BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: mg
Date: 09 Nov 13 - 09:09 PM

Here you go.

---

Please note: this thread is no less moderated than any other BS thread. -Mod

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Nov 13 - 10:07 AM

"I guess we all know why the 14 - 18 was fought?"

Come on then, let's have your reasons!!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Nov 13 - 10:56 AM

Reasons:

1. There was a 'will to war' amongst the leaders of Germany,

2. The German government wanted events to slide into war in 1914,

3. The German government had a plan of expansion very similar to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s,

4. This was as a result of social and economic factors inside Germany - the ATTITUDE of Germans - as much as it was the result of any fears about foreign policy or the international scene.

Blame the krauts!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 03:54 AM

Thanks Keith I would like to return to the why.

"Lest we forget" and the popies are are essential and powerful but what is also essential is understanding why the 14 - 18 started and carried on as it did.

I don't know why - I guess that's my own fault. I think you are the only one to respond to my question - perhaps others will?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:17 AM

They didn't. Nobody patronised them either.

It was carnage and slaughter for no reason.

Sad but true.

If there were any reason for the First World War, "lest we forget" would be self evident and unnecessary.

The church that asks me each and every year to sing the song had, when I first started doing it many years ago, veterans from that time. I never heard any view from those people other than the blinkered drift into a war that was talked up till it became inevitable. A full contrast to The Second World War where totalitarian methods of achieving aims were roundly rejected. Whilst such ideology still exists, they are withering and dying out. Slowly, but surely. Control of people without their consent is being questioned, whether it be from the dispatch box or the pulpit.

That is the legacy we have from those who fought. Including the First World War veterans. The snag is, Bogle sums up the thoughts of those who fought in his songs, and to those who hold little Englander ideals dear, that is anathema....




I am not going to say any more on this topic. Michael asked for moderation and someone is trying to spill his baiting of me to this thread, and that is sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:25 AM

I have made the same point many times on this subject.
It is not about you.
There are thousands of diaries and collections of letters.
The did know and believe in what they were doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:32 AM

Not sure what this means Ms/Mr Musket

"If there were any reason for the First World War, "lest we forget" would be self evident and unnecessary."

The people - leaders (?) the Captains and the Kings decided to have that war and decided to carry it on as they did and millions of ordinary women and men died and suffered,

Who were the C & K and why did they organise that war?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 06:28 AM

Am I right in thinking that if we don't understand why wars happen we are less likley to stop them happening again?

WW1 & WW2 were quite different in a number of ways but I am not at all sure that many of us understand that.

The current strife in Syria is terrible but I think the US and others finally realised that sending guns and soldiers would almost certainly make things worse. Good call?

Maybe it's not the Vets organisations place or job to search for the reasons that wars are engaged - but it is certainly somebody's job.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 08:14 AM

The BBC series on the subject identified four underlying causes of WW 1, as follows:

    ""Nationalism - the belief that your country is better than others. This made nations assertive and aggressive.
    Imperialism - the desire to conquer colonies, especially in Africa. This brought the powers into conflict - Germany wanted an empire. France and Britain already had empires.
    Militarism (Arms Race) - the attempt to build up a strong army and navy gave nations the means and will to make war.
    Alliances - in 1882, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy formed the Triple Alliance. This alarmed, France, Britain and Russia. By 1907, they had all joined the Triple Entente. Europe was divided into two armed camps, to help each other if there was a war.""

Then of course, the spark that set off the kindling, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, often mistakenly quoted as the reason.

As to whether those who died knew why, of course many of the better educated did, but there were hundreds of thousands of young men who joined up in an enthusiastic desire for adventure, travel and glory, whose knowledge of the reasons was minimal at best.

In an era when news travelled slowly, many men had never been more than a few miles from the place of their birth, and recruiters didn't care to inform, how was a young farm lad to know about international politics?

If asked why they were there, many would say simply "Somebody's got to give the Hun a bloody good kicking". It was what they were told! It was exactly the same on the other side too.

So Eric wasn't, I think, patronising too many people. If he had written the same about WW 2, that would have been patronising.

