IrishGunner

Well, you are the EK doc expert. It would make my head scratch that it's going so low.

If it's fake, someone went to a lot of trouble to make it look old. And will be disappointed that it looks to be bringing less than a 100 Euro.

I think there can be little question that the music that came from WWI is of a different tone than the music we remember from WW2 or even later... This war was different. The veterans of this war mostly remained silent. Historically, I contend this war meant more to our world than we give credit... And I speak as a citizen of a nation that joined quite late. But my Irish heart, my Irish soul... These songs touch me in ways that Big Band and swing music from WW2 never will and never can. As an American, I think we have to go to Vietnam to find the same emotional attachment to certain music. This is a great thread to help us remember the emotion of the times as we debate the diplomacy, politics, grand strategy, and tactic of the time...

6. Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders Australians and New Zealanders mark Anzac Day in Gallipoli, 2011 Far more British soldiers fought on the Gallipoli peninsula than Australians and New Zealanders put together. The UK lost four or five times as many men in the brutal campaign as her imperial Anzac contingents. The French also lost more men than the Australians. The Aussies and Kiwis commemorate Gallipoli ardently, and understandably so, as their casualties do represent terrible losses both as a proportion of their forces committed and of their small populations. Thank you, Mr. Snow. I didn't know they were waltzing Mathilde in Pall Mall.

Damn, this is one of the greatest songs of all time... About WWI... But can't we all imagine ourselves sitting down by the graveside of a comrade and rest for a while in the warm summer sun? Ahh, the pipes. I doubt Mr. Snow could write an article about the "myths" of war if he ever heard the pipes play lowly.

Ramen noodles, soup kitchens, and the neighbor's cat... And exactly how did you get the name, "Hoss"?

Interesting article regarding a 1913 German General Staff estimate that "Sees Panama Canal as Anti-European" If Germany truly had ideas of imperialist expansion and started WWI to feed those ideas like some historians...Fischer comes to mind...then this estimate should have caused Germany considerable concern, especially regarding Point #6 of the estimate. Germany was already behind in the "colony game" and certainly didn't need another upstart competitor joining the game. But was Germany really all that concerned? On the other hand, Point #3 must been the result of a very clairvoyant analyst on the General Staff.

A naval arms race between Britain and Germany has often been cited as one of the causes of WWI. However, this article suggests that not everyone in London was "all in" for building a strong Navy. Other articles have shown that Britain maintained a wide margin of "superiority" over Germany in numbers of ships afloat and in the shipyards. So, is this one of those "myths" ... was there really a feeling of being in an arms race or did politics really rule the waves? Cabinet Quarrel Causes the Admiralty to Stop All But Imperative Work Another article, which relates that Winston Churchill is facing a political crisis because many in the Cabinet oppose his shipbuilding programme which would give Britain a "60% superiority" over its next closest rival, Germany. Majority of Cabinet Said to be with Lloyd George in Quarrel over Naval Estimates

Hear, hear.

Thank you very much for the translation! Appreciated.

Very succinct. My thoughts exactly; I just didn't have the facts at hand that you relate. The article is a worthwhile read, but as you point out...facts can be turned to argue either side. I guess my gut problem with the article is the use of the word "myth." Myths by definition are "a widely held but false belief or idea." I don't see the opposing views that the article attempts to "debunk" as "false." They are simply a different view of the same facts.

Hello, Ursula! Yes, as you can tell by the number of WWI postcards in this thread... We "collect" is an understatement. If you are interested in figuring out what you have, we'd be very happy to help you...

The article didn't say...

Who could think about war in January 1914... with all those pretty (and cold) legs of Parisian women and American film actresses putting politicians in interesting positions...

Hmmm... Brian, I respect your knowledge, logic, and views; perhaps, you can be more specific on why you think this is the "best post on WWI to ever hit the forum." I just don't see that... I'm not sure what the article hopes to achieve... I don't have a specific bone to pick with this article. On the other hand, I can see viable, logic arguments against several of his points. It's kind of a yawner for me...

The blue cover sleeve alone is nice... I don't see many of these offered for sale...(of course, that just may be where I look).

Precisely. I just pulled the medal out to look at the edge. It's the same exact color as the rest of the medal.

