Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine summarized the passing of the ww1 generation based on his memories of the local Veteran's Day parade. First they marched, then they rode and then they were gone. I've watched the same process with WW2 vets that march in our local parade. We still have one Korean war vet who walks but even some of the early years Vietnam vets are starting to grab seats on the golf cart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Google Arts and Culture has set up this page commemorating the Armistice there are a ton of links pictures and articles.

 

https://artsandculture.google.com/project/first-world-war?fbclid=IwAR1azHLeNvBt8PsiyASTTLK5rcsY_64QnPa4Bmx0hhVMFlOvcfP2QjM-Vn0

Edited by Harold Jones
Link to post
Share on other sites

Google Arts and Culture has set up this page commemorating the Armistice there are a ton of links pictures and articles.

 

https://artsandculture.google.com/project/first-world-war?fbclid=IwAR1azHLeNvBt8PsiyASTTLK5rcsY_64QnPa4Bmx0hhVMFlOvcfP2QjM-Vn0

 

very anglo-american it looks like.

 

 

There are quite a few small memorials for WW1 scattered around germany. Like on small town and village squares. My school has a stained glass window with the names of fallen pupils from the school.

 

 

 

In Germany we had the revolting navy sailors at the end of the war, the monarchs abdicating, various council republics springing up,... so a very different memory. Mostly the chaos that followed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple:

 

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them."

 

Lest we forget

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

A war we should never have gotten involved in, and is the root cause of most of the worlds problems today.

 

A WW1 without the US would have created even more problems. Germany and Austria would have collapsed as foodstuffs ran out, but given the British and French were wasted, the end of the war would have taken even longer, say 1920, so it would have also overlapped the flu epidemic, killing even more people.

 

As Austria fragmented and with the vengeful UK/French entente negotiating peace, the Balkans would still become a powder keg. Poland would have risen from the death and that aggravates both Russia and Germany, same with the Baltics and Finland, and Japan would still feel left out in the final settlement. Italy possibly may have gotten its maximalists aims, but getting them and managing them are 2 different things. Turkey would have imploded and gotten invaded and then liberated just the same.

 

In the end, having the US in didn't make a lot of difference in the peace settlement so WW2 would still happen and likely it would involve the US no matter how you cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The British Empire would have won anyway, agreed taking much longer and with greater cost. But I think that overlooks the idea that none of the problems that existed today would not still have existed. There would still have been Communists, there would still quite possibly have been Nazi's, there would still have been Islamic Jihadism. In fact, we may have seen Europe further weakened and overrun by communism in the wake of the 1919 war between Poland and Russia. Which would still likely have happened, because the Poles were not going to suddenly stop wanting a nation. The difference is, they would have less material support from France, and the domino theory would have gone into action about 25 years before it was became a household name. Poland would certainly have gone under. Maybe Austria would have gone under. Maybe even Germany.

 

Besides, looking at the rise of American seapower, the idea that it was WW1 that caused America to break out of its shell is quite easily disproved. Does nobody remember the Spanish American War of 1904? That was America embarking on the world stage, not 1917. All that 1917 changed was that America was willing to work with European allies, which proved of inestimable importance in WW2. America was already rising, and already wanted its place on the world stage. WW1 was just a convenient place to start.

 

America's presence on the world stage has mattered. Its saved lived, preserved democracy, created a great framework of international order. These are not trivialities, and they are worth far more than accountants would estimate in what they cost. I greatly respect it, even if American's seemingly dont.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

The British Empire would have won anyway, agreed taking much longer and with greater cost. But I think that overlooks the idea that none of the problems that existed today would not still have existed. There would still have been Communists, there would still quite possibly have been Nazi's, there would still have been Islamic Jihadism. In fact, we may have seen Europe further weakened and overrun by communism in the wake of the 1919 war between Poland and Russia. Which would still likely have happened, because the Poles were not going to suddenly stop wanting a nation. The difference is, they would have less material support from France, and the domino theory would have gone into action about 25 years before it was became a household name. Poland would certainly have gone under. Maybe Austria would have gone under. Maybe even Germany.

