Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
surprised no mention of the easter rising in dublin (1916)
World War One - huh - yeah - what was it good for? Absolutely nothing!
- Thread starter Kevbad the Bad
- Start date
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
"England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity."
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Yeah, true. That list was focused primarily on Africa. But if we're talking anti-colonial we could also add in the Singapore Mutiny in 1915, the revolt in Russian Turkestan in 1916, the Quebec riots Easter 1918 as well as the rising in Dublin.
Spandex
A crazy bulbous punchbag of sound
The global nature of WW1 often gets overlooked as the focus tends to be on the mass carnage in the killing fields of northern France and Belgium, maybe remembering Gallipoli and Laurence of Arabia. The brutal fighting in the Caucuses between the Turks, Russians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis, which led to genocide, is often seen as somehow separate. The war in Africa is largely overlooked, unless you're a fan of The African Queen, but the East African campaign was the longest of the war and led to a famine that killed hundreds of thousands. Fighting in Samoa, New Guinea and Micronesia barely gets a footnote. Even Latin America, which was only really directly affected by German U-boats, saw lasting effects from the war - it was an important step on the continent's shift of focus away from Europe.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
One of the reasons Spain never got involved in WW1 may be that the Tragic Week in Barcelona in 1909 showed that the Spanish Working Class could not be trusted with weapons. Who might they turn them against? As it was, Spanish Anarchists campaigned vigorously against the war throughout, even though Spain never took part.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
One aspect of historical reporting of the war is the overwhelming impression that there was a near universal enthusiasm for the whole project at the start. Not in the prelude to the war. Everyone accepts there was widespread opposition, mainly from the left across Europe, but that it crumbled away after the war broke out. There's a large element of truth in that, a lot of people rallying to their various flags across Europe when push came to shove.
But it ignores the obstacles to peaceful opposition which were put in place across the world.
First and foremost large numbers of young men were being sent away to fight. Parents, relatives, friends and neighbours would turn out to bid them farewell and wish them the best. In such an atmosphere it might not be easy to express anti-war sentiment.
Most European countries had some system of national service in place, so there was a precedent to being called up and sent away. Where that was not the case and conscription was introduced it provoked much more conflict and open debate, but that was later in the war.
Everywhere there was censorship, to differing degrees and enforced differently. Censorship nonetheless, of both opinion and news. Newspapers and magazines could be censored or shut down, printing presses seized or destroyed. Meetings and demonstrations could be banned or broken up, activists beaten up or arrested. Expressions of pro-war sentiment would often be tolerated or encouraged, the police standing by when there were anti-German riots in the UK, for example, or when there were anti-German and anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia.
Another near-universal was the banning of strikes. A strike during wartime became equated with treason, so even when its aims were purely material it acquired an anti-war aspect, intended or otherwise.
Similarly with demonstrations. They may or may not always have been banned - there were big anti-conscription demos in London later in the war, for instance - but they were always in danger from attacks from pro-war mobs or the police.
At the start of WW1 many thought that it would all be over by Christmas, or some such optimistic hope, and far too many were swept away on a tide of patriotism. That wouldn't last.
But it ignores the obstacles to peaceful opposition which were put in place across the world.
First and foremost large numbers of young men were being sent away to fight. Parents, relatives, friends and neighbours would turn out to bid them farewell and wish them the best. In such an atmosphere it might not be easy to express anti-war sentiment.
Most European countries had some system of national service in place, so there was a precedent to being called up and sent away. Where that was not the case and conscription was introduced it provoked much more conflict and open debate, but that was later in the war.
Everywhere there was censorship, to differing degrees and enforced differently. Censorship nonetheless, of both opinion and news. Newspapers and magazines could be censored or shut down, printing presses seized or destroyed. Meetings and demonstrations could be banned or broken up, activists beaten up or arrested. Expressions of pro-war sentiment would often be tolerated or encouraged, the police standing by when there were anti-German riots in the UK, for example, or when there were anti-German and anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia.
Another near-universal was the banning of strikes. A strike during wartime became equated with treason, so even when its aims were purely material it acquired an anti-war aspect, intended or otherwise.
Similarly with demonstrations. They may or may not always have been banned - there were big anti-conscription demos in London later in the war, for instance - but they were always in danger from attacks from pro-war mobs or the police.
At the start of WW1 many thought that it would all be over by Christmas, or some such optimistic hope, and far too many were swept away on a tide of patriotism. That wouldn't last.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Remembering The Real World War 1 has been doing stuff (particularly on the above) since 2014.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
Some cracking books there. Sadly, my eyes started watering when I saw the prices.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
My understanding is that it was the rise of germany that was the main driver behind the conflict.
