201. Ronski - June 23, 1999 - 9:45 AM PT
The abortive revolutions, yes, but some of them actually proclaimed states which lasted for several weeks or months. That is what I'm curious about.
202. pellenilsson - June 23, 1999 - 1:26 PM PT
ronski
I have some material on these communist republics. I'll look them up tomorrow or the next day to see if I can put together something useful.
203. Ronski - June 23, 1999 - 1:46 PM PT
pelle,
Thanks.
204. jroth2 - June 24, 1999 - 9:25 AM PT
Pelle,
Perhaps it was unintentional, but I was amused by your phrase "communist republics". Not quite sure how Aristotle would have categorized these short-lived and rather ad-hoc affairs.
As long as we are on this subject, does anyone think there are parallels with the Communards who held Paris in 1871 following the defeat?
205. pellenilsson - June 25, 1999 - 2:20 AM PT
In fact I know only of one revolution that succeeded, but very briefly, the one in Bayern and I find I have very little material on it. It is a little known fact that until 1918 Bayern was a kingdom within the German Empire and ruled by the house of Wittelsbach since the late 12th century.
The last king, Ludwig III fled the country in November 1918 and the socialist Kurt Eissner took power in (I think) a relatively bloodless coup. When the elections failed to produce the desired result, i.e. a socialist majority, Eissner was assasinated in January, 1919. There followed a period of intensive unrest which culminated when the Bolsheviks took power and procalimed the dictatorship of the proleteriat on 7 April, but they were beaten down by the army and the Freikorps in the beginning of May.
Otherwise, the best known of these attempted revolts is the Spartakus uprising in Berlin but it led to little except that the revolutionaries occupied some ministries and other buildings for some time.
The background to these events has to do with the development of socialism in Europe. I will address this issue but not today, because today is Midsummer, a day (and night) of much orgiastic festivitas and surviving pagan rites here in Sweden. I'm too old for the orgies but there are traditions to be upheld such as the eating of pickled herring with new potatoes and several varieties of schnapps followed by strawberries and whipped cream.
206. wexxford1 - June 25, 1999 - 4:24 AM PT
Yale has joined in the WWI discussion in a big way.Exhibitions of posters, propaganda etc., and an appearance by Ferguson, the Brit who's the chosen one for a rewrite of WWI history.However, there's no mention in the Yale event of the imprisonment of American journalists who opposed the war. Censorship of something that occured in 1914-1918 surely is over the top ?
207. wexxford1 - June 25, 1999 - 4:28 AM PT
jroth2.Boredom made men into killers . Most recruited soldiers in WWI were delighted to relieve life's boredom with a chance to kill someone for a nationalist cause.
We know the Brits liked living the army life--there is a written record, plus photos of the morons. What else was a man to do in 1914-18 that could compare with killing another human ?
208. ranheim - June 25, 1999 - 11:04 AM PT
There are a minimum for five significant problems coming from or arising in WW I and the Peace of Versailles :
1) Probably the easiest one to discuss is the reparations. They were too high. And with the advent of the depression they became impossible. Germany turned to Hitler; thence WW II.
2) The Middle East is one I know next to nothing about. Some of you seem very well informed. It seems to me that section of the world had been dormant for some centuries. But the peoples of that region were used by both sides during the war. Following the war, there were Mandates. Not popular. And then the discovery of huge amounts of oil. The area was no longer dormant.
3) The USA became internationalist in its viewpoint. Prior to the war, the USA was, essentially, agrarian. Following the war we have the pictures of Norman Rockwell depicting peace and quiet and simple values. However, the war made the USA the #1 industrial and banking power of the world. The east coast elite; the captains of industry; the presidency; and a certain portion of Congress was ready to meet these new challenges. The remainder of the country slept(stolen from Gordon W. Prange).
4) Soldiers were used as shock troops and/or cannon fodder during the war. The Europeans came home to ruins; the Americans came home to disinterest. In just 10 years there was the depression - worldwide in scope. New systems of government looked more attractive to poor and misused citizens. Socialism was put forward as one answer. Socialism looks attractive; but fails!
5) The Ottoman Empire had fallen by the wayside just prior to the war. The war and Versailles resulted in : a) no Tsar in Russia b) no Kaiser in Gernany c) no Emperor in AH. Hundreds of millions of people are affected. Their way of life changed forever!
209. Wombat - June 25, 1999 - 11:17 AM PT
Ranheim:
The US as an agrarian nation died during the Civil War. You could also argue that the United States was not internationalist enough. The League of Nations, flawed already, never recovered from the failure of the US to join.
210. cmboyce - June 25, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
Message #209
I agree. Late 19th-century US was already a major industrial power, building railroads and oil trusts and god know what all. What's more, our participation in the War did not make us internationalist at all, to speak of. Wombat's right here too; it took WW2 to get us into the mix. We were sitting around doing nothing much during the between-the-wars.
The Spanish-American War cleared the field for the seeds of American internationalism, demonstrating to the elites that the Manifest Destiny that had rationalized the taking of the continent was exportable. Then WW1 was the planting of the seeds, establishing a precedent (to mix metaphors), and not until the conducting of two wars on opposites sides of the world were the country's concerns truly global.
Socialism, too, was important to Europe long before the WW1. As revolutionary theory, it's roots are in the original French Revolution, and 1848 saw some practical experimentation. Numerous variants were proposed by the 1870s, and in fact socialism was no longer on the far left after the Commune. Eduoard Bernstein was read out of the First International, I believe, and the anarchist bombings, in both Europe and the US, made "socialism" (meaning anything much to the political left the Fourth Republic &/or to the social left of Bismark, who was the pioneer of actual government involvement of socialism) deeply suspect—precisely because it was increasingly well-rooted in popular sentiment. The War merely disrupted Europe enough to let the genie out of the bottle, though it was quickly enough put back in. *Including* in Russia, for the Bolsheviks were simply extra-market take-over artists.
211. jroth2 - June 25, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
To Wexxford,
We must distinguish between militaristic/patriotic zeal and blood lust. The former was certainly prevalent throughout the makor countries of Europe, but to deduce from that a desire to alleviate daily tedium by killing is, imo, going too far.
Keegan is very good on the militarist attitudes in pre-war Europe; the Regimental system, the enthusiastic volunteers, etc. By and large I believe the millions of young men believed the war would be short and glorious- and that they would return alive.
In my experience relatively few soldiers come into service enthusiastic killers; thus one of the primary tasks of basic training is to overcome the personal and societal constraints against killing. In the field some few kill enthusiastically, most others dutifully to protect themselves and members of their units.
212. jroth2 - June 25, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
Ranheim;
The MidEast had strategic value prior to the War. The Brits were always concerned with the safety of the lines of communication with the rest of India; for that matter they maintained significant naval units in the Mediteranean to guard against 'foreign' interventions in the Mideast. There was also an awareness of the value of oil- especially after Churchill's decision to convert the British Fleet from coal to oil.
