The Disturbing Relevance of World War I

[questionmark]

It has now been 100 years since the outbreak of World War I, but the European catastrophe remains relevant today. As the Continent looks back this year, old wounds could once again be rubbed raw.

Joachim Gauck, the 11th president of the Federal Republic of Germany, executes his duties in a palace built for the Hohenzollern dynasty. But almost all memories of Prussian glory have been eliminated from Bellevue Palace in Berlin, where there is no pomp and there are no uniforms and few flags. The second door on the left in the entrance hall leads into a parlor where Gauck receives visitors.

In the so-called official room, there are busts of poet Heinrich von Kleist and Social Democrat Friedrich Ebert, the first German president after Kaiser Wilhelm II fled the country into exile, on a shelf behind the desk. There are two paintings on the wall: an Italian landscape by a German painter, and a view of Dresden by Canaletto, the Italian painter

Read more

[rattpoison]

I'm not sure what it is you want to discuss, but I do think it is a topic that should be discussed. I think people should read the words of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk looking back on Gallipoli:

"Those heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives … you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."

I think that showed the proper respect for those who died.

It shows how old enemies can become, not just allies, but friends.

WWI should be broken down, minutely. It should be looked at closely. A lot can be learned from the past. Who is to blame? Everyone? Why did the US need to get involved, even though the populace was against it? Did the US gain anything? Did anyone gain anything?

[Frank Merton]

Thinking about it (and I am not well informed here so gentle correction, so long as it is factual and not propaganda, would be welcome), I think the US entry into the war came about because of the cultural affinities between the States and Britain and Canada. The Americans could just not let Britain go under.

The thing is the British were not going under, but they were suffering terrible losses and this had to be ended, and neither the US nor Britain could see any way to stop the hemorrhage except the shock to Germany of Americans suddenly appearing on the fronts. Of course German high-handedness with u-boats did not help their cause any.

[questionmark]

I'm not sure what it is you want to discuss, but I do think it is a topic that should be discussed. I think people should read the words of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk looking back on Gallipoli:

"Those heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives … you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."

I think that showed the proper respect for those who died.

It shows how old enemies can become, not just allies, but friends.

WWI should be broken down, minutely. It should be looked at closely. A lot can be learned from the past. Who is to blame? Everyone? Why did the US need to get involved, even though the populace was against it? Did the US gain anything? Did anyone gain anything?

If we start with Germany, they gained a unified country, kicked out the feudal system and got a democratic constitution. Probably would not have happened for another 100 years otherwise.

The Balkans gained its independence from Hungary.

Slovakia gained its independence.

Czechia gained its independence.

Poland gained its independence.

The rest just paid.

Edited January 12, 2014 by questionmark

[Ealdwita]

Of course German high-handedness with u-boats did not help their cause any.

The US entered WWI after the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat...(U-20 commanded by CaptLt.Schweiger). Prior to the sinking, the German gov't had ran many advertisements in NY papers advising people not to sail on it, that it was suspected of carrying weapons for its enemies. 60 American citizens were aboard the vessel.

The German U-boat sank it with a torpedo, that hit it in the bow. As the ship continued forward, sea water rushed in the hole which came into contact the gun cotton the Lusitania was carrying (cotton impregnated with Nitroglycerine). The salt water reacted with the gun cotton, causing a large explosion, which contributed to the sinking. The US papers ran many stories about the sinking of the Lusitania, which roused US sentiment against Germany. Shortly after, the US entered the war on the side of Britain (not admitting that the Lusitania was carrying the gun cotton to enemies of Germany).

Note: Only one passenger canceled their trip on the Lusitania, due to the warnings issued by the Germans - a baptist minister.

..............................................................................................................................................

The official reasons given for America's entry into the Great War....

1. The renewal by Germany of her submarine warfare.
   
2. Imperial Germany was running amuck as an international desperado
   
3. Prussian Militancy and autocracy let loose in the world disturbed the balance of power and threatened to destroy the international equilibrium.
   
4. The conflict [had gradually shaped] into a war between the democratic nations on one hand and autocratic on the other.
   
