Fox just reminded me. 20 million dead.

War sucks.

And, it was the beginning of the end of the world as we know it.

slaughter in battle never again duplicated.  Even the misery of WWII couldn't match the single day slaughter numbers racked up in WWI

The Somme, Verdun, the Marne...
So many wasted lives.

Quoted: The Somme, Verdun, the Marne... So many wasted lives.

Paaschendale. [shudder] Mud so deep men drowned in it!

Mechanized death, and nobody won the fucking war! France and Britain were spent, and Germany couldn't even mount a half-assed offensive; we arrived and the war pretty much ended.

WWI = Death = BIG MACHINE that you dump whole nations into. Probably the worst war in history.

Quoted: slaughter in battle never again duplicated.  Even the misery of WWII couldn't match the single day slaughter numbers racked up in WWI

Stalingrad is the closest the world has come to the butchery of places like Verdun and Somme.

The leaders of that time were as crazy as David Burkowitz. Germany and France were just aching for a fight since the end of the Franco, Prussian War in 1871. the assaination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand may have been the jumping off point for bloodshed, but that war was being planned for years by both Germany and France.

Just finished "Dreadnought" by Robert Massie.

Not only was the war brutal, it was completely avoidable and served no other purpose other than to save the wounded pride of the German Emporer.

Did you guys know that in 1890's almost every royal family in Europe was related?  The Kings of England, Germany, Spain, and Russia all were directly related through Queen Victoria.

Disconnector

Hey, it was "The war to end all wars", wasn't it?

That worked really well.  

WWI was a culture clash of Victorian values with mechanized slaughter. The earlier poster who declared it as '"the end of the world as we knew it" hit the nail right on the head.

*spoiler*

We win.


*sequel spoiler*

We win.

Read A Storm In Flanders.  It will blow your mind.  
It was written by Winston Groom, who wrote also wrote the Forrest Gump novels.  

Interesting turn of events too.  How about here at home with the pig influenza going on?  Patty

Quoted: Read A Storm In Flanders.  It will blow your mind.   It was written by Winston Groom, who wrote also wrote the Forrest Gump novels.

Thanks! Hard to find good books about The Great War. Ever read "A Soldier of the Great War" by Mark Helprin?

Quoted: Quoted: Read A Storm In Flanders.  It will blow your mind.   It was written by Winston Groom, who wrote also wrote the Forrest Gump novels.   Thanks! Hard to find good books about The Great War. Ever read "A Soldier of the Great War" by Mark Helprin?

Nope, I'll have to get that one too.  Thanks.  Weren't they supposed to make a movie based on that at one time?
A Storm In Flanders is about the Ypres Salient.  Pure trench warfare at its very worst.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Read A Storm In Flanders.  It will blow your mind.   It was written by Winston Groom, who wrote also wrote the Forrest Gump novels.   Thanks! Hard to find good books about The Great War. Ever read "A Soldier of the Great War" by Mark Helprin? Nope, I'll have to get that one too.  Thanks.  Weren't they supposed to make a movie based on that at one time? A Storm In Flanders is about the Ypres Salient.  Pure trench warfare at its very worst.

On the Day of Reckoning, man may well be judged as a whole to be unworthy of Heaven, based solely on the brutality of the Great War.

I recall something about a movie out of the Helprin book, but don't know anything current. I thought the trench scenes in Gallipoli were extremely vivid. I have a 1917 Lithgow SMLE!

The losses in that war are simply appaling. I dont even think the Russians knew how much they lost... Wasnt it over 10 million?

The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916  by Alistair Horne (Fantastic book, it's where I got my sig line)

Rites of Spring : The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age by Modris Eksteins (More about the culture of the time that lead up to the war, and followed it up to WWII.)

Death's Men: Soldiers of the Great War by Denis Winter (Taken from stories by Brit soldiers, a very personal look at what happened)

Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman (I'm only 1/2 through this one, but so far I'm really liking it.)