However, aware or not, they deserve our respect and they deserve our continuing remembrance. Whichever war they died in, they did it for us.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 08:27 AM

Britain declared war on Germany in response to the invasion of Belgium.
It was a war of liberation.

You can discuss why Germany invaded Belgium, but not why Britain went to war.
Britain was treaty bound to assist Belgium.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 08:27 AM

We'll put Don.

Too often, people confuse Remembrance with celebration. Celebration of the fact of the existence of war it is not, Remembrance of those on all sides who suffered and died in the conflicts of the 20th, and this current, centuries it most certainly is. And rightly so, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 08:28 AM

Thanks Don, I find that most informative.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 08:31 AM

Wiki.
The Rape of Belgium is the usual historical term regarding the treatment of civilians during the 1914-18 German invasion and occupation of Belgium. The term initially had a propaganda use but recent historiography confirms its reality.[1] One modern author uses it more narrowly to describe a series of German war crimes in the opening months of the War (4 August through September 1914).[2]
The neutrality of Belgium had been guaranteed by the Treaty of London (1839), which had been signed by Prussia. However the German Schlieffen Plan required that German armed forces violate Belgium's neutrality in order to outflank the French Army, concentrated in eastern France. The German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg dismissed the treaty of 1839 as a "scrap of paper".[3] Throughout the beginning of the war the German army engaged in numerous atrocities against the civilian population of Belgium, and destruction of civilian property; 6,000 Belgians were killed, 25,000 homes and other buildings in 837 communities destroyed. 1,500,000 Belgians (20% of the entire population) fled from the invading German army.[4]:13

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 08:45 AM

Historian Sir Max Hastings,
"I never stop being amazed by the number of people I meet - who are educated, thoughtful people – who say to me "I have never understood why the whole of Europe when to war just because some Austrian big wig was shot in Sarajevo"."
In Blackadder Goes Forth, Baldrick said the war began when "Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry", reflecting confusion the popular opinion that the issues we were fighting over were not worth the huge loss of life.
"We think we know the story of World War II because Hitler was evil, we can get our heads around that," Sir Max said.
"But the modern British view of the First World War is dominated by the Blackadder attitude which is believed even by school teachers.
"The Germany of 1914 might not have been as evil as Hitler's Germany, but it was still bent on dominating Europe, and the idea that it didn't matter who won is ridiculous.
"The politicians are frightened of saying that we fought a great evil and they are afraid of saying who started WWI."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10110657/Germany-and-Austria-started-WWI-seeking-European-domination-historian-says.html

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 09:09 AM

If asked why they were there, many would say simply "Somebody's got to give the Hun a bloody good kicking". It was what they were told! It was exactly the same on the other side too.

How do you know this Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 09:44 AM

Yes.
A moderated thread on Remembrance is no place to denigrate brave men by saying they believed shit about kicking Huns because that is what they were told!
Hasings again.

The fact that Britain sacrificed three-quarters of a million lives to prevent the triumph of Germany's militarists should be a matter of profound pride to those men's modern descendants, not grounds for ministers to take refuge in empty platitudes.
Most veterans rejected the 'poets' view'. One old soldier, named Henry Mellersh, declared in 1978 that he wholeheartedly rejected the notion that the war was 'one vast, useless, futile tragedy, worthy to be remembered only as a pitiable mistake'.
Instead, wrote Mellersh: 'I and my like entered the war expecting an heroic adventure and believing implicitly in the rightness of our cause; we ended greatly disillusioned as to the nature of the adventure, but still believing that our cause was right and we had not fought in vain.'
The fact that Britain sacrificed so many lives to prevent the triumph of Germany's militarists should be a matter of pride to those men's modern descendants, not grounds for ministers to take refuge in empty platitudes.

That view was far more widely held by Mellersh's contemporaries than the 'futility' vision of Owen, Sassoon and their kin. Although a few new-wave British historians scrabble to gain a headline through the familiar device of claiming it was all Britain's fault, the best modern German scholars accept their own nation's prime responsibility for the horrors that befell Europe.
It seems hugely important that in preparing for this centenary commemoration, our Government and national institutions should seek to explain to a new generation that World War I was critical to the freedom of Western Europe.
Far from dying in vain, those who perished in the King's uniform between 1914 and 1918 made as important a contribution to our privileged, peaceful lives today as did their sons in World War II.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339189/MAX-HASTINGS-Sucking-Germans-way-remember-Great-War-heroes-Mr-Cameron.html#ixzz2kLdoRTh5

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 10:13 AM

Refresh, for those who want a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 10:31 AM

Historian Sir Max Hastings.

