My article, "100 years ago today one man with a pistol set off World War I"
- Thread starter Trebor
- Start date
- Status
Madcap_Magician
Member
This is funny because it reminds me of my 9th grade American History class... my teacher told the class with a very straight face that Ferdinand had been assassinated by an "unknown Black Hand terrorist."
I kind of blurted out "What? The guy's name was Gavrilo Princip."
I never got called on in that class again.
I kind of blurted out "What? The guy's name was Gavrilo Princip."
I never got called on in that class again.
The US was the first to call for military intervention in Korea based on the idea that appeasement had failed miserably with Hitler and it shouldn't be tried again with Stalin. The Soviets weren't directly involved of course but they both armed the North Korean army and encouraged them to attack across the 38th parallel. The Russians also encouraged China to be ready to supply backup troops if they became needed. Truman was fearful that US intervention would drive a wedge between the US and the NATO countries in Europe. The Soviets were also boycotting the UN at the time (because of Taiwan having the security council veto instead of the Chinese mainland) so the UN was able to vote to enter the war to support the US. But there is no doubt that the US instigated the UN involvement, they led the way, and they set the rules of engagement with the UN rubberstamping the US methods because of not wanting Soviet aggression in Europe. Just as an example of how things went in Korea for the UN allies the US lost 29,500 soldiers. The second most deaths from a UN country was GB which had just over 1,000 dead. Most UN countries had deaths numbering under 400 per country. It was a US effort. It was a Truman effort really and he called the shots.
The upshot of all this was that we are still facing off with the Russians 60 years later and we are no closer to defeating them or making them an ally. They are still aggressive even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I often wonder if that wasn't just another Russian strategic withdrawl to gain time to build their forces. They did that in both world wars and it worked extremely well especially in WWII. Hitler thought he had the Russians defeated even while his forces were held in check at Stalingrad. In the spring after the battle of Stalingrad the Russians suddenly had a massive number of new tanks and other armaments. They started slaughtering Germans after that. The Russians are a country that has always played chess while everyone else was playing checkers. I don't trust them and I never have. And Truman backed down in the face of their aggression IMO. He thought he could negotiate peace. Isn't that what Obozo thought when he was elected? How well does it work? The Russians only understand victory or defeat. MacArthur tried to get that across to Truman but Harry wouldn't listen and we are still paying the price. Yes he might have risked WWIII but in fact it was the Russians who provoked that potential war. In most times nations would take a massive assault on their forces as a sign that a war was going on. Yet Truman never even called the fighting in Korea a war. He didn't save us from conflict. He actually did a lot to make sure we would eventually lose a conflict with the Russians. Sorry but I think that was one of the biggest monuments to stupidity ever created. It may end civilization as we know it. Who here thinks Putin will stop his aggression in the Ukraine and not continue on to other areas? We had the world by the nads and we failed to do the right thing which was to dominate. Yeah I know it isn't PC to think that way but I just see that as a less violent way of doing things. But given the state of our country now I'm not at all sure we were fit to lead after all. At one time I thought we would have been. Now I have my doubts because of the blame America first types.
Vincent Price
Member
While that sentence is true it is absolutely misleading. Because that sentence is also true for all other major participants. All powers were looking to expand and had therefore been itching for a war for years. The reason why history makes Wilhelm responsible (or rather gives him 100% responsibility) for all the evils of ww1 is simply that Germany turned out to be the driving force of the middle powers and ultimately made the mistake of losing the war.
I don't like to call him evil. Yes he was a power hungry ruthless egomaniac but not more than say Nicholas II. By today's standards we would call that evil but in the context of his time he wasn't so extraordinary. Back then heads of state simply didn't see much wrong with slaughtering some soldiers for a piece of land and some more power.
50% of his perceived evilness I dare say is added by the "victor writes the history books" factor.
The problem with Willhelm II. was not his lust for power, colonies and expansion. It was more his raging minority complex and dull wittedness. Most heads of state could politic circles around Wilhelm II.
It's also quite naive to make him responsible for ww2. Nobody forced the Entente powers to try to break Germany's neck once and for all by the extreme conditions of the Versailles treaties. It was clear that conditions like that could only end in civil war and instability.