Germany had only been a united nation for less than fifty years. German unification brought together a large, comparatively well educated population, significant wealth, resources, industrial power, military might and large scientific research base all under one flag. Germany was now well on the way to being the most powerful nation in europe and this was a serious challenge to france and britain. Germany nationalists saw other european countries with their colonial possessions and wanted to catch up.
Whatever the immediate causes of WW1, it was probably inevitable that the other major european powers were going to come into conflict with this an increasingly assertive, nationalistic germany sooner or later.
So in 1914 the major players felt they had powerful reasons to go to war. Germany to fulfill its proper potential and change the balance of power in europe - Great Britain, France and Russia to put them back in their box before they got too powerful and france with the additional desire to get revenge for the humiliation of 1870 Austria Hungary - I guess they felt they could arrest their gradual decline by underwriting their position with german power.
World War 2 was pretty much a continuation of the same war (marshall foch said of the versaille treaty "this is not peace -this is a twenty year ceasefire") - germany still very much wanted to challenge the balance of power and assume their "manifest destiny" but now also driven by a toxic sense of grievance and betrayal.
I think i read somewhere that a leading german -maybe bismark? - was arguing before WW1, that german industrial and economic muscle would become so powerful that it would achieve european domination on its own without the need to go to war. Which - if you look at today's europe - was remarkably prescient.
Germany had only been a united nation for less than fifty years. German unification brought together a large, comparatively well educated population, significant wealth, resources, industrial power, military might and large scientific research base all under one flag. Germany was now well on the way to being the most powerful nation in europe and this was a serious challenge to france and britain. Germany nationalists saw other european countries with their colonial possessions and wanted to catch up.
Whatever the immediate causes of WW1, it was probably inevitable that the other major european powers were going to come into conflict with this an increasingly assertive, nationalistic germany sooner or later.
So in 1914 the major players felt they had powerful reasons to go to war. Germany to fulfill its proper potential and change the balance of power in europe - Great Britain, France and Russia to put them back in their box before they got too powerful and france with the additional desire to get revenge for the humiliation of 1870 Austria Hungary - I guess they felt they could arrest their gradual decline by underwriting their position with german power.
World War 2 was pretty much a continuation of the same war (marshall foch said of the versaille treaty "this is not peace -this is a twenty year ceasefire") - germany still very much wanted to challenge the balance of power and assume their "manifest destiny" but now also driven by a toxic sense of grievance and betrayal.
I think i read somewhere that a leading german -maybe bismark? - was arguing before WW1, that german industrial and economic muscle would become so powerful that it would achieve european domination on its own without the need to go to war. Which - if you look at today's europe - was remarkably prescient.
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you should - when you can - look at your local newspaper from the 1914-18 period, you'll find lots of people up in court for various ways in which they tried to evade conscription. also the way the war impacted people who suffered its effects in britain - people in london who killed themselves because of stress from air raids, for example. and you're right about the mobs - this happened down the way from where i live in 1917
Watch Pacifists Routed at Brotherhood Church - BFI Player
Windows are smashed, doors broken and blows exchanged, as a violent mob attacks a pacifist meeting held inside a Hackney church.
player.bfi.org.uk
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Watching that video reminds me of the American police standing by as the Capitol was stormed. I've seen similar pictures of German shops being ransacked at the start of WW1 and the old Bill again doing nothing to stop it.you should - when you can - look at your local newspaper from the 1914-18 period, you'll find lots of people up in court for various ways in which they tried to evade conscription. also the way the war impacted people who suffered its effects in britain - people in london who killed themselves because of stress from air raids, for example. and you're right about the mobs - this happened down the way from where i live in 1917
Watch Pacifists Routed at Brotherhood Church - BFI Player
Windows are smashed, doors broken and blows exchanged, as a violent mob attacks a pacifist meeting held inside a Hackney church.
(I was going to talk about conscription on some later post, as it's a whole subject in itself.)
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Actually having an Empire is causing trouble, big time. Conquest, occupation, exploitation. Normally in that order.
