The Great War / World War 1

[Newbornbairn]

Not much difference most years, but November is when we do the remembering bit.

Remember remember the the big war thingmy.

Aye, poor old Guy Fawkes. Invented Halloween then died at the Somme, bored to death by some daft c**t's incessant poetry reading.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

I'm not saying we shouldn't commemorate the start of WWI, but £55m on the ceremony seems like overkill, and there doesn't seem to be any contrition on our part that maybe it wasn't the best idea to send hundreds of thousands of young, inexperienced and naive lads into combat on,at best, a whim.

As David Lloyd George said to the editor of the Guardian at the time, "“If the people really knew the truth, the war would be stopped tomorrow".

And it irks me that they refer to young men "sacrificing their lives". Sacrifice implies that they had a choice. Well, they did, the alternative was to be shot. Yes, a great many signed up voluntarily, but mostly due to propaganda.

Edit - actually the last point makes me think. Without wanting to pigeonhole, there are many people in the UK who blindly "support our troops", safe from the comfort of their living room. If WWIII was announced, would they be so keen to be conscripted without doing a bit of research first as to the whys and wherefores of the conflict?

[Bold Rover]

I'm no historian so - naturally - turn to the PnB generals for information. WŴ1 was truly a World War. Help me understand the carve-up of the Middle East and the relevance to today's situations.

[Hillonearth]

This is still the best concise explanation I've heard:

The Causes of WWI

Baldrick: The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

Edmund: Do you mean "Why did the war start?"

Baldrick: Yeah.

George: The war started because of the vile *** and his villainous empire-building.

Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [aside, to Baldick] Mad as a bicycle!

Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.

Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.

George: By Golly, this is interesting; I always loved history...

Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that, sir?

Edmund: It was bollocks.

[pandarilla]

I'm no historian so - naturally - turn to the PnB generals for information. WŴ1 was truly a World War. Help me understand the carve-up of the Middle East and the relevance to today's situations.

Israel-Palestine war thread for this pish

[yoda]

My knowledge of the war is almost none excising. I know about trenches, but not much else.

There's a podcast series called "Hardcore History" (it's free and you can find it on iTunes). The guy who does it is currently working his way through the First World War (three parts in so far, and he's only finished 1914/15) and I would thoroughly recommend it as a good introduction to the First World War. He references a variety of sources so it is useful for finding relevant books on the subject matter.

[Jacksgranda]

I'm no historian so - naturally - turn to the PnB generals for information. WŴ1 was truly a World War. Help me understand the carve-up of the Middle East and the relevance to today's situations.

Turkey lost, we won, so us and the French divvied up the old Ottoman Empire. Simples.

[pandarilla]

If anyone has any interest or knowledge about the start of the war and hasn't seen this - I wholeheartedly recommend:

http://www.tentimesone.com/if-world-war-one-was-a-bar-fight/

(Its just a bit too big to post in its entirety)

[WaffenThinMint]

A lot of media attention as you can imagine due to the centenary.

I find it strange though despite all the attention, the one thing they never mention is the reasons why we went to war, what was achieved from it, the justifications for it etc..

My knowledge of the war is almost none excising. I know about trenches, but not much else.

The reason why in a nutshell is down to the way nations made alliances at that time. Before WW1, nations allied with one another with a view to starting future wars of conquest & material gain, not to prevent them, despite the We don't want to fight but by Jingo if you do... lie fed to the public.

There were so many tied together in treaty obligations, it was like a political version of the story of The Old Woman & Her Pig awaiting its mouse. That mouse proved to be & a bunch of Serb terrorists called the Black Hand, bankrolled by a loony Serb colonel (debate point: was Serbia innocent or were the Black Hand were a "deniable asset"?) bumping off the Austro Hungarian heir to the autocratic throne for daring to visit disputed Sarajevo.

Austria Hungary attacked the Serbs, the Russians attacked the Austrians, the Germans attacked the Russians, the French declared war on the Germans, the Germans attacked the Belgians to get France at its weakest point (& by a less than happy coincidence had a very large genocidal empire in Africa making lots of money), the British declared war as one of the signatories of the "Scrap Of Paper" guaranteeing Belgian neutrality... and the war pig jumped over the style.

There was also a lot of ignorance as to how such a war would pan out, making them that bit more susceptible to a bit of bloodshed. Most were still convinced it would play out faster than the 9 month Franco-Prussian War due to modern tech (the "all be over by Christmas" myth). None had reckoned on the introduction of the devestating impact heavy machine guns (the Vickers & Spandau) would have on warfare making it far too favourable to well dug in defenders.

[dorlomin]

I'm no historian so - naturally - turn to the PnB generals for information. WŴ1 was truly a World War. Help me understand the carve-up of the Middle East and the relevance to today's situations.