But also nobody forced the German majority of the following Weimar republic to laugh at democracy and fall for the fascist populism.
European (and I suppose all) History is too complex for such comfortable black and white verdicts.
And reminded me of 9th grade English class... perhaps those pistols would have been "nearly new"?
Carl N. Brown
Member
Two things I recall from this.
For years, the pistol used was misidentified in many references as a FN Model 1900 when in fact the gun later put on display was correctly an FN 1910.
Several naval history books credited/blamed WWI on the naval arms race 1890-1914 as Germany built up a high-seas fleet of battleships to rival Britain, in response Britain introduced the all-big gun HMS Dreadnaught (from four main guns to ten) making the pre-Dreadnaughts obsolete, other navies responded.
I think the arms, whether pistols or battleships, were the result of the causes, rather than causes themselves.
For years, the pistol used was misidentified in many references as a FN Model 1900 when in fact the gun later put on display was correctly an FN 1910.
Several naval history books credited/blamed WWI on the naval arms race 1890-1914 as Germany built up a high-seas fleet of battleships to rival Britain, in response Britain introduced the all-big gun HMS Dreadnaught (from four main guns to ten) making the pre-Dreadnaughts obsolete, other navies responded.
I think the arms, whether pistols or battleships, were the result of the causes, rather than causes themselves.
Tommygunn
Member
☺Cee Zee said:
Truman ought to have done a better job calling the shots.
The U.N. telegraphed so many of them to the enemy it's a wonder we wound up with a stalemate and a "truce" for the past 61 years.
A LOT of things got mucked up there -- and in Vietnam as well.
I think the U.N. involved itself enough in the war to prevent us from fighting it the way we fought WW2. Just my 2¢.
I don't doubt the European nations were scared of a war with the country that thrashed the Germans. Yes we all fought too but the Russians carried the bulk of the war in Europe. I'm not taking anything away from our soldiers there. It's just true that Russia did the bulk of the German killing.
But Truman actively sought the help of the UN so those Euro nations wouldn't end up seeing the US as a threat too. He didn't want to go it alone because he didn't want to alienate the former allies. He knew they would see him as antagonizing the Russians but that was a flawed way of thinking IMO. It was the Russians that were pushing the envelope. They would have had the blood of WWIII on their hands. The thing is we could have quickly ended WWIII if we had the guts to do it. It would have been terrible and I know why it wasn't done. But I have to wonder if Mac's plan to nuke the North Korean army wouldn't have been the way to say to the world "we're in charge now". I know the risks of that. But the thing is we haven't done any better by delaying the inevitable. We will eventually fight the Russians. It very nearly happened in the early 60's. If we had a president with cahones we might be fighting them right now. They are an aggressive country and they won't ever be happy playing second fiddle to the US. The people there are incredibly easy to lead around by the nose too. I know people that moved there after the fall of the SU and it's incredible the amount of bunk they are willing to swallow in the form of propaganda. They are still paranoid about wars and who can blame them after the 2 big ones of the last century. But still they are willing to go too far and they have been for almost 100 years. We are coming up on another anniversary. The Russian Revolution started in Feb., 1917. The menace of communism has killed more humans than anything else mad has done in history. And our president's buddy ("This is my last election . After my election I have more flexibility.") is a product of the KGB and as such he still thinks like a commie. He's proven that. Truman didn't prevent WWIII. He just made sure it would be worse.
My mention of Truman had to do with the way he whipped Battery D, 129th Field Artillery, 60th Brigade, 35th Infantry Division into shape in WWI.
Students of history will note two things:
Students of history will note two things:
- Truman had to consider how to prevent the USSR from taking Berlin and how to hold off the army of he People's Republic of China in Asia;
- The terms of the armistice in Korea were settled under the Eisenhower administration.
Snejdarek
Member
Gavrilo decided the faith of Austria-Hungary by pushing the trigger. Habsburgs missed all the chances to federalize the country that rose up between 1848 and 1914, and their response to any political opposition after the assassination was handing of execution orders (though the performance was stayed). It took them two years to understand that this had exactly the opposite effect to what they wanted to achieve, but by that time any proposals for federalization were too little, too late.
