The first colour photographs from the German front line during World War One.
Where can I see more of these color photos?
Clicky on linky!
I miss working with Atomic-X...I mean, Panatomic-X...film!
The article says the pictures were all staged because the exposure was so slow. Picture #8 is a town scene, with draymen driving wagons, and smoke coming from chimneys, yet the picture is sharp. I think the shutter times were much faster than they realized. Would having a huge piece of film allow for faster exposures too? I have no idea what kind of camera was used, but for the sake of argument assume each exposure was 8 1/2 x 11, the size of a sheet of paper these days. Also most of the pictures are taken on very clear days around noon; shadows are quite short so the sun is high. Best light = fastest exposure.
Not being much of a shutterbug, how fast do you have to shoot a picture so that normal (walking speed) motion is frozen? 1/60th sec?
Also Drew the images compared to modern film are quite grainy so you may have a point. Some interesting stuff and for me it seems to bring it to life better in colour than B&W.
Damn, this stuff is dynamite.
I mean, WWI was the first time that colored photos were used on a semi-wide basis for recording a military conflict, and, having studied them, I find that they help add a bit of depth and connection to a war fought almost last century and yet with shockwaves that still reach us today.
Suddenly, that bloody struggle against the Kaiser, the German militarist aristocracy, and their Austrian, Turkish, and Bulgarian allies seems far closer then ever, even in this Digital Era.
While I remain thankful for their defeat, one cannot help but remember that most of the soldiers on the other side of No-Man’s Land were honorable, dedicated soldiers who are well worthy of our sympathy.
However, unlike the bleeding-heart pacifists, one must recognize that just because the enemy is not entirely evil does NOT mean we can all just toss our weapons down and hug. Because, while many are decent, many others are not. And there is inherently far more at stake then one man’s feelings. For every single year of the 20th century save perhaps 1900-1910 and 1990-1995, our Democratic and Republican ideals, traditions, and rights were on the brink of being erased from the face of the earth: First, by the aristocratic and Royal tyranny as seen be regimes such as Ottoman Turkey, Austria-Hungary, and-of course- the German Empire. However, in spite of the defining and lasting victory of Democracy over its traditional Autocratic foe in 1919, the threat did not go away but merely was reconstrued in radical Leftist groups: Russia’s Bolsheviks- so narrowly stopped from igniting an epic firestorm at the gates of Warsaw in 1920-, Hitler’s Reich, and their countless puppets, tributary groups, and the like, with the exception of Imperial Japan. Following the final Axis defeat, we stared across the Iron Curtain with a Soviet superpower entirely capable of plunging the world into a war that would eclipse everything that came before, which forced us to either cut its lifeflow and strangle it or be destroyed ourselves.
And, now, after a brief interlude, China, Russia, and the Jihad have replaced those that came before them as the new threat to our natural rights.
All of this shows that we must be prepared to fight hard and endure through appalling hardship, lest the sacrifices on the bloody fields of the Palestine, Gallipoli, Italy, France, Belgium, the Pacific, Germany, and Korea all be in vain.
However, like this picture shows, while the enemy must be fought, we must remember that we are ultimately fighting fellow human beings, some monstrous beyond belief, some as noble as Angels, but all who must ultimately be swept aside. We must remember this, lest we fall into the exact same mentality-that same trap- that fueled our foes throughout the past century, and will continue to do so in this one.
Posted by Turtler
11/15/2008 at 10:02 PM
World War I was such a crock. The perfect example of why George Washington warned us against ‘entangling alliances’:
Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
"World War I was such a crock. The perfect example of why George Washington warned us against ‘entangling alliances’”
Said like someone who is completely ignorant about WWI, German pre-war policy, and countless other things. Well, since looking up History is apparently too difficult, I am going to have to fill you in:
The reason Washington advised against entangling alliances was because it was THE ONLY THING that we could do! Neither Britain or France liked us, and if we were to retaliate against one, the other would have stabbed us in the back! Not to mention to potential for a civil war between Pro-French and Pro-British factions (ie Jefferson and Hamilton). The situation only changed after the British had begun to overwhelm Napoleonic France, and it was decided that we had to strike soon or be overwhelmed by Britain.
Little does anybody seem to realize, but a conflict with Germany was more-or-less destined not in 1917, or 1916, or 1914. But in 1898.
That was the Spanish-American War, when we chose to invade Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Spanish Pacific.
As most know, we rapidly overwhelmed an over-extended and poorly trained and equipped Spanish military already worn out from constant battles against Cuban and Fillipino Revolutionaries.
What most do NOT realize is that we, the Spanish, and the local nationalists were NOT the only factions involved.
The Cuban Ten-Years War raged from 1868-1878, after a plantation revolt against the colonial authority broke out. However, three years following that attack, something happened that would have drastic effects for world history.