I unfortunately have never met a WWI vet - at least that I knew. But I think you might be right here, Paul. Add to that the "forgotten" Korean War vets and the well-known treatment of Vietnam vets and these old guys probably thought... Yea, let's just forget about that old war "Over There."

More than anything Crozier may or may not have done, I think the real issue in acquiring/developing weapons for the US Army in the years just prior to entering WWI was "politics" and geo-strategic interests. Politics: The US simply wasn't expecting to be involved a foreign war - especially those in Congress. In 1914, President Wilson was preaching "neutrality." The general population embraced this idea; there was no interest in getting entangled in Europe's problems. Even when Germany pushed submarine warfare, Wilson desperately tried to avoid getting involved. Of course, we'll see that by 1917, there was not much choice left. Of course, none of the political argument above means the Army shouldn't have prepared; after all, as Sun Tzu advised, "In Peace, Prepare for War." And MG Leonard Wood agreed; however, Congress wasn't appropriating money. And what money the military did get...went to defending the Philippines, Hawaii, Panama Canal Zone, and Porto Rico. Today's "shift to Asia and the Pacific" away from Europe in US security policy isn't anything new. And let's not forget that Mahan's book, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, influenced US geo-strategic thinking as well as fueling the naval arms race in Europe. And to the US, that meant the Pacific. Many of Crozier's disappearing carriage guns were in coastal defenses in the Philippines and Hawaii and the West Coast of the US. This is about the same time the US Coast Artillery was gaining prominence. As a result of the Spanish-American War, President Theodore Roosevelt (former Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the war) and Secretary of War Taft presided over splitting the Coast Artillery from the Field Artillery in 1907; Congress authorized expanding the new Coast Artillery Corps to 170 companies and legislated money to build coastal defenses across the US coast and territories (called the "Taft system of fortifications"). Unlike the Field Artillery, the US certainly had a Coast Artillery Corps and coastal defenses to equal any nation by the start of WWI. Because it received funding to respond to geo-strategic priorities. Needs of the Army Published: January 19, 1914 Copyright © The New York Times US political and geo-strategic focus was not on a land war; thus the need for machine guns and field artillery didn't make it into the budget priorities... Even if Crozier did want the Lewis gun, there wasn't a "need" nor "interest" - therefore, no "money."

Thanks for this comment. I am sure you know more about Crozier's career than do I; I never heard of him and had to look up his details. From what I found, I wonder if you aren't overly critical. Clearly, the US entered 1917 with an unprepared Army (despite efforts by MG Leonard Wood - see next post). But I don't think we can say Crozier "had little preparation, no aptitude or technical skills." He was an Ordnance officer with a lot of experience in arsenals and in 1893-94 completed development of the Buffington-Crozier disappearing gun carriage - considered the "zenith" of the system and used the world over for coastal defense guns up until the first years of WW2. Disappearing Gun Carriage Army Contracts for Buffington-Crozier Mounts From other things I read, Crozier was an "artillerist" - so he may not have had much interest in machine guns - resulting in the Lewis gun issue. There over all was a lack of interest in machine guns in the US until war was declared in 1917 - and they quickly adopted the M1917 Browning. Of course, he didn't do much for artillery before the war either; so, your comments regarding "personality" could be even more accurate. On the other hand, he did preside over adopting the M1911 .45 pistol; he authorized testing and development (he has also served in the Phillipines early in his career; so we might assume he had some first hand knowledge of the background for developing this pistol). He also was Chief of Ordnance when the Army adopted the M1903 Springfield rifle and the M1918 BAR (adopted in 1917).

A curious bit of news to remember this topic... Bulgaria sells captured rifles back to Turkey...

Can you post the link?

So, I'm finally getting around to scanning and posting this Indian Vic that I mentioned a year and half ago... On the rim: 199 HAVR DEOKARAN SINGH, I.C.A. I first thought it was I.G.A. but from the scans, you can see it's a "C" not a "G". Indian Coastal Artillery? I did a search on UK Archives; no MIC comes up... (contrary to what I posted a year and a half ago...I was mistaken on the name). So, what unit? It isn't the strongest of details. That's the way it looks (not the scan); it looks "shabby" next to my 40th Pathans Vic. Any comments?