 

Besides, looking at the rise of American seapower, the idea that it was WW1 that caused America to break out of its shell is quite easily disproved. Does nobody remember the Spanish American War of 1904? That was America embarking on the world stage, not 1917. All that 1917 changed was that America was willing to work with European allies, which proved of inestimable importance in WW2. America was already rising, and already wanted its place on the world stage. WW1 was just a convenient place to start.

 

America's presence on the world stage has mattered. Its saved lived, preserved democracy, created a great framework of international order. These are not trivialities, and they are worth far more than accountants would estimate in what they cost. I greatly respect it, even if American's seemingly dont.

In reference to the bold highlighted above. The Spanish-American War was in 1898.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The British Empire would have won anyway, agreed taking much longer and with greater cost. But I think that overlooks the idea that none of the problems that existed today would not still have existed. There would still have been Communists, there would still quite possibly have been Nazi's, there would still have been Islamic Jihadism. In fact, we may have seen Europe further weakened and overrun by communism in the wake of the 1919 war between Poland and Russia. Which would still likely have happened, because the Poles were not going to suddenly stop wanting a nation. The difference is, they would have less material support from France, and the domino theory would have gone into action about 25 years before it was became a household name. Poland would certainly have gone under. Maybe Austria would have gone under. Maybe even Germany.

 

Besides, looking at the rise of American seapower, the idea that it was WW1 that caused America to break out of its shell is quite easily disproved. Does nobody remember the Spanish American War of 1904? That was America embarking on the world stage, not 1917. All that 1917 changed was that America was willing to work with European allies, which proved of inestimable importance in WW2. America was already rising, and already wanted its place on the world stage. WW1 was just a convenient place to start.

 

America's presence on the world stage has mattered. Its saved lived, preserved democracy, created a great framework of international order. These are not trivialities, and they are worth far more than accountants would estimate in what they cost. I greatly respect it, even if American's seemingly dont.

In reference to the bold highlighted above. The Spanish-American War was in 1898.

 

 

My bad, and I have no excuse. Ill stand by the rest however.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The British Empire would have won anyway, agreed taking much longer and with greater cost. But I think that overlooks the idea that none of the problems that existed today would not still have existed. There would still have been Communists, there would still quite possibly have been Nazi's, there would still have been Islamic Jihadism. In fact, we may have seen Europe further weakened and overrun by communism in the wake of the 1919 war between Poland and Russia. Which would still likely have happened, because the Poles were not going to suddenly stop wanting a nation. The difference is, they would have less material support from France, and the domino theory would have gone into action about 25 years before it was became a household name. Poland would certainly have gone under. Maybe Austria would have gone under. Maybe even Germany.

 

Besides, looking at the rise of American seapower, the idea that it was WW1 that caused America to break out of its shell is quite easily disproved. Does nobody remember the Spanish American War of 1904? That was America embarking on the world stage, not 1917. All that 1917 changed was that America was willing to work with European allies, which proved of inestimable importance in WW2. America was already rising, and already wanted its place on the world stage. WW1 was just a convenient place to start.

 

America's presence on the world stage has mattered. Its saved lived, preserved democracy, created a great framework of international order. These are not trivialities, and they are worth far more than accountants would estimate in what they cost. I greatly respect it, even if American's seemingly dont.

In reference to the bold highlighted above. The Spanish-American War was in 1898.

 

 

My bad, and I have no excuse. Ill strand by the rest however.

 

 

I would say that the USA took a turn onto the world stage with the Treaty of Portsmouth (that is Portsmouth New Hampshire, nor Portsmouth UK). to settle the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, which was where the 1904 came from.

 

It could also be considered that the USN versus the Barbary pirates in 1801-1805 would tend to demonstrate that the USA was willing to deal with problems on the other side of the Atlantic at an early stage.