The Franco-Prussian War ended in the unification of Germany under the authoritarian and reactionary “Iron Chancellor” Otto Von Bismarck. However, France was embittered by Bismarck’s invasion and brutal occupation, and scarcely waited until after the Germans left before they began to re-arm and prepare for war.
Now, Bismarck’s goal was to try and form alliances to isolate France. To do so, he turned to a neighbor and age-old enemy of France. Spain.
Starting in 1882, thousands of German soldiers were deployed in Cuba and the Philippines to aid Spain in crushing the Nationalist guerillas in the area and to further the cause of a Hispano-German alliance, eventually numbering 5,000 men with accompanying equipment.
The reason Bismarck did this was to try and gain an ally on the Southern French frontier and to use the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific as naval bases to attack British, French, and Dutch colonial holdings in case of war with one or more of those nations.
They were still present (though troop rotations were relatively constant) when the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor. And they were still there when we landed in both areas.
It is known that blood was shed. Where, we do not know. But the casualty logs state that at least 268 Germans fell to American bullets during the war, and 195 were victims of the reverse.
As it was, Germany’s participation in the Spanish colonies was always “unofficial”, so there was no Amero-German war in 1898. However, the Spanish collapse shattered Spain’s position as a major power, and several unproductive and bloody attempts to compensate by attacking Morocco lead Germany to write the Spanish off as useful allies.
Nevertheless, Germany was still determined to gain a foothold in the Western hemisphere. If they could not use Spain as a surrogate, they would just do it themselves.
Shortly after the Spanish defeat was confirmed in the Treaty of Paris in 1898, a small, obscure beaucratic notice was written. Without a proper name, it is sometimes called the “Cuba Memorandum.” The acceptance of this piece of paper and the ink that it contained meant that the sentiments in it became an unstated but integral part of Germany’s foreign policy regarding the Western Hemisphere.
Some of the choice parts (translated for your reading pleasure):
“...regardless
of potential future promises, (the US) is to be treated in all regards and actions as a nation hostile to the German Empire and her interests.”“Given the hostile stance of the United States towards the German Empire, it must be regarded as necessary to breach the American Sphere of influence in the Americas
and Eastern Pacific.”“The possibility of supporting (local factions) against the Republic of the United States and all her local and international allies is to be given due consideration.”
And this goes on for 12 pages.
In short, Germany had vowed to violate the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary, both vital parts of American foreign policy.
That means that, while the British and French might have disliked us, we could at least bargain with them (like over the Venezuela-British Guyana border dispute). Germany, on the other hand, had just sworn to break our power to benefit their penetration into the Western Hemisphere.
From this point on, conflicts with Germany would start to ratchet up ever-so-slightly. Even before we attacked and destroyed the crumbling Spanish Colonial Empire, we had faced off with Britain and Germany over dominance in Samoa more-or-less since 1889. In 1899, after the previous Samoan King (and the victor of the first Samoan Civil War) died, the Germans landed a pretended to try to evict the heir apparent, who was pro-British and Pro-American. After they armed the pretender’s forces, they advanced on Apia and were able to seize control of the Capital until, crucially, the US and Britain intervened by shelling Apia and landing soldiers. In eight days, three Britishmen and one American perished, as did vastly more Samoans of the various factions.
This move forced Germany to the negotiation table, which eventually awarded the British the German Salomon Islands, and provided for the US and Germany to partition Samoa. Needless to say, this result did not please Berlin. In turn, they became a major supplier to the First Filipino Republic and the Moro Sultanate fighting our colonization in the Philippines.
In 1902, the German ambassador to Columbia was ordered to try and interest the Columbians in mobilizing a Columbian Army (Armed, funded, and trained by Germany) to reconquer Panama, including the Canal Zone, which had broken away from Columbia with American help following Amero-Columbian disputes regarding the canal.
After WWI broke out, the Germans infamously instituted “Unrestricted Submarine Warfare”, which claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Allied and Neutral sailors and passengers, in violation of the Geneva Convention. In addition, Germany began to fund and arm Haitian and Dominican warlords/bandits/guerrillas against us during out occupation of Hispaniola, and they ramped up offers to Columbia and the various Mexican factions during the Mexican Revolution.
Eventually, they tried to woo the Carranza and his Mexican government to launch an attack against the US, in an infamous telegram that was fortunately intercepted and decoded by the British. When they turned it over to us, it was apparent that Germany had long been seeking a fight, and, since they were in very fortunate shape in 1917 (Russia and Romania, their opponents on the Eastern Front, had just collapsed), they decided to continue trying to attack us.
In other words, for twenty years BEFORE our entrance into the war, Germany had immersed us in a foreign entanglement-whether we liked it or not. By anyone’s definition, this is a case of aggression by proxy, and it exceeds ANYTHING George III did before the Revolution that could have justified using force.
And the kicker? After Hitler came into power, HE HAD THE DAMNED THING REINSTATED AS AN OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE REICH!