This makes a war at sea have seemed almost inevitable
en.wikipedia.org
but really there wasn't one in terms of a pitched battle in the North Sea
An interesting aside to this is the body of literature about Germany's invasion plans. The Riddle of The Sands is a good Buchanesque yarn and The 39 Steps, though strictly speaking written with hindsight in 1915, is in the same vein
Anglo-German naval arms race - Wikipedia
but really there wasn't one in terms of a pitched battle in the North Sea
An interesting aside to this is the body of literature about Germany's invasion plans. The Riddle of The Sands is a good Buchanesque yarn and The 39 Steps, though strictly speaking written with hindsight in 1915, is in the same vein
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
We read The Riddle of the Sands in my local book group. Quite technical and interesting if you're into sailing, which I'm not. Totally preposterous as serious plan for invasion of the British Isles.This makes a war at sea have seemed almost inevitable
Anglo-German naval arms race - Wikipedia
but really there wasn't one in terms of a pitched battle in the North Sea
An interesting aside to this is the body of literature about Germany's invasion plans. The Riddle of The Sands is a good Buchanesque yarn and The 39 Steps, though strictly speaking written with hindsight in 1915, is in the same vein
Hollis
bloody furious
Err, anyone after a heavyweight talk on the ending of FWW and its aftermath I would recommend this... by one of the 'experts' on these things..
Illusions of Peace: Keynote, Sir Hew Strachan - Crowdcast
Illusions of Peace: Keynote, Sir Hew Strachan - Crowdcast
Another Buchan yarn that in my opinion ties in better is Greenmantle. A good story involving the German High Command stirring up resentment for the British and French amongst Muslims in Asia Minor.
It's a better book but not strictly an invasion novel
Invasion literature - Wikipedia
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Military discipline. Pretty heavy stuff even nowadays. Heavy enough in WW2 ( my father-in-law spent a weekend in the clink for not having his top button done up). But back in WW1 it was even more horrendous. It varied between the different armies, but was theoretically quite appalling.
The Italian army practised the fine art of 'decimation', modelled on the Roman Empire. If the army ran away, or committed some other act of indiscipline or cowardice, then randomly selected soldiers were taken out and shot, one in ten potentially. They gave up on this eventually when they discovered it was bad for morale. At the battle of Caporetto when the Italians were badly defeated, hundreds of thousands of Italian soldiers surrendered rather than potentially face punishment.
The Russian army reintroduced flogging in 1915, another punishment which may have proven counter-productive.
And most armies had a system of punishments of 'field discipline', ranging from hard labour through to being tied to a tree, or some other physical object, for several hours for as many days as seemed necessary. Then there was the firing squad for desertion or cowardice.
It's not perhaps surprising that sometimes when soldiers mutinied they felt compelled to go all the way, as backing down could be lethal.
The Italian army practised the fine art of 'decimation', modelled on the Roman Empire. If the army ran away, or committed some other act of indiscipline or cowardice, then randomly selected soldiers were taken out and shot, one in ten potentially. They gave up on this eventually when they discovered it was bad for morale. At the battle of Caporetto when the Italians were badly defeated, hundreds of thousands of Italian soldiers surrendered rather than potentially face punishment.
The Russian army reintroduced flogging in 1915, another punishment which may have proven counter-productive.
And most armies had a system of punishments of 'field discipline', ranging from hard labour through to being tied to a tree, or some other physical object, for several hours for as many days as seemed necessary. Then there was the firing squad for desertion or cowardice.
It's not perhaps surprising that sometimes when soldiers mutinied they felt compelled to go all the way, as backing down could be lethal.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Can't be buchanesque as childers' book predates Buchan's by some years. A better case to be made that Buchan's work was childersesque.This makes a war at sea have seemed almost inevitable
Anglo-German naval arms race - Wikipedia
but really there wasn't one in terms of a pitched battle in the North Sea
An interesting aside to this is the body of literature about Germany's invasion plans. The Riddle of The Sands is a good Buchanesque yarn and The 39 Steps, though strictly speaking written with hindsight in 1915, is in the same vein
I was thinking more along the Thread topic rather invasion novels.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
I did the geriatric component of my nurse training at the Royal Hospital Chelsea.
This was in 1978, so there were a lot of men there from WWI. It is a great regret that I didn't record their accounts.
One chap's recollections stuck with me. At dawn, 120 men of his Company went over the top. At dusk, there were seven left not killed or wounded.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
A war for freedom. I see from the poll that some people still think that WW1 was a fight for freedom in some way. It would be interesting to find out more.
As I see it there was no great material difference, in terms of freedom, between Britain, France and Germany. All had similar laws on freedom of speech and expression, similar laws on trades unions, similar restraints on everyday activities. None had anything approaching equality between the sexes. All in all, no great difference. FWIW manhood suffrage applied to all males in Germany above the age of 25, whereas in Britain many working class men did not have the vote.
Once we start looking at our allies it's not long before we encounter Russia, a vast empire stuffed with inequality, injustice, oppression and violence. Where was the freedom there?
Whilst we're on the subject, what about the hundreds of millions of subjects of the British, French, Italian and Portuguese empires? What special freedoms did they possess?
