You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: World War I
Was gonna wait to start this thread as I'm about to leave but what the hell. I started watching the series World War I in Color and was wondering what Evo members thoughts on this war are. World War II gets all the "glory" so to speak and the 2nd most discussed war is Vietnam. Korea is notorious as being the "forgotten war" but I also think WWI is bordering on that as well.
Any opinions on the conflict? Any family members that served in the war? Was it the most meaningless war in the history of civilization?
Re: World War I
Even in American History class, a 'II' class at the honors-level, we breezed through WWI. I mean we just didn't talk about it alot.
I believe my great-grandfather (my dad's mother's dad) was a WWI vet. He died when I was about 3, so I only have like two very faint memories I can think of of him, so obviously no discussion there.
He served, and the family always talked about how he talked of his time in WWII more than I.
I don't think it was entirely meaningless, but I do think because it was Europe-dominant war at a time when the media was still fairly localized added to it. WWII was a major one because Hitler came so close to succeeding, plus his beliefs lived on in society years after his death. The U.S. remembers because of Pearl Harbor and dropping the bombs in Japan. All very significant moments, plus SO many veterans of WWII are still alive, although the numbers are dwindling. I think Vietnam is discussed for the one and only reason of it being the first war that the media MASSIVELY covered every second almost, and thrust their opinions on it down the throats of everyone.
I had a teacher in class that was a Korean war vet when I was in middle school, and told stories all the time. So that was a war that wasn't out of my mind because of him.
Years ago I stuck up a friendship with a much older gentleman who's dad was in the Spanish-American War as well as WWI. Even still, he said his dad talked about the war with Spain far more than WWI.
It's a good question why WWI isn't as talked about. Maybe it's because the sequel was alot more action-packed? 
Re: World War I
I'm born on Remembrance Day so I get reminded of it every year. In many ways a peculiar war. Always took a liking to it.
The original Great War. Though in terms of conflict scale it's not really the first world war. Napoleons Wars were fought between basically the same powers, but unprecedented advances in military technology would make WW1 far, far bloodier. Because of a huge advantage in defensive capabilities the war soon turned into its familiar characteristic, trench warfare. Essentially creating a meat grinder the size of the Great Wall in China swallowing the young men of Europe for 4 long years, until the blood of 10 million was left soaking the soil.
It's often deemed the unnecessary war because of the immense loss of life without really achieving anything. Though not having a clear winner has become a staple in warfare since certain bankers started financing them. Bleed em dry as they say.
Another reason is the spurious cause for the war. After centuries of almost continual warfare the powers of Europe was as usual connected in a complex and shifting system of alliances. When the heir to the Austro Hungarian throne was assassinated by a radical in Yugoslavia, an event ordinarily brushed over with some diplomacy and a little bit of gold, instead escalated into a full blown war among all the claimants to the Roman Empire and their colonies. The whole of the civilized world at the time, more or less.
Of course, the real reason for the war wasn't quite so "romantic". The real reason was the reunification of Germany coupled with the peak of the second industrial revolution. War back then was as normal and expected as the NHL playoffs are today. When the German people could finally put the brunt of their industrial capacity under a centralized system it wasn't a question of "if" there would be war, it was "when".
There might also have been another reason, the real "real" reason, and that was the creation of supranational entities such as the UN and NATO, and a military industrial complex in America. Wilson won the election by promising to stay out of the war, which goes to show how much foreign policy has changed in America, but of course the only reason Hearst & Co gave him the support was so that he could do the opposite. A world war was simply too lucrative of an opportunity to pass up, and with the help of some domestic terrorism (Lusotania) to garner support it wouldn't be long before the US joined the party. According to Wilson's autobiography, with the express orders "don't make it end too soon".
Though, unfortunately for some, it did end not long after. Russia had already collapsed to an internal revolution (by the virtue of Vladimir Lenin and the german paid train ticket in his pocket) and the French and British armies were literally days away from total mutiny when a coup de tat in Berlin put an abrupt end to the conflict. Along with the Versailles treaty this is what Hitler used to gain power. A german army, undefeated and on enemy soil had been stabbed in the back by bureaucrats back home. When Hitler called on the army once again 20 years later they were almost bending backwards in an effort to comply. The nation had been dishonored as they saw it and they would almost do anything and follow anyone in an attempt to rectify it.