His contribution to the break-up of the "prison of the nations" is very warmly remembered in the Czech Republic even today.
His contribution to the break-up of the "prison of the nations" is very warmly remembered in the Czech Republic even today.
I would count the way he kept Russia from gaining a sphere of influence in Japan after the war as one of his greatest accomplishments. The Russians felt entitled to share in the "spoils" and of course Truman and Mac had entirely different plans for Japan. He didn't want Japan to be a festering sore waiting to erupt like Germany was after the first world war. It was clear thinking on Truman's part there. Of course that had a lot to do with why the Russians wanted to take Korea into their dominion too. But that was on Russia. Truman did the right thing keeping the Russians out of Japan but IMO he didn't do enough to stifle their aggression in the east Asia areas. Yes he went to war to stop them but he tried to negotiate a way to stop Russia. They were back at it again 10 years later helping Vietnam to overthrow their western style government. I know France wasn't exactly well liked in that country and for good reason. But that's France for you. They were still thinking in 19th century terms of empire. Remember at the same time GB was pulling out of India reducing their role as a world empire. France was back trying to expand that role. Still it was in our best interest to keep the Russians from dominating east Asia. We succeeded to an extent but the battle really remains to be fought. I think we'll see that battle before too many more years roll around. I think Israel against the Muslims with the Russians siding with the Muslims along with the Chinese will bring this world into a war for which we have never seen the likes. I also think there's a name for that battle already. It will be called Armageddon.
Tommygunn
Member
Just a minor point I'd like to respond to;
"The Russians carried the bulk of the war in europe." Well, I won't dispute that there IS truth in it, but the Russians also did the BULK OF THE DYING.
"You don't win a war by dying for your country; you win a war by making the other guy die for his," ~~ General George Patton (note: not an exact quote, it's been cleaned up for ... "high road" purposes).
If Hitler hadn't postponed "Operation Barbarossa" and sent his armies in quit unprepared for the savage Russian winter, the results might have been very different. As it was, battlelines sometimes went back and forth multiple times across one town/city, only further demolishing it. Early on, the Germans were often welcomed as "liberators" by the Russian people, putting flowers down the barrels of the German soldiers' rifles. The Russians would soon learn better, and indeed they did fight and die in awful numbers for their cause.
It's hard to really believe that anyone in europe would consider that the Soviets had "thrashed" the Nazi war machine. It seems to me more a case of stupid decisions by Hitler mixing with ruthless and barely competent leadership by Stalin somehow rising to the cause, just enough to prevail.
Snejdarek
Member
I don't think these were Russians anywhere, you need to distinguish other Soviet nations than Russian which went through quite pitiful history in the 1930s, especially Ukrainians. Millions of them were starved off in 1930s despite living in the most fertile country in Europe. Then Estonians... I could go on and on, but I don't think that Russians would fit the list.
I am myself from area of Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic) that was first occupied by Poland in 1938 - that is when Poland was still on side of Germany and thought it can buy its safety by supporting aggressive German policy towards Czechoslovakia (despite the quite obvious Hitler's speeches about conquering the "lebensraum" - living room in the east of Germany). The Polish authorities considered all locals unreliable, so they even replaced local Poles that held offices by those brought from within Poland. For the Polish army, it was free for all, the soldiers were behaving more like in medieval ages - raping and pillaging. So yes, in 1939 even local Poles welcomed the "Ordnung" - order that came with German occupation. Surely, it wasn't much longer before they knew better, but the pattern was probably similar in other Soviet states.
Johannes_Paulsen
Member
@ VincentPrice & TRX
While Wilhelm was head of state, it's important to remember that he was essentially a figurehead for the planning and execution of war strategy. Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg were essentially running the German empire as a military dictatorship, and were the ones who agreed to allow safe passage of Lenin and his ilk to Russia so that they could knock Russia out of the war.
It gets even worse. When it was clear that the war was lost, they resigned and let the democratically-elected Reichstag take over to arrange the surrender. So they promoted the (false) idea that it was "Jewish socialists" who stabbed Germany in the back by surrendering prematurely. In fact, the war was lost, and with American troops arriving in greater numbers in France, it was just a matter of time before the Allies would drive into Germany in force.
