)

2DaveWixon said:


> Whatever goals a war might have started out with, they always seem to yield to expediency, don't they?



They were under  the illusion that that it would be quick war and that the troops would be home by Christmas.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 7, 2018)

Just like the American Civil War, right?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 7, 2018)

2DaveWixon said:


> Just like the American Civil War, right?



The fact that at the first  *Battle the  Bull Run *there were people  from Washington who came to watch the solders fight like it was a merely a big social event speaks volumes.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 7, 2018)

Most wars start with one side (at least) being sure they'll win it in short order. (Nazi Germany was almost right.)

All recent U.S. wars seem to fall into that category... Trump will, too.


----------



## reiver33 (Jan 7, 2018)

My appreciation of WW1 is that Germany wrote Austria-Hungary a 'blank cheque' in terms of military support when pressured by Russia, as the Reich embraced the idea of a war which would 'roll back' the frontiers. Germany achieved its war aims in 1917 with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which resulting in the independent Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, etc. - all of whom would 'appreciate' Western (ie German) support in case of a resurgent Soviet Union (stop me if this starts sounding familiar...). France was going to be a quick victory, as it had been in 1870-71, allowing the entire German army to concentrate against Russia before it had completed its mobilisation.

Great things, plans...


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 7, 2018)

Yes, if you have a great plan to start off a war, I guess you're entitled to start celebrating immediately.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 7, 2018)

reiver33 said:


> My appreciation of WW1 is that Germany wrote Austria-Hungary a 'blank cheque' in terms of military support when pressured by Russia, as the Reich embraced the idea of a war which would 'roll back' the frontiers. Germany achieved its war aims in 1917 with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which resulting in the independent Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, etc. - all of whom would 'appreciate' Western (ie German) support in case of a resurgent Soviet Union (stop me if this starts sounding familiar...). France was going to be a quick victory, as it had been in 1870-71, allowing the entire German army to concentrate against Russia before it had completed its mobilisation.
> 
> Great things, plans...



One of. Kaiser Wilhelms Bissest mistake was breaking off the Alliance he had with Russia . It was blunder he only recognized after the face.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 7, 2018)

Pretty much the mistake Hitler would make 25 year later...


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 8, 2018)

2DaveWixon said:


> Pretty much the mistake Hitler would make 25 year later...



Otto Von Bismarck recognized the potential danger of Germany being encircled by hostile countries which, is why he set up the Alliance . What's interesting is that it was conflicting alliance because Austria-Hungary hated and mistrusted Russia  with good reasons, control of the the Balkans being one of those issues When Germany and Russia broke of the alliance  France and England stepped and offered Russia money and other incentives to join their alliance against Germany.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 8, 2018)

There's a very good BBC drama form the 1970s called  *Fall Of Eagles*, which covers Europe from the creation of the Second Reich until the fall of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires (hence the title) at the end of WW1. For folk with an interest in WW1 and how it came about, it's very definitely worth having a look at. Lenin is played by a young Patrick Stewart and Curt Jurgens is fantastic as Otto Von Bismark.

I have it on DVD and it still seems to be available.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Jan 27, 2018)

There's a "comedian" I use the words loosely I didn't find him particularly funny, and don't recall his name.

A mate showed me a one off show he did. Something Newman or other he's called I think.

He ignores all the many, many known contributing reasons towards the build up, the increasing of tensions and eventual outbreak of War, the scramble by European Powers to be Power No 1, the desire of the German Establishment and Military to have an unbeatable, unmatched military and economic powerhouse with a fair share of it's own new Colonies, all the agitations and problems, and quarrels and historical problems such as the Franco Prussian War to name but one, that all contributed to leading up to the "big one" even ignored Franz Ferdinand's infamous little action - you see all that I mean, that had literally, absolutely NOTHING to do with WW1, and frankly, if your claiming they did, then your some sort of Prole no nothing who doesn't know his history, his geopolitics of the time, that, or your an unapologetic ignoramous Stooge of the powers that now be, treading the official line because your simply not mentally equipped or qualified to think for yourself, and see the real reasons.

His horrid smug face and voice during the show was enough to send anyone homicidal!!

