100 years ago today

originally posted by: KROandSOTV
a reply to: masqua
What utter tripe you spout,Britain and Germany competing for dreadnoughts wrong.
France helped Russia build a railway to put troops on the border with Germany wrong,it was for iron ore coal and minerals and it was built years before the outbreak of ww1.
Cant be arsed to argue with you as this thread is about the fallen,you know the millions that died on both sides of the Great War as it is known.

On the dreadnought competition between Britain and Germany:

The naval race between Germany and Great Britain between 1906 and 1914 created huge friction between both nations and it is seen as one of the causes of World War One. In 1906, Britain launched the first dreadnought - a ship that meant all others were redundant before its awesome fire power.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

On the French/Russian railroad initiative:

However the Russian mobilization plan relied in part on railroads that had yet to be built – which is why France was glad to provide her Russian ally with literally billions of francs in loans for railroad construction, including huge sums earmarked for ten railroads with primarily military purposes – specifically speeding Russian war mobilization. Indeed, by 1914 France had loaned the Russian government and government-backed industry a majestic 10.5 billion francs, or around 3.4 billion rubles – four-fifths of Russia’s total foreign debt of 4.23 billion rubles. (This wasn’t pure charity, of course. According to one estimate, French bondholders made six billion francs from their Russian holdings from 1889-1914).

mentalfloss.com...

a reply to: masqua


In 1912, the German chancellor Bethmann Hollweg ended the naval arms race. His aim was to secure an understanding with the British to end the more and more isolated position of Germany. Besides, the increasing size of the Russian army compelled the Germans to spend more money on their army and -therefore- less on the navy. This initiative led to the Haldane Mission. Germany proposed a treaty in which Germany would accept British naval superiority in exchange of a British neutrality in a war in which Germany could not be said to be the aggressor. This proposal was rejected by Britain. For Britain there was nothing to gain by such a treaty, since their naval superiority was already secure. Besides, the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey favoured a more assertive policy toward Germany.

There was no race as they had already lost in 1914.On the outbreak of the Great War the strategical railways which Germany had constructed towards, along, and, jointly with the Belgian Government (owing to the pressure she bad brought to bear upon them), even across the Belgian frontier, enabled her at once to concentrate and to throw into that country great masses of troops for an invasion of France. But although these railways afforded her material aid in rushing troops on to Belgian territory, Germany had not anticipated so vigorous an opposition, at Liege, by the brave-hearted Belgians, who thus thwarted her design first to make a sudden descent on France by rail, and then to rush the main body of her troops, also by rail, back through Germany for the attack on Russia.

From the railway point of view the action taken by Belgium was of exceptional value to the Allies, since it meant that, although Germany crossed the frontiers of Belgium and Luxemburg on August 3rd, it was not until the 24th that she was in a position to attack the French Army, which by that time had not only completed both its mobilisation and its concentration, but had been joined by the first arrivals of the British Expeditionary Force.

When once the Belgian opposition had been effectively crushed, the close network of railways in that country became a powerful auxiliary to Germany's further operations against France. While, however, she had attached so much importance both to the perfection of her own railway system (from helped her Allies a strategical point of view) and to the control of the Belgian and Luxemburg systems, she had made the mistake of not allowing sufficiently for what the French and British railways could also do - especially with the practical advantage which, though at so terrible a cost to herself, Belgium had secured for them by her own heroic struggle with so powerful and merciless a foe.

It certainly was the case that, in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, military transport in France speedily assumed chaotic conditions, and that these were, in fact, among the direct causes of the disaster by which the country was so speedily overtaken. It cannot be said, however, that the disorder leading to those conditions was due to any lack of zeal or efficiency on the part of the French railway companies, who made the most strenuous efforts to deal with the traffic, and themselves accomplished marvels in this direction. The faults that arose were attributable, rather, to the absence in France of any organisation co-ordinating the military and the civil elements by the creation of authorities through whom all orders and instructions for rail transport would pass, the military element further adopting such methods of control and regulation as would avoid congestion and delay at the stations, while leaving the railway element free to attend to the working of the lines without the risk of having to deal with impracticable and conflicting demands by individual military officers acting on their own responsibility without regard for the physical limitations of the railways or for the needs of the situation as a whole.