America was already an industrialised power of the first rank before the War. Although the relative positions depend on the industry in question, the top 4 overall were America, Germany, Britain and France.
There is a myth of American agrarian innocence having been lost in WWI. The truth is quite different; America was already an urbanized nation which had taken the first steps toward Empire.
Above you say; "The war and Versailles resulted in : a) no Tsar in Russia b) no Kaiser in Gernany c) no Emperor in AH. Hundreds of millions of people are affected. Their way of life changed forever"
The abdications of Nicholas II and Wilhelm occurred before Versailles; you are correct in saying the War was the proximate and the immediate cause, respectively, in the two cases.
There was a strong socialist tradition in America prior to the Crash and the Depression. Eugene Debs received his greatest vote totals during the 1920's.
213. jroth2 - June 25, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
In my message 212 the first paragraph should read: "....The British were always concerned with the lines of communication with India and the rest of their Empire."
Note that oil extraction had already begun, in part because the British feared that Russian hostility could choke off oil from the Baku region, which was the largest producing area at the turn of the century.
There is also a long, tangled and tedious history of British and French intrigue in the MidEast which predates WWI.
214. Wombat - June 25, 1999 - 1:02 PM PT
Ranheim:
Because of its static nature, World War One was unique in the comparative lack of destruction outside of the immediate battle zones. In the West, outside of a band perhaps 75-100 miles wide that encompassed the trenches and rear areas, the rest of the countries were physically unaffected.
215. colossus - June 25, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
Wombat -
75-100 miles for trenches, no-man's land AND rear areas is probably right but hardly as dramatic as the fact that if you were flying over the Western Front, you could not outside a band no more than 3 miles wide, tell that there was a war.
Keegan tells a story about picnics with girlies, brie, and Burgundy within a few miles of the Front - only the sound of birds and the only scent of mustard -
Moutarde de Meaux!
216. jroth2 - June 25, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
For that matter remember the poignant encounter between German soldiers and French mademoiselles in "All Quiet on the Western Front".
217. colossus - June 25, 1999 - 6:16 PM PT
" the Russian commanders who sent unarmed men into the trenches with instructions to follow the first wave and equip themselves with the rifles of those killed."
Two points.
1. The Russian generals are not as much to blame as the Russian leadership. Keegan does not give this issue nearly as much ink as many other historians especiall Bruce Lindsay's excellent work on Russia's involvment in war and revolution. Of all the countries which had no business in this war in 1914, Russia is head and shoulders above em all. Their leadership was incompetent.
2 They were pressed by France and the "honor" of their committments to mobilize for and then conduct operations that they had no business engaging in. In the early war years, Russian blood, foolishly shed, save Frog ass in a war the French provoked.
218. colossus - June 25, 1999 - 6:21 PM PT
"our participation in the War did not make us internationalist at all, to speak of. Wombat's right here too; it took WW2 to get us into the mix. We were sitting around doing nothing much during the between-the-wars."
Cm, Wombat -
Couldn't agree more. We got involved because our trade was threatened. Emotionally it satisfied the American attitude present since GW's entanglement's warning if not before, that Europe was a degenerate place where we had no business.
Before WWI, in fact, the US was only internationalist in Asia and remained so after the war. Our involvement in Europe, once it "corrected" European degeneracy that threatened American prosperity, came to a swift end - witness the reception given the League of Nations Treaty. Our WWI involvement was "isolationist".
219. colossus - June 25, 1999 - 6:26 PM PT
"As long as we are on this subject, does anyone think there
are parallels with the Communards who held Paris in 1871
following the defeat?"
What did you have in mind, JR?
Like Pelle, I am mystified by the politics of The Collapse but I did know about the Bavarian Red Putsch. It was a major deal for the Freikorps, and what's his name of the SA.
"s Midsummer, a day
(and night) of much orgiastic festivitas and surviving pagan
rites here in Sweden. I'm too old for the orgies but there
are traditions to be upheld such as the eating of pickled
herring with new potatoes and several varieties of
schnapps followed by strawberries and whipped cream."
Is this the answer to my q re: what Pelle does during the White Nights?
220. uzmakk - June 26, 1999 - 12:00 PM PT
Message #183 Liked your poem, collosus. Check out mine on poetry thread.
221. pellenilsson - June 26, 1999 - 1:45 PM PT
uzmakk
Great to see you back!
222. uzmakk - June 26, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
Pelle:
Great to be back. Was working and off the Fray, then took a week's vacation and remained off the Fray. Wanted to read The Politics of War again over my vacation but was only able to read the first couple of chapters. This book deals with the Spanish American and the First WW. I will do a brief summary. I have read a portion of the thread and several posts seem to support the story told in this book. I am working on a post addressed to you over in the House and Garden thread, Pelle. I will post it this evening after dinner to which I have just been summoned.
223. ranheim - June 27, 1999 - 9:26 AM PT
I enjoy conspiracy theory(CT); after study I have, in the end, believed none of them. But, the study leading up to that conclusion always interests me.
On of the more persistent CT deals with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). A portion of the genesis of the CFR is The Inquiry of the 2nd Wilson administration. In order to prepare for the world at the end of WW I, Wilson had Col. House form The Inquiry. One of its early recruitors was the famous correspondant, Walter Lippmann. As a Harvard graduate, Lippmann picked mainly academics from the Ivy League. The Inquiry was responcible for fleshing out Wilson's thinking about the post-war world. This became known as his 14 Points.
When The League of Nations vote was defeated by the USSenate, The Inquiry did not go away. They continued to meet on occasion discussing post-war Europe. At the same time in New York City a group of financiers and international lawyers were discussing the same subject; but, from the point of view of international trade. Ultimately these two groups would merge to found the 2nd Council on Foreign Relations in 1921. I first heard of the CFR via a John Birch Society publication. As best as I could determine, the Birch animosity stemmed from the fianancing of the CFR. Much came from Rockefeller money which was venal in the eyes of the Birchers.
As might be expected, the early CFR was mainly study groups trying to determine how America and its businessmen could influence conditions and trade in Europe. Names such as Elihu Root; Newton Baker; John Foster and Allen Dulles; Paul Warburg; Averell Harriman are not the names of traitors to me. But, they certainly are internationalists all! A boy born in rural MN still believes in nationalism, patriotism, mom, apple pie, and Veterans Day. I do have difficulty with the position of the internationalists that the values that I learned as a child are, if not dangerous, a negative force in the world of the 21st centu
224. uzmakk - June 27, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
Ranhiem:
Love the break off in the middle of century.
225. ranheim - June 27, 1999 - 3:32 PM PT
"They" say 2000 words?
