World War One - huh - yeah - what was it good for? Absolutely nothing!

[Kevbad the Bad]

So, more than 100 years after it finished, let's have a proper, critical look at World War One.

My starting point is straightforward. WW1 was a pointless waste of life. The fools, incompetents and criminals who were responsible for it, on all sides, should be pariahs rather than heroes, despised rather than glorified, exposed for the heartless gangsters that they really were.

There were two sides in this world war. One gang, the Central Powers, comprised Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. The other gang comprised Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and later on the USA, Italy, Brazil, Portugal and others. Rumania switched sides.

In the UK we tend to link WW1 and WW2 in our minds, consciously or sub-consciously. There are obvious apparent similarities. A similar line-up of countries, if you ignore Italy and Japan. Germany, in particular, being central to both wars and the occupation of large parts of Europe. But they were two different historical events. WW2 would not have happened in the way it did had it not been for the outcome and settlement of WW1. WW1 on the other hand was an accident waiting to happen, the outcome of an arms race and power struggle between the great powers.

At the time nearly all socialist, anarchists, Marxists and many others were against the war before it happened. Many reluctantly fell into line once the conflict started. But many did not and continued to resist throughout the war. Let's not forget that this was a WORLD war and there was opposition world wide. I side instinctively with those had nothing good to say about the war at the time, with the conscientious objectors, draft dodgers, cowards, pacifists, rebels, mutineers and revolutionaries who either tried to stop their own country's involvement or who refused to participate.

What do you lot think? I'd like to hear, in particular, from urbanites in Germany, Turkey and other parts of the world to see how the received wisdom varies around the world. Just how biased or inward-looking is the British approach?

 

[mojo pixy]

I can't find a full version of this online, but I recommend anyone find and watch They Shall Not Grow Old. Made in 2018 by Peter Jackson's crew in collaboration with the Imperial War Museums, it's made from stitched-together footage from WW1, remastered and colorized, with a soundtrack comprised of first-hand testimonial recorded since 1918 and some new recordings to bring some of the silent footage to life.

It's quite amazing, and really brings the whole thing closer because a lot of it looks as if it were filmed recently and the men and women in it could be any of us.

I like the way they used so much footage of people looking at the camera, it draws the viewer in quite hauntingly.

 

[agricola]

I can't find a full version of this online, but I recommend anyone find and watch They Shall Not Grow Old. Made in 2018 by Peter Jackson's crew in collaboration with the Imperial War Museums, it's made from stitched-together footage from WW1, remastered and colorized, with a soundtrack comprised of first-hand testimonial recorded since 1918 and some new recordings to bring some of the silent footage to life.

It's quite amazing, and really brings the whole thing closer because a lot of it looks as if it were filmed recently and the men and women in it could be any of us.

I like the way they used so much footage of people looking at the camera, it draws the viewer in quite hauntingly.

A fantastic bit of work that; was very moving throughout.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

I am no historian or deep thinker but long-term British strategic interest was to disapprove strongly of anybody who was building up their Navy and/or threatening 'British' sea-lanes. I suppose that in part lies behind the reasons for the Anglo-Dutch, Napoleonic, Crimean wars and WW1. It might stem from the narrow escape of the Armada. I don't know.

Did it matter so much to this priority what happened in Central or even Western Europe, eg who was squabbling over Serbia? Or even Belgium? Unless British interests were affected. Balkan atrocities and the like were useful for whipping up public support but I don't think they were ever a reason for a war.

Here in Spain WW2 is seen as anti-fascist in the circles I move in and presumably as an ideological anti-communist crusade in the ones I don't. WW1 happened to other people across The Pyrenees.

 

[agricola]

In the UK we tend to link WW1 and WW2 in our minds, consciously or sub-consciously. There are obvious apparent similarities. A similar line-up of countries, if you ignore Italy and Japan. Germany, in particular, being central to both wars and the occupation of large parts of Europe. But they were two different historical events. WW2 would not have happened in the way it did had it not been for the outcome and settlement of WW1. WW1 on the other hand was an accident waiting to happen, the outcome of an arms race and power struggle between the great powers.

Not sure that "the outcome of an arms race and power struggle" can ever be said to be also an accident - the whole point of that effort of several decades from those in charge of the Second Reich was to create a situation by which power and territory could be transferred from other countries to them, which at that time meant (and was clearly understood to mean) a war; if not a global war then a war against France and Russia (with Britain ideally intimidated out of getting involved by the German Navy, but then to be next on the menu). This is of course how many empires (especially continental empires) behave, but I doubt anyone would describe them as behaving accidentally when aggrandizing themselves by a planned war of conquest so I don't think its correct to claim that here.