Hitler himself served in the war as a runner, distinguishing himself by attaining the german cross for bravery. Berating his comrades for caring about trivial stuff like drink and women when there was a glorious war going on, he would feel the betrayal stronger than anyone and it didn't take long before he was in the political arena, working on the sequel.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: World War I
I think in Australia World War 1 is more heavily recognised than in some places because of the Gallipoli Campaign, and because that battle was our nation's first major battle in any war, and so is considered an event unifying us after federation.
On 25 April each year we celebrate Anzac day which honours all veterans but tends to focus on Gallipoli.
Over 8000 australia soldiers were killed and triple that seriously wounded - which was a lot relative to our small population at the time - and of course over the whole conflict there I think something like 150k people were killed if you include all sides and nations.
Anyway so I think it's less of an "unknown war" here than in some countries because that battle is focused on as a source of national pride - or at least - honoured as a sacrifice made by the first generation of Australians born after federation (1901).
In more recent times celebrations have been criticised in our media as glorifying a conflict where we were the aggressor/invading force and some people complain that we were used as machine gun fodder by the english rather than their own troops. "Send the aussies in first...'.
I can't really comment on these things, although I was taught much of WW1 history, with any war it's always hard to say what would have happened if the war had not occurred (eg - i think all wars contribute to history in some way - eg - vietnam and the spread or not of communist states, eg if nukes were not used in ww2 would someone have used one by now elsewhere?), and I'm too ignorant to tell you who was "in the wrong" during ww1. I also think the comments against the english are just our national pride going into overdrive as my understanding is the UK lost at least double as many troops as us (although had a much bigger population) - but it's not like they weren't also committed.
What I think is interesting about WW1 is that it seems the aftermath of it directly led to WW2 - someone here probably knows more than me - but I think germany was forced to pay reparations and so on from the great war that directly led to the need for hitler's economic reforms and a surge of national pride.
Re: World War I
I don't think it was entirely meaningless, but I do think because it was Europe-dominant war at a time when the media was still fairly localized added to it.
What makes the magnitude of it so meaningless is the fact it was an absolute perfect moment for the major powers to fight a proxy war in the Balkans. The problem was that countries took sides so quickly and declared war against different factions that the war was on before anyone had any time to think.
Germany jumps in for virtually no reason and has to fight a two front(technically a 3 front) war seconds after a declaration of war? Makes no sense at all. Even Hitler wouldn't have done something that stupid even though he made crucial mistakes in WWII as well.
When the heir to the Austro Hungarian throne was assassinated by a radical in Yugoslavia, an event ordinarily brushed over with some diplomacy and a little bit of gold, instead escalated into a full blown war among all the claimants to the Roman Empire and their colonies. The whole of the civilized world at the time, more or less.
This ridiculous and bizarre event leading to the war is probably THE greatest lesson that can be learned from the conflict. The fact that the smallest world event can create hell on earth is something that every world leader needs to be reminded of periodically.
What I think is interesting about WW1 is that it seems the aftermath of it directly led to WW2 - someone here probably knows more than me - but I think germany was forced to pay reparations and so on from the great war that directly led to the need for hitler's economic reforms and a surge of national pride.
Yeah it led to the rise of Hitler and if Hitler hadn't been bat shit insane, he could have fought a regional war to loosen the economic restraints and Germany would have been an emerging superpower. They had the technology to essentially dominate the world in peacetime.
There might also have been another reason, the real "real" reason, and that was the creation of supranational entities such as the UN and NATO, and a military industrial complex in America. Wilson won the election by promising to stay out of the war, which goes to show how much foreign policy has changed in America, but of course the only reason Hearst & Co gave him the support was so that he could do the opposite. A world war was simply too lucrative of an opportunity to pass up, and with the help of some domestic terrorism (Lusotania) to garner support it wouldn't be long before the US joined the party. According to Wilson's autobiography, with the express orders "don't make it end too soon".