But, not that time!
226. Amaxen - June 27, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
On the "militaristic zeal" bit:
Popular Opinion is, I think, an underestimated primary cause of WWI.
Keegan, in the preface to his book "The Second World War", ascribes a great deal of responsibility for the creation of the First World War to the rank-and-file who would ultimately fight it.
One cause of youthful marital enthusiasm was the universal military service obligation. Adopted by all of the major western powers as a result of the Nation at Arms doctrine that arose out of the Napoleonic Wars, it followed the ideology of the "citizen-soldier", with every citizen a soldier and vice versa.
From this close association/identification with the military by the youth of all of the major belligerents, and combined with relatively pleasant, or at least less unpleasant, experiences of war like the 1871 Franco-Prussian and innumerable Colonial interventions, War was percieved by youth as being glorious and short - Pro patria morti and all that.
Paul Johnson, in his _History of the Twentieth Century_, goes even further and claims that political leaders were actively _pushed_ by their respective youth lobbies into war, and cites any number of specific groups that outright espoused war - the Vandervogel groups of young Germans, and similar groups and cultures in France and England.
In any case, according to this theory, the youth, being human like the rest of us, searched for scapegoats when it became clear that the war was not going to be glorious or short or easy. Only about ten years after the war (at least in England and France) did a new revisionist group of trench-survivors manage to convince the rest of society that incompetent and greedy age had fed their innocent youth into the meatgrinder. Any comment on this? Although I hear of this less flattering depiction of the victims of the war very rarely, it seems to fit better with what sense I am able to get of the era by reading though n
227. pellenilsson - June 27, 1999 - 10:58 PM PT
Amaxen
Welcome to this thread!
I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. There was war enthusiasm in the air. Young men saw war as an escape from the drudgery on the factory floor.
A case in point is the position of the German Social Democrats. Their ideological stance was firmly against war because it was seen as the ultimate exploitation of the working class. Yet, the party leadership could not withstand the pressure from the rank and file and the party voted for the war allocations in the Reichstag which sent shockwaves through its sister parties in Scandinavia.
Another consequence was that the "ideologically pure" leaked off to the left and agitated against the war. The state suppressed them of course, but towards the end it lost control and we got the street battles, the Spartacus uprising and the short-lived bolshevik state in Bayern.
228. pellenilsson - June 27, 1999 - 11:01 PM PT
colossus --- Message #219
"It was a major deal for the Freikorps, and what's his name of the SA."
Ernst Röhm I think. Later done away with by Hitler.
229. lazygeorge - June 28, 1999 - 12:10 PM PT
Amaxen,
How does universal miltary service acount for the enthusiasm of British volunteers? The Boer war was not short or glorious.
The Russo Japanese war exhausted both sides. There was no glory for Japanese soldiers. They had begun to mutiny during the siege of Port Arthur.
I agree with you about 1914's popular enthusiam for war, but it was not based on fact or recent history.
My experience was peace time military service does not produce bloodlust in the enlisted soldiers who must do the killing and dying.
230. pellenilsson - June 28, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
lazygeorge
"I agree with you about 1914's popular enthusiam for war, but it was not based on fact or recent history."
So what was it based on then, in your opinion?
"My experience was peace time military service does not
produce bloodlust in the enlisted soldiers who must do
the killing and dying."
That's an extremely anachronistic view unless you did your service prior to WWI.
231. lazygeorge - June 28, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
pellenilson,
I think their enthusiasm came from the literature of the time that paid no attention to military reality. I do not think many British youth read the Defense of Duffer's Drift. They read the Relief of Ladysmith was a glorious victory for the Empire. They did not read of the concentration camps either.
How would short term military service consisting of how to wear a uniform, shoot a rifle, salute and obey orders blindly produce the enthusiasm we see in films from August 1914? Playing soldier in the rain, snow and mud does not generate enthusiasm even if you are fighting and winning mock battles. I'll bet most recruits looked forward to going home after their first day of military service.
232. pellenilsson - June 28, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
lazygeorge
"How would short term military service [...] produce the enthusiasm we see in films from August 1914? I'll bet most recruits looked forward to going home after their first day of military service."
That is the mystery, is it not? I think it is very difficult to enter the minds of these young men 85 years ago. The fact that they *wanted* to go to war remains.
233. lazygeorge - June 28, 1999 - 3:14 PM PT
pellenilson,
I think someone else has pointed out the reason. It was just like the American Civil War. Young men were looking for adventure. Believing the popular literature that war is filled with adventure and glory. A belief that war would be short, sweet and victorious because they were models of civilized manhood and their enemy were barbaric mongrels.
234. ranheim - June 29, 1999 - 10:25 AM PT
As a general rule, I would prefer a peace in which Alsace & Lorraine, whatever was/were the prize; rather than unconditional surrender(US). In other words, a peace brokered by the "king's men".
Was that term first used in WW I?(US) You historians should know this.
I detest events like the Nurnburg Trial! Of course, a good lawyer should be able to obtain the death penalty for opposing generals. For Gods sake! The week previously he was trying his best to kill you!
Do people who favor such a trial expect that had the USA lost the war in the Pacific (WW II), Truman would have been hung for "high crimes and misdemeaners" - or some such. After all, FDR imprisoned a large number of west coast(mainly) orientals for the duration of the war. It would be my supposition, that Japan would not have looked upon this with favor should they have been victorious. FDR was dead; tansfer their animosity to Truman? Who else would go?
I know this is hypothetical. I just don't like the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Should we be on the losing side in the future, would Versaille/Nurnburg serve as models (or does one have to use : paradigm?)
235. Wombat - June 29, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
If the victors determine justice, better make sure not to lose.
Another factor behind the initial enthusiasm for war was the popular press, which was much more jingoistic than today (believe it or not). While the literacy rates in Britain, France, and Germany were high, that does not mean that most people read the more thoughtful press, that might actually analyze a campaign's failure or criticize the conduct of a war.
In Britain, there was a tendency to see the Boer War as white men fighting like "wogs," in other words, more of a colonial war, than a "real" war.
What interests me most about the WWI was that the fighting was "industrial." There was no glory and little chance of survival in being the first to lead an assault or carry the flag. It just meant that you were the first to be killed by machine-gun fire, if a barrage didn't get you first.
236. Ronski - June 29, 1999 - 1:51 PM PT
Wombat,
Are you saying that sympathy for the Boer War was not great in England, since the British were fighting other white men (Afrikaners)?
237. Wombat - June 29, 1999 - 1:59 PM PT
Ronski:
I was saying that the Boer War was not considered to be a real war, as much as a colonial war that got off to a bad start.
It is interesting to note that there was more sympathy for the Boers than there was for other "native" peoples on the wrong side of a British rifle. This became even greater after the British began to relocate Boer civilians into squalid and ill-administered concentration camps.
