In Remembrance

[BlackRat]

Currently in Gran Canaria…..was socialising over the last few days with some great German people, Spanish, French, Danish, Czech and Lithuanian.

 

The talk was lively, and there was a small discussion over my poppy.

 

We all had relatives who fought against each other, and I have become good friends with a German whose grandad and great granddad were ‘enemies,  with mine.

 

Like he said, the only reason they fought each other was because politicians had failed.

 

How much better he said, if they could have been sat like us and drinking a beer and laughing.

 

Having spent more than my share of my lifetime in the military, I can only concur.

 

So here’s to anyone, of any nationality, who paid the supreme sacrifice.

[Hroth]

My paternal grandmother lost a brother in 1916, my maternal grandmother lost a brother in 1918. I have a small box containing their death pennies, the commemorative scrolls and photographs of them taken before they left for France. The body of the brother who died in 1916 was never recovered; he is listed on the Thiepval memorial.

 

Our family was lucky in WW2.

 

My father never spoke about his part in WW2, he served with the RAF in India, I believe he volunteered as aircrew during the resupply of the beseiged forces in Burma.

 

War is horrible, but when someone wants to take something from you by lethal force, what else can be done?

 

My thoughts are with all those killed and injured in the folly of war.

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Hroth
Spelling, and a bit more

[PhilH]

Freedoms we enjoy are earned and fought for, not given freely. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and should never forget that.

[Colin_McLeod]

53 minutes ago, BlackRat said:

We all had relatives who fought against each other.......

 

.... the only reason they fought each other was because politicians had failed.

 

My father was in the RAF. My brother in law's father was in the German army. His tank convoy was bombed by RAF (Dad not involved in that operation).  He was taken POW and after the war settled in England, married a Scottish girl and their son married my sister. So my neice and nephew had grandfathers who fought on opposite sides in WW2.

[rockershovel]

A propos "outside aggressor", Britain's involvement in WW1 derived from a commitment to the defence of Belgium, which stemmed from an international system put in place following the Napoleonic Wars to keep the peace in Europe. This was largely successful, the main aggressor during that period being Prussia which fought a series of wars of acquisition against Austria, Denmark and France between 1864 and 1870. 

 

THAT led to a major violation of the Law of Unintended Consequences, as a system of Alliances grew up by which the now-united German Empire sought to consolidate its position, whilst the erstwhile Victor's of Waterloo sought to maintain the status quo. 

 

Britain allowed its military command to create de-facto alliance with France. None foresaw the ACTUAL German plan, to mobilise ALL reserves and maximise numbers. German aggression now dictated a violation of Belgian and Dutch neutrality, bringing the German Army into contact with the British Expeditionary Force (deployed at French insistence; the government had tried, too late to back out and settled for deploying the BEF where it was not expected to see action, and had its lines of retreat to the Channel ports open). 

 

But the hand of a long-dead Prussian would lay the Joker, outflanking the French and (contrary to German expectations) the BEF stood and fought....

[rockershovel]

By 1918 the Central European nations had been fought to a standstill, and surrendered; but the War simply changed its character. German troops held the Eastern front against the revolutionary chaos to the East; British, French, Czech, Finnish and other troops conducted sporadic, ineffectual operations around the fringes of the former Tsarist Empire until 1923. 

 

Germany coalesced into extreme nationalism. America withdrew into isolationism. China descended further into ungovernability. Japan, excluded from the 1919 Versailles Treaty, drew its own conclusions. The French reinforced their positions in Indo-China and North and West Africa. 

[rockershovel]

By the mid-1920s the Bolsheviks were pursuing the re-conquest of the collapsed Tsarist Empire. Germany made its peace with the nascent USSR and contributed materially to its military development. By the mid-1930s Japan was campaigning in Manchuria, towards the Russian border and down the Chinese coast; in the confused, multi-sided fighting that followed, a young Soviet officer called Zhukov would distinguish himself... America would build the greatest naval force ever seen in the Pacific, whilst vying with Britain and France in the New, oil-focussed politics arising from the collapse of Ottoman power in the ME. Germany involved itself in the Spanish Civil War. 

Edited November 13, 2022 by rockershovel

[D860 VICTORIOUS]

I've just watched a few minutes of the Cenotaph Ceremony,very moving.

In front of me now I have an official photo of my Dad's squadron,sat on and around a DH Mosquito.

I know he spent time in the Middle East during the war,and I'm guessing that is where the picture was taken.

I think I'm going to have a reflective day...