Some of those points valid, but I think you're really reaching on a conspiracy to create the UN and NATO being a reason behind the war....especially since neither occurred until over 20 years later. The dysfunctional relationship between the US and Soviets in the final days of WWII led to those entities.
Re: World War I
I got schooled on WWII from ages 10-13 and then since I took History as a class in school got taught "Road to WWI", WWI, Rise of Hitler and Road to WWII.
WWI isn't as talked about today because History is written by the victors. WWI did not have a great influence from the US (they only joined for the 2nd half). The allies would not have won WWII without the help of the US, and as the United States have pretty much been the world's biggest superpower since then and as mentioned earlier WWII has more "iconic" moments, it's not a surprise it's more talked about.
On top of that Hitler is the best heel there is, was and ever will be.
Re: World War I
Some of those points valid, but I think you're really reaching on a conspiracy to create the UN and NATO being a reason behind the war....especially since neither occurred until over 20 years later. The dysfunctional relationship between the US and Soviets in the final days of WWII led to those entities.
League of Nations was the precursor to the UN, and that was created as a response to WW1. The reason it failed was because the US didn't want to become a member. If you go back to the Vienna Congress in 1816 you'll see they're talking about the very same thing (in response to the Napoleonic Wars). Coincidence? I think not.
Wilson became a repenting man in his later years and he too talks about these issues quite frankly in his bio.
If you go deep enough you'll see that all these world wars have been fought between protestant and orthodox countries. The result? France and Britain lost their empire. German nationalism got obliterated. The US and Russia became ideological empires both amassing unprecedented military machines. Today they are both debt ridden, secular and fascist entities.
Meanwhile UN policies are forcing millions of catholic and muslim immigrants over western borders. First by bombing their country and making them refugees, then forcing the rich countries to accept them because of human rights. The Caesar emblem on their logo would be proud.
With that I realize we've blown the weirdometer for the day. Carry on. 
Re: World War I
League of Nations was the precursor to the UN, and that was created as a response to WW1. The reason it failed was because the US didn't want to become a member.
The only reason? It was doomed to fail from the start with or without US participation.
Off topic, but its funny how the world hates the US interfering in its affairs but when something doesn't go as planned without US involvement, they're blamed for it.
IMO its natural for the world to want to unite after a global conflict. What's the other option....more war? I just don't think there's a conspiracy behind it. If there was, it was a terribly planned one. The UN has a horrific track record and usually makes conflicts worse.
France and Britain lost their empire.
Countries that overextend themselves to that point deserve to lose it.
German nationalism got obliterated.
Hmmm.....I wonder why?
The US and Russia became ideological empires both amassing unprecedented military machines. Today they are both debt ridden, secular and fascist entities.
I think the US and Russia are civilization's last two empires. I cant imagine the EU, China, an emerging power in Africa, or a united Middle East(new Ottoman Empire) taking their place. Even if the US and Russia both suffered a depression, no one can step into the breech because as you pointed out, the military deterrent is simply too massive.
Back to WWI....
Should the US have entered this conflict earlier? Learned something last night that I didn't remember. In the early stages of the war, Germany considered bombing the Panama Canal and taking it to control the shipping lanes. Another plan scrapped earlier than that was bombing the east coast of the US. Would US intervention over such a threat have altered the war due to intimidation alone? How many enemies could Germany have endured that early in the conflict? Another moment of entry for the US would have been when Germany and the British were battling near the Falklands. I realize the US was not a major military power at that early on, but even a token force may have altered the outcome.
Another question....
Would the European powers abandoning their African colonies and instead focused on their own turf have made any difference, or would this simply have created a massive vacuum for the Ottoman Empire to expand even further? That Armenian genocide is without a doubt the most evil event of WWI and if Flagg reads this thread......yeah this "chicken hawk" would have entered the conflict much sooner.
WWI did not have a great influence from the US
We did mop up duty and brought the horror to an end. Had the US never entered the conflict, those trenches the size of the Great Wall of China would still be there, filled, and in a stalemate.
So yeah....we had an influence on the outcome of the war.