238. pellenilsson - June 29, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
ranheim
My recollection of the Nuremburg trials is a bit hazy. But I don't think that any generals or indeed any officer of the regular army was on trial. The crimes considered did not include the act of waging war per se but genocide and slave labour. As I recall it.
239. Wombat - June 29, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Pelle:
Jodl, Keitel, Raeder, and Doenitz were tried at Nuremburg. The first two were hung.
240. vonKreedon - June 29, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Pelle - You are incorrect, among those convicted at Nuremberg were:
Karl Doenitz-
Supreme Commander of the Navy; in Hitler's last will and testament he was made Third Reich President and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces
Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison
Alfred Jodl-
Chief of Army Operations
Sentenced to Hang
Wilhelm Keitel -
Chief of Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces
Sentenced to Hang
Erich Raeder -
Grand Admiral of the Navy
Sentenced to Life in Prison
241. pellenilsson - June 29, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
I stand corrected.
242. ranheim - June 29, 1999 - 2:42 PM PT
Please historians
Was WW I the first war in which the terms were Unconditional Surrender.
As a non-historian, I have always associated that term with democracies.
243. Amaxen - June 29, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
More on the enthusiasm for war among youth:
Went back and reread the chapter I quoted from Keegan. I remembered it as being easily the best chapter of the book. The chapter's purpose is to address the question of "how the two World Wars were made _ possible _ rather than why they came about". Much of the rest of the chapter discusses the changes in technology and industry that made it possible to fight on such a vast scale, but the most interesting, and original, part is his discussion of what changed in the minds of men that made mass sacrifice possible:
Quoting below from Keegan, World War II, Chp. 1 "Every Man a Soldier":
..The eighteenth-century soldier had been a poor creature, the liveried servant of his king, ...
Uniform was, indeed, a livery, which reigning monarchs conspicuously did not wear. Those who did wear it bore it as a mark of surrendered rights. It meant that they had succumbed to 'want or hardship', the most common impulse to enlistment...
The nineteenth century soldier, by contrast, was a man who wanted to be what he was. A willing, often an enthusiastic soldier, he was usually a conscript but one who accepted his term of (admittedly short) service as a just subtraction from his years of liberty, to be performed with cheerfulness as well as obedience. &
&This remarkable change of attitude was literally revolutionary. The roots of this change were manifold, but the three most important led directly to the French Revolution and the principal slogans of its ideology: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
244. Amaxen - June 29, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
Military service became popular first because it was an experience of _ equality _. 'Cook's son - Duke's Son - son of a belted Earl' Kipling wrote of the army Britain sent to fight the Boers in 1900, with some accuracy&
&Conscription was an instrument not only of equality but also of _ fraternity _
& it forged bonds of brotherhood among young Europeans had never before felt&It was a genuine rite de passage; intellectual, emotional, and not least of all, physical. &.
&The ultimate importance of universal conscription in changing attitudes to military service was that it was ultimately connected with_ liberty _ in its political if not its personal sense. The old armies had been instruments of oppression of the people by kings; the new armies were to be the instruments of the people's liberation from kings, even if that liberation was to be narrowly institutional in the states which retained monarchy. The two ideas were not mutually contradictory&.. [analysis of the French and German experiences with the political consequences of mass armies]
245. Amaxen - June 29, 1999 - 4:29 PM PT
&.The trenches of the Western Front were indeed barricades, Alan Seeger, a poet and victim of the trenches, called them 'disputed barricades' - across which the emancipated youth of Europe leveled their rifles, symbols of their status as free citizens, in defence of the values of liberty, equality, fraternity. The nineteenth century had given these values to all, but nationalism had persuaded each citizen that they inhered meaningfully only in the state to which he belonged. Revolution, its fathers had quite genuinely believed, would be a gift freely given to all, a gift whose effect would be to foster a fraternity of nations as well as of people, It had, none the less, never been successfully internationalized. Even at its dawn it had manifested itself as the dynamic of a single nationality alone; when its values came to be more widely diffused, their transmission, by a bizarre perversion, succeeded only in reinforcing the 'amour-propre' of each nation among which they rooted. The French Revolution persuaded the French - as it still does - that they were unique in their devotion to equality; its influence reinforced the Germans' commitment to fraternity; its proclamation of liberty convinced the British that they already possessed it more fully than latecomer claimants to their freeborn rights ever could.
End Quote.
246. Amaxen - June 29, 1999 - 4:39 PM PT
Re: Post 242
Unconditional Surrender was not the objective of any of the Belligerents in WWI. Rather, the Americans proposed "Fourteen Points for Peace" and it was these terms (conditions) the Germans thought they were surrendering to. After the German army had demobilized at armistice, the Allies essentially gave the Germans the Darth Vader treatment - " I am altering the terms of the deal. Pray I do not choose to alter it further" The Germans, with no army, pretty much had to accept the punitive Versailles treaty, as they had no other choice. The long term result was World War II.
247. cmboyce - June 29, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
The term "unconditional surrender" is _much_ older than WW1. OED has, at "unconditional", the phrase in a citation from 1844 (referring to a seige in India), and I imagine it may well go back to the Middle Ages or earlier, perhaps as a term of craft in seige warfare.
248. ranheim - June 30, 1999 - 5:46 AM PT
Thanks for your comments on unconditional surrender.
I don't know nearly as much history as I should.
249. Wombat - June 30, 1999 - 1:58 PM PT
Any conflict that resulted in the total defeat and conquest of the enemy was an unconditional surrender on the part of the conquered.
Keegan's quote on community and esprit-de-corps in the conscript armies is all very nice, but he says nothing about those attributes in the units that most personified them, the Victorian/Edwardian British Army (The "Old Contemptibles") and the French Foreign Legion. Both were volunteer forces. If that is what Keegan is writing, then the journalist has taken over from the scholar, with platitudes as the product.
250. Amaxen - June 30, 1999 - 3:27 PM PT
Wombat,
Mmm, on your statement about total defeat and occupation - are you saying the Germans underwent this in WWI? I don't think this was strictly true. Also, how would guerilla/LI warfare - say 1st stage Maoist insurrections, play into this definition? The territory is totaly occupied and "defeated", there is no force in being, yet there is not unconditional surrender, in the sense that the enemy has not conceded to your will.
On Keegan, no, he was not talking about the regular army: rather he was talking more about what made conscripted soldiers motivated to go to war, and to stay there.
251. Wombat - July 1, 1999 - 6:52 AM PT
Amaxen:
No, I am not saying that Germany surrendered unconditionally in World War I, I was merely countering Ranheim's self professed ignorance re the relationship between democracy and the concept of unconditional surrender.
I would have thought that being imprisoned for draft avoidance, and shot for desertion would also be powerful incentives to report and serve.
