IrishGunner

Brian, your points regarding WW2 are well taken. Nonetheless, in the interest of parliamentary procedure, I think it should be noted that the Right Honourable Gentlemen first brought the Second World War into the discussion in Post #17. I, of course, countered and accept my part of the blame. However, I do not believe I am solely responsible for the diversion (sort of like Germany in WWI). Of course, we've been across the time continuum starting with Sir Tony and the Secretary of State for Education Mr. Gove and the PRC's Navy to the Third Reform Act of 1884, which you have raised. And since you have; from my reading (and the BBC's) of the Third Reform Act of 1884, it only gave the vote to 60% of the male population in Britain, because of continuing property requirements. It wasn't until the Fourth Reform Act of 1918 - partly the result of so many men dying in Flanders that didn't even have the right to vote - that eliminated all property requirements and instituted the vote for all males over 21 (and even some women). Which brings us back to the beginning...that is the role of the European elites (from all countries) starting and executing the First World War. And I respectfully submit that the First World War was the defining event of history - without it, there is no Russian Revolution, no Second World War, no Cold War, etc. To blindly stop the discussion at 1919 is to ignore the reason for the discussion about the First World War in the first place. It should not be a rhetorical discussion or simple remembrance solely because it's the Centenary. This is a real opportunity for objective reflection, discussion, sharing of differing opinions and even interpretations of the event ... and it's meaning to today. We'll "bleed" all over the historical timeline in future discussions I'm sure. To do otherwise will not do the core discussion justice.

Why am I not surprised you offer up some water from Antrim? I'll bring the Red Breast.

So, the war was to protect the British Empire. Okay, that I'll agree with... At least that puts some perspective on Britain's share of the blame.

Someone better put on some tea, or open a bottle of whiskey, or pull some pints, it's going to be a long year...

Re-read Post #26, I think I conceded that contemporary point. Will you concede the historical point is the question.

On this, we come close to agreement. Britain was under no obligation to support France or Russia in a war with Germany. Belgian neutrality, however, and Britain's guarantee go back to the 1839 Treaty of London. Of course, Britain could have ignored that "scrap of paper" like the Kaiser suggested. But to Britain's credit...it did not. But in reality, the real German threat to Britain was not the Kaiser's fleet, but German control of the Low Countries (even France) and thus, threaten the English Channel. So, in reality, Britain went to war out of its own interests. And using your argument that the German "empire" was a sham...perhaps British fears were "paranoid" and London could have stayed out of the fray. If London stays out of the fray, does the war last as long? So, British interests also prolonged the war, didn't they? Of course, that's not a fair question. Once things started, Britain had to get involved. But Britain's role is not without scrutiny...that is my point.

Why exactly did Britain "need" to maintain its vast empire? Ego? Greed? Survival? Isn't that "need" enough to earn some "blame"? And again, look at the numbers. Germany's naval "build up" was no real threat to Britain. That is just a red herring.

Yes, I am. Stupid is as stupid does. Chamberlain was a boot licker. He may not have worn an SS uniform, but his lack of backbone shouldn't be condoned as mere "naivete". Hope is not a plan. It's all speculation...isn't this entire thread? ... but why not draw a "line in the sand"? Nope. We'll give Hitler Czechoslovakia to send to the KZ's and maybe he'll be satisfied. Chamberlain was elected by the British "elite" and he sold out. Own up.

No. Our failures as the world's greatest power will have to wait until after WW2...and even then until the 1960s. But Britain was the world's greatest power in 1914. Either you are saying "Great" Britain was incapable of doing anything, or unwilling to do anything, or tried and failed; any way you look at it ... Britain failed and thus shares in the blame for the war even starting in the first place. And even then, the German General Staff never ordered thousand of British "subjects" to go over the top in waves...waves...to be gunned down by machine guns. I guess Downton Abbey never heard the best offense is a good defense. Or to paraphrase Patton; it's not a soldier's job to die for his country, but to make the other SOB die. Pip pip, over the top lads.