[ardbealach]

In the vein of all our reflective thoughts and memories on this Remembrance Sunday I would strongly recommend the paperback book 'Prisoners of Geography' by Tim Marshall  ISBN : 1-78396-243-3.   It is an easy read and sets out factually how our world geography has an impact on our world history and why wars happen.  He has also produced a similar second book 'The Power of Geography'.   (Alisdair)

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, ardbealach said:

In the vein of all our reflective thoughts and memories on this Remembrance Sunday I would strongly recommend the paperback book 'Prisoners of Geography' by Tim Marshall  ISBN : 1-78396-243-3.   It is an easy read and sets out factually how our world geography has an impact on our world history and why wars happen.  He has also produced a similar second book 'The Power of Geography'.   (Alisdair)

Geography has always been central to national identity and the competition for resources which leads to warfare. 

 

Jerusalem and Gaza have seen soldiers from Goliath and David, Caesar and Saladin, to Allenby and Antifa because of their location. 

 

The American Civil War was defined by its geography. 

 

European wars, the same. Look at the relative positions of Ypres, Waterloo, Agincourt and Crecy. 

[britishcolumbian]

Here's a photo of one of my great-grandfathers shortly before being sent off to the meat grinder that was the Russian front in 1916. Fortunately he didn't have to die for Frankie Joe.

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

5 hours ago, BlackRat said:

Currently in Gran Canaria…..was socialising over the last few days with some great German people, Spanish, French, Danish, Czech and Lithuanian.

 

The talk was lively, and there was a small discussion over my poppy.

 

We all had relatives who fought against each other, and I have become good friends with a German whose grandad and great granddad were ‘enemies,  with mine.

 

Like he said, the only reason they fought each other was because politicians had failed.

 

How much better he said, if they could have been sat like us and drinking a beer and laughing.

 

Having spent more than my share of my lifetime in the military, I can only concur.

 

So here’s to anyone, of any nationality, who paid the supreme sacrifice.

 

Agree whole heartedly.

 

Back around 2003 I attended the wedding in Germany of my wife's sister to a German engineer, great guy. Anyway at the do at night in a swank country residents I was talking to his father, who was a water distribution engineer. He told me one of his first jobs was to repair the very extensive damage to one of the dams that the RAF had blown up !!!. He later showed me a book, printed in German describing the Dam Busters raid a legendary event, even over there. Another guy from Copenhagen I got chatting with, he was not too happy at being there, being of Jewish descent. Don't worry I told him, we Brits still have the plans for the Lancaster Bomber. Well that was that, I had a few drinks and laughs with him !!

 

I agree that peoples do not go to war, leaders and politicians do. Lock em all up in a stadium and let them rip each other apart if they so wish, untelevised

 

Brit15

 

 

[jjb1970]

I think it's too easy to just blame politicians. Politicians are often weathervanes and reflect public opinion, particularly in Europe, the US and similar representative governments. War became much more brutal in the era of total war and the idea of a nation in arms due in no small part to the democratization of war. The Great war is an excellent example, all the combatants ended up as prisoners of societal demands that total war demands total victory and the old ways of diplomats working out a face-saving face to end it all was off the table as any politician suggesting it would have been removed from office and worse. Politicians tend to sow the seed and then reap the whirlwind by making the enemy into ogres, making war a cultural and existential struggle etc in which compromise is defeat, becoming prisoners of their own rhetoric. This is not to exonerate politicians as wars are generally a sign of leadership and political failure, but it's too easy to blame them in isolation. The French Revolution changed many things, including the idea of a nation in arms and fighting for ideas, a trend continued in struggles like the US Civil War and Franco-Prussian war. Peronally I there's a lot to be said for the sort of real politik and diplomacy that finds face saving ways out of mutual destruction, even if it does represent a betrayal of principles to some.

None of which alters the debt of society to those who fell in war on our behalf or that veterans and the families of those who fell in war deserve much better than what they generally receive after the wars have ended.

[britishcolumbian]

4 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

making war a cultural and existential struggle etc in which compromise is defeat

Sometimes, however, this is true.

[Colin_McLeod]

Tell that to Zelenski.

[Ozexpatriate]

10 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The French Revolution changed many things, including the idea of a nation in arms and fighting for ideas, a trend continued in struggles like the US Civil War and Franco-Prussian war.

I would say that notion started with the American Revolutionary War, rather than the French Revolution.

 

10 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The Great war is an excellent example, all the combatants ended up as prisoners of societal demands that total war demands total victory and the old ways of diplomats working out a face-saving face to end it all was off the table as any politician suggesting it would have been removed from office and worse.

Total war (in a mechanized world) begins with the US Civil War. The casualty rate and impact to civilians was drastically greater than earlier conflicts. It was a harbinger for the Great War.