The real reason y'see, and I am obviously right, because, you know, I am a Hipster comedian who hardly anyone has heard of and ride a bicycle to the office, those are my qualifications, so you can see how I am right where every single other Historian, people who have studied the thing for whole careers, actually read the documents, the textbooks, spoken to other experts is wrong.

WW1 was all about Iraqi Oil. Specifically, Germany wanting a bit of Iraqi Oil, and Britain not wanting Germany to have a bit of Iraqi Oil. Iraqi Oil is THE only reason WW1 happened, no oil in Iraq = No WW1.

Seriously that's his carefully researched opinion.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jan 28, 2018)

Sounds like a load of old codswallop to me!


----------



## Vladd67 (Jan 28, 2018)

Robert Newman (comedian) - Wikipedia


> His later work is characterised by a very strong political element and parallels the work of contemporaries such as Mark Thomas.[9] In 2001, with actress Emma Thompson, he called for a boycott of the Perrier Comedy Award, because Perrier is owned by Nestlé;[10] an alternative competition called the Tap Water Awards was set up the following year.[11] In 2003 Newman toured with From Caliban to the Taliban, which was released on CD and DVD. In 2005 the show Apocalypso Now or, from P45 to AK47, how to Grow the Economy with the Use of War debuted at the Bongo Club during the 2005 Edinburgh Festival Fringe.[12] Apocalypso Now toured nationally, sometimes as part of a double-bill where Newman was joined by Mark Thomas. The show was filmed at the Hoxton Hall in Hoxton, east London and shown on More4 under the title A History of Oil, with a later release on CD and DVD. A mixture of stand-up comedy and introductory lecture on geopolitics and peak oil, in Apocalypso Now Newman argues that twentieth-century Western foreign policy, including World War I, should be seen as a continuous struggle by the West to control Middle Eastern oil.[13][9] Newman draws from Richard Heinberg's book The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies as source material for portions of the show dealing with peak oil.[14]


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jan 28, 2018)

Vladd67 said:


> Robert Newman (comedian) - Wikipedia


Thank you for the information, Vladd -- that was considered to be comedy, you say?


----------



## Vladd67 (Jan 28, 2018)

Well, he wasn't too bad in the Mary Whitehouse Experience but when he went solo he obviously felt he had to spread a message rather than just be a comedian.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Jan 28, 2018)

Vladd67 said:


> Well, he wasn't too bad in the Mary Whitehouse Experience but when he went solo he obviously felt he had to spread a message rather than just be a comedian.



And whether or not the Message had any basis or grounding or reality, or even sense. ​


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Feb 23, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> Very debatable - I personally think it wasn't. The British Empire had peaked and was going to go into decline no matter what.



Yes, but WWI definitely accelerated the collapse, and WWII completed the work. 

Britain would probably have done better if America had stayed out of the war, and they'd had to negotiate a peace with Germany instead of 'winning'. With few to none of the reparations and other penalties imposed on Germany at the end of the war, that would likely have prevented WWII, at least in the form we saw it. And WWII was that really killed the Empire: it left Britain bankrupt and worn out, with no desire to keep its colonies... and America as the rising power telling everyone they had to break up their empires.

Even then, the psychological impact of the slaughter in WWI on the British people was tremendous. So maybe they'd have lost the will anyway.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 23, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> Very debatable - I personally think it wasn't. The British Empire had peaked and was going to go into decline no matter what.
> 
> Also I'm not sure it was a war to 'save democracy'. That might have been said afterwards as a justification...but when you have the democracies of the world teaming up with the most autocratic state on the planet at the time, Russia, I think this kinda blows that justification out of the water.



 There are there things that the British Empire could have done which might have enabled it to survive far longer then it did,  maybe to the present day.


----------



## sknox (Feb 24, 2018)

There were more players involved than just the British Empire. It's a mistake to look only at the Empire and not give credit to the colonies themselves. It's not like they were just waiting around for an open door. Beyond that, changes in economies, transportation, communication, all made it more difficult to maintain an arrangement that was built in the 18th and 19th centuries.


----------



## WarriorMouse (Feb 24, 2018)

BAYLOR said:


> There are there things that the British Empire could have done which might have enabled it to survive far longer then it did,  maybe to the present day.