I'm being an a** ... I know. But the point is this... It isn't red and white and bully beef. Britain had a huge part in the failures leading to WW1 and even more in the failures in the inter-war years before WW2. Let's be objective and admit our shortcomings. It becomes easier to listen to the rants that it's all Germany's fault, if we at least accept that we...yea, even the US... weren't perfect either...

Prime Minister Chamberlain, your flight to Munich leaves in 38 minutes.

At what point did the British General Staff really think they could "win" the thing? And let's not forget, the average citizen - even in Britain - didn't get a vote. It was still the elites making the call.. From the BBC website (yea, I know how you might feel about the BBC...but I am pretty sure this is fact): "Although increasing affluence meant that the boundaries of this suffrage were porous, in 1914 Britain had the most restrictive franchise of any power in Europe, with the exception of Hungary. Many of those killed in action in 1914-1918 were fighting for a state that denied them the vote." Maybe my Irish roots are showing.

In post #6, you wrote: "But I gotta say, the German, esp. Prussian social elites were the cause and perpetuators of the war to my mind." By post #17, there's lots of blame to go around. Which is it?

Go look at my post of 6 January 1914 from the Telegraph (pg 12) in the Great War forum and tell me who was building a "Luxury Fleet"... I don't see it as Germany. I'd say, Britain was the leader of the naval arms race in 1914.

Sunbury, Pennsylvania

A 4th Field Artillery disc...Battery C...a 1917/18 version. 4th FA did not deploy to France; it spent the entire war on either border duty with Mexico or training soldiers for deployment. This link is a good overview of US enlisted collar discs.

That's a nice one Don. Which regiment?

I think you can borrow 'em from the Home. Sort of like the library.

I think he works for cookies.

How about "blue hair equivalent units"?

Glad you got the Signal one! Mind telling me (even in PM) how much you paid?

I agree Chris... Another thing that bothers me in this new "debate" is that it's too easy to put all the blame on Germany. In reality, laying blame shouldn't be the point at all. War was not inevitable. If Britain wanted to avoid the war, it's elites could have done more in the years leading up to August 1914; but they didn't. Shouldn't that be their part of blame in the ultimate folly? And what if Germany was to blame for "starting" the whole thing? Shouldn't British elites be "blamed" for the incompetent way the war was fought? Come on now...Germany isn't to blame for Passchendaele; that has Eaton, Cambridge, and Oxford written all over it. I say again, the correct debate isn't about who was to blame, who was right or wrong; let's accept that it takes more than one person to make a party - and more than one reason a continent descends into hell. Looks to me that the "elites" are even screwing up the "respectful debate." Objective historians will write that we all screwed up...for differing reasons...that's not the point; what is relevant now is what are we going to do to fix it? Seems to me, we haven't done enough. I look forward to the first objective newspaper article that discusses that aspect...

Agree with all you say... Especially the first and last sentences. But particularly the last sentence... Rulers (elites) all ACROSS Europe and on BOTH sides of the Channel are at fault. Objective "reading" of history will show there's plenty of fault to spread around. What bothers me about the "respectful debate" as it builds, is that it is too much about "what happened" and not enough about "what does it mean for today." We've discussed this already on GMIC (and it might be worthwhile to refresh those threads), but the "facts" are only useful if they inform discussion today about how to avoid calamity. My fear is that the world is not better off today than it was in January 1914; we still have a lot of lessons to learn. And we better learn them soon and stop the "rose colored glass" look at how brave, courageous, etc etc etc were those men. Yes, they were ... and are... But that's not the relevant point. The relevant point is what did our leadership (elites) screw up and how do we avoid future mistakes. We still have a lot of lessons to learn. Blackadder et al are great tools. They just need to be focused in the right direction. There is no "debate" on the valor and sacrifice. That deserves respectful remembrance. But debate is still needed. Critical debate on leadership, diplomatic, military failures. That's what studying history...or remembering history...is about. It's about learning from the past and applying it to today.

The New York Times: Paris Lights Go Out ... A premonition of what is to come ... "The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time" Meanwhile, the Kaiser and Crown Prince go to the opera and see Parsifal.

claudio, thanks for sharing! Very interesting stuff...