So, no, Washington’s advice worked for us when we were a minor power that nobody liked, with no allies, and a 60+ day voyage between us and Europe. It is absolutely INADEQUATE when we have but a 6-10 day voyage across the Atlantic, and we have a determined enemy driven by delusions of Grandeur to commit aggression against us.
That was what the Kaiserreich was. That was what the Third Reich was. That was what Japan was. That was what the USSR was. That was what China, Russia, and the Jihadists STILL ARE.
The fact is that, in late 1917, Germany came within a hair’s length of winning it all: European Hegemony, a vast colonial Empire, and the “Place in the Sun” as the Superpower of its day. The fact was that, after it became obvious of Germany’s hostile intentions towards us, one thing became VERY clear: it was better to fight a weakened German military machine in France and Belgium while backed by the Western Allies then to fight a seasoned, vastly superior one alone in the Caribbean, Pacific, Latin America, and (god forbid) our own soil.
As it turned out, the Western Allies were able to turn the tide (helped partially by us) to drive the Kaiserreich all the way back to the Rhineland as Germany itself collapsed into a sensationally bloody mess tearing itself apart.
But it was close.
Very Close.
How Close?
Try close enough that the Germans could actually shell Paris on a to-the-floor-of-a-building level of accuracy.
European democracy as we know it survived by a number of miles that, at the closest, numbered only in the single digits.
And if the Germans HAD managed to break through, then we would probably been forced to confront the German storm alone.
Look, we all love and respect you Chris, but do some damned research before you sprout stereotypical, ignorant tripe like that.
Because, quite bluntly, it makes you sound like an idiot.
Posted by Turtler
11/16/2008 at 02:03 AM
Turtler,
Most unfair your attacking Chris in that way. OK, if he’s wrong fine and say so and why which you did. But there really isn’t any need for insults.
Hey, just how many people do you really think have access to the exact same research you quote? And good grief, how many have the time? That research didn’t come about in a day surely. And although I’ve been reading the subject almost all my life, you have come up with some amazing things I had never ever read before. ANYWHERE! And it isn’t because I don’t read or have no interest.
You say tens of thousands lost their lives to U-Boat attacks. Sure, I knew many lives lost but I do question that figure of “tens of thousands.” There weren’t tens of thousands at sea at that time. Also, having read the admiral’s book I wrote you about, the Germans reacted at sea in the only way possible at the time.
Brits were sending armed merchant ships out to sea. Now according to my reading on the subject, Germans were following the rule of the day by giving warning and surfacing FIRST.
Only to be met by surprise fire from what was thought to be an unarmed vessel. More then one u-boat was lost before the Germans announced unrestricted sub warfare. They let the world know and I only wish I still had that book handy as it gave great insight into German thinking which honestly is at a bit of variance with your opinions of them.With everything learned at school and read after, not once did I read about Germans in Cuba.
I am NOT saying they weren’t there. Only that I hadn’t read it anywhere. Ever.I can’t go through your post here line by line. In a minute I have to mash part of a banana for the old not so dear MIL, and help wife with other things related to the care of a bedridden 93 year old and in fact I originally booted to post something else when I caught your comments on Chris.
JUST BY COINCIDENCE
Every Sunday morning my wife gets up earlier then need be in order to go to a local boot sale. (flea market) Over here they really do sell from the boot (trunk) of their cars. So anyway ... the reason for going is to buy books. Books of all kinds and they’re all over the house. Not all of them are history and most weeks there are none at all. History that is. But today she came home with a surprise.
A HISTORY OF GERMANY 1815 - 1990, By William Carr.
I have every intention and in fact incentive, to quit any other books I’m involved with and will concentrate solely on this book for awhile. I realize I’ll have to eventually, time permitting, go to other historians covering the same period as no doubt you’d do that as well.I think you really do owe Chris an apology as you can’t expect us all to have read the same sources you have.
Finally. Your opinion please on Tuchman’s “Guns of August.”
Most unfair your attacking Chris in that way. OK, if he’s wrong fine and say so and why which you did. But there really isn’t any need for insults.
Oh, I disagree. I disagree STRONGLY.
The problem is not that he is ignorant on the issue, the problem is that he is ignorant but insists on being arrogant on the issue without actually TRYING to study either of the things he talked about.
People are wrong all the time, and nobody can know everything. God knows I have been wrong and God knows I sure as heck do NOT know everything (for instance, I will NEVER try to comment on the issue of wines unless, say, regarding Napoleon’s good friend, and even THEN I will remain mum about actual quality of winery etc).
The problem is that, rather then actually try to STUDY the issue, Christopher instead decided to issue one loud raspberry by acting like an “expert” when he was ignorant on both subjects he tried to address, and in addition chose to make it in a VERY offensive and disrespectful way (I believe that those who fought and came home wounded and those who never came home at all to save Western Democracy from the thrall of an Absolutist Monarchy would be VERY offended at having their struggles called “Such a Crock”, even if they did not like or support it).
If he were polite on the issue, I would have politely corrected him, because god knows I have needed that a few times.