Sorry but no that was not possible.  The British Empire was broke, massively in lend/lease debt to the Americans, Britain simply could not afford to continue protecting and governing the empire. The partitioning of a very restive India in 1947 and asking Canada in 1948 to take over the debt load and governance of Newfoundland were the death knell of the Empire.


----------



## sknox (Feb 24, 2018)

It's sort of a tricky position, since there was never an Emperor of Britain. Calling it an empire is a historian's (and a journalist's) construct, rather like referring to the Athenian Empire. One can place the fall with about as much precision as one can the Roman Empire. It was a process. I could argue that death knells began tolling when Britain gave up on South Africa and let the Boers have it. More chunks broke off as a result of WWI.

To call again upon Athens, even after the so-called empire so-called collapsed, both Athens and Britain continued to be culturally dominant for at least a generation or two. It seeded a large part of this planet with its ideas about law, art, politics, etc., so thoroughly that now whole other cultures are additional caretakers of its traditions. Political and military control did indeed run aground. Many saw that happening, even prior to WWII and indisputably after that conflict. But armies and politics are only part of the historical equation.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 24, 2018)

sknox said:


> It's sort of a tricky position, since there was never an Emperor of Britain. Calling it an empire is a historian's (and a journalist's) construct...



Well, since the 1688 Bill of Rights was in force, when we Brits decided that we'd prefer a constitutional monarchy, the British King or Queen was not allowed to call themselves Emperor, even although in all practical terms, especially after the seven years war, where a great deal of overseas territory was ripped from the French, we could very easily have justified the position and title.

Look at the Spanish, they were deemed 'Imperial' after conquering most of the new world, despite not being directly descended from the 'official' empire of Christendom, the Roman one. My understanding is that only the Holy Roman Empire could be construed as Imperial, if you wanted to nit-pick, but as time went on, everyone wanted more and more impressive titles, hence Bonaparte announcing the French empire and the unification of Germany leading to a German emperor.

Officially there was an Empress/Emperor of India which was instigated after the Indian mutiny which is the closest that the monarchy and parliament could probably officially get to suggesting that, indeed, it was for all practical purposes a British empire.


----------



## WarriorMouse (Feb 24, 2018)

sknox said:


> I could argue that death knells began tolling when Britain gave up on South Africa and let the Boers have it. More chunks broke off as a result of WWI.



Possibly, but giving up on SA was I believe, more for the sake of expediance than anything else. Britain was, it could be argued,  at the limit as to what it could govern at that point. While a few chunks broke off after WW1, Britain and its people believed itself/themselves the strongest nation/Empire on earth. That belief sharply faded after WW2.  Britain had been dragged into both wars because of mutual defense obligations it had contracted with foreign powers. Post war, Britain and its people were tired. Britain's war debt to the US was 21 billion dollars (it made the final payment on Dec 31 2006). Britain could not carry that debt and fund the nessessary obligations to protect and govern the colonies. Only resolve of obligation to its subjects allowed it to release colonies to self governance at a slow and measured pace.
Mind you, I could be completely wrong in this.


----------



## sknox (Feb 25, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> Well, since the 1688 Bill of Rights was in force, when we Brits decided that we'd prefer a constitutional monarchy, the British King or Queen was not allowed to call themselves Emperor,


I wondered about this. Just took a look at the full text and it doesn't talk about emperors at all. This doesn't take away anything from your points, I just wanted to get that clear.



Venusian Broon said:


> Look at the Spanish, they were deemed 'Imperial' after conquering most of the new world, despite not being directly descended from the 'official' empire of Christendom, the Roman one.


I'm pretty sure this dates to when Charles V inherited the Spanish kingdoms from his folks and gained the imperial title by a breathtaking series of bribes. They claimed the title by way of the HRE, which provided the same basis to the German rulers of the Second Reich.

As for India, now I'm way out of my depth. I'd never even thought about how and when that title appeared, since obviously it's not native. So, turns out it was only 1876 to 1948 that "emperor" appears as a title among the lovely constellation of titles that gathered around the British crown. I wonder when the Brits themselves started referring to the British Empire. Surely it was not prior to Napoleon and probably not during or immediately after, for his use of the title would leave a bad taste in British mouths. 