Later, Ludendorff participated in two attempted coups, one of which started in a Beer Hall in Munich led by Adolf Hitler.
As for von Hindenburg, he went on to become President of Germany, and was the one who appointed Hitler Chancellor.
I've no brief for Kaiser Bill, but I've always had the sense that he was a weak man who was in over his head. And once it was done, he at least had the decency to stay out of Germany.
While Wilhelm was head of state, it's important to remember that he was essentially a figurehead for the planning and execution of war strategy. Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg were essentially running the German empire as a military dictatorship, and were the ones who agreed to allow safe passage of Lenin and his ilk to Russia so that they could knock Russia out of the war.
It gets even worse. When it was clear that the war was lost, they resigned and let the democratically-elected Reichstag take over to arrange the surrender. So they promoted the (false) idea that it was "Jewish socialists" who stabbed Germany in the back by surrendering prematurely. In fact, the war was lost, and with American troops arriving in greater numbers in France, it was just a matter of time before the Allies would drive into Germany in force.
Later, Ludendorff participated in two attempted coups, one of which started in a Beer Hall in Munich led by Adolf Hitler.
As for von Hindenburg, he went on to become President of Germany, and was the one who appointed Hitler Chancellor.
I've no brief for Kaiser Bill, but I've always had the sense that he was a weak man who was in over his head. And once it was done, he at least had the decency to stay out of Germany.
Sheepdog1968
Member
I caught a Paul Harvey "rest of the story" radio broad cast about 8 years ago. Turns out the procession of cars had intel that assignation attempt was planned. They had changed the route and were to turn right instead of left. The one car that didn't make the new change in direction was the one with the archduke in it. The assignation happened and so did wWWI. Turns out nobody bothered to communicate to the driver if that car that there was a change in the driving route. Small miscommunications can have grave consequences.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
It really doesn't matter what non-ideal war strategy Hitler was pushing, history quite clearly shows that Russia was the rock onto which the German wave crashed. That Hitler could have beaten them with some better choices (not to mention the Russians could have done much better with some different choices of their own) does not detract from the historical record showing that the Eastern front was the factor that finally used up Germany's operating military capital, and started forcing them to use reserves ever faster (obviously Africa and resistance from remaining Euro holdouts on the defensive helped, but Germany was firmly in a position to solidify their gains ahead of the Americans until they got distracted chasing bears). History also shows this was a primary factor for how rapidly our friendly relations with Russia soured; it was mostly due to the fact that our influences were butting up with each other in Europe, but was also promoted by justifiable feelings of betrayal by Russian leadership under the impression our assistance was coming sooner than it ultimately did (IIRC, at least one of the Yalta conferences was centered around exactly this, but it has been a while since I read up on that
)TCB
Tommygunn
Member
Well, Barnbwt, yes, that is true .... I was just saying however the Russkies did it it wasn't by dint of their supergenius military leadership, is all.
The Nazis for their part had the experience of Napoleon Bonaparte and his experience to learn from ...did they? I sorta don't get that impression ......
The Nazis for their part had the experience of Napoleon Bonaparte and his experience to learn from ...did they? I sorta don't get that impression ......
The difference being a wave is propelled by inertia and has no choice when or where to crash upon the rock, armies are led by humans who do have that choice, and theoretically ought to take into account various conditions and factors .... for it's when they don't it's when they become the clueless wave crashing down upon the rock ....Barnbwt said:
I don't recall saying that the Russians won by a "supergenius military leadership". In fact the Russian army was severely hindered by Stalin's great military purge of 1937 when almost all of the top ranking military personnel were either killed or put in gulags. Still there was the one move made by the Russians that did have a significant affect on the war. They fell back to the Urals and regrouped. It wasn't exactly a new strategy for the Russians. Like others have mentioned the let the Russian winter defeat Napoleon and they were in the process of doing the same thing in WWI when the revolution altered everything about Russia at the time. It wasn't a particularly inspired move the the Soviets because it was a proven strategy at the time. The stupidity of the little corporal was what sealed the fate of the Germans. Seems fitting to me. But they did do the right things in building a great many tanks and then surrounding the German forces at Stalingrad and thereby defeating the mighty German 6th army which had so dominated Europe early in the war. It was a stifling blow to German morale especially considering the way Hitler refused to let that army surrender or retreat. Maniacs tend to do insane things when you give them a nation to play with.