But, since he was rude and disrespectful, I feel absolutely no regret whatsoever about giving him a thrashing. And YES, I am willing to be banned over this issue. Because those who A: Cannot research a relatively easy-to-research issue, B: Try to act like they are an expert or have the final say, AND C: Try to have the “final say” in a way that is both offensive and rude DESERVE to get nailed to the wall in my firm opinion.
Hey, just how many people do you really think have access to the exact same research you quote?
Anyone who looks hard enough, actually. But, as I said, the main issue I took was NOT that he was wrong. It was that he had to be
RUDEabout it!
And good grief, how many have the time? That research didn’t come about in a day surely. And although I’ve been reading the subject almost all my life, you have come up with some amazing things I had never ever read before. ANYWHERE! And it isn’t because I don’t read or have no interest.
See above. I do not expect ANYONE to be completely correct on the subject. BUT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO THOSE WHO PERISHED FOR THE FREEDOMS ONE ENJOYS IS TAKING IT A STEP TOO FAR ON THIS ISSUE!
“You say tens of thousands lost their lives to U-Boat attacks. Sure, I knew many lives lost but I do question that figure of “tens of thousands.””
And that is a legitimate question (as opposed to offensive, ignorant tripe). On that subject, yes, I would say 10’s of thousands: 15,000+ Civilians + 20,000+ military = 35,000 dead, within the criteria for “tens of thousands.”
the Germans reacted at sea in the only way possible at the time.
Hardly. The fact is that, if they had merely gone after vessels flying Allied flags, they probably would have avoided half the troubles they had. Hell, part of the reason they lost was because they kept sinking unarmed fishing vessels and even their own Swedish ore transports (which had Norwegian and Swedish markings). The fact is that they openly defied the Geneva conventions, and dishonored the rules of war that they had agreed to (and this was not the only case: Belgium, Luxembourg, Poison Gas, Carrying Water for the Turks, etc). Just because said admiral thought that was the only possible way to react does not mean that it was actually the only way they could have reacted.
With everything learned at school and read after, not once did I read about Germans in Cuba.
I am NOT saying they weren’t there. Only that I hadn’t read it anywhere. Ever.And that is perfectly understandable, because even though I have been studying Spanish, Cuban, and German history for years, I only learned about it in 2005. But, if you look at Spanish records in their colonial archive, you will find the records of their service in Cuba and the Philippines.
I think you really do owe Chris an apology as you can’t expect us all to have read the same sources you have.
And I believe otherwise. No, I can’t expect him to have read all the sources I have.
But I CAN EXPECT HIM TO NOT PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT WHEN HE IS NOT AND I CAN ESPECIALLY EXPECT HIM NOT TO INSULT AND BELITTLE THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO GAVE THEIR BODIES, THEIR YOUTH, AND OFTEN THEIR LIVES TO ENSURE THAT HE HAS THE FREEDOM TO ACT IN THIS REPREHENSIBLE FASHION!
And yes, I AM willing to be banned over this issue. Because he has absolutely no place arrogantly commenting on things he has not bothered to research (again, the crime is not ignorance, it is insisting on being arrogant while being ignorant), and IN PARTICULAR insulting those who perished in the Hell-holes of the Western Front, Middle East, Far East, Russia, Balkans, and Italy who are one of the many reasons we breathe free today.
If you must, then do so. But I refuse to compromise my honor or -FAR more importantly- the memories of both those “all who gave some” and those “some who gave all.”
If anything, it is he who should be apologizing. But not to me, oh no. To those In Flanders’ Field, Where Poppies Blow, Who have unfortunately Found, Between the Crosses (and Stars of David, and Crescents) and Row on Row, Their Places, so that we could find OUR places in the Polling Stations.
The world failed their memory in the Interbellum and during the “revisionist” tripe of the 60’s and 70’s.
I fail to see why anyone should fail their memory YET AGAIN now by insulting all that they have done for us.
Finally. Your opinion please on Tuchman’s “Guns of August.”
Haven’t found it yet, sorry.
But I did find her “The Proud Tower.” Haven’t read it yet, but look forward to doing so.
Posted by Turtler
11/16/2008 at 06:44 AM
I think you’ll like the proud tower and her writing style is fast. I found it so anyway.
Please do find The Guns of August. I think Tuchman got awards for that.OK, re. banned. Good grief. Why? Not by me anyway and I think Chris can defend himself if he wants to. I thought you took his remarks in a way he never intended but of course that really isn’t for me to say. I also believe he merely quoted Washington and used the term what a crock as a figure of speech without intent to do as you took it. But T., he really said so little. I’ve re-read his one comment and can’t find the example of rudeness you did.
Where did he act like an expert? In one line?
even though I have been studying Spanish, Cuban, and German history for years, I only learned about it in 2005. But, if you look at Spanish records in their colonial archive, you will find the records of their service in Cuba and the Philippines.