But I don't really know. Modern history is not at all my field.


----------



## Vladd67 (Feb 25, 2018)

Haven’t really read it but I found this site, it might help.
The British Empire


----------



## sknox (Feb 25, 2018)

Vladd67 said:


> Haven’t really read it but I found this site, it might help.
> The British Empire


That's sort of exactly what I was talking about. The author, who obviously knows the material, starts off by saying the British Empire (note the capitalization) was the "... largest formal empire that the world had ever known." He does not address the question of what constitutes an empire; a curious omission given his use of the word "formal."  

Look, I know this is picking nits, but if we're going to tag WWI (trying desperately to tie back to the thread subject) or any other event as key in the "decline and fall of the British Empire" we ought to be able to identify what constitutes an empire. As that article noted, the Colonial Office was not dissolved until 1966. One could argue that the Colonial Office (as early as 1854) marks the creation of a formal empire even more than does Queen Victoria taking on the title in 1877. 

Like everyone else, I'm accustomed to referring to the British Empire as if it were a thing. The more I consider this thread, though, the more the phrase feels like a metaphor than a reality, exactly in the way people speak of the Athenian Empire or indeed the American Empire. It's a metaphor for widespread influence, usually with a hint of paternalism at best and exploitation at worst. And, of course, a metaphor is utterly indifferent to the methods of historians.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 25, 2018)

sknox said:


> That's sort of exactly what I was talking about. The author, who obviously knows the material, starts off by saying the British Empire (note the capitalization) was the "... largest formal empire that the world had ever known." He does not address the question of what constitutes an empire; a curious omission given his use of the word "formal."
> 
> Look, I know this is picking nits, but if we're going to tag WWI (trying desperately to tie back to the thread subject) or any other event as key in the "decline and fall of the British Empire" we ought to be able to identify what constitutes an empire. As that article noted, the Colonial Office was not dissolved until 1966. One could argue that the Colonial Office (as early as 1854) marks the creation of a formal empire even more than does Queen Victoria taking on the title in 1877.
> 
> Like everyone else, I'm accustomed to referring to the British Empire as if it were a thing. The more I consider this thread, though, the more the phrase feels like a metaphor than a reality, exactly in the way people speak of the Athenian Empire or indeed the American Empire. It's a metaphor for widespread influence, usually with a hint of paternalism at best and exploitation at worst. And, of course, a metaphor is utterly indifferent to the methods of historians.



At one point in history the British Empire controlled about 1/3 of the world . The Sun quite literary never set on the British Empire.


----------



## WarriorMouse (Feb 25, 2018)

Go's back to page 1 and Baylors thread start question. huh... um?...


----------



## sknox (Feb 25, 2018)

Thanks for the redirect, WarriorMouse.

Wiser? I'd say few today believe the rhetoric of the time--a war to end wars, a war for democracy. This doesn't prevent us from using the same rhetoric again--we do not lightly change our gods--but as applied specifically to WWI, we got hip to that jive already in the 1920s. And it wasn't the historians, it was the journalists and writers of literature who exposed the war to the public. The historians are better at things like underlying causes (it's never *only* about power and money). We also know a great deal more about the progress of the war, about events during it, about the home front, and about the changes both immediate and long-term the conflict wrought. Nor do I think we are done. WWI will increasingly get lumped with WWII, and the whole half-century (or so) stretch will be presented as a single narrative in future classes. "Conflict in the 20th Century" or the like.

The nominative in that sentence deserves a bit of attention. Just who is the "we" getting wiser? I'm guessing the implication was politicians, but politicians don't get wiser, they only get re-elected. John Q. Public, see previous sentence but without the election clause. "We" in a very non-specific sentence did try to get wiser. We made a League of Nations, wrote some rules about chemical weapons and treatment of prisoners and civilians, and tried to punish the wrong-doers (as defined by the victors). None of that worked very well, people being people.

Marc Bloch, in one of his many excellent books (in _The Historian's Craft_, I think), quotes an Arab saying: 
Men resemble their times more than their fathers. 
Whenever people start talking about learning from the past, this tenet comes at once into my mind. I like the saying. It has the aridity of the desert.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 25, 2018)

WarriorMouse said:


> Go's back to page 1 and Baylors thread start question. huh... um?...