The fact that Britain sacrificed three-quarters of a million lives to prevent the triumph of Germany's militarists should be a matter of profound pride to those men's modern descendants, not grounds for ministers to take refuge in empty platitudes.
Most veterans rejected the 'poets' view'. One old soldier, named Henry Mellersh, declared in 1978 that he wholeheartedly rejected the notion that the war was 'one vast, useless, futile tragedy, worthy to be remembered only as a pitiable mistake'.
Instead, wrote Mellersh: 'I and my like entered the war expecting an heroic adventure and believing implicitly in the rightness of our cause; we ended greatly disillusioned as to the nature of the adventure, but still believing that our cause was right and we had not fought in vain.'

That view was far more widely held by Mellersh's contemporaries than the 'futility' vision of Owen, Sassoon and their kin. Although a few new-wave British historians scrabble to gain a headline through the familiar device of claiming it was all Britain's fault, the best modern German scholars accept their own nation's prime responsibility for the horrors that befell Europe.
It seems hugely important that in preparing for this centenary commemoration, our Government and national institutions should seek to explain to a new generation that World War I was critical to the freedom of Western Europe.
Far from dying in vain, those who perished in the King's uniform between 1914 and 1918 made as important a contribution to our privileged, peaceful lives today as did their sons in World War II.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339189/MAX-HASTINGS-Sucking-Germans-way-remember-Great-War-heroes-Mr-Cameron.html#ixzz2kLq0RIMK

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: GUEST,undoderate
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 11:04 AM

It's a unique chance to place related music here at BS-as it is not morerated


Music, since it is unmoderated BS

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 11:06 AM

Was my post to this rmoved for a reason. If so, will somebody tell me what was wrong with answering the question about reasons and making entirely reasonable comment on the need to respect and remember the fallen?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 11:10 AM

Seems like afew have gone missing Don.

So why is that then?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: selby
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 11:32 AM

Very disappointed to see a post that posted earlier today on this thread that I thought was contributing to the thread seems the censor has struck on an innocent thread. I would at least you would have done me the honour of telling me in a pm as to why it was removed
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 11:59 AM

There probably would have been no war at all if Germany hadn't given its weaker friend Austria carte-blanche to crush Serbia in 1914. In fact the Serbs, desperate to avoid war, acquiesced to virtually every condition of an lengthy Austrian ultimatum, but Austria invaded anyway.

Berlin had been planning an aggressive war for years. German philosophers held that wars earned respect and made nations strong.

Serbia, Russia, Belgium, and France fought because they'd been invaded. Belgium collapsed, France nearly did, and Russia eventually sued for peace.

The British fought to uphold a decades-old treaty with Germany to maintain Belgian neutrality. It also fought to prevent German military domination of Europe and the English Channel, and to protect British colonies from German annexation. Many, many people believed, regardless of politics, that British national honor alone required the defense of Belgium and France.

It didn't help Berlin when it derided the Belgian treaty as "a mere piece of paper."

The United States entered the war in 1917 when Germany had resumed the unrestricted sinking of neutral ships and secretly promised Mexico the return of the US Southwest in the peace settlement if it would invade the USA. In 1916, German saboteurs had also blown up a major munitions depot near New York City.

If the Allies didn't exactly fight an idealistic "war to end war," they did fight to uphold the force of international law (such as it was), protect existing borders and governments, punish naked aggression in Europe, maintain freedom of the seas, discourage the German and Austrian militarism that led to the war in the first place, and expel their armies from Serbia, Belgium, Luxemburg (which had no power to resist), Russia, and France.

The Allied victory accomplished all of these things, though at horrific cost.

If the peace lasted only twenty years, the lion's share of the blame lay elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:04 PM

Like Don, Les and Selby, I'm bemused as to why my post, which was respectful and non-contentious, was deleted without reference.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:39 PM

That one will go too an a minute!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:41 PM

I never said I'd not debate on an unmoderated thread though.