T. Come on. Be reasonable here. How many of us would think of looking into Spanish records unless we were studying the war in 1898 and fell across it as you did? After all, in all of my reading which I do concede has gaps that need filling, I never ran across the Cuban connection. As I read more I well may find same. But, one would have to be studying as you did, that part of the history to find it in the Spanish records.
As for arrogant, where? In the one line he used? In all the things I’ve ever read that Christopher has written, and it hasn’t been a whole lot either, I never detected arrogance.
You said anyone who looks hard enough can find the information. But to do that and find that specific information, you have to have some idea of it to begin with. No?
Look, I’m an old fart of 71. It wasn’t till I got married in my 30’s someplace, that I ever read any book that was not strictly history. Or a biography. Same thing I guess.
Wife once said that if books were nutrition I’d have died of malnutrition as my diet wasn’t varied. So I started reading novels and found I enjoyed those too. But history remained my passion. My favorite room in school was the library, not the playground outside. All I’m trying to say is that I haven’t been lazy at all, and yet ,, with all that reading over all these years, I never found the things you have.Ah ,,, I’m glad you mentioned fishing vessels and I did hear of that. I also read that many were in fact armed boats made to look like that. In the extremes of war, isn’t it possible for a nervous captain to fire, especially when those “fishing boats” were in waters deemed off limits? I’m certain some innocent ones drifted into the war zones however and would not dismiss off hand that it couldn’t happen. We know it did.
The admiral I refer to was genuinely surprised and you could tell by the wording in his diary, which really was not intended for publication, his not understanding why the Brits were acting in the way they did. Don’t forget, we’re talking about a guy who belonged very much to the 19th, not 20 century. His idea of military honor didn’t allow for merchant ships to trick u-boats to surface and then open fire on them. The most shocking thing he heard however, was the (very successful) Brit propaganda with regard to the Belgium babies and the rape of nuns. None of it true and the Brits today admit that.
But it stirred up huge hatred of Germans.Well, it’s getting late and I don’t want to bang on too long and bore.
I don’t mind being attacked for being wrong. I do mind being called ignorant.
First: George Washington’s warning against ‘entangling alliances’ was NOT said because the USA was weak. President Washington had led us to victory over the greatest military power on Earth at the time. May I remind you that we beat the British again in 1812?
Second: World War 1 is the supreme example of ‘entangling alliances’. Note:
Franz Ferdinand (18 December 1863 – 28 June 1914) was an Archduke of Austria-Este, Prince Imperial of Austria and Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia, and from 1896 until his death, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne[1]. His assassination in Sarajevo precipitated Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia. This caused countries allied with Austria-Hungary (the Central Powers) and countries allied with Serbia (the Triple Entente Powers) to declare war on each other, starting World War I.[2][3][4]
Two ‘entangling alliances’, the Triple Entente, and the Central Powers. Automatic declarations of war just because one obscure Archduke was assassinated in the heretofore obscure city of Sarajevo, millions died. Why? What was accomplished?
Yeah, I know, it smoothed the path for Hitler, a truly evil regime.
I learned this stuff in 5th grade History classes. Don’t they teach this anymore?
But that’s not the worst of it. Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Woodrow Wilson was the first President to introduce fascism to the USA. FDR introduced more fascism. FDR admired Mussolini.
Obama? He’s on record as supporting fascism.
And yes, I AM willing to be banned over this issue.
Why? No banning required. If I’m wrong, then banning won’t prove me right.
Or you right, for that matter.
Remember all, ignorance is NOT a sin. It just means you don’t have the info. Doesn’t mean you’re stupid.
Obviously I’ve hit a nerve. That’s to be expected. I’d like to thank those who’ve stood up for me.
Turtler, I don’t want you banned. BMEWS has banned too many, and I think that BMEWS is the worse for it. I’d like to see some previous bans lifted.
Certainly no one should be banned for stating a contrary opinion.
But please, try to be more polite about it?
Christopher:
I do mind being called ignorant.
As would I. But that doesn’t change the fact that, on this issue, you are. And you also seem to get my emphasis wrong: the main issue I have with you is not that you are ignorant on the subject, it is that you have not bothered researching it.
First: George Washington’s warning against ‘entangling alliances’ was NOT said because the USA was weak.
Yes, it was. The fact remained that BOTH Napoleonic France and the British Empire were preying on our shipping and provoking us. However, as Washington lamented several times, there was no way to confront the one without opening our backs up for the other to strike at (indeed, the War of 1812 was largely a result of France starting to fade away and Madison believing that it was now or never to prevent British encroachment of our young Republic).
President Washington had led us to victory over the greatest military power on Earth at the time.
Only if one chooses to ignore the campaigns against Britain in the Pacific, Caribbean, Gibraltar/Minorca, British Channel, and Atlantic, where American participation was next to nonexistent. The fact was that, even before the Bourbon Powers and the Dutch Republic intervened, we were heavily dependent on them for our military supplies. In addition, it is likely, given the numerical disparities and the like, that the British could have just bled us dry without the European intervention. Washington deserves a massive amount of credit for keeping us on our feet until that happened, and then dealing the Coup de Grace in the South, but he cannot honestly be credited for defeating the British Empire singlehandedly.