As I see it there was no great material difference, in terms of freedom, between Britain, France and Germany. All had similar laws on freedom of speech and expression, similar laws on trades unions, similar restraints on everyday activities. None had anything approaching equality between the sexes. All in all, no great difference. FWIW manhood suffrage applied to all males in Germany above the age of 25, whereas in Britain many working class men did not have the vote.
Once we start looking at our allies it's not long before we encounter Russia, a vast empire stuffed with inequality, injustice, oppression and violence. Where was the freedom there?
Whilst we're on the subject, what about the hundreds of millions of subjects of the British, French, Italian and Portuguese empires? What special freedoms did they possess?
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
To be fair, it was a poor choice of words as the First World War was never (as far as I recall) about "Freedom". For Britain it was about Duty to King and Country, and Defending the Glorious Empire against Expansionist Aggression by the Filthy Hun. As you pointed out, "freedom" in the sense we understand it in 2021 wasn't really a thing back then, not for anyone (even America, ''America = freedom'' grew IMO with the cold war more than any other thing, but I may well be wrong). Anyway, King and Country definitely was a thing.
It still is, to a degree (viz. royalism and UKIP and the Tory right) but I'd be surprised if many young men (or indeed women) would go and kill and die for it these days.
Second World War, yes - against Nazis, fighting for freedom was a lot closer to the motivation for many - but still, it was all couched very much in a bloody hell those awful bosch are at it again type context.
Also worth saying that for France, WW1 was possibly more about something close to freedom, or at least territorial integrity - with 1870 still within living memory I think Germany was very much seen differently in 1914 France, compared to 1914 Britain.
It still is, to a degree (viz. royalism and UKIP and the Tory right) but I'd be surprised if many young men (or indeed women) would go and kill and die for it these days.
Second World War, yes - against Nazis, fighting for freedom was a lot closer to the motivation for many - but still, it was all couched very much in a bloody hell those awful bosch are at it again type context.
Also worth saying that for France, WW1 was possibly more about something close to freedom, or at least territorial integrity - with 1870 still within living memory I think Germany was very much seen differently in 1914 France, compared to 1914 Britain.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
I used the word 'freedom' because a lot of people do use that term nowadays when talking about WW1, conflating the two world wars as if they had the same causes and motivations. It's easier to say you are fighting for freedom than to justify taking part in someone else's world wide power struggle. That gets complicated.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Let's talk about Conscription. Most of the big countries involved in WW1 had existing systems of national service and/or conscription.
By and large they worked, at first at least, although in Russia there were widespread riots when the first enlistments happened. Some riots were anti-war, some anti-German, some anti-Jewish, some fuelled by free vodka, some because free vodka was not dished out.
The big changes in pro or anti war sentiment came when conscription was introduced.
In Australia there was a referendum on conscription. The result was against the idea, by the predictable 52% to 48%. The establishment were unhappy at this and tried again, this time during a massive wave of strikes, but the result was even more against conscription. So Australia became the destination of choice for draft dodging New Zealanders, among others.
In Russia most Muslims, fairly recently conquered and so not fully trusted, were not subject to conscription but it was introduced in 1916. Russian Turkestan erupted and there were indiscriminate attacks on Russian settlers and counter attack on native Turkic people. Upwards of 100,000 people died.
Canada reacted a bit differently, mostly acquiescing. Not in Quebec, where there was a weekend of rioting over Easter 1918 and some 80,000 Québécois refusing to be conscripted.
Large numbers of Americans (300,000?) also dodged the draft.
Perhaps the most dramatic movement against conscription was in Ireland, where voluntary enlistment was far lower than on the mainland. After the Easter Rising the tide turned completely and in 1918 there was a near universal general strike against conscription. By the time WW1 finished the returning soldiers came back to a growing movement towards independence.
By and large they worked, at first at least, although in Russia there were widespread riots when the first enlistments happened. Some riots were anti-war, some anti-German, some anti-Jewish, some fuelled by free vodka, some because free vodka was not dished out.
The big changes in pro or anti war sentiment came when conscription was introduced.
In Australia there was a referendum on conscription. The result was against the idea, by the predictable 52% to 48%. The establishment were unhappy at this and tried again, this time during a massive wave of strikes, but the result was even more against conscription. So Australia became the destination of choice for draft dodging New Zealanders, among others.
In Russia most Muslims, fairly recently conquered and so not fully trusted, were not subject to conscription but it was introduced in 1916. Russian Turkestan erupted and there were indiscriminate attacks on Russian settlers and counter attack on native Turkic people. Upwards of 100,000 people died.
Canada reacted a bit differently, mostly acquiescing. Not in Quebec, where there was a weekend of rioting over Easter 1918 and some 80,000 Québécois refusing to be conscripted.