 

Largely due to its short duration, the Franco-Prussian war was an aberration in terms of the cost in lives and to the landscape/society through which the armies fought. It was bloody, but relatively short. lasting only six months. I think, perhaps, it was a big part of the reason so many thought "It'll all be over by Christmas" in 1914.

 

The metaphoric or literal (take your pick) salting the earth of Carthage in the Punic Wars suggests that total war dates to antiquity.

 

[Colin_McLeod]

Disgusting vandalism at Edinburgh war memorial.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-63624149

[jjb1970]

15 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

I would say that notion started with the American Revolutionary War, rather than the French Revolution.

 

Total war (in a mechanized world) begins with the US Civil War. The casualty rate and impact to civilians was drastically greater than earlier conflicts. It was a harbinger for the Great War.

 

Largely due to its short duration, the Franco-Prussian war was an aberration in terms of the cost in lives and to the landscape/society through which the armies fought. It was bloody, but relatively short. lasting only six months. I think, perhaps, it was a big part of the reason so many thought "It'll all be over by Christmas" in 1914.

 

The metaphoric or literal (take your pick) salting the earth of Carthage in the Punic Wars suggests that total war dates to antiquity.

 

 

The Franco-Prussian war and American Civil War both prompted a lot of military debate and a rigorous exchange of ideas among military theorists on the future of war. There was a common lesson that wars were no longer to be thought of so much as battles between armies but rather struggles between ideas, the body population, economic capacity and attrition. Although the Prussian army inflicted rapid and decisive defeats on the French army these were followed by a general mobilization and France did not collapse in the traditional way following the defeat of her armies. Despite the brilliance of some of the Confederate generals and the excellence of their soldiers they couldn't compete with the industrial and manpower capacity of the North in an attritional struggle. Robert E. Lee is often criticised for chasing a decisive battle and campaign, but I tend to think he was correct as the only chance the South had was to inflict a big enough defeat on the Northern army to make the Federal government consider a peace settlement. Colmar von der Goltz may have been a nasty ultra-nationalist and racist but his military writings on the future of war were prescient in many respects. Given that, and the lessons of the Russo-Japanese and Boer wars it is rather difficult to excuse the seeming ignorance of so many in 1914 as to what Europe was heading into. Politicians understood the implications of the alliance system and generals should have understood the implications of machine guns, magazine fed rifles and quick firing artillery as well as the economic and industrial demands of war yet both feigned ignorance and pretended nobody could possibly have known the consequences of a general European war. 

[62613]

On 13/11/2022 at 12:28, ardbealach said:

In the vein of all our reflective thoughts and memories on this Remembrance Sunday I would strongly recommend the paperback book 'Prisoners of Geography' by Tim Marshall  ISBN : 1-78396-243-3.   It is an easy read and sets out factually how our world geography has an impact on our world history and why wars happen.  He has also produced a similar second book 'The Power of Geography'.   (Alisdair)

Also "The Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clark; one of the best histories of late 19th/early 20th Century Europe I've read. It's long, it's dense in places, but seems to be exceptionally well researched.

[62613]

21 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

The Franco-Prussian war and American Civil War both prompted a lot of military debate and a rigorous exchange of ideas among military theorists on the future of war. There was a common lesson that wars were no longer to be thought of so much as battles between armies but rather struggles between ideas, the body population, economic capacity and attrition. Although the Prussian army inflicted rapid and decisive defeats on the French army these were followed by a general mobilization and France did not collapse in the traditional way following the defeat of her armies. Despite the brilliance of some of the Confederate generals and the excellence of their soldiers they couldn't compete with the industrial and manpower capacity of the North in an attritional struggle. Robert E. Lee is often criticised for chasing a decisive battle and campaign, but I tend to think he was correct as the only chance the South had was to inflict a big enough defeat on the Northern army to make the Federal government consider a peace settlement. Colmar von der Goltz may have been a nasty ultra-nationalist and racist but his military writings on the future of war were prescient in many respects. Given that, and the lessons of the Russo-Japanese and Boer wars it is rather difficult to excuse the seeming ignorance of so many in 1914 as to what Europe was heading into. Politicians understood the implications of the alliance system and generals should have understood the implications of machine guns, magazine fed rifles and quick firing artillery as well as the economic and industrial demands of war yet both feigned ignorance and pretended nobody could possibly have known the consequences of a general European war. 

There hadn't been a general European war since 1814, though; such things were outside living memory. The largest single battle of the 19th Century in Europe took place in October 1813, around Leipzig.