May I remind you that we beat the British again in 1812?
No you may not. Because we did not. We SURVIVED. There is a difference. In order to WIN we would have had to force the British out of Canada. And, in spite of our massive commitment of manpower, material, and equipment, WE WERE UTTERLY CRUSHED! See the Battle of Chateauguay, Cryslter’’s Farm, and the other Canadian fiascos. We failed to crush Canada, we failed to destroy Tecumseh’s Confederacy (though we did give it a nasty beating), and we barely held our own in New England.
The destruction of the Red Sticks (Creek Indian allies of the British), the elimination of Britain’s Gulf Task Force, the clearing of Lake Erie, and the halting of the British advance in New England was enough to give us a draw.
Pyrhuss would have been proud. In the long term, it could be seen as the push that was necessary to continue our expansion from sea to shining sea by weakening Britain’s Indian allies. But that in no way means we “beat” the British.
Second: World War 1 is the supreme example of ‘entangling alliances’. Note:
I am already well aware of the entangling alliances before WWI. However, the fact remains that neither negates the German aggression against the United States, nor excuses their inherently aggressive and tyrannical nature.
Why? What was accomplished?
Oh, you mean besides a taste of freedom for Eastern Europe? The ultimate descrediting of the Absolutist Monarchy as a rival system of governance (like WWII and the Cold War discredited Fascism and Marxism as rival systems of governance)? The freedom of Western Europe from the thrall of the Kaiserreich? Security for ourselves?
YES, the achievements on the battlefield WERE squandered at Versailles. But the fact remains that, if the Germans were to have won, it is almost inevitable that the ruling classes’ hatred of Democratic-Republicanism would have extinguished under the crown’s yoke.
And is the fact that that was stopped not worth ANYTHING?
Yeah, I know, it smoothed the path for Hitler, a truly evil regime.
Oh, please. Not the whole “Hitler was born in Versailles” tripe sprouted so often. The fact is that the Western Allies had no way to know that an even worse regime would sprout up in Germany out of their failure to adequately break the authoritarian and militaristic mentality following the peace. They had to work with what they had.
And they only knew that a tyrannical regime was threatening to submerge Europe and much of the world under its yoke. And, as I mentioned before, that was something that would have been disastrous.
ead Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Woodrow Wilson was the first President to introduce fascism to the USA. FDR introduced more fascism.
Ah yes, Johan Goldberg. Believe it or not, I actually HAVE read it. And it was very thoughtful and was a good idea.
Unfortunately, that does not include this part.
When I studied how he believed that the US was a Fascist nation during WWI, his picture seemed to conveniently skip around several DIFFERENCES between WWI American and the Fascist nations of WWII. And these “ommisions” took a shotgun to the leg of his thesis.
When I google to go on here, there is another link for the definition of “Barking Moonbat”, which is defined as “Someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency.”
And that was honestly my impression of him after this. Yes, I can admire his attempt, but it still tosses a lot of mud on his credibility.
For one, he fails to mention the fact that
* The US in WWI lacked the absolute centralization of power that all effective Fascist nations have.
* That the “emergency laws” were by definition temporary, and were always planned to be repealed, unlike the Nurmburg codes, for example.
* That, even in the more controversial groups, like the paramilitary goons, there was supervision and many people WERE punished for their abuses of power.
* The lurid nationalistic patriotism and anti-German sentiment was not entirely perpetrated by the government, and the fact remains that the government actually PERSECUTED several anti-German ruffians for their roles in violent incidents.
The fact is that, far from being a Fascist nation, the US was showing symptoms similar to many Democratic nations as they entered both World Wars (would you doubt that France, Britain, Italy, and Belgium were Democratic nations, even if imperfect ones?) and the government, while receiving some emergency powers, did not abuse them to a great extent (indeed, LINCOLN was probably more authoritarian then the WWI US government was).
FDR admired Mussolini.
And FDR also said strange things about Stalin. And Churchill at one point praised Hitler.
People make mistakes. The New Deal was a MAJOR one. But it was an expansion of government power into the economic sphere, which bordered on authoritarian in many places. But it did not seriously undermine the Democratic nature of our government.
In my opinion, there are two camps of Conservatives regarding WWI (those who know about it enough to get controversial over it, anyway): The “Roundhead” Conservatives, and the “Pikehat” Conservatives (yes, I really did make those names up on the spot now). The “Roundheads” (from the British helmet in both World Wars) most prominent member is easily Victor David Hanson, and they take the opinion that, in spite of the deep flaws of the WWI Allies, it was both justified and necessary to take to the field to defeat the Central Powers regardless of the cost. The “Pikehats” believe that the US had no place intervening in WWI and that the US was in fact only opening itself up to grave harm while fighting on behalf of the Imperialist democracies in WWI.