In the interval which had elapsed. since 1870-71 an organisation for the conduct of military rail transport in time of war, on the lines here indicated, had been planned and worked out in France in a way so comprehensive and so exhaustive that it provided in advance as far as the combined wisdom of military and railway authorities could foresee or suggest for every contingency that was likely to arise.

At the same time, also, France had greatly improved her railway system, from a strategical point of view, and more especially in regard to better connections with the Franco-German frontier and the linking up of cross-country lines in such a way as to facilitate speedy mobilisation and concentration in case of need.

So it was that Germany's proclamation on July 31st, 1914, Of "the state of danger of war" found the French railways prepared to take instant action.

The transport of "troupes de couverture" otherwise, the troops despatched to the frontier to meet the first attack of the enemy began at nine o'clock the same evening, and was completed by noon on August 3rd (before there had been any suspension of the ordinary railway traffic), although this initial operation itself involved the running, on the Eastern system alone, of nearly six hundred trains.

The general mobilisation began on August 2nd, and the despatch of troops, etc., from the depots to, the points of concentration at the front, in accordance with the time-tables prepared in time of peace, was started at midday on the 5th and completed on the 19th. Between the two last-mentioned dates, the number of military trains run was nearly 4,500 (exclusive of 250 trains carrying siege supplies to the fortresses), and of this total more than 4,000 had destinations on the Eastern system.

At the end of this period the French Government issued a notice expressing to the railway officers and railway workers of all ranks the warmest acknowledgment of the patriotic zeal and the admirable devotion with which they had toiled day and night; while the "Journal des Transports," of January 30th, 1915 in announcing this fact, declared on its own behalf: "One can justly say that the first victory in this great conflict has been won by the railwaymen."

These earliest movements were, however, to be followed by a succession of others, which imposed a further abnormal strain on the railway organisation to an extent far greater than had been anticipated and already provided for.

No sooner was the concentration of France's seven armies six along the front and one in Paris accomplished than the railways had to ensure, between August 12th and August 20th, the conveyance to Mons of the officers and men of the British Expeditionary Force who had by that time arrived at Boulogne, Nantes, and St. Nazaire. This alone involved the running of 420 transport trains. Provision had likewise to be made for the transport across France, from Marseilles, of 60,000 French troops from Africa, and, also, of the troops arriving there from India. The masterly retreat of the allied centre and right to the south of the Marne, which followed the fall of Charleroi, on August 26th, called for an especially prodigious effort on the part of the French rai



Now as you call yerself a moderator this thread was started to respect the dead and you have taken it totally off track i will argue / debate with you but not on this thread show some respect for the fallen .

I have respect for individual instances of genuine heroism by those who placed their lives at risk to save the lives of others.

I feel nothing but sorrow for the millions cut down by machine guns and artillery, regardless of which side they fought on.

I despise the political monsters who set the stage for that war.

Honour those Lions led to slaughter by donkeys.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

Sir Cecil Spring-Rice

Actually the first world war used to be called the great war, and the massive death count from the Spanish flu was most likely responsible for the surrender of Germany, as both sides got stuck in a trench war. The resulting consequences for the German people was written in the treaty of Versailles, which was probably responsible for creating the the settings for world war 2

The great war was not the first world war actually, as the 7 year war, or French revolutionary wars, included conflicts between the Spanish, Britain, French and German territories, including the colonial South East Asian French territory, British India, French American territories, the expansion of the American colonies into west that caused the Native population to be hit the hardest, and the British occupation of the French American territories.
The number of casualties were in the millions. not even mentioning the European casualties during the same period.
This period was however the start of the United states to unite and was shortly followed by the American revolution and the resulting independence from the British empire.

Millions of deaths together with the millions that died in world war 1 and the millions that died in world war 2, there was an even greater loss of lives during the Chinese revolutionary wars, that exceeded those in the west, and was won by the communist party.

All of these deaths didn't effect the global population to increase exponentially, but without these events, we probably had reached that 9 billion mark already.

not long before all this happened the Spanish/Portuguese discovery of the Americas , caused the native American Indians to almost get wiped out from the diseases brought by the Europeans.

All of the above however can't be assigned to whatever happened in World war one, where for the first time in recorded history, new technological advanced weapons were used while ancient strategies didn't adapt to the advanced capability, creating unimaginable human misery, while the soldiers got stuck and had time to write about the horror and atrocities of war, forever eliminating the romance and heroism people linked with wars.