5. [America's] tradition of isolation had grown outworn and could no longer be maintained in the age of growing interdependency.
   
6. Because of the menace to the Monroe Doctrine and to [America's] independence.
   

(Source...US Govt. files)

Edited January 12, 2014 by ealdwita

[questionmark]

The US entered WWI after the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat...(U-20 commanded by CaptLt.Schweiger). Prior to the sinking, the German gov't had ran many advertisements in NY papers advising people not to sail on it, that it was suspected of carrying weapons for its enemies. 60 American citizens were aboard the vessel.

The German U-boat sank it with a torpedo, that hit it in the bow. As the ship continued forward, sea water rushed in the hole which came into contact the gun cotton the Lusitania was carrying (cotton impregnated with Nitroglycerine). The salt water reacted with the gun cotton, causing a large explosion, which contributed to the sinking. The US papers ran many stories about the sinking of the Lusitania, which roused US sentiment against Germany. Shortly after, the US entered the war on the side of Britain (not admitting that the Lusitania was carrying the gun cotton to enemies of Germany).

Note: Only one passenger canceled their trip on the Lusitania, due to the warnings issued by the Germans - a baptist minister.

..............................................................................................................................................

The official reasons given for America's entry into the Great War....

1. The renewal by Germany of her submarine warfare.
   
2. Imperial Germany was running amuck as an international desperado
   
3. Prussian Militancy and autocracy let loose in the world disturbed the balance of power and threatened to destroy the international equilibrium.
   
4. The conflict [had gradually shaped] into a war between the democratic nations on one hand and autocratic on the other.
   
5. [America's] tradition of isolation had grown outworn and could no longer be maintained in the age of growing interdependency.
   
6. Because of the menace to the Monroe Doctrine and to [America's] independence.
   

(Source...US Govt. files)

Where it is quite doubtful that the real reason was the sinking of a ship, the interruption in commerce was much more relevant.

[Ealdwita]

Where it is quite doubtful that the real reason was the sinking of a ship, the interruption in commerce was much more relevant.

Agreed, but the Lusitania incident was the spark that ignited the ire of the American public. 'Interruption in commerce' would not have had the same meaning to the man in the street.

[questionmark]

Agreed, but the Lusitania incident was the spark that ignited the ire of the American public. 'Interruption in commerce' would not have had the same meaning to the man in the street.

I think I have said this in one (or more) other threads:

There are only four reasons to go to war:

You are attacked and have no choice

You want influence, booty or land that somebody else has.

The rest is to make the sheeple fight.

[Eldorado]

Two years from the Lusitania being sunk to the US declaring war. Hmm. They weren't exactly in a hurry to send the cavalry, were they?

[questionmark]

Two years from the Lusitania being sunk to the US declaring war. Hmm. They weren't exactly in a hurry to send the cavalry, were they?

in 1915 most thought that Germany could not take much longer ( I have explained the reasons in another thread).

[Neognosis]

You are attacked and have no choice

You want influence, booty or land that somebody else has.

The rest is to make the sheeple fight.

I agree completely.

Religion does not cause war either. The cause is ALWAYS a competition for resources. Religion, color, race....those are just things that, as you said, are used to make people who otherwise have no interest in fighting feel like it is right to fight.

[+and-then]

I'm not sure what it is you want to discuss, but I do think it is a topic that should be discussed. I think people should read the words of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk looking back on Gallipoli:

"Those heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives … you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."

I think that showed the proper respect for those who died.

It shows how old enemies can become, not just allies, but friends.

WWI should be broken down, minutely. It should be looked at closely. A lot can be learned from the past. Who is to blame? Everyone? Why did the US need to get involved, even though the populace was against it? Did the US gain anything? Did anyone gain anything?

There have been hundreds of books dissecting this war. It is a fascinating study which I am just beginning but from the little I've read it seems that it was a perfect storm of influences that made avoiding conflict impossible. There were a significant number of people in every country that actually looked forward to the damned thing! They cheered when it was announced, God forgive them. It was the first truly global war and truly global scale of death and disruption but for all of that we repeated the process only 2 decades later. THAT is what is most telling about the Great war. The fact that humanity can be so convulsed and punished, yet repeat the same mistake in so short a time. I think there will never be a WW IV.