I cannot confirm this, but I believe that Goldberg is a “Pikehat,” thus some of his conclusions (even though his decision to do this -in my humble opinion- badly undercuts his thesis as a whole).
And, if you cannot determine which camp I have aligned myself behind by now, I will be severely offended.
But please, try to be more polite about it?
Alright. But you need to do your homework on each issue BEFORE opining on it. Especially in the disrespectful manner you did. If so, I WILL sideswipe you again.
Posted by Turtler
11/16/2008 at 09:46 PM
Pieper:
( I sincerely hope you appreciate me having to restructure this reply THREE times after loosing it).
As for arrogant, where? In the one line he used? In all the things I’ve ever read that Christopher has written, and it hasn’t been a whole lot either, I never detected arrogance.
The fact that A: He did not know much on either subject he discussed but insisted on acting like an expert AND B: The insulting and demeaning nature of his comment towards those whom he owes so much smack of nothing (not even ignorance) more then Arrogance.
Even if I mis-interpreted B, A alone remains a VERY valid point.
Again, the main issue I had was not his ignorance, but his arrogance in spite of his ignorance, and his insulting attitude above all.
You said anyone who looks hard enough can find the information. But to do that and find that specific information, you have to have some idea of it to begin with. No?
Look, I’m an old fart of 71. It wasn’t till I got married in my 30’s someplace, that I ever read any book that was not strictly history. Or a biography. Same thing I guess.
Wife once said that if books were nutrition I’d have died of malnutrition as my diet wasn’t varied. So I started reading novels and found I enjoyed those too. But history remained my passion. My favorite room in school was the library, not the playground outside. All I’m trying to say is that I haven’t been lazy at all, and yet ,, with all that reading over all these years, I never found the things you have.Believe it or not, but I actually DO read a variety of non-history books (Shakespeare, Janet Evanovich, Harry Potter, etc). And YES, the data IS out there for anyone who looks hard enough. And it is not as hard as it sounds (for instance, the Spanish documents I mentioned were off the web).
Ah ,,, I’m glad you mentioned fishing vessels and I did hear of that. I also read that many were in fact armed boats made to look like that. In the extremes of war, isn’t it possible for a nervous captain to fire
Yes, that is true.
especially when those “fishing boats” were in waters deemed off limits? I’m certain some innocent ones drifted into the war zones however and would not dismiss off hand that it couldn’t happen. We know it did.
Au Contraire: it probably DID NOT. Why? Because of the central part of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare: the entire ocean IS the war zone. National waters, neutral rights, and International law all got tossed under the bus, and the Wolf packs could hunt everywhere, with few restrictions.
Don’t forget, we’re talking about a guy who belonged very much to the 19th, not 20 century.
The international laws regarding the legal treatment were written down in the mid-19th century, and were added on in 1899 and 1907. So he acted against BOTH our modern conception of international law, AND the contemporary conception of it.
His idea of military honor didn’t allow for merchant ships to trick u-boats to surface and then open fire on them.
Nevermind the fact that half of those merchant ships would not be firing on them at all in the first place were it not for German violations of international law.
he most shocking thing he heard however, was the (very successful) Brit propaganda with regard to the Belgium babies and the rape of nuns. None of it true and the Brits today admit that.
So, let me get this straight:
* There were no executions of hundreds at a time (including women and children, according to the eyewitness accounts the British, French, and Belgians falsified, some of them from Germans) in response to virtually nonexistent Franc-Trieurs.
* The Germans did not burn down much of Leuven (including the library, called the “Oxford of Belgium), killing 248 and forcing 32,000 to abandon their homes under the threat of death.
* The German command did not condone the non-existent massacres in Liege, Andenne, and several other towns.
* The Germans did not deport thousands of Belgians to Germany without due cause, where they did not work without pay, largely without food, and under pain of death.
* There were no outright cases of systematic requisitioning/naked pillaging of supplies to the point where the population was not forced to choose between handing over their meager stocks and not facing famine, or between refusing and not being massacred en-masse in nonexistent murder holes.
* The entire policy of Schrecklichkeit never existed.
Sorry, don’t buy it. The Allies exaggerated German War crimes, yes. But the propaganda had a core of truth: the Kaiserreich sanctioned many atrocities against Belgian civilians in the war. Over 6,000 of them were executed outright, and even more perished of shortages or were worked to death in Germany.
And it wasn’t just Brave Little Belgium either.
After the Russian military rout in 1915, the Germans planned to use famine as a weapon against their own puppet (Congress Poland) to allow for it to be Germanized. In addition, they also were responsible for the Razing of Kalisz, and the orgy of looting and murder that happened it that.
They also both carried water for the Turks and HELPED them “dispose” of Armenian and Pontic Greek “undesirables.”