 

The Zimmerman Telegram is also oft forgot. An official cable that showed that Germany was willing to get involved in North American affairs, at a time when the US had a very small army and was obviously isolationist. Well isolation is fine so long as no one is going to come knocking very loudly on your door.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Russia and the USA had a special relationship as early as 1861,

 

wiki

 

During the winter of 1861–1862, the Imperial Russian Navy sent two fleets to American waters to avoid their getting trapped if a war broke out with Britain and France. Many Americans at the time viewed this as an intervention on behalf of the Union, though historians deny this.[17] The Alexander Nevsky and the other vessels of the Atlantic squadron stayed in American waters for seven months (September 1863 to June 1864).[18]

 

but also see

 

https://www.rbth.com/arts/2013/09/12/when_the_russian_navy_sailed_into_new_york_29761.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The British Empire would have won anyway, agreed taking much longer and with greater cost. But I think that overlooks the idea that none of the problems that existed today would not still have existed. There would still have been Communists, there would still quite possibly have been Nazi's, there would still have been Islamic Jihadism. In fact, we may have seen Europe further weakened and overrun by communism in the wake of the 1919 war between Poland and Russia. Which would still likely have happened, because the Poles were not going to suddenly stop wanting a nation. The difference is, they would have less material support from France, and the domino theory would have gone into action about 25 years before it was became a household name. Poland would certainly have gone under. Maybe Austria would have gone under. Maybe even Germany.

 

Besides, looking at the rise of American seapower, the idea that it was WW1 that caused America to break out of its shell is quite easily disproved. Does nobody remember the Spanish American War of 1904? That was America embarking on the world stage, not 1917. All that 1917 changed was that America was willing to work with European allies, which proved of inestimable importance in WW2. America was already rising, and already wanted its place on the world stage. WW1 was just a convenient place to start.

 

America's presence on the world stage has mattered. Its saved lived, preserved democracy, created a great framework of international order. These are not trivialities, and they are worth far more than accountants would estimate in what they cost. I greatly respect it, even if American's seemingly dont.

In reference to the bold highlighted above. The Spanish-American War was in 1898.

 

 

My bad, and I have no excuse. Ill strand by the rest however.

 

 

I would say that the USA took a turn onto the world stage with the Treaty of Portsmouth (that is Portsmouth New Hampshire, nor Portsmouth UK). to settle the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, which was where the 1904 came from.

 

It could also be considered that the USN versus the Barbary pirates in 1801-1805 would tend to demonstrate that the USA was willing to deal with problems on the other side of the Atlantic at an early stage.

 

The Zimmerman Telegram is also oft forgot. An official cable that showed that Germany was willing to get involved in North American affairs, at a time when the US had a very small army and was obviously isolationist. Well isolation is fine so long as no one is going to come knocking very loudly on your door.

 

 

There was I recall a plan found in the Kaisers archives for an Invasion of North America. Whimsical perhaps, but it illustrates that the US might not remain isolated from the problem of German Militarism. Nobody else was.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

1853 Tokyo Bay US Black Ships

1856 US vs Qing Battle of Barrier Forts

1900 Boxer rebellion participation

Early 1900s before WW1 colonization of the Philippines

 

Neither of those engaged a major power of the time. The Spanish-American War of 1898 is the first time the US comes in direct conflict with a European power involving seizure of territory and expanding beyond the current US borders, the the Venezuelan crisis of 1902-03, when the US told the Germans to pull back, the Treaty of Portsmouth, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1853 Tokyo Bay US Black Ships

1856 US vs Qing Battle of Barrier Forts

1900 Boxer rebellion participation

Early 1900s before WW1 colonization of the Philippines

 

Neither of those engaged a major power of the time. The Spanish-American War of 1898 is the first time the US comes in direct conflict with a European power involving seizure of territory and expanding beyond the current US borders, the the Venezuelan crisis of 1902-03, when the US told the Germans to pull back, the Treaty of Portsmouth, etc.