Its also important to remember that there is a clear difference between the aims of the leaderships of the two blocs, at least in Europe. There isn't that much evidence that I am aware of that the leadership of Britain, France or Russia contemplated a war of aggression against Germany (even as a bloc), but there is ample evidence that German leadership planned and wanted a war of aggression the other way around.

In short I think (edit: obviously this is based on the work of much more expert minds than mine) this notion of an accidental conflict is completely false; the establishment of the network of defensive alliances across Europe was a consequence of the rise of Germany and what the German leadership were doing and planning. That the war then started was because of the failure of those alliances to contain that threat, not because it created a situation by which a conflict could occur.

 

[keybored]

I can't find a full version of this online, but I recommend anyone find and watch They Shall Not Grow Old.

Couple of versions on Secret Cinema if you can get onto there (shouldn't be hard).

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Not sure that "the outcome of an arms race and power struggle" can ever be said to be also an accident - the whole point of that effort of several decades from those in charge of the Second Reich was to create a situation by which power and territory could be transferred from other countries to them, which at that time meant (and was clearly understood to mean) a war; if not a global war then a war against France and Russia (with Britain ideally intimidated out of getting involved by the German Navy, but then to be next on the menu). This is of course how many empires (especially continental empires) behave, but I doubt anyone would describe them as behaving accidentally when aggrandizing themselves by a planned war of conquest so I don't think its correct to claim that here.

Its also important to remember that there is a clear difference between the aims of the leaderships of the two blocs, at least in Europe. There isn't that much evidence that I am aware of that the leadership of Britain, France or Russia contemplated a war of aggression against Germany (even as a bloc), but there is ample evidence that German leadership planned and wanted a war of aggression the other way around.

In short I think (edit: obviously this is based on the work of much more expert minds than mine) this notion of an accidental conflict is completely false; the establishment of the network of defensive alliances across Europe was a consequence of the rise of Germany and what the German leadership were doing and planning. That the war then started was because of the failure of those alliances to contain that threat, not because it created a situation by which a conflict could occur.

By "accident waiting to happen" I mean, of course, that the precise chain of events which led to the outbreak of WW1 were not inevitable, and we could easily have got to some other situation where Russia, France or Austria-Hungary actually declared war or invaded another country, thereby starting the conflict rolling. The rivalry between the Great Powers had nothing to do with right or wrong. Britain, France and Russia had spent most of the preceding centuries invading and occupying other parts of the world, fighting each other when necessary and generally misbehaving. The status quo that Germany challenged was not one worth defending. That does not mean a German hegemony would have been much cop either, but I don't think we should look at everything from the point of view of those in power.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't suppose the European empires would have shuffled off the stage had there never been a first world war.

 

[Pickman's model]

By "accident waiting to happen" I mean, of course, that the precise chain of events which led to the outbreak of WW1 were not inevitable, and we could easily have got to some other situation where Russia, France or Austria-Hungary actually declared war or invaded another country, thereby starting the conflict rolling. The rivalry between the Great Powers had nothing to do with right or wrong. Britain, France and Russia had spent most of the preceding centuries invading and occupying other parts of the world, fighting each other when necessary and generally misbehaving. The status quo that Germany challenged was not one worth defending. That does not mean a German hegemony would have been much cop either, but I don't think we should look at everything from the point of view of those in power.

Do you honestly think that Germany wasn't the product of centuries of fighting and generally misbehaving? Often fighting involving France and Britain. The status quo was one Germany had been very much involved in creating and indeed upholding.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I don't suppose the European empires would have shuffled off the stage had there never been a first world war.

The Ottoman Empire was already shuffling off anyway. Austria-Hungary was probably headed the same way. But who knows? Had events turned out differently they would have turned out differently.

 

[Artaxerxes]

The destruction of a generation of upper class kids and massive debt accelerated the decline of the British empire.

It took another 25+ years and even more death but it certainly started the ball rolling.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Do you honestly think that Germany wasn't the product of centuries of fighting and generally misbehaving? Often fighting involving France and Britain. The status quo was one Germany had been very much involved in creating and indeed upholding.

Everything in Europe was the product of centuries of aggro.

 

[Kaka Tim]

theres a really good three part doc on bbc iplayer about the battle of the somme.

The Somme 1916 - From Both Sides of the Wire

really well researched - and explains just why it was such a disaster for the allies despite overwhelming superiority in troops and equipment.

 

[Pickman's model]

Everything in Europe was the product of centuries of aggro.