However, in order to catch the full level of the Kaiserreich’s plainly immoral and inhumane treatment, one must examine both the Maji-Maji revolt (where over 200,000-300,000 people died, almost all of them civilians, not rebels), and the Herero and Namaqua Wars, which killed between 24,000= more than 65,000 Herero alone, and even more Namaqua.
This should show that, far from being a noble foe, the Kaiserreich was entirely willing to resort to unscrupulous ends, even going so far as genocide, in order to attain its ends.
Indeed, Nazi Germany was largely forged when the old Bismarckean militarism met with the ideals of the Anti-Internationalist Socialist “Red” groups in Germany. And the distinct continuities (Belgium, Africa, Poland, Shark Island) are not hard to see. Indeed, it is worth noting that many of the butchers of the Third Reich grew up and served the Second Reich.
And that was not a coincidence.
But it stirred up huge hatred of Germans.
Wonder why?
Posted by Turtler
11/16/2008 at 10:31 PM
You guys are starting to sound like liberals.
I thought personal attacks were the mark of the liberal.
Our debates and discussions are best when they include the exchange of ideas and information.
CMBlake and I had a fairly sharp discussion a few months ago. There were some very pointed questions and statements exchanged. However, at NO POINT did either of us descend to personal attacks, even though, there were areas that could have easily gone that way. Some of the questions and statements did involve personal experiences and opinions where we differed greatly. He behaved as a gentleman and I like to think that I did too. That is the essence of a civilized debate.
Rereading this after posting, I realized that I violated my own statements when I said
My apologies, that first sentence should have been left out entirely.You guys are starting to sound like liberals.
Dr. Jeff:
Hate to break it to you, but you are more than a LEETTLE bit late to drop this meme on us.
>My apologies, that first sentence should have been left out entirely.
Well, at least you are honest enough to admit it. However, did you honestly READ the above comments? Apparently not.
I thought personal attacks were the mark of the liberal.
Oh puhleeze. In case you haven’t noticed, personal attacks are not purely the mark of the Left. For example, take a look at what probably is an industrial-grade drive-by personal attack by Christopher on a subject he doesn’t know much about on people who he (and we as well) owe our freedom to.
UNSUBSTANTIATED, STAND-ALONE personal attacks WITHOUT supporting evidence are not effective and rude.
Which is why I chose not to take that route.
Instead, I built up my case to make AN INDICTMENT of his character.
Did I stack my deck too much? Perhaps. But, even in the rosiest colors, Christopher chose to make an extremely ignorant comment on a subject he did not know about while acting like it is the unvarnished truth.
However, that was not enough for me to go after him.
Like I stated before, my primary issue was the arrogance of making such a statement without doing research, and the tone he used: particularly by demeaning the efforts and sacrifices of millions by calling it “Such a Crock” and then -to top it off- quoting Washington’s Farewell Address in spite of the fact that he obviously did not know the circumstances and reasons surrounding that proclamation and- far more importantly- WHY IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN 1917!
If I were to change a few words, submit that to the Daily Kos, and wait, you would have demeaned it- and rightfully so- as more trollish stupidity.
The difference is that it came from one of our own, and that -like it or not- It was thousands of times larger then tripe like the “BetrayUs” fiasco.
Now, is that not something so offensive and so widespread that the person writing it DESERVES to get one upside the head?
I firmly think so.
Now, in hindsight, I realize that he may not have intended it to be a malicious attack on those who fought, led, and perished.
It was just an ignorant comment that stepped in that direction.
Which, while it is a magnitude less offensive, remains a sore spot in that he had not bothered to do the research on the issue to avoid it before commenting like an expert.
And that is one thing I am entirely certain of.
So, while I may love Chris just like the rest of you, I will NEVER let such a callous and ignorant statement go unchallenged.
And, if this was coming from the Daily Kos, I suspect you would not either.
Some of the questions and statements did involve personal experiences and opinions where we differed greatly.
Sorry boys and girls, but if you cannot understand that
Personal Experiences + Opinions<<<<<Historical Integrity + The honor of millions…
Then you have absolutely no place commenting on this issue.
He behaved as a gentleman and I like to think that I did too. That is the essence of a civilized debate.
A drive-by, ignorant attack on the honor and integrity of millions who died so that we may live in freedom- INTENTIONAL OR NOT- is neither civilized nor debate. And it is also something I will not sit for.
One is entitled to their opinions, but not to one’s own facts.
And the facts are something Christopher- regardless of his intent- never researched anywhere near as deeply as the average High Schooler has in preparation for a test on this subject.
As a result, if I have to physically smack someone upside the head in order to get the point across that you do not comment on such a subject without doing your homework first, I will.
And I have.
Also, read the comments before responding. I think it will throw some light on the subject in contention here.
Posted by Turtler
11/17/2008 at 08:18 PM
11/15/2008 at 04:33 PM
11/16/2008 at 05:48 AM
Next entry: Here's a sure Moonbat award. Schools forced to seek pupils' views on discipline.
Previous entry: No Way. Really?