252. Amaxen - July 1, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
Actually, Keegan's point was more about how the youth of draftable age were not just resigned to war, but actually enthusiastic and proactive in bringing war about. Even after the first year, the mood seems to have been less 'Hell no we won't go' and more jingoist among the youth of Europe than is commonly believed to be so now. Keegan's essay, which perhaps I mangled in the interests of not posting 3-4 thousand words, gave some very good reasons why this was so.
253. cmboyce - July 1, 1999 - 3:25 PM PT
This discussion, and esp. Wombat's remark about "being imprisoned for draft avoidance, and shot
for desertion " in Message #251 brings to mind the "mutinies" toward the end of the war. I don't know much about them but that they were. Could some one describe them in some detail and speculate on their resonance in the "disillusioned postwar world"?
254. colossus - July 1, 1999 - 5:56 PM PT
"Also, how would
guerilla/LI warfare - say 1st stage Maoist insurrections,
play into this definition? "
Yea Amaxen!
That would be teh "stragetic retreat or defensive" stage?
Do we have another strategic studies, war theory buff here?
And I am not sure of anything save that Wombat doesn't like the Second Reich and is hopelessly Anglophile in his views of WWI. And you are correct @ Message #246, the Germans were suckered into a surrender that would not have happened but for US intervention.
Right Wombat?
255. Amaxen - July 1, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
Re msg 253
Well, in his latest bood, World War One, Keegan talks a little about that: The two things I remember from it are that: 1. The mutinies were pretty much against taking any further _ offensive _ action, but were not opposed to defensive action (holding the trenches) per se.
2. Keegan postulates that every army has a certain point after which it becomes "broken" . He observes that that point seems to be where the infantry takes over 100% casulties from its original strength. He says something to the effect that that is the point where the average infantryman sees death no longer as a statistical possibility, but a statistical probability.
And yea, colossus, I have been accused of being a grognard a few times in my life. ...
256. Wombat - July 2, 1999 - 6:13 AM PT
Other mutinies in WWI
High Seas Fleet in 1918. Refused to sail for one final battle against the British.
Russian troops in France in 1917. For some reason the Russians thought they could help the Allies by sending Russian troops to fight on the Western Front. They mutinied as soon as they arrived in France.
257. lazygeorge - July 2, 1999 - 10:02 AM PT
I recall reading years ago that an important reason for 19th century immigration of Germans to the United States was to avoid conscription. I do not have a source for this.
In those "good old days" Sergeants were expected to assault their inferiors in grade as a disciplinary tool. I know I would not enjoy life as a conscript in the Army of the Kaiser.
I think Keegan's remark of the Duke's and baker's son serving together is faulty. A Duke's son would have been an officer in a Regiment of high social prestige, Guard or Household Calvary. A baker's son would have been unable to serve in such a regiment as an officer as the social equal of a Duke's son. The pay of an officer in these regiments would not pay for the uniforms needed, the mount required, servant, food, lodging and a proper social life. They were required to have an independent income. It took more than money to get into these regiments. It took social connections. Yes, a baker's son could be a trooper or a guardsman, but the enlisted ate, slept, worked and socialized separately from the officers. Fraternization was an offense against military law and custom.
I think Kipling's sons served in the Irish Guards as officers. They did not survive the war.
Is anyone aware of any titled Britians servng as enlisted men? I can only think of T.E. Lawrence after World War One and he was discharged upon discovery.
If Keegan is right then the highly stratified British Indian Colonial Army would have also promoted social equality between European and Indian.
258. Wombat - July 2, 1999 - 10:44 AM PT
Lawrence was not titled. He was the illegitimate child of a upper-middle class father and a maid.
His attempts to gain anonymity by serving as a common soldier (later airman) were eccentric to the extreme, and were only tolerated because he had friends in high places. On the plus side, airman "Shaw" played an instrumental role in designing the air-sea rescue element of the RAF, for which many pilots and air crew must have been grateful in WWII.
Keegan is talking out his hat about the egalitarianism of conscription, particularly in Britain (where it was not put in place until 1916) and in Germany. One change that the high casualty rates brought about in Britain was that young men whose families were in "trade" (money-making activities) were accepted as officers. That was about as far as egalitarianism went.
259. Amaxen - July 2, 1999 - 4:11 PM PT
Gents,
I agree with your statements about egalitarianism above, but only insofar as we enlightened children of the late 20th century think of the term. In the minds of Europeans of the turn of the century, the army was considerably less classist and more egalitarian than civil society. The relationship between officers and men was considerably more egalitarian than during the age of small, professional armies that had preceeded the Napoleonic wars - when it was more of a master/slave relationship. I think Keegan's point was that the *perception* among society was that the army was a social leveller.
If anyone does have any data about German immigration to avoid the draft, I'd very much appreciate it for personal reasons. In 1913, my Great-Grandfather and his six brothers came over - we always thought it was to dodge the Kaiser's draft, until we went back and did some research - turns out the family mill burned down - nothin else to do but get on the boat, I guess.
260. lazygeorge - July 2, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
I have read that Slim transferred to Indian Army after World War One because he could not afford to be an officer in the British Army.
261. lazygeorge - July 2, 1999 - 4:54 PM PT
I concede that for the British, World War one was its first "egalitarian" war. They had never had a draft before. Even the naval press gangs of the previous wars were directed mainly against seamen. Middle class and lower class youth served together in large numbers. Probably nothing like it had happened before in Britain. I object to the implication of Duke's son and baker's son serving together.
262. lazygeorge - July 2, 1999 - 5:01 PM PT
I recall the French mutinies after the Nivelle Offensive all occurred at the rear by troops refusing to follow orders to move to the front lines. I am not aware of troops in the trenches deserting the front lines in significant numbers.
263. lazygeorge - July 2, 1999 - 5:08 PM PT
I recall reading about the Mutinies of the German navy. The post war government had an inquiry about it. They blamed several things.
The best officers and men went to the U boats.
Separate mess for officers and men in large ships and the extremely poor diet of the enlisted sailors compared to officers.
The Navy's refusal to promote enlisted men to officer status.
264. lazygeorge - July 2, 1999 - 5:16 PM PT
Petain fixed the French Army by improving medical care, improving the food, establishing regular leave, improving the rest areas for troops rotating out of the line and limiting the scope of his attacks to the capabilities of his tactics and weapons. He talked to a disillusioned French Army and they followed him.
265. colossus - July 2, 1999 - 6:55 PM PT
What's with this Naval Mutiny stuff? There's the Potempkin Mutiny; Kronstadt I (1917); KII (1921 I think) and of course, the High Seas Fleet Mutiny all of which were cutting edge political.
What is it about, this revolutionary conciousness in the German and Russian navies?