Tannenberg 1914 by John Sweetman (Actually kinda dry, more like a strategy study, but it's one of few books I could find about the Eastern Front)

Zimmermann Telegram by Barbara W. Tuchman (Very interesting, not as much about the war but about how the U.S. ended up getting involved. It's about German spies, Japan teaming up with Mexico to invade the U.S., the U-Boat threat, and the breaking of German code by the Brits which lead to us learning about of of this)



There's a few to get someone started.

Thanks a bunch, Gavrilo Princip.

You ignited the shitstorm whose aftereffects dominated the 20th century.

Quoted: Thanks a bunch, Gavrilo Princip. You ignited the shitstorm whose aftereffects dominated the 20th century.

This war would have happened even without him and the assassination. As I said earlier, France and Germany had been planning it for 40 years, since the end of the Franco Prussian War.

Quoted: Thanks a bunch, Gavrilo Princip. You ignited the shitstorm whose aftereffects dominated the 20th century.

sure, sure, blame it on the Anarchists.

/kidding

Quoted: Quoted: Thanks a bunch, Gavrilo Princip. You ignited the shitstorm whose aftereffects dominated the 20th century. sure, sure, blame it on the Anarchists. /kidding

some how im sure it was Bushs fault.

Quoted: Thanks a bunch, Gavrilo Princip. You ignited the shitstorm whose aftereffects dominated the 20th century.

I wonder when it would have started without him and if the outcome would have been changed. I feel as though I once read that had the war been delayed a few years the central powers would have been at a far greater disadvantage.

Quoted: Quoted: Thanks a bunch, Gavrilo Princip. You ignited the shitstorm whose aftereffects dominated the 20th century. I wonder when it would have started without him and if the outcome would have been changed. I feel as though I once read that had the war been delayed a few years the central powers would have been at a far greater disadvantage.

No doubt it would have started without the assassination:  another "trigger" would have come along at some point.  

Actually, the delay might have helped the central powers, particularly Germany.  Indeed, some have asserted that one of the reasons Britain wanted to fight Germany was that German sea power was growing and, by 1920 would have rivaled Britain.  Though I was not there, nor know all the fine details, I think this idea could be supported by the big naval battle at Jutland.  Remembering, at that time "Britannia ruled the waves," yet at Jutland the battle was a draw (both sides withdrew without having secured an advantage).

The fighting of WWI created problems for the 20th century only to the extent that the treaties afterwards, dictated by the victors, created the situations which we still are paying for today.

Quoted: *spoiler* We win.

Interestingly, the fact of the matter is this: No country ever surrendered in WWI.

11th Month, 11th Day, 11th Hour
by Joseph Persico

Outstanding book about the very end of the war. The carnage of the last day of the war was even more senseless and futile. One of civilization's greatest tragedies.

Quoted: Just finished "Dreadnought" by Robert Massie. Not only was the war brutal, it was completely avoidable and served no other purpose other than to save the wounded pride of the German Emporer. Did you guys know that in 1890's almost every royal family in Europe was related?  The Kings of England, Germany, Spain, and Russia all were directly related through Queen Victoria. Disconnector

There actually was nothing for the Kaiser to be wounded about.  Indeed, he wasn't too happy about entering a war at the time.  He was sucked in because of the aggressive movements of the Russians.  The truth about the beginning about the War, and the composition of the antagonists actually supports Washington's and Jefferson's comments about permanent (or, implicitly, long term) alliances and foreign entanglements.  

WWI was 3 1/2 wars in one.  The 1/2 was the trigger:  the assassination of the Archduke after the ongoing hostility with Serbia. Austria naturally moved against Serbia.  Some would criticize it, but one would also have to ask what Britain would have done had the Prince of Wales been assassinated in India.  Russia ("Pan Slav Movement") backed Serbia and indeed lined up on the Eastern Austro-Hungarian border.  Austria appealed to Germany, and it was on.  

