The battle of the Somme. Tens of thousands (!) of brits and French went over the top and never came back. Just astonishing that men fought wars that way.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/europe/gallery/battle-of-the-somme-100th-anniversary/index.html
The battle of the Somme. Tens of thousands (!) of brits and French went over the top and never came back. Just astonishing that men fought wars that way.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/europe/gallery/battle-of-the-somme-100th-anniversary/index.html
WWI was a brutal horror, because it was a conflict fought with historic strategy and tactics using modern weapons. And the vast majority of poor unfortunates, both military and civilian, were caught in between.
. . . and Canadians and Newfoundlanders (they weren't part of Canada then).
The Newfoundland and Labrador Regiment went over the top on July 1 with 800 men. On July 2, 56 answered roll call.
Wwi is/was an interesting case study. The last "honorable" war. The first with modern machines that our soldiers today would have recognized.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
Please explain what you mean by honorable.
WW1 is the greatest waste of human life in history. Yet I can't help but be fascinated by it.
T.J. wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Please explain what you mean by honorable.
I'll take a shot at it - it was fought by soldiers while trying to limit the damage to the general population.
Keith Tanner wrote:T.J. wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Please explain what you mean by honorable.I'll take a shot at it - it was fought by soldiers while trying to limit the damage to the general population.
I'll go the other direction- it started due to an apparent dishonor to a Royal. So all the royalty in charge had to stand up for their honor.
And at the start of the war- that "honor" was used to talk people into thinking it was a good idea.
Then it quickly turned into Hell.
alfadriver wrote:Keith Tanner wrote:I'll go the other direction- it started due to an apparent dishonor to a Royal. So all the royalty in charge had to stand up for their honor. And at the start of the war- that "honor" was used to talk people into thinking it was a good idea. Then it quickly turned into Hell.T.J. wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Please explain what you mean by honorable.I'll take a shot at it - it was fought by soldiers while trying to limit the damage to the general population.
Well, when you murder someone it goes a bit beyond "apparent dishonor". The spark that lit the fuse may have been the assassination of Ferdinand, but the ethnic tensions had been brewing for a while in that part of the world. From there, it was a matter of alliances falling into place against each other, including family members. King Edward, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nichoas were cousins and grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
I would agree with Alpha on this one. There may have been cases of "honor" in the fighting (e.g. Christmas truce) but the reason for the war and the obscene abuse of life (e.g. Gallipoli, nerve gas) was so absurd I could not call in honorable.
If you want to see an interesting movie on a somewhat lesser know aspect of WWI (sappers), it's on YouTube:
Tom_Spangler wrote:alfadriver wrote:Well, when you murder someone it goes a bit beyond "apparent dishonor". The spark that lit the fuse may have been the assassination of Ferdinand, but the ethnic tensions had been brewing for a while in that part of the world. From there, it was a matter of alliances falling into place against each other, including family members. King Edward, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nichoas were cousins and grandchildren of Queen Victoria.Keith Tanner wrote:I'll go the other direction- it started due to an apparent dishonor to a Royal. So all the royalty in charge had to stand up for their honor. And at the start of the war- that "honor" was used to talk people into thinking it was a good idea. Then it quickly turned into Hell.T.J. wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Please explain what you mean by honorable.I'll take a shot at it - it was fought by soldiers while trying to limit the damage to the general population.
I realize that I was being simplistic. But given the scale it turned into, very quickly- that didn't have to happen due to an assassination. ESPECAILLY because of the actual relationship between the royals.
The only "good" result was the total collapse of a royalty based power structure. But that it a lot of people who had to die for that.
If you want to see a great explanation of the cause of WWI, take a look at 6:15 in this video. Then watch the whole video, it is VERY well done and rather entertaining (warning: it does have some NSFW language).
Tom_Spangler wrote:alfadriver wrote: I'll go the other direction- it started due to an apparent dishonor to a Royal. So all the royalty in charge had to stand up for their honor. And at the start of the war- that "honor" was used to talk people into thinking it was a good idea. Then it quickly turned into Hell.Well, when you murder someone it goes a bit beyond "apparent dishonor". The spark that lit the fuse may have been the assassination of Ferdinand, but the ethnic tensions had been brewing for a while in that part of the world. From there, it was a matter of alliances falling into place against each other, including family members. King Edward, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nichoas were cousins and grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
This. Europe had been preparing for war for a long time and was itching for an excuse. Most of them probably couldn't have given two E36 M3s over the Archduke, and from many accounts they were glad to be rid of him as he was problematic. But hey, now we got our reason for war, let's get to it!
The machine gun was supposed to stop such stupidity (according to its inventor Hiram Maxim).
spitfirebill wrote: The machine gun was supposed to stop such stupidity (according to its inventor Hiram Maxim).
Actually it was Dr. Gatling who said that when he invented the Gatling gun.
Like ghosts...
...awesome.
Basil Exposition wrote: Like ghosts... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/artists/why-have-first-world-war-soldiers-been-appearing-around-the-coun/
Knurled wrote:Tom_Spangler wrote:This. Europe had been preparing for war for a long time and was itching for an excuse. Most of them probably couldn't have given two E36 M3s over the Archduke, and from many accounts they were glad to be rid of him as he was problematic. But hey, now we got our reason for war, let's get to it!alfadriver wrote: I'll go the other direction- it started due to an apparent dishonor to a Royal. So all the royalty in charge had to stand up for their honor. And at the start of the war- that "honor" was used to talk people into thinking it was a good idea. Then it quickly turned into Hell.Well, when you murder someone it goes a bit beyond "apparent dishonor". The spark that lit the fuse may have been the assassination of Ferdinand, but the ethnic tensions had been brewing for a while in that part of the world. From there, it was a matter of alliances falling into place against each other, including family members. King Edward, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nichoas were cousins and grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
So it was war for the sake of war??
That's an even dumber reason.
In reply to alfadriver:
Yes, very dumb. The only real benefit is that it got so horrible that nobody felt too enthusiastic about having a war just for the hell of it, anymore.
Posted this to the hotlinked pictures thread. That's the Lochnagar Crater, the result of the big boom that started the battle.
Thanks for posting that earlier today, I looked the picture up out of interest and learned.
This was a bad day for Newfoundland.
You'll need to log in to post.