266. webfeet - July 3, 1999 - 7:04 AM PT
Although Petain may have improved the conditions for the army, disillusioned or otherwise, I don't think they had any choice but to follow him. If they didn't, they would be executed.
What's interesting about Petain, though, is that he set up an operative government midway during WWI, when conflicts with the government interefered with his military strategy, a seditious act that sowed the seeds for his military dictatorship years later during Vichy. What is it with the French obsession with Generals? This savior compex is even reflected in the Fifth Republic's constitution, which de Gaulle revised in order to grant himself --the executive-- full powers!
267. uzmakk - July 3, 1999 - 2:33 PM PT
Am reading through the entire thread. Am up to 138. Must take break. Was unable to reread the book from which I intended to argue, but will make an attempt to argue anyway. I think the story I will end up telling most closely parallels Ranheim's.
268. uzmakk - July 3, 1999 - 6:51 PM PT
Sorry folks, ran out of time. Won't be back for several days.
269. ranheim - July 3, 1999 - 10:50 PM PT
Do any of you know the history of the ill-fated League of Nations?
I must admit that I lost interst the moment I learned that that the USA never became a member. (Henry Cabot Lodge!).
I must not mislead any of you! The League of Nations and the United Nations are both pie-in-the-sky internationalist, do-good, wills-of-the-wisp! There is no way that I (or Bill Clinton/Madeline Halfbright, etc.) can understand the arab world; the the Orient, the African continent; etc.
270. lazygeorge - July 4, 1999 - 8:25 AM PT
webfeet,
According to Alistair Horne in the Price of Glory, all the infantry divisions of the French Army on the Western Front refused to fight in 1917, not all at once and only for a few days at time. According to the Encyclopedia of Military History there was a "2 week period where the Western Front was nearly denuded of French combat troops." How would you have enforced discipline and with who?
271. lazygeorge - July 4, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
There were mutinies in the Royal Navy during the Napoleanic Wars and the Great Depression. A Brazilian Battleship mutinied before WWI and held Rio hostage under its guns. Some say the factory like conditions in a warship is more alienating than the life of a foot soldier. The US Army had near mutinies among the troops Wilson sent to fight in the Russian Civil War.
272. ranheim - July 4, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
#271
Your mentioning Siberia triggered a loose synapse (in your 60s this happens). I recall reading a short book about 30 years ago in which the author pointed out that the USArmy had soldiers in Siberia long months after the Armistice. Communications being what they were then, these men had no guidance. And they succeeded in doing nothing of substance. There had been, earlier, some hazy thoughts of helping the White Army. This came to nothing. As can easily be understood, these men were out of range of both supplies and communication. And in Siberia! I cannot imagine a more bitter fate as they did know that the war was finished. As best as I recall they finally exited through Vladivostok.
I only wish I remembered either the title of the book or name of the author.
273. lazygeorge - July 4, 1999 - 3:54 PM PT
I recall two interventions. One around Vladivostok and the other around Murmansk. I am not sure which one produced the threat of mutiny.
Wilson wanted to repatriate the "Czech Legion" and fend off the Japanese in Vladivostok. This was from August 1918 till April 1920. Two US Army Regiments (I think they were from the Philippines. One might have been the 31st Infantry) were sent to guard the Trans Siberian Railway from Lake Baikal to Vladivostok. They fought with the Reds and Whites.
The Murmansk fiasco was in cooperation with our allies. It was to prevent the Reds from getting war supplies sent by the allies for the Czar's government. This was between June 1918 and August 1919.
This is from the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History.
274. cigarlaw - July 4, 1999 - 5:56 PM PT
RE BRITISH YOUTH'S ENTHUSIASM FOR WW I:
IMHO, THIS WAS DUE TOP THREE FACTORS. ALREADY MENTIONED, WAS THE DRUDGERY OF THE FACTORIES VS THE PERCIEVED EXCITMENT OF WAR. THIS WAS HEIGHTENED BY TWO OTHER FACTORS, 1) BRITAIN WAS AT WAR SOMEWHERE, EVERYDAY OF QUEN VICTORIA'S REIGN WITHOUT DECERNABLE EFFECT OR LOSSES TO BRITAIN'S POPULUS. THESE WARS HAD ACQUIRED AN ALMOST MYSTICAL PLACE IN THE PUBLIC COUNCIOUSNESS--TAKE A LLOK AT THE POPULAR PAINTINGS OF THE ERA--EVEN ISANDLAWANA WAS WAS NOBLE.
THIS WAS FOSTERED BY THE RELIGIOS FAITH OF THE SOCIETY. FAITH NOT ONLY IN GOD, BUT FAITH IN THE RIGHTOUSNESS OF THE LEADERS-WHO, AFTERALL, WERE GOD'S VICARS ON EARTH. IT IS NOT SURPRISING THE CHURCHES LOST MUCH ATTENDENCE THIS CENTURY, DUE TO DISILLUSIONMENT.
275. cigarlaw - July 4, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
RE BRITISH YOUTH'S ENTHUSIASM FOR WW I:
IMHO, THIS WAS DUE TOP THREE FACTORS. ALREADY MENTIONED, WAS THE DRUDGERY OF THE FACTORIES VS THE PERCIEVED EXCITMENT OF WAR. THIS WAS HEIGHTENED BY TWO OTHER FACTORS, 1) BRITAIN WAS AT WAR SOMEWHERE, EVERYDAY OF QUEN VICTORIA'S REIGN WITHOUT DECERNABLE EFFECT OR LOSSES TO BRITAIN'S POPULUS. THESE WARS HAD ACQUIRED AN ALMOST MYSTICAL PLACE IN THE PUBLIC COUNCIOUSNESS--TAKE A LLOK AT THE POPULAR PAINTINGS OF THE ERA--EVEN ISANDLAWANA WAS WAS NOBLE.
THIS WAS FOSTERED BY THE RELIGIOS FAITH OF THE SOCIETY. FAITH NOT ONLY IN GOD, BUT FAITH IN THE RIGHTOUSNESS OF THE LEADERS-WHO, AFTERALL, WERE GOD'S VICARS ON EARTH. IT IS NOT SURPRISING THE CHURCHES LOST MUCH ATTENDENCE THIS CENTURY, DUE TO DISILLUSIONMENT.
276. cigarlaw - July 4, 1999 - 6:05 PM PT
THESE FACTORS EXISTED IN OTHER NATIONS AS WELL,. NOTABLY THE USA. OF COURSE FRANCEALSO HAD NAPOLEONIC DELUSIONS AND REVENGE. AS FOR GERMANY, HELL, GIVE A GERMAN A UNIFORM AND BEAT A DRUM AND HE'LL CONQUOR POLAND, AS MY DAD PUTS IT
277. ranheim - July 4, 1999 - 8:05 PM PT
Thanks lazygeorge!
