redeagleorder
-
Posts
453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by redeagleorder
-
-
A little Bavarian ensemble.
Very beautiful set. If I remember correctly only 11 of the first class were awarded. Congratulations!
0 -
Certainly worth the wait though.
0 -
Thanks. By the way, love the website. Keep up the good work Chris
0 -
Haven't popped into this thread for the last few days, some very good points being made.
The Ukraine would have become Germany's bread basket which would have negated the British Embargo.
Not necessarily. It would have taken at least one or two years to implement cost effective and country-wide farming measures. And by that time Communist Russia might have been knocking on the door.
But the blockade did not only concern food. It also concerned vital war materials that were not available in Europe, such as rubber and oil (the supply of which from the Middle East was being cut off by the British, thus leaving Germany with very few alternatives). No country is completely self-sustainable, and Germany was no exception.
0 -
As soon as I read that citation I just sat down quietly for a few minutes and tried to imagine the scene... the grenades, the shooting and eventually hand to hand combat, all the time heavily outnumbered and expecting death any second. Not admiring such men is impossible.
Thank you for sharing this with us.
0 -
The ribbon looks like the one for the China medal. These scraps of ribbons were placed under the ribbons you can normally see as a sort of 'padding'.
0 -
Long service awards for non combatants did not differ from those awarded to combatants. I have never seen a long service cross awarded on a white ribbon (the only white ribbons I know are of the Saxon Lifesaving awards and Olbergkreuz). Has anyone ever seen such a thing?
0 -
I suspect the war would have lasted another year but Austria would have been out of it before then. The allies would have eventually won but at the cost of probably another million allied losses and similar German losses. The American intervention certainly took several months off the war.
Paul
Agree. America's entry/non-entry would not have deeply affected the British blockade, which was a vital factor in the war.
0 -
-
Nice work! Good luck finding a loose one of these, its the first I've ever seen.
0 -
I think the bar with the double waldeck was sold on ebay by one of the bad dealers recently... I'm not completely sure though.
0 -
Just to clarify, the War Merit Cross came only as is shown, no swords were ever awarded with it. And only the silver cross which was awarded to NCOs is called the Albert Cross (Albrechtkreuz). All other awards of this series are the Albert Order. And the Albert Cross isn't part of the 'class' system like the orders, there is only one 'class' of it so there is no need for such a distinction
An Albrecht Cross with swords and ribbon will cost anywhere from 275-350 euro, depending on condition, dealer, etc... Although these are not really my area so don't take my word for it too much.
Also, the Albrecht Cross without swords was a peacetime award. The design changed in 1909 so that later crosses were one rather than multipiece construction. The older (pre-1909) ones are worth more and are IMO nicer.
0 -
The author's assertion that 'many soldiers enjoyed WW1' and that 'much of the time, conditions might be better than at home' made me wince at the end. I'm sure there were a number that enjoyed it, as it takes all sorts to make a world, and it is based on a matter of opinion that only the dead may answer now. But I very much doubt that the conditions in the trenches were better than the ones in England.
This was not the later age of the Blitz, but a time when raids were carried out much more infrequently and with a smaller payload. A soldier risked death or dismemberment every second he was not only in the front line trench with anywhere within a radius of miles from the front line. Disease in the trenches was rampant, and I find it hard to believe that the sickness rate was barely above peacetime level, soldiers had a daily diet of over 4000 calories a day and ate meat every day. War increased employment on the home front, so poorer families could now earn some sort of income without risking death or psychological damage.
It is also interesting to note the definition of winning a war - it depends on so many factors and viewpoints. One needs to first look at why the war was fought and what was gained from it. Was a war fought for racial, ideological or territorial reasons? If it was one of the first two, what could be gained except an inflated sense of superiority of the people of the faction that destroyed the other faction. If it was fought for territory, was it fought because that territory itself was rich in resources (many colonial wars)? Or to connect the other nation's territories (such as Prussia during the later years of Frederick the Great)? Or for a strategic and tactical reasons (control of the Marmara straits)?
Having examined that, how did (or did it at all) benefit the country that most achieved its war aims? Has that nation achieved greater wealth or prestige? Has it gotten rid of an adversary? Has it convinced itself that it has achieved the moral high ground?
An example of attaining greater wealth could be Britain's colonial empire, including trade in slaves, spices and goods from around the world. Yet did the common person benefit from the Empire? Did living standards suddenly shoot up during this period. If one looks at Britain during this time, there is still a sharp divide in social class, a gulf in terms of wealth between the upper and lower class. So did most of Britain benefit from the wars? If not, can you truly say they won the war? On a strategic, tactical and political level they certainly did, but do you consider those the only measures of winning a war?
One can also consider a country that, as has already been mentioned, was on what is known as the 'winning' side of a war. Belgium, Serbia and Romania were all on the allied side during World War 1. Their countries overrun, citizens killed and armies either destroyed or in retreat. But they got a Victory Medal after the war didn't they? So they MUST have won!
If you had to ask me, I would tell you that no one won World War 1. The Allies won in the traditional sense, but how did that effect their citizens? Many grieving families, men who died far too young, countless resources wasted. What did the victors gain? 20 years of peace? An inflated sense of their own power which almost led to their defeat 20 years later? An economic depression? Seems a much too hefty price to pay to call yourself a victor.