Yeh but Germany had only been unified 40 years before after er another war. And let's not forget the other wars in Europe involving Germany in the half century or so before 1914, the war with Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein and the war with Austria-Hungary. If you had to point to someone in a pub who was going to cause trouble it'd have been Germany.

 

[agricola]

By "accident waiting to happen" I mean, of course, that the precise chain of events which led to the outbreak of WW1 were not inevitable, and we could easily have got to some other situation where Russia, France or Austria-Hungary actually declared war or invaded another country, thereby starting the conflict rolling. The rivalry between the Great Powers had nothing to do with right or wrong. Britain, France and Russia had spent most of the preceding centuries invading and occupying other parts of the world, fighting each other when necessary and generally misbehaving. The status quo that Germany challenged was not one worth defending. That does not mean a German hegemony would have been much cop either, but I don't think we should look at everything from the point of view of those in power.

We shouldn't, but boiling the topic down to the point where everyone is equally guilty can only ever benefit the reputations of those in power from the side where the guilt is to be found - those who actually bore responsibility for it.

I don't want to loop back to the other thread (now that this one exists), but I doubt anyone would ever make the same argument about how the second war started, even though there are an awful lot of similarities (serial bad faith from one side, rearmament sparked off by the antics of that side, diplomatic agreements entered into to contain that side, a leadership on that side that actively wanted conflict because they thought they'd win etc).

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Yeh but Germany had only been unified 40 years before after er another war. And let's not forget the other wars in Europe involving Germany in the half century or so before 1914, the war with Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein and the war with Austria-Hungary. If you had to point to someone in a pub who was going to cause trouble it'd have been Germany.

Or Russia or Italy or the Ottoman Empire. Probably not the big British thug in the corner, cos he was causing trouble elsewhere.

 

[Pickman's model]

Or Russia or Italy or the Ottoman Empire. Probably not the big British thug in the corner, cos he was causing trouble elsewhere.

But not I note France. Why not?

E2A I suspect one reason Germany felt confident enough to go to war was the way the British government had been concerned with the curragh mutiny in the summer of 1914, but I'd be interested to know where you think Britain was causing trouble at the time

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

But not I note France. Why not?

E2A I suspect one reason Germany felt confident enough to go to war was the way the British government had been concerned with the curragh mutiny in the summer of 1914, but I'd be interested to know where you think Britain was causing trouble at the time

The British Empire. The clue is in the name.

 

[agricola]

theres a really good three part doc on bbc iplayer about the battle of the somme.

The Somme 1916 - From Both Sides of the Wire

really well researched - and explains just why it was such a disaster for the allies despite overwhelming superiority in troops and equipment.

Thanks for this, I'd not seen that before.

A couple of years ago, I went to Kew to research into my great-granddads wartime service - his unit (16th Battalion, West Yorkshire Regiment) took part in the first day of the Somme, though I've never been able to confirm he was there (they took such horrendous casualties that I suspect he was among the replacement drafts for those men, as he'd been called up later and was in an older age group).

The bit that really brought it home to me about that battle was reading the units war diary - which has no contemporaneous notes (it appears to have been updated four days afterwards), and which after a brief description of how things began starts off its account with "the following statements have been made by survivors". It was only after reading it all that one noticed the different initials marking the various entries, which had been (in the months before) daily updates mostly from someone called "CTR" but which were after July 1st coming from a "HRW".

"CTR" turned out to be Lieutenant Cecil Talbot Ransome, the 26 year old battalion adjutant (who had been an insurance clerk from Norwich before being called up), who was killed on the morning of July 1st. One of the statements actually described what he was last seen doing, directing an injured mate to a safe route back to the British trenches.

 

[Pickman's model]

The British Empire. The clue is in the name.

yeh where in the british empire (apart from ireland, which i've referred to)

 

[Pickman's model]

Thanks for this, I'd not seen that before.

A couple of years ago, I went to Kew to research into my great-granddads wartime service - his unit (16th Battalion, West Yorkshire Regiment) took part in the first day of the Somme, though I've never been able to confirm he was there (they took such horrendous casualties that I suspect he was among the replacement drafts for those men, as he'd been called up later and was in an older age group).

The bit that really brought it home to me about that battle was reading the units war diary - which has no contemporaneous notes (it appears to have been updated four days afterwards), and which after a brief description of how things began starts off its account with "the following statements have been made by survivors". It was only after reading it all that one noticed the different initials marking the various entries, which had been (in the months before) daily updates mostly from someone called "CTR" but which were after July 1st coming from a "HRW".