Baylor's comment on the British Empire and it's relationship to WW1 was perfectly valid. He actually tagged it onto a comment he made earlier about the impact WW1 had on the other Empires that were centre stage and what happened to them.

We don't mind threads wandering around a bit, and in this case I don't see what the problem is, other then if we were to veer off for 40 posts nit-picking on dictionary and historical terms that don't mention WW1, but even then I don't think there's a problem in going a few posts "off-piste", 'cause generally they are interesting topics. (If they get too big - then just start a new thread topic).


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Feb 26, 2018)

As I've always said, we (Britain) won the war.
But lost the peace!!!


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 27, 2018)

BigBadBob141 said:


> As I've always said, we (Britain) won the war.
> But lost the peace!!!



_All_ of the allies lost the peace together and reaped the whirlwind  two decade later.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 23, 2019)

Anyone seen Peter Jackson film  *They Shall Not Grow Old *?


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 23, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Anyone seen Peter Jackson film  *They Shall Not Grow Old *?


Not yet.

It's in my TBV (DVDs to be viewed) pile**.


** - It isn't much of a pile -- I don't buy many DVDs -- so I'll probably be watching it when the nights have drawn in a bit.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 23, 2019)

Ursa major said:


> Not yet.
> 
> It's in my TBV (DVDs to be viewed) pile**.
> 
> ...



Based on the clips that ive seen.  It's an impressive achievement.


----------



## svalbard (Jun 24, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Anyone seen Peter Jackson film  *They Shall Not Grow Old *?



It is a stunning piece of work.


----------



## MikeAnderson (Jul 18, 2019)

As an American, this was not a conflict our nation should ever have engaged in. With a health economy and our own social and political problems to deal with, it would have been wise for the U.S. to keep its nose out of the Old World's business.

But, OH NO, this guy just *HAD*  to butt in...






Thomas Woodrow Wilson. King George V called him a cold, odious man, and when a British monarch calls you stuffy and arrogant and DOESN'T come off as a hypocrite at all, you know this guy had issues. This was a man who...

-Claimed God ordained him to be President during his inauguration speech, and no-one could have stopped him.
-Intervened politically and militarily more than any other President had before in foreign campaigns.
-Championed the Sedition Act in 1918, which made any criticism of the war or the government's handling of it, no matter how minuscule, punishable by up to DEATH!
-Imposed a litany of broken nanny state policies including Prohibition and the current system of income tax collection that still exist today (which is strictly illegal by Constitutional law.)
-And lied blatantly about not shipping munitions to the Allies (cruise ships don't explode like that when a torpedo hits unless your underbelly is packed to the gills with bullets and artillery shells.)

Thanks to Woody, not only did he use WWI as an excuse to erode European (especially British) power abroad and officially shed the lie America was not an imperial power, almost every single president since Wilson's term runs the same playbook when it comes to pushing our weight around overseas.

The only nation that truly came out with a W in WWI was the United States.

And in a lot of ways, the rest of the world's been a poorer place for it.


----------



## sknox (Jul 18, 2019)

As a historian I like to remind people Wilson was a historian (to be fair, he was more political scientist that historian). As a medievalist, I like to point out that Charles Homer Haskins sat on the committee that helped redraw the map of Europe after World War One.

Higher education don't guarantee nothing, do it?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 18, 2019)

sknox said:


> As a historian I like to remind people Wilson was a historian (to be fair, he was more political scientist that historian). As a medievalist, I like to point out that Charles Homer Haskins sat on the committee that helped redraw the map of Europe after World War One.
> 
> Higher education don't guarantee nothing, do it?



He's easily was one the worst Presidents  we ever had and we have the Theodore Roosevel  to thank for him getting into office.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 19, 2019)

Ursa major said:


> Not yet.
> 
> It's in my TBV (DVDs to be viewed) pile**.
> 
> ...


Just another person telling you that's it brilliant.

The transition between the unaltered stock footage and the new coloured and frame corrected stuff takes your breath away.

I did notice that it pilfered quite a few of the soldier's reminisces from the fantastic BBC series 'The Great War' but that's not a negative.


----------