The Japanese war that started much earlier then 1939, when they invaded China, and expanded in the war over the pacific should also be included in the list above.

I personally do not honor the death of those that dies in ww1, because they didn't fight for freedom, they fought mainly for German and French colonial superiority.
It was not a war of the people, like in WW2 when the people fought for their freedom.

As far as Britain was concerned, invading Belgium was what did it.
It would have been difficult to get the nation into a war which was only about the Balkans.
I was once reading back-issues of an old denominational newspaper (the Primitive Methodist Leader) for the sake of writing a dissertation. One week the leading figure in the church was writing and putting down the whloe idea of fighting for "that nest of bandits" in Serbia. The next week, Belgium had been invaded and the whole atmosphere had changed.
Germany attacked Belgium and France because their carefully worked-out war-plans for a two front war could not be changed without upsetting all their timetables. But if they had confined themselves to a limited war helping the Austrian occupation of Serbia, they would have made it so much more difficult for their opponents to agree and combine against them.

originally posted by: Sinter Klaas
The great war was not the first world war actually,...

I think the label "First World War" goes back to Winston Churchill. Somewhere in his biography, I've seen correspondance with Roosevelt in which Churchill raises the question of what name ought to be given to the war they were engaged in at the time, and the result is the proposal to start using the names "First World War" and "Second World War".

P.S. No, I misremembered. Roosevelt not involved.
"On 22 June 1944 Sir Edward Bridges had asked Churchill how the two world wars should be described. Bridges' suggestions were "War of 1914-18" and "War of 1939-4?"; "First World War" and "Second World War"; or "Four Years War" and Five (or six, or seven) Years War."
It was Churchill's decision to go with the middle one.
Martin Gilbert's biography of Churchill, Vol VII, p894, note 3.
(Sir Edward was the Cabinet Secretary, which explains the question)

originally posted by: masqua
I have respect for individual instances of genuine heroism by those who placed their lives at risk to save the lives of others.

I feel nothing but sorrow for the millions cut down by machine guns and artillery, regardless of which side they fought on.

I despise the political monsters who set the stage for that war.

AMEN to that

a reply to: seagull

oh i get ya yeah who knows small changes can have massive impacts massive changes uncalcuable changes maybe we got a good deal maybe not

a reply to: masqua

Amen, my brother. Amen.

Something to remember them, so long gone from this Earth.

Rouge Bouquet

by Joyce Kilmer

In a wood they call the Rouge Bouquet
There is a new-made grave to-day,
Built by never a spade nor pick
Yet covered with earth ten meters thick.
There lie many fighting men,
Dead in their youthful prime,
Never to laugh nor love again
Nor taste the Summertime.
For Death came flying through the air
And stopped his flight at the dugout stair,
Touched his prey and left them there,
Clay to clay.
He hid their bodies stealthily
In the soil of the land they fought to free
And fled away.
Now over the grave abrupt and clear
Three volleys ring;
And perhaps their brave young spirits hear
The bugle sing:
"Go to sleep!
Go to sleep!
Slumber well where the shell screamed and fell.
Let your rifles rest on the muddy floor,
You will not need them any more.
Danger's past;
Now at last,
Go to sleep!"

There is on earth no worthier grave
To hold the bodies of the brave
Than this place of pain and pride
Where they nobly fought and nobly died.
Never fear but in the skies
Saints and angels stand
Smiling with their holy eyes
On this new-come band.
St. Michael's sword darts through the air
And touches the aureole on his hair
As he sees them stand saluting there,
His stalwart sons;
And Patrick, Brigid, Columkill
Rejoice that in veins of warriors still
The Gael's blood runs.
And up to Heaven's doorway floats,
From the wood called Rouge Bouquet,
A delicate cloud of buglenotes
That softly say:
"Farewell!
Farewell!
Comrades true, born anew, peace to you!
Your souls shall be where the heroes are
And your memory shine like the morning-star.
Brave and dear,
Shield us here.
Farewell!"

He wrote this poem just shortly after he lost twenty comrades, and just a short time before he himself was killed.

I first read this poem in high school, and it's stuck with me all these years later.