"CTR" turned out to be Lieutenant Cecil Talbot Ransome, the 26 year old battalion adjutant (who had been an insurance clerk from Norwich before being called up), who was killed on the morning of July 1st. One of the statements actually described what he was last seen doing, directing an injured mate to a safe route back to the British trenches.

some years ago when i worked in a local authority archive i saw a large ad in the local paper from 1916 which said something along the lines of 'every briton should see this film of the country's military might' about film of the battle of the ancre in the final stages of the battle of the somme with tanks and everything. it also said that the projectionist would be a former soldier invalided out and retrained to show films (one wonders how severe the wounds would have been, for someone to be given a job where no one else would see them).

sadly the british newspaper archive couldn't find the ad but here's the film

 

[spitfire]

I went to a mates house near Lyon for a 50th birthday party in summer 2018 and drove back up through France, stopped off overnight in Reims for a break in the trip and went to Vimy Ridge.

There are some "preserved" trenches and the Canadians maintain a museum and the surrounding area. Young Canadians show you around the place and bring you through one of the tunnels that were dug back in 14/18.

Battle of Vimy Ridge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some photo's

 

[Idris2002]

The Chilembwe Rebellion.

Chilembwe uprising - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In what was then Nyasland (but is now Malawi), a radical African church pastor leads a rising against forced labour and recruitment into the First World War.

I'd never heard of this at all, until I came across it the other night. The poor sod (it ended badly for Chilembwe, even though his martyrdom inspired later generations in Malawi) was born a generation too early. . . he must have been one of the first self-consciously modern political rebels in colonial Africa, his local version of Christianity notwithstanding.

 

[Idris2002]

Cool pics spitfire

 

[spitfire]

Vimy Ridge Memorial. It's big!



This is why they fought for it, the view East is quite something, a real vantage point.





CANADIAN CEMETERY NO.2, NEUVILLE-ST. VAAST

Canadian Cemetery No.2, Neuville-St. Vaast | Cemetery Details | CWGC

Canadian Cemetery No.2, Neuville-St. Vaast | Cemetery Details | CWGC

www.cwgc.org

Neuville-St Vaast German war cemetery

Neuville-Saint-Vaast German Military Cemetery “La Maison Blanche”

A description of Neuville St. Vaast German Military Cemetery on the Artois WW1 battlefields in France

www.greatwar.co.uk

Grave marker for mass grave of 8040 German soldiers. Grave pictured below.

 

[spitfire]

Cool pics spitfire

Thank you. I have more but didn't want to spam the thread too much so have just selected a few representative ones.

 

[Idris2002]

Thank you. I have more but didn't want to spam the thread too much so have just selected a few representative ones.

No worries. Here's a couple of pics of ANZAC day, Auckland 2008.

 

[spitfire]

This podcast might be quite good, he's well respected as far as I can tell so probably worth a shot.

Old Front Line

WW1 Podcast with Paul Reed

oldfrontline.co.uk

 

[Mordi]

Visited some friends in south east Poland and it seemed like every village had a sizeable cemetery for the war dead. Names from just about every part of Eastern and Central Europe strewn all over as part of the fighting around the fortress city Prezmysl. It's still a very pretty place, the Austrians decked it up as the capital of Galicia and despite being occupied and liberated at least 5 times over the course of the 20th century it came out of it more intact than most of Europe.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

The Chilembwe Rebellion.

Chilembwe uprising - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In what was then Nyasland (but is now Malawi), a radical African church pastor leads a rising against forced labour and recruitment into the First World War.

I'd never heard of this at all, until I came across it the other night. The poor sod (it ended badly for Chilembwe, even though his martyrdom inspired later generations in Malawi) was born a generation too early. . . he must have been one of the first self-consciously modern political rebels in colonial Africa, his local version of Christianity notwithstanding.

There were a number of other Anti-Colonial revolts during World War One

Against the French Empire
Zaian Berber war in Morocco 1914
Volta-Bani war French West Africa 1915
Kaocen revolt in Niger 1916
Borgu revolt in Dahomey 1916
Algerian revolt 1916
Anti-French revolt in 1916 in Cochin China (Vietnam)

Against the British Empire
Giriama uprising in Kenya 1914
Maritz rebellion (pro-German) in South Africa 1914
Bussa rebellion in Nigeria 1915

Against the Portuguese Empire
Barue uprising in Mozambique 1916

I came across this lot when I was doing some research for a talk a couple of years ago. These weren't all necessarily revolts directly connected to WW1, but they were also the tip of the iceberg when it comes to lower-level non-compliance, draft evasion, desertion, withholding of taxes, etc.