One of the "full" wars was a battle for domination of Europe between Britain and Germany.  Germany was indeed a new country, feeling its Cheerios.  England wanted to keep them down.  One has to say "naturally enough".  Another "full" war was between Russia and Central Europe in general, and Germnay in particular.  Part of it was for influence in Europe, and part was because Nicholas, fresh from a bloodied nose with Japan, compounded by domination by his mother, needed to "show he was a man."  What better way than to expand via the Slavic Balkans?  The final "full" war, and the only "legitimate" one, if a war can be legitimized, was between France and Germany.  Some would say that there was still some smoldering from the Franco-Prussian war, and I would not disagree. But, those two have been at it since about two weeks after the death of Charlemagne.  The Western front began when France lined up against Germany on the Western front.  Some will ask why Germnay attacked.  Suppose China lined up on the Mexican-US border?  Would one wait until they came streaming across in strength?

There's more than enough blame to go around.  The fact that the royal houses were related contributed greatly to the tensions which made the war possible.  Cousins' squabbles, and all.  Two anecdotes about that:  one, rather than the Kaiser having wounded pride, the British had wounded pride earlier on in the century.  Victoria's annoyance with her son,  Prince Edward was well known.  What is not so well known was that she simply adored Wilhelm!  She though him intelligent, a great conversationalist, etc.  What better way to anger a son than to belittle him (whether warranted or not) and praise a semi-distant relative and then rub his nose in it.  As king, Edward VII was quite hostile, and that became ingrained, even though he himself doid not live to see the result.

Another interesting anecdote was from a British, former Major, regarding the early steps of gun control in Britain.  He said that controls were initiated in 1920 because the British people were so incensed (and, rightly so) over their losses in WWI which was a fight amongst cousins.

If the Kaiser acted on wounded pride, the US and Germany would have been at war sometime between 1903 and 1905.  Theodore Roosevelt had to put Wilhelm in his place regarding activities in Central America and Venezuela.  HAd to be pretty firm about it, too.

I wonder how different Europe would have been had it the two world wars had been different.

Billions of European men, women, and children taken out of the breeding pool. Would Europe have the same booming overpopulation problem as the third world countries without that drain?

tag

Quoted: The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916  by Alistair Horne (Fantastic book, it's where I got my sig line) Rites of Spring : The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age by Modris Eksteins (More about the culture of the time that lead up to the war, and followed it up to WWII.) Death's Men: Soldiers of the Great War by Denis Winter (Taken from stories by Brit soldiers, a very personal look at what happened) Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman (I'm only 1/2 through this one, but so far I'm really liking it.) Tannenberg 1914 by John Sweetman (Actually kinda dry, more like a strategy study, but it's one of few books I could find about the Eastern Front) Zimmermann Telegram by Barbara W. Tuchman (Very interesting, not as much about the war but about how the U.S. ended up getting involved. It's about German spies, Japan teaming up with Mexico to invade the U.S., the U-Boat threat, and the breaking of German code by the Brits which lead to us learning about of of this) There's a few to get someone started.

Check out "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson.. Some interesting new thought on the Great War.

It was simply amazing to drive through France and see the scars of a war that far past.  The UXO especially was incredible.  A tour guide at Douamont said the agency responsible for collecting and disposing of UXO in France could stop collecting now and have 16 years to go before they completed incinerating what they have stacked up.. And that didn't include the chemical shells, many of which contain still viable mustard gas.

Lots of the outlying fortifications at Verdun are still there, as well as the big ones like Douamont.  I remember driving up to one fort and being dumbstruck that there was nothing visible at all but a gravel pit.
From that side, the eastern side, that's all that remained.  The western side however was recognizable as a star-pattern fortification.

Another site called the Dragon's Cave was a 15th century series of chalk mines that ended up "in the line".  Germans and French both used it for shelter, and occasionally fought it out underground with machineguns, hand grenades, and pickaxes.  We arrived there during lunch, which to the French is an excuse to close up shop completely for an hour or two.  The counter help tried to send us away, but the guide overruled her and gave us the best tour of the trip.  At the end of the tour, he tearfully and profusely thanked us, both for our attendance and for the support of our nation in France's time of need.

Oh yea, and if you ever get to Ypres (Ieper now), stop in at the Pieter De Groote chocolatier and grab some of the chocolate tommy helmets.. They're the tits.. and try to get there around the time they throw cats off the Cloth Hall.. That's a hoot.