Large numbers of Americans (300,000?) also dodged the draft.
Perhaps the most dramatic movement against conscription was in Ireland, where voluntary enlistment was far lower than on the mainland. After the Easter Rising the tide turned completely and in 1918 there was a near universal general strike against conscription. By the time WW1 finished the returning soldiers came back to a growing movement towards independence.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
Had a bit of a poke about and found the RTE archive which has some interviews with Irish WW1 Veterans, the interview with Emmet Dalton is interesting. His dad's reaction is priceless.
www.rte.ie
This is a grim story.
www.rte.ie
Also:
www.iwm.org.uk
I found this chap in a cemetery during my visit to Vimy.
Call to Arms
140,000 Irish men joined the British army in Ireland to fight in the First World War.
www.rte.ie
This is a grim story.
Emmet Dalton Recalls The Somme
Emmet Dalton talks about his experiences at the Battle of the Somme.
www.rte.ie
Also:
Why Men Of Ireland Volunteered To Fight In The First World War
After the outbreak of the First World War, men flocked to recruiting stations in Ireland. Their motivations were often the same as those who joined up in England, Scotland and Wales: a sense of duty, the belief that the war was a just cause, a desire for adventure, the bonds of friendship and...
I found this chap in a cemetery during my visit to Vimy.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
WW1 did not kill "empires" because of European powers being in debt or something. It killed it because the idea that the way to be a powerful state was to have as much agricultural land to grow food for labourers and soldiers died in a war of artillery and machines. Power transferred to states with the most industry not people.
Austro-Hungary, Russia and the Ottomans were based on the idea of land\food\power. Prussia-Brandenburg was sort of along this idea but they had acquired the Rhine\Ruhr industrial heartland in the agglomeration of 1871. That gave them an industrial base to fight with the British and French (larger than either but not both). Industrial productivity won wars not numbers. The war ended when the British brought their hard (and bloody) won knowledge of how to apply their industrial advantage to bear with the Hundred Days Offensive. They started the war operating in a manner Lee and Sherman would have understood and ended it with the template for Zhukov and Guderian.
The dreams of large sprawling empires did not die in WWI but the functional utility of them did. In 1901 it was economically viable for Britain to hire farm workers from Worcester or manual labourers from Wigan to be soldiers and capture the cattle farmers of the Boer Republics. In 1955 it made no sense to hire their grandsons to defend the cattle farmers of Tanganyika or Kenya. That labour was far more profitably spent knocking out productive capacity. You could buy the cattle or whatever from the surplus.
WW2 was a deep and bloody underlining of the point. Living room and growing space was irrelevant when you had industrial capacity. Industrial capacity comes from workers and education systems.
Austro-Hungary, Russia and the Ottomans were based on the idea of land\food\power. Prussia-Brandenburg was sort of along this idea but they had acquired the Rhine\Ruhr industrial heartland in the agglomeration of 1871. That gave them an industrial base to fight with the British and French (larger than either but not both). Industrial productivity won wars not numbers. The war ended when the British brought their hard (and bloody) won knowledge of how to apply their industrial advantage to bear with the Hundred Days Offensive. They started the war operating in a manner Lee and Sherman would have understood and ended it with the template for Zhukov and Guderian.
The dreams of large sprawling empires did not die in WWI but the functional utility of them did. In 1901 it was economically viable for Britain to hire farm workers from Worcester or manual labourers from Wigan to be soldiers and capture the cattle farmers of the Boer Republics. In 1955 it made no sense to hire their grandsons to defend the cattle farmers of Tanganyika or Kenya. That labour was far more profitably spent knocking out productive capacity. You could buy the cattle or whatever from the surplus.
WW2 was a deep and bloody underlining of the point. Living room and growing space was irrelevant when you had industrial capacity. Industrial capacity comes from workers and education systems.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
I agree with a lot of that. There is one thing I disagree with. People often talk about the end of Empires after WW1 and include the Russian Empire in that phrase. But that never went away. It's leadership at the top changed but the Empire survived after the end of the Civil War, regained most of the territory it lost when victorious in WW2, and even now after the collapse after 1990 is expansionist once again. Under the Soviets the rhetoric was completely different to what came before, but the Great Russian chauvinism, the utter and ruthless disregard for ordinary people, the inefficiency and corruption and the centralised dictatorship was all too reminiscent of Russia under the Tsars.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
War graves always make me feel indescribably sad. Way more than normal graves, maybe because we all have to die at some point and will hopefully have a grave marker. Little baby graves are sad, but war graves - especially like that, here lies a soldier.
Similar threads