To conclude, imagine a 'perfect war'. By this I mean that it is fought to protect the nation, and is won. The standard of living shoots up, the nation gains a huge amount of prestige for defeating an enemy that was threatening it. So a war that is fought for no reason other than self-defence, ends in total victory and is hugely beneficial for its citizens, and all for the cost of one dead soldier from their army. Most of us would agree that a nation that fought such a war would undoubtedly be a victor. Most of us would never succeed in convincing the mother of the dead soldier of this fact.
0 -
It was one of the factors I would say. Germany already had the most formidable army in Europe, and Britain's main defence was always the channel and the Royal Navy. Once the German's appeared to be acting to remove even that advantage (although at no point was the High Seas Fleet a match for the Royal Navy) the alarm bells started ringing, if they hadn't already been doing so with the Reich's ascent in Europe, upwards explosion in economy and some diplomatic and political faux pas by Wilhelm II.
It might also be relevant to consider that this was a time of great technological development, including the navy where dreadnoughts with massive guns could easily destroy ships built just a short time before. Everyone was building new ships in order not to have a navy that might have been good-sized but technologically inferior, and this would emphasise the impression of an arms race.
0 -
-
Sounds good. The only thing is since soldiers could (and did) get wounded more than once, or even wounded, survive and die from other causes later on, the percentages would overlap a bit, so it would be less than 74% (though still not any odds I would fancy!).
When you say Dominions, you mean the smaller contingents that aren't listed separately? Thanks
0 -
****ok quick change of pace. Would it not have been better for Ludendorff to seize Ukraine in 1918 rather than attacking the Western Front? The Ukraine could have supplied all the grain Germany needed to continue the war and feed its people. The Russians/Whites/Reds could not have offered serious resistance the way the British and French armies could on the Western Front.. ****
The 1918 Spring Offensive is seen as a last throw of the dice by the Germans. With fresh American troops arriving in thousands per day, seizing Ukraine would have diverted troops from the Western front. The Spring Offensive was meant to break through the allied defences and accomplish the task they had failed in 1914 before enough American troops arrived to thwart them. Unfortunately for the Germans, it was a case of too little, too late. Initial successes got bogged down and they were overwhelmed by counterattacks with superior numbers. It is said that even before it was launched, the Kaiser's generals knew it would be the last great push of the war from their side, whatever the outcome.
0 -
Wouldn't do that for a pension and a gold medal!
You and me both...
0 -
they knew they'd lost and they had ample opportunities to make peace in 1916, 1917 and even in 1918...... and rejected them all.
The Germans did issue a peace proposal in 1916 in response to Wilson's memorandum to each of the warring powers. From what I can find out about it it was on the arrogant side, but it was a starting point from which the other powers may have tried to hammer out something. Whatever it contained, it was certainly a better chance of peace than Lloyd George's reply, ''We shall put our trust rather in an unbroken army than in broken faith."
0 -
I would love to have a conversation with the original owner of these...
0 -
But I gotta say, the German, esp. Prussian social elites were the cause and perpetuators of the war to my mind.
There is a difference between perpetrators and sole perpetrators, and I sincerely hope you mean the former.
0 -
Mervyn,
I agree with you and Canada is a good example where we almost always take the negative attitude about our past. Few, and there are some let’s be honest here, glorify war, but a number of years ago the World War One Ace, Billy Bishop VC, came under “fire” when a fellow (with a German name, it’s been pointed out) wrote a book stating that Mr. Bishop faked most of his “kills” and subsequent documents that led to his receiving the Victoria Cross. Thank the Gods that there is a Royal Canadian Legion as they came out in defence of his record. The general public seemed to accept the author’s accusation which is no surprise as it seems that Canadians are not allowed heroes, especially those connected to the military.
Two years ago Linda and I visited the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa and, to the shame of this country, attached to the display featuring Billy Bishop VC was a plaque that said that “In recent years the war record of Billy Bishop has come under question” (not a direct quote). I am not given to spontaneous utterances but I did blurt out a resounding “What the hell? Those bastards!”
A national hero and in a national museum and he has been treated like this? The book questioning his record was short on provable facts and still we, no not “we” but rather “they”, elected to take the coward’s path and rather than defending a national hero have run to hide from possible confrontation. Thank God our service men and women have taken the stand for our nations and not chosen the easy out.
Respectfully
Brian
To be fair, most aces have come under severe scrutiny for their claimed amount of kills, Richthofen and Hartmann being two premier examples. Although the museum is taking it too far if they have no evidence
0 -
Just a minor point, Lippe Detmold's KVK is only one class. The pinback cross given out by Detmold has a different name (Kriegsehrenkreuz für heldenmütige Tat 1914), and is a separate award.
A soldier could get both crosses by being in born in one state and serving in the regiment of another. Or by being placed into a unit which had a mixture of troops from different states. It is more likely that the soldier is from Braunschweig because he has place that award before that of Lippe.
0 -
or has the great predicted price spike for WW1 awards begun?
0
Wild guess at Unit?
in Germany: Imperial: The Orders, Decorations and Medals of The Imperial German States
Posted · Edited by redeagleorder
It's hard to tell from the picture, but that looks more like the Lippe-Detmold Cross for Heroic Deeds. If that is the case, could be from IR 55.