Max Hastings has a view. Fine.

Rather interesting that many don't agree with it.

Rather interesting that he wrote it in The Daily M*il. Considering how they showed support for Herr Hitler. .......



The men who went to war in 1914 to 18 genuinely thought there was a purpose. King and Empire meant a lot to them. The nationalistic plans of The Kaiser and other murderous half wits may have been the reason given, chiefly by other murderous half wits, but the plans of either side needed war to take place anyway.

Hence the dying was in vain. No matter how we try to see it through the eyes and ears of the time and not put present day valued to it, the glorious fallen were sacrificed for no reason because if the armies told their political leaders to piss off, the outcome in 1914 would have been the same as the actual 1918 but without Germany being humiliated to the extent of the rise of Naziism and The Austrohungarian Empire may possibly have given stability where fascism rose.

The war to end wars eh?

Wearing your poppy to remind us that things should never be repeated is a modern idea. The first remembrance celebrations were about how we won and how our armies kick the shit out of Johnny Foreigner. The regret of war is from a more enlightened age that the likes of Hastings would not wish to write about.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:46 PM

Moderating to remove the kind of contentious and argument comment which is often seen on this kind of thread is all very well.

Neither thread has seen any abuse, but some hyperactive pixie has seen fit to wield its power in a most unacceptable way, even when applied to a moderated thead.

I would like somebody to tell me why we have been punished in this way.

Who is so tight arsed as to find offence where there is none?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: selby
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:52 PM

my post from the moderated post has arrived on here now out of context with still no explanation as to WHY
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:53 PM

My seemingly offensive post is the second one on this thread. It answers a question posed by Lighter and gives the reasons quoted by the BBC, plus a comment on the Eric Bogle song in answer to another poster, and finished of with an assertion of the need for respect for and remembrance of those who didn't come back.

What were we supposed to say?

Don T.

Earlier posts returned. Unless they are obviously offensive, this thread is labeled "unmoderated"

---

This thread is re-labeled "debate", which is, I believe, closer to what mg wanted when she started the threads. I base this on what happened in previous years when more personal thoughts offered were overwhelmed by those who chose to argue. This thread will be moderated no less than other BS threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:59 PM

Sensitive posts on a sensitive subject and they get thrown off the thread by people being somewhat insensitive.

As we can't discuss lest we forget, we need to keep the moderators happy.

Anyone know any good knob gags?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 01:06 PM

Having had my fill of the Keith and Jim show, followed by the Keith and Musket show, I deliberately stayed out of this thread, because I am not going to join the Keith and Don show.

So some eejit slung my well presented and thoughtful post into the one place I didn't plan to visit.

Now I've just about had my fill of the Mudcat Musical Threads Show as well.

This isn't what Max wanted it to be any more.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 02:21 PM

How about we do a Musket and Don show? We can sell the rights to Channel 4 with repeats royalties via Dave?

If nothing else, we could show that argument isn't just tedious contradiction? The common link you complain about just wouldn't get invited, that's all. Although we would get challenged to show where he hasn't been invited I suppose......

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 04:17 PM

but the plans of either side needed war to take place anyway.
No.
Britain did not want war.
Germany did.

Hence the dying was in vain.
Why?
because it would not have mattered if Germany had conquered Europe, or because there was another way to stop their war machine?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 04:58 PM

For once in your life Keith, why don't you just STFU?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:14 PM

Lighter hit many of the important points, but omitted Britain's self-imposed need to prevent any power becoming too dominant on the continent. It wasn't an unwise or unwarranted aim in their foreign policy, just one that does not sit as easily with us in our "current threat environment."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: selby
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:17 PM

This thread is re-labeled "debate", which is, I believe, closer to what mg wanted when she started the threads. I base this on what happened in previous years when more personal thoughts offered were overwhelmed by those who chose to argue. This thread will be moderated no less than other BS threads.

Censor person if you read my thread it was NOT an argument it was a story of what happened in a different time to a relation of mine which in todays society is hard to understand so again WHY THE CENSORSHIP
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:17 PM

Actually, Lighter did not miss the British aim about continental dominance, I did, so just consider it reinforced. It was, however, a lot more important to H.M.'s government than Belgian neutrality, I would argue. It can be argued that the treaty was a fig leaf.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:22 PM

Fuck Armistice Day.