278. ranheim - July 5, 1999 - 6:11 AM PT
No discussion of WW I would be complete without talking about the "Spanish Flu" epidemic. This occurred during the past 4 months or so before and after the Armistice. Interestingly enough, the name "Spanish" came from the Russians who believed its onset was in Spain (where huge numbers did die).
Martin Gilbert's 1994 book regarding the "war to end all wars" gives a figure of 9 million soldiers KIA during the war. He breaks it down to 5,600 soldiers per day. Later day Epidemiologists have estimated that the flu killed between 21 and 43 million people (you read correctly : 21 - 43 million). A number very commonly read is 30 million. Despite the name, Spanish, it seems likely that the first cases were at Fort Riley in Kansas. The things that modern day researchers are so impressed with are the speed with which it spread out over the world and the manner of dieing. It appears to moderns that most of the flu deaths occurred within 6 months. And the mode of dieing for a majority was pulmonary; flu pneumonia continues to be a leading cause of death in flu epidemics. But, this one was different in that autopsies done on the victims showed massive amounts of blood in the lungs - smothered to death in one's own blood. Researchers have exhumed bodies and are still trying to piece togehter the MO of this particular flu virus. Another puzzle : why were many/most of the victims young (teens to 40s)?
The numbers of soldiers going back and forth seems to be one reason for the rapidity of spread. Iceland put in place a very stringent isolation policy and was one of the few countries spared.
A very common childhood ditty in the USA was :
I had a little bird
I named him Enza
I opened up a window
And in flew Enza
Can't one just imagine young girls skipping rope to this "song".
279. ranheim - July 5, 1999 - 6:35 AM PT
The above named Gilbert states that despite the huge number of books and documents that arose as a result of our War Between The States, that number pales compared to the outporing of books, "apologies", diaries, official investigations, etc., that followed WW I. Seemingly, everyone was attempting to shift blame to someone else.
Yet hardly anyone currently can speak with any degree of confidence in regard this war. Why?
I realize that History is taught very poorly in this country. But, this lack alone can't explain this void in our collective knowlege.
Could a possible explanation be in the horror of trench warfare + the flu epidemic? In Europe, it was a rare family indeed that did not have a family member that died from one of these two causes. 9 million KIA and another 30 dead of the flu. One estimate of the world's population that I have seen for 1910 was 1.571 billion. In other words one or the other carried away 2.48% of the world's peoples!
Was this 4+ year period so horrible that people repressed their collective memory? Many of us refuse to think/remember catastrophies.
In any case the lack of knowlege of this war is, at least, interesting. Could this collective lapse of memory be a contributing cause to WW II - which began a short 20 years later?
280. RustlerPike - July 5, 1999 - 6:57 AM PT
Ranheim:
WW2 was a continuation of WW1. Both were manifestations of German bestiality, arrogance and sadistic autism. German behavior in erasing (Belgian? Dutch? French?) villages that did not 'cooperate' with their soldiers in WW1 foreshadowed their behavior toward conquered populaces in WW2. Ludendorff foaming at the mouth in his office in 1918 was not very different from Hitler raving in his bunker in 1945.
281. cigarlaw - July 5, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
MY GRANDFATHER REMEMBERED THE SPANISH INFUENZA. HE WAS 15, THE CLOSED THE SCHOOLS IN KANSAS AND HE WENT TO WORK IN THE COAL MINES. HE NEVER WENT BACK TO SCHOOL.
282. cigarlaw - July 5, 1999 - 12:46 PM PT
MY GRANDFATHER REMEMBERED THE SPANISH INFUENZA. HE WAS 15, THE CLOSED THE SCHOOLS IN KANSAS AND HE WENT TO WORK IN THE COAL MINES. HE NEVER WENT BACK TO SCHOOL.
283. colossus - July 5, 1999 - 1:17 PM PT
OK now that we have some *grognards* on board (to complement the Pussy Pelle from Sweden - what a loser nation eh?), I have a question....
From time to time and especially now reading Guderian's "Panzer Leader", I run accross the term "coup de main".
I take, "the objective was seized by *coup de main*" to mean by direct assault as opposed to envelopment or invesiture by seige.
Am I right?
284. colossus - July 5, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT
"investiture"
Ranheim,
The tree-killing due to WWI was enormous. Most of the work was done in the '20's demonstrating, I think, the universal horror at the senseless loss of life in this War to End All Wars. Further, one cannot help be impressed by the change in tactics in WWII designed to avoid the meat grinder. Even at the very end when WWI tactics would have served them, German generals were worried about positional warfare.
WWI's casualties were far less than those in WWII to be sure. (40%???)
Still, in terms of the anti-war reaction, the War to End All Wars remains WWI.
285. colossus - July 5, 1999 - 1:24 PM PT
Except, of course, for Eric Ludendorff , who, even in 1920, thought that WWI was the pinnacle of human achievement.
I really love that guy!
286. colossus - July 5, 1999 - 1:26 PM PT
My grandfather fondly remembered his WWI experience.
He was Louisiana French, fully fluent, ready to go when the war ended.
I remember learning to shoot with his army-issue .45.
Nearly took my arm off. Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
287. colossus - July 5, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
Message #269
The League of Nations was the most far-sighted idea of the 20th century. Wilson was a prophet.
Only today can we dimly perceive his wisdom as the UN and international action in Kosova begins to bear fruit. Indeed, our global economy demands a League of Nations.
Not that either the global economy or the League is normative IMO.
288. cigarlaw - July 5, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
I AM READING A GOOD BOOK, 'BACK TO THE FRONT', WRITTEN BY AN AMERICAN, DISCRIBING HIS THOUGHTS, EXPERIENCES, ETC, PLUS A BREIF HISTORY OF WW I, AS HE WALKED THE LENGTH OF THE WESTERN FRONT ABOUT 1996.
I JUST READ THAT MESSINES RIDGE STILL HASE SEVERAL THOUSAND TONS OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES BURIED UNDER THE OLD GERMAN LINES. IT AND ANOTHER FAILED TO EXPLODE IN THE WAR. THE OTHER ONE BLEW UP IN 1955, DUE TO A LIGHTNING STRIKE.
APPARENTLY, THE EARTH STILL HAS NOT OBLITERATED MOST OF THE TRENCH LINE. WHEN I WAS A KID, I REMEMBER LIFE MAG. RAN A PICTORAL OF THE WAR. I STILL CAN SEE ONE PHOTO CLEARLY IN MY MIND. IT WAS A ROW OF RUSTY BAYONETS AND RIFLE BARRELS STICKING UP FROM THE GROUND NEAR VERDUN. IT WAS WHERE A TRENCH WALL HAD COLLAPSED BURYING THE TROOPS ATTACHED TO THE RIFLES ALIVE. SOMETHING LIKE 50 PERCENT OF THE DEAD IN THE WAR WERE REALLY MIA'S, BECAUSE THEIR BODIES WERE NEVER FOUND OR COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED. NO OTHER MODERN WAR, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAD SUCH A HIGH MIA COUNT, FROM BOTH SIDES.