[questionmark]

There have been hundreds of books dissecting this war. It is a fascinating study which I am just beginning but from the little I've read it seems that it was a perfect storm of influences that made avoiding conflict impossible. There were a significant number of people in every country that actually looked forward to the damned thing! They cheered when it was announced, God forgive them. It was the first truly global war and truly global scale of death and disruption but for all of that we repeated the process only 2 decades later. THAT is what is most telling about the Great war. The fact that humanity can be so convulsed and punished, yet repeat the same mistake in so short a time. I think there will never be a WW IV.

For exactly the same reason people cheer at a boxing match.The reality of war did not reach our minds until ABC, NBC and CBS were pumping it day for day into our dinner time during the Vietnam war.

[Eldorado]

For exactly the same reason people cheer at a boxing match.The reality of war did not reach our minds until ABC, NBC and CBS were pumping it day for day into our dinner time during the Vietnam war.

War still has it's cheerleaders. Usually among those who have no chance of being sent to die.

[Helen of Annoy]

If we start with Germany, they gained a unified country, kicked out the feudal system and got a democratic constitution. Probably would not have happened for another 100 years otherwise.

The Balkans gained its independence from Hungary.

Slovakia gained its independence.

Czechia gained its independence.

Poland gained its independence.

The rest just paid.

I apologize for nitpicking, but I’d say it was part of Central Europe that gained its independence from Austria-Hungary and was promptly forced into Balkans.

It wasn’t an upside of WWI, it was another among many disastrous consequences of WWI.

[questionmark]

I apologize for nitpicking, but I’d say it was part of Central Europe that gained its independence from Austria-Hungary and was promptly forced into Balkans.

It wasn’t an upside of WWI, it was another among many disastrous consequences of WWI.

Where I agree with you.

[+and-then]

I apologize for nitpicking, but I’d say it was part of Central Europe that gained its independence from Austria-Hungary and was promptly forced into Balkans.

It wasn’t an upside of WWI, it was another among many disastrous consequences of WWI.

I've heard that WWI was sometimes referred to as the "third Balkan war" apparently there were two others in close succession to WW I

[questionmark]

I've heard that WWI was sometimes referred to as the "third Balkan war" apparently there were two others in close succession to WW I

Yes,first the Balkan was getting independence from the Turks, then from the Austrians...

The joke about it is that the Austrians were "liberating" the Balkans from the Turks too...

Edited January 12, 2014 by questionmark

[Helen of Annoy]

Yes,first the Balkan was getting independence from the Turks, then from the Austrians...

The joke about it is that the Austrians were "liberating" the Balkans from the Turks too...

And then having their archduke killed in return.

It was, of course, Serbian nationalist organization behind the assassination of the archduke Ferdinand, and the assassin Princip was a Bosnian Serb, but the morbidly funny fact is that Habsburgs were quite popular among Bosnian Serbian population – because of kicking Turks out of Bosnia. (The source for this claim about popularity is folk oral history.)

Of course, WWI would broke out even if Ferdinand made it home alive out of Sarajevo, but it was so much more bizarre this way.

[questionmark]

And then having their archduke killed in return.

It was, of course, Serbian nationalist organization behind the assassination of the archduke Ferdinand, and the assassin Princip was a Bosnian Serb, but the morbidly funny fact is that Habsburgs were quite popular among Bosnian Serbian population – because of kicking Turks out of Bosnia. (The source for this claim about popularity is folk oral history.)

Of course, WWI would broke out even if Ferdinand made it home alive out of Sarajevo, but it was so much more bizarre this way.

War was inevitable,all had been arming themselves to shuffle the cards anew and all underestimated the strength of the other, some had just lost wars a few years before disastrously yet they still thought they could play in the "Great Game"

[Eldorado]

Inevitable = desired.