That's besides the point. Maybe not in a shooting match with one of the major powers but certainly competed with them in imperialism, the Philippines being an example of going the whole 9 yards. The main point is that WW1 was not the point when the US, on a basis of an idealism of sorts, decided to venture out into the big world of global competition. The US was sure to get a share among other competing powers. Plenty of other big European powers didn't fight each other either (post Nepolean at least) such as the UK and France but that didn't mean the two didn't compete with each other in Africa, the ME, and Indochina (where Siam managed to balance the two against each other). If the US was not interested in big power competition, then they wouldn't have gone as far as fighting and trying to set up enterprises in the China land mass or thouroughly colonizing the Philippines.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1853 Tokyo Bay US Black Ships

1856 US vs Qing Battle of Barrier Forts

1900 Boxer rebellion participation

Early 1900s before WW1 colonization of the Philippines

Neither of those engaged a major power of the time. The Spanish-American War of 1898 is the first time the US comes in direct conflict with a European power involving seizure of territory and expanding beyond the current US borders, the the Venezuelan crisis of 1902-03, when the US told the Germans to pull back, the Treaty of Portsmouth, etc.

That's besides the point. Maybe not in a shooting match with one of the major powers but certainly competed with them in imperialism, the Philippines being an example of going the whole 9 yards. The main point is that WW1 was not the point when the US, on a basis of an idealism of sorts, decided to venture out into the big world of global competition. The US was sure to get a share among other competing powers. Plenty of other big European powers didn't fight each other either (post Nepolean at least) such as the UK and France but that didn't mean the two didn't compete with each other in Africa, the ME, and Indochina (where Siam managed to balance the two against each other). If the US was not interested in big power competition, then they wouldn't have gone as far as fighting and trying to set up enterprises in the China land mass or thouroughly colonizing the Philippines.

 

 

If you believe so, then you need to read a bit on the War of 1812 and the Madison doctrine. Or the Mexican-American war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1853 Tokyo Bay US Black Ships

1856 US vs Qing Battle of Barrier Forts

1900 Boxer rebellion participation

Early 1900s before WW1 colonization of the Philippines

Neither of those engaged a major power of the time. The Spanish-American War of 1898 is the first time the US comes in direct conflict with a European power involving seizure of territory and expanding beyond the current US borders, the the Venezuelan crisis of 1902-03, when the US told the Germans to pull back, the Treaty of Portsmouth, etc.

That's besides the point. Maybe not in a shooting match with one of the major powers but certainly competed with them in imperialism, the Philippines being an example of going the whole 9 yards. The main point is that WW1 was not the point when the US, on a basis of an idealism of sorts, decided to venture out into the big world of global competition. The US was sure to get a share among other competing powers. Plenty of other big European powers didn't fight each other either (post Nepolean at least) such as the UK and France but that didn't mean the two didn't compete with each other in Africa, the ME, and Indochina (where Siam managed to balance the two against each other). If the US was not interested in big power competition, then they wouldn't have gone as far as fighting and trying to set up enterprises in the China land mass or thouroughly colonizing the Philippines.

 

 

I do not know if the term 'the full nine yards' would apply. 27 feet - nine yards - was the length of a belt of ammunition for a USAAF WW2 fighter - giving a target the full nine yards implies emptying your guns at the target. So prior to 1942, the term really does not apply.

 

Now, if you are referring to American Football - going ten yards gets you a first down: the chance to give your opponent another blow whilst they are on the defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A war we should never have gotten involved in, and is the root cause of most of the worlds problems today.

GB would have won the war in 1919 anyway.

 

 

If the Entente had decided to fight on. But with the knowledge that a million or so fresh US troops won't come, while the still intact Germany army holds a strong position and get's stronger thanks to the war ending in the east negotiations might have happend.

 

Re: The Spanish flu. Didn't that come with the troops from the USA? No US Dow - no global flu pandemic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...