The Ottoman Empire had run the region for a few hundred years, they sided with the Germans and the UK defeated them through to major campaigns, one in Palastine the other in Mesopotamia. When the war was over the League of Nations handed the former Ottoman Empire to the UK and France to administer towards becoming self ruling nations (decided along the Sykes Picot line). They did little to promote self rule but cultivated a couple of families to rule on their behalf. You would have to go into things like the Balfour Declaration and various promises made to various peoples. But in the end lots of Jews began buying land in what is now Israel, the UK sort of supported them and sort of did not. To cut a long story short, after WWII these countries gained independence, all but a hand full of their kings were deposed (Jordan and Saudi) and the nation states created were largely out of administrative divisions of the Franco British carve up.

As always there is a mountain more than can be written.

[Sergeant Wilson]

three parts in so far, and he's only finished 1914/15.

It's half seven now. I've missed it.

[DA Baracus]

I give it about 7 minutes before some hippie hijacks this with crap about imperialism, the British PM being a war criminal or war being in some way wrong.

Are you saying war isn't wrong?! Surely not. Sadly in some cases it's necessary (e.g. WW2) but war is never 'right'. War is the shame of humanity

[THE KING]

A lot of media attention as you can imagine due to the centenary.

I find it strange though despite all the attention, the one thing they never mention is the reasons why we went to war, what was achieved from it, the justifications for it etc..

My knowledge of the war is almost none excising. I know about trenches, but not much else.

reasons? What reasons? It was the biggest waste of human life in history.

[dorlomin]

It was the biggest waste of human life in history.

No 6

[Hillonearth]

At least in the early years of the war, the army were all volunteers - it was only as late as 1916 the UK introduced conscription. 100 years ago, there were no media outlets showing the reality of the situation, i.e. bodies blown apart and rotting in the sun.

There still was a huge amount of jingoism, and the public believed in the idea of a glorious war because that's what they were fed. There was no shortage of volunteers until soldiers started coming home on leave with the real story. Even then, there was huge social pressure to join up, with women going up to random guys on the street who weren't in uniform and handing them white feathers.

Some of the real heroes of WW1 were the conscientious objectors whether for political, religious or moral reasons, the treatment of some of whom was shameful.

[pandarilla]

At least in the early years of the war, the army were all volunteers - it was only as late as 1916 the UK introduced conscription. 100 years ago, there were no media outlets showing the reality of the situation, i.e. bodies blown apart and rotting in the sun.

There still was a huge amount of jingoism, and the public believed in the idea of a glorious war because that's what they were fed. There was no shortage of volunteers until soldiers started coming home on leave with the real story. Even then, there was huge social pressure to join up, with women going up to random guys on the street who weren't in uniform and handing them white feathers.

Some of the real heroes of WW1 were the conscientious objectors whether for political, religious or moral reasons, the treatment of some of whom was shameful.

Absolutely this.

[mjw]

I think you may have that wrong. Alsace Lorraine had been won back by Germany in the Franco Prussian war, "revanchism" was a French, not German motivation.

Aye,wrong way round.

[FlyerTon]

Excellent site below from Royal British Legion. Allows you to search by name, town etc Has an interactive map.

http://www.everymanremembered.org/

[Paco]

The one mistake that everybody makes with things like this is judging past wars by today's standards.

Should Britain have went to war? Debatable (obviously). Certainly it was in their own self-interest and nothing to do with Belgian neutrality. However France were on the way to defeat and Russia was on the verge of revolution. They'd have been in a very tight spot if they'd let things develop.

Britain could certainly have attempted to avoid the war, no question at all about that. Does that mean they were wrong to do so? Definitely not.

Regardless of where blame lies, the one thing that should be remembered is the soldiers. The ones who had nothing to do with any of it but went to war for their country when their country needed them - as was the way of it back then. Ceremonial displays like the ones today are nothing more than back-patting and pontificating from politicians. However it is absolutely correct to remember those that went to war (and not just those who died - death would've been most welcome to many who came home). They changed the course of history, probably for the better for their country, and that should always be remembered by society as a whole.

[pandarilla]

The one mistake that everybody makes with things like this is judging past wars by today's standards.

Should Britain have went to war? Debatable (obviously). Certainly it was in their own self-interest and nothing to do with Belgian neutrality. However France were on the way to defeat and Russia was on the verge of revolution. They'd have been in a very tight spot if they'd let things develop.

Britain could certainly have attempted to avoid the war, no question at all about that. Does that mean they were wrong to do so? Definitely not.

Regardless of where blame lies, the one thing that should be remembered is the soldiers. The ones who had nothing to do with any of it but went to war for their country when their country needed them - as was the way of it back then. Ceremonial displays like the ones today are nothing more than back-patting and pontificating from politicians. However it is absolutely correct to remember those that went to war (and not just those who died - death would've been most welcome to many who came home). They changed the course of history, probably for the better for their country, and that should always be remembered by society as a whole.

Not so sure about this bit...