Still my original point was just that the Russians held up their end of the war and they did make some key moves that made them look a lot smarter than they were because Hitler was just so danged stupid. But there's no doubt that the Russians played their hand very effectively after WWII. Their sphere of influence was huge and they were doing fairly well at making it bigger for a while. We still have that island thorn on our southern flank for example. It very nearly became the staging ground for our demise. Only key moves by (previously bungling) Kennedy administration prevented the almost instant attack on our major cities that would have come from Cuba. I remember that day all too well. I was sitting on the school bus waiting for the order to take us home. I had a lot of company that understood what was going on far more than me with my first grade level of thinking. Still I could sense the terror in the eyes of the older kids and the adults. It was something I've never seen since even after 9/11. Truman's limited war policy very nearly ended the USA that day and I have to give Jack Kennedy the credit for making the Russians crack. Maybe that ordeal we all went through gives you an idea why I have big problems with limited war. I never quite got over that day. I don't think anyone should actually.
Tommygunn
Member
Barnbwt said:
I was in gradeschool during the Cuban Missile Crisis and also remember it fairly well. I give credit to my father and his level-headedness for keeping us from going sideways from the anxiety of times.
Kennedy sure "pulled a rabbit outta his hat" on that -- looking back at his administration I am not sure I'd have thought him able to handle such a thing after the idiotic Bay of Pigs fiasco, but Kennedy kept the Curtis LeMay types at heel and played his hand unusually well and prevented a endtimes event.
That had a lot to do with why everyone was freaked out so bad. Kennedy had totally bungled that whole operation and no one had any confidence in his leadership ability at the point the missile crisis happened. I didn't really understand that at the time because the Bay Of Pigs was totally before my time. I just knew I saw a lot of seriously worried faces and I know what people have said later on about the situation. Luckily for the fate of man JFK did pull that rabbit out of some place. It was a brilliant move from a guy who had been at a complete loss up to that point. I think a lot of it was that he stopped listening to his security council and did what he knew was right. You're right about LeMay. If he had been in charge the whole planet would look like it came out of a Kingsford charcoal bag.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
And if memory serves, France lost around 90% of its fighting-age generation during this period; the main reason I don't fault them for not 'putting up a bigger fight' a scant few decades later. It's something that not enough Americans are aware of when they throw out all that stupid 'surrender monkey' garbage. America is the fortunate/spoiled nation that's never had to truly risk the home front before (obviously a lot of that had to do with us intentionally fighting battles 'there' before they came 'here'). All we have to do is stay focused long enough, and we basically win by default . Easier said than done, though
I've not run the numbers on the Soviets, but between WWI, the Winter War with Finland, WWII, and subsequent purges, it's horrifying to think of how much life was spent on their misadventure. The ethnic Russians have practically genocided themselves into extinction. They'd probably own Europe if not Asia as well by now, if they'd managed to remain neutral or otherwise unscathed through all that (but obviously it's hard to ignore the 800lb bear in the room, and equally hard to avoid fighting everything else when you're the 800 bear)
TCB
. Easier said than done, though I've not run the numbers on the Soviets, but between WWI, the Winter War with Finland, WWII, and subsequent purges, it's horrifying to think of how much life was spent on their misadventure. The ethnic Russians have practically genocided themselves into extinction. They'd probably own Europe if not Asia as well by now, if they'd managed to remain neutral or otherwise unscathed through all that (but obviously it's hard to ignore the 800lb bear in the room, and equally hard to avoid fighting everything else when you're the 800 bear)
TCB
Tommygunn
Member
Well, he French really didn't all surrender -- better deployment of their resources, better decisions by their generals, and the Nazis might have had a far far rougher time of it. They did have a good war machine they just didn't use it very well.
And let's not forget the fifth column -- those who worked underground, the "John has a long mustache" types who kept the war going behind the scenes and provided a lot of help for D-day.
And let's not forget the fifth column -- those who worked underground, the "John has a long mustache" types who kept the war going behind the scenes and provided a lot of help for D-day.
- Status