ALSO, IT IS A MAJOR CHARITABLE INHDUSTRY MAINTAINING THE BRITSH GRAVEYARDS IN FLANDERS, PICARDY, AND THE SOMME.
289. cigarlaw - July 5, 1999 - 5:22 PM PT
TO GET AN IDEA OF THE IMPACT OF WW I VS WW II, SOMEDAY VISIT THE CHAPEL IN EDINBURG CASTLE. EVERY SCOTTISH REG THAT FOUGHT IN EITHER WAR HAS A BOOK LISTING EVERY MAN WHO DIED. WW II WAS MINOR IN COMPARISON.
THEN WALK A FEW FEET TO THE CHAPLE OF THE UNKNOWN, WHERE, A TOMB LIES, BUILT UPON A ROCK WHICH IS THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE MOUNTAIN. STAND NEXT TO THE TOMB FOR A FEW MINUTES AND LISTEN TO THE SILENCE. IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST MOVING EXPERIENCES OF MY LIFE. THINKING OF IT STILL GIVES ME CHILLS. HEARING THE GOASTS OF THE DEAD THERE RANKS RIGHT UP WITH STANDING ALONE ON CUSTER RIDGE, LOOKING DOWN AT THE LITTLE BIG HORN, OR WALKING IN EARLY JULY ACROSS A MILE OF OPEN GROUND TOWARD A COPSE OF TREES ON CEMETARY RIDGE, ENDING UP CROSSING A LITTLE STONE WALL, STOPPING AND LOOKING BACK, IN YOUR IMAGINATION, SEEING THE DEAD LAYING WHERE YOU WALKED AT GETTYSBURG.
290. cigarlaw - July 5, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
TO GET AN IDEA OF THE IMPACT OF WW I VS WW II, SOMEDAY VISIT THE CHAPEL IN EDINBURG CASTLE. EVERY SCOTTISH REG THAT FOUGHT IN EITHER WAR HAS A BOOK LISTING EVERY MAN WHO DIED. WW II WAS MINOR IN COMPARISON.
THEN WALK A FEW FEET TO THE CHAPLE OF THE UNKNOWN, WHERE, A TOMB LIES, BUILT UPON A ROCK WHICH IS THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE MOUNTAIN. STAND NEXT TO THE TOMB FOR A FEW MINUTES AND LISTEN TO THE SILENCE. IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST MOVING EXPERIENCES OF MY LIFE. THINKING OF IT STILL GIVES ME CHILLS. HEARING THE GOASTS OF THE DEAD THERE RANKS RIGHT UP WITH STANDING ALONE ON CUSTER RIDGE, LOOKING DOWN AT THE LITTLE BIG HORN, OR WALKING IN EARLY JULY ACROSS A MILE OF OPEN GROUND TOWARD A COPSE OF TREES ON CEMETARY RIDGE, ENDING UP CROSSING A LITTLE STONE WALL, STOPPING AND LOOKING BACK, IN YOUR IMAGINATION, SEEING THE DEAD LAYING WHERE YOU WALKED AT GETTYSBURG.
291. CIGARLAW - July 5, 1999 - 10:21 PM PT
sorry about the double posts, but everytime i try to post,this abysmal software tells me no connection was made. as for thespelling errors, they are my fault. then again, youtry typing standing up using your thumb (to type with). editing is low on my list priorities nowadays.
292. ranheim - July 5, 1999 - 10:47 PM PT
I HATED Gettysburg. I was in D.C. for 1 year+ - suposedly I was learning Russian AND how to be a spy???? I failed at both. While there, my wife said "We have to show our kids one of the most famous battlefields in the USA" (they were 5 and 4!). Looking at that terrain, I began to HATE Lincoln! I despise that man even more - 34 years later.
HE transformed us from a republic to a democracy! And I am one of those who thinks that the Founding Fathers were correct - a democracy is, in reality, a MOBOCRACY. And a democracy is not worth a damn thing! 50% + 1, and the proleteriat has their way. WHAT A GREAT CONCEPT!
Having the proletariat as some of my patients for the past 30 years has convinced me that no matter what the policians natter - the great unwashed have not a clue. They - really - should not be listened to!
293. CIGARLAW - July 5, 1999 - 11:27 PM PT
ranheim, a man after our own heart. you are henceforth a mrshal of the empire of the fray. you shall be given command of the artillery of the gaurd and given sole discretion to give the mob a taste of grapeshot whenever necessary.
294. uzmakk - July 6, 1999 - 4:26 AM PT
"We are now at the stage where the common people of Christendom, spurred on by their demagogues, have grown so proud that they are no longer content to be the hands and feet and trunk of the body politic, but demand to be the intellect as well---or, as much intellect as is needed to satisfy their simple appetites."
Grape shot, I say, grape shot.
295. uzmakk - July 6, 1999 - 4:28 AM PT
Or something else.
296. ranheim - July 6, 1999 - 4:40 AM PT
#294 uzmakk
If that is your quote - IT IS FINE!
If not - who was the author?
297. uzmakk - July 6, 1999 - 5:06 AM PT
Ranheim:
Robert Graves -- poet, novelist, nose thumber and cool dude.
298. lazygeorge - July 6, 1999 - 7:06 AM PT
from Merriam Webster on line
coup de main
Etymology: French, literally, hand stroke
Date: 1758
: a sudden attack in force
299. Wombat - July 6, 1999 - 7:22 AM PT
The League of Nations lacked an enforcement arm, as well as the cooperation of the country behind its formation (United States). These two factors doomed it. That said, it did very good work resettling refugees and aiding population transfers, and set up the precursors of many of the international legal regimes that govern international behavior today. The UN did not repeat the mistakes of the League of Nations.
The reason that World War I led to so much soul-searching was that the casualties suffered by all sides were virtually unprecedented, the political effects were cataclysmic, and the causes of it were so obscure. One has to go back to the 30 Years War in the 17th Century to find a conflict that affected European society as much.
It was--and still is, apparently--difficult to believe that such a devastating war could have been triggered by an assassination, and a succession of blunders and miscalculations that assumed an inevitablity that no one had the moral courage to halt.
Colossus:
A "coup de main" is a sudden attack that achieves its objective at a minimal cost to the attackers (which is what a successful armor attack should do). Examples: The seizure of the bridgehead at Sedan by Rommel in WWII. The capture of the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen in WWII.
300. colossus - July 6, 1999 - 8:50 AM PT
Thanks warmongers.