Fuck poppies.

Fuck war memorials.

The state wants to turn as much public space as possible into a tomb. Cenotaphs are shoved into teh most prominent places possible in parks and town squares in Britain (and most other countries) simply to intrude the state religion of war-worship into everybody's lives.

No we don't need to remember it. We just need to round up the slime who want us to reverence warfare and piss on the lot of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:32 PM

Cenotaphs are shoved into teh most prominent places possible in parks and town squares in Britain

And who shoved them there?
The ordinary people of those towns and villages, who also scraped together the money to pay for them in the hardest times they had ever known.

That is how important it was to them, and we should keep faith with them today.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 02:48 AM

"as there was a disproportionate contribution (and sacrifice) from the Anzacs in WW1"

Disproportionate as opposed to who else?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 02:48 AM

Remembrance should focus on the soldier, not on the Kings and Generals.

That is exactly how we do it here.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 03:51 AM

Was is essential that millions of people died between 1914 and 1918?

Was that the only way - who decided that that was the only way?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 03:57 AM

The best way to respect those who were killed - on all sides is to understand in detail - with a long historical perspective - how it happened and why.

Was it essential that millions of people died between 1914 and 1918?

Was that the only way - who decided that that was the only way?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 04:03 AM

Germany decided to go to war and invade Belgium and France.
Britain France and Belgium were just defending.
What else could they do?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 04:05 AM

Germany decided to go to war, and invade Belgium and France.
Belgium, France and Britain were just trying to hold them back.
What else could they do in the face of naked, imperialist agression?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 04:58 AM

Thanks Keith, a good starting point but didn't a lot of other things happen before that point was reached. I know hindsight has 20/20 vision (maybe) but isn't that where we stand now? Isn't that the value of hindsight and historical analysis?

Wars don't start on Monday morning just after breakfast and the decision to start and continue a war in which millions of people died was what? All the powers that their were knew that millions were being slaughtered - why didn't they care enough to stop it?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 05:17 AM

We now know that Germany HAD been secretly planning the war for some years.

The war continued because Germany seemed likely to win it, so why should they stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 05:33 AM

I'm sure there were lots of reasons Les. Many of which were opportunity. To the Victor the spoils.

In terms of why didn't soldiers question, well the Edwardian fascination with jingoism for starters. Empire day celebrations were the order of the day.

If soldiers did start questioning the government ensured there were enough padres in soldier's uniforms to let them know God wants us to win.

This appalling association between religion and carnage carried on and of course still does.

The second world war,
It came and it went.
We forgave the Germans
And now we are friends.
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried.
The Germans now too have
God on their side.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 05:43 AM

In terms of why didn't soldiers question
Who says they did not?
The evidence is that they did question, but they believed the war had to be fought.
They were right.
You are wrong.
Who are you to denigrate them?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 05:54 AM

I think Les is right there was lots of things happening prior to war breaking out. Initially Britain looked to an alliance with Germany but was basically rebuffed and it seems the Kaiser by then saw Britain as the main competitor rather than friend. So Britian cosied up to France instead and later Russia. Germany was bolshie and looking out for its own interests but so was Britain and France who were making secret treaties involving Morocco etc which they had no legal right to do. According to H.L.Peacock in his "A History Of Modern Europe" the events after Sarajevo and the break out of hostilities between Austria and Serbia went like this chronoligacally. July 28th Austria declares war on Serbia; Russia immediately mobilises in support of Serbia; Germany immediately demands that Russia demobilises and that France assures neutrality; Russia refuses and Germany declares war on Russia on 1st August then on France on 3rd August; on 4th August Germany strikes at France through neutral Belgium believing that Britain wouldn't go to war over a piece of paper.

In the summing up he says German aggresiveness was greatly to blame but that it would be wrong to think that all aggresiveness was centred on Germany. There were those in Britain who favoured a war with Germany before that country became too strong; there were those in France who wanted revenge for the war of the 1870s; and pan-Slavism was as much a problem as pan-Germanism.