Thoughts on World War I

[BAYLOR]

In looking back at some previous comments in this thread, I came to think a bit more about the comments about Hinderberg and Ludendorf having ducked responsibility for the war by "quitting."
On second thought...
Maybe it was smart (from their point of view) tactics: by taking themselves out of the picture, they kept the allies from entering Germany and levelling its war/industrial base. Bad for the world, ultimately. But not necessarily some cowardly avoidance of responsibility...?

It was such an tragic and epic waste of lives . All for nothing .

 

[2DaveWixon]

No, not for nothing.
Or so I believe...

There is meaning in things like

In Flanders fields the poppies grow
Between the crosses, row on row...

 

[BAYLOR]

No, not for nothing.
Or so I believe...

There is meaning in things like

In Flanders fields the poppies grow
Between the crosses, row on row...

Millions didn't get to have full lives because of the malevolent stupidity of those in charge.

 

[2DaveWixon]

Millions never get full lives regardless of whether there's a war, or not.
One way or another, for whatever reason, people die -- many of them early. Call it fate, the hand of God, evolution, or mere Chance -- it's not only pointless, but counterproductive, to rail against it.

 

[BAYLOR]

Millions never get full lives regardless of whether there's a war, or not.
One way or another, for whatever reason, people die -- many of them early. Call it fate, the hand of God, evolution, or mere Chance -- it's not only pointless, but counterproductive, to rail against it.

Your absolutely right Dave.

 

[2DaveWixon]

What, you're not even going to argue with me????

 

[sknox]

I sort of agree with Dave here. If we call wars pointless, then it cheapens the deaths and sacrifices made by those who endure them.

OTOH, the whole rhetoric is peculiarly modern. I don't think anyone spoke of the heroes of the Thirty Years War, or of the brave sacrifices of those who fought the Saxons. In most treatments, they're simply wars.

OTOOH, there is a long and convoluted tradition of the Just War theory. Those who fight in a just war are morally superior to those who fight in an unjust one.

It's humans, so it's complicated.

 

[2DaveWixon]

My underlying point was that it seems meaningless, to me, to rail against deaths that occur in wars, as "a waste," when lots of people die of other causes than war, but just as needlessly.
I'm not sure this is the place to discuss the worth of every human life.
I think that Baylor's plaint was that so many of those who died in WWI died as the result of sheer stupidity on the part of their leaders, who so often sent them into lethal situations without demonstrating any interest in keeping them alive, in protecting them.
This is not exactly unprecedented...
And maybe it's really a political point.

 

[logan_run]

It was supposed to be the war that ends all wars then there was 2.

 

[sknox]

It was also supposed to save democracy, and look how well that succeeded. But wars rarely achieve their stated goals. Indeed, a good many wars didn't even have stated goals.

 

[BAYLOR]

It was also supposed to save democracy, and look how well that succeeded. But wars rarely achieve their stated goals. Indeed, a good many wars didn't even have stated goals.

The Hohenzollerns in Germany, The Hapsburghs in AustriaHungry, The Romanov's In Russia and The Ottomans all those ruling dynasties swept away.

 

[sknox]

Swept away, but not exactly saved for democracy. But WWI was indeed the fall of eagles.

 

[BAYLOR]

Swept away, but not exactly saved for democracy. But WWI was indeed the fall of eagles.

It was the beginning of the slow unraveling of the British Empire.

 

[Venusian Broon]

It was the beginning of the slow unraveling of the British Empire.

Very debatable - I personally think it wasn't. The British Empire had peaked and was going to go into decline no matter what.

Also I'm not sure it was a war to 'save democracy'. That might have been said afterwards as a justification...but when you have the democracies of the world teaming up with the most autocratic state on the planet at the time, Russia, I think this kinda blows that justification out of the water.

 

[2DaveWixon]

Whatever goals a war might have started out with, they always seem to yield to expediency, don't they?

 

[BAYLOR]

Whatever goals a war might have started out with, they always seem to yield to expediency, don't they?

They were under the illusion that that it would be quick war and that the troops would be home by Christmas.

 

[2DaveWixon]

Just like the American Civil War, right?

 

[BAYLOR]

Just like the American Civil War, right?

The fact that at the first Battle the Bull Run there were people from Washington who came to watch the solders fight like it was a merely a big social event speaks volumes.

 

[2DaveWixon]

Most wars start with one side (at least) being sure they'll win it in short order. (Nazi Germany was almost right.)

All recent U.S. wars seem to fall into that category... Trump will, too.

 

[reiver33]

My appreciation of WW1 is that Germany wrote Austria-Hungary a 'blank cheque' in terms of military support when pressured by Russia, as the Reich embraced the idea of a war which would 'roll back' the frontiers. Germany achieved its war aims in 1917 with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which resulting in the independent Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, etc. - all of whom would 'appreciate' Western (ie German) support in case of a resurgent Soviet Union (stop me if this starts sounding familiar...). France was going to be a quick victory, as it had been in 1870-71, allowing the entire German army to concentrate against Russia before it had completed its mobilisation.

Great things, plans...