|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is World War 1 a special war?
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The Lincoln quote contradicts the idea you sometimes hear that the US civil war was a moral war (on one side and thus an immoral war on the other side) because it was a war to end slavery. s
Taken out of context, yes. Taken in the fuller context of everything that came before (both Lincoln's actions & that of the Confederacy) as well as Lincoln's other writings, it's quite clear that it was, indeed, a war about slavery more than any other single thing. I know of no credible historian (David Barton not fitting that descriptor) that thinks otherwise.
Whether or not that makes it a "moral" war depends very much on how you understand Just War theory. Lincoln himself believed the war was as much a judgment on the North as on the South, since the North, too, benefitted economically from slavery.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Historically didn't the American civil war mean that quite a few British people actually sided with the Confederate side?
Liverpool was known as the Confederate's shipyard, if I remember correctly as it made and sailed a few warships to the Southern states?
The American Civil war was a defining conflict, perhaps as much as WW1 was for the European powers?
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
British involvent is a bit of a mixed thing.
ISTM, to say the American Civil was was defining is a bit of an understatement.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
British involvent is a bit of a mixed thing.
ISTM, to say the American Civil was was defining is a bit of an understatement.
Ergo, World War is a defining war for Europe. The American Civil war is a defining war for the USA.
Interestingly, the tools of war pioneered by the American Civil War in the 1860s , were perfected if I may use such a term, by the European powers in 1914 - 1918.
If anyone wants to know about the absolute idiotic Generalship of WW1 by the way, look at this, on the last day (11th November 1918) idiotic power and glory hunting senior officers were sending innocents to their slaughter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aHHdB1rqxI
Michael Palin shows the craziness of WW1.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Historically didn't the American civil war mean that quite a few British people actually sided with the Confederate side?
Liverpool was known as the Confederate's shipyard, if I remember correctly as it made and sailed a few warships to the Southern states?
Yes, though the "working people" of Manchester refused to accept Confederate ships into their docks, and received a grateful letter from Lincoln in respone.
Karl Marx wrote quite a bit about the US Civil War, from an ardently pro-Union perspective. Since a portion of his income at the time was coming from Horace Greeley(the guy Lincoln was addressing in the infamous letter about not caring whether slavery is abolished), it could be said with only slight exaggeratiom that Marx was a paid propagandist for the US Republicans, albeit more radical than the average of them.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Ergo, World War is a defining war for Europe. The American Civil war is a defining war for the USA.
Interestingly, the tools of war pioneered by the American Civil War in the 1860s , were perfected if I may use such a term, by the European powers in 1914 - 1918.
I do not think it is this simple. Tactics shown to be futile in the American Civil War and the Boer war, were still used in WWI. Perfected? Hardly.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tactics shown to be futile in the American Civil War and the Boer war, were still used in WWI. Perfected? Hardly.
Perfected insomuch that a greater number of combatants died needlessly ?
Having something of a personal interest in WW1 I would describe it as more of a Greek Tragedy than 'special'.
The war to end all wars turned from an an enthusiastic/naive populist military venture into a massive, never before seen, industrial killing fest . In that respect alone I suspect WW1 will always retain a sense of uniqueness in the history of warfare.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Ergo, World War is a defining war for Europe. The American Civil war is a defining war for the USA.
Interestingly, the tools of war pioneered by the American Civil War in the 1860s , were perfected if I may use such a term, by the European powers in 1914 - 1918.
I do not think it is this simple. Tactics shown to be futile in the American Civil War and the Boer war, were still used in WWI. Perfected? Hardly.
By 1917 they were perfected. The British Army converted to platoon tactics after the slaughter at the Somme, which was the last great infantry charge in the Napoleonic style. The British and Commonwealth armies also learned to put far, far more emphasis on support units, logistics, effective use of artillery and counter-battery fire.
It wasn't enough anymore to put a private in line have his officer tell him when and where to fire. There had to be extensive reconnaissance, placement of artillery, massive logistic support up to and including narrow-gauge railways for ammunition, preparatory bombardment to cut wire and counter-battery fire to eliminate artillery and machine guns.
The Canadian Army at Vimy did all that and more. Each company was briefed on their objective on a scale model behind the lines and individual soldiers were provided maps. If half the company fell, the remainder would still know where to go. It was an incredibly popular move in the ranks that the Canadian Corps' leadership trusted them enough to give them maps and let them react to the circumstances as needed.
Oh yes, and a creeping barrage to cover the assault; the artillery fired 20 yards in front of the advancing troops and the whole mass moved forward at a standard pace, the "Vimy Glide".
By 1917 the Napoleonic model of officers commanding battalions in line and marching for mass and manoeuvre was dead in the British Army. It suffered a mortal blow at the Somme and expired at Vimy.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Ergo, World War is a defining war for Europe. The American Civil war is a defining war for the USA.
Interestingly, the tools of war pioneered by the American Civil War in the 1860s , were perfected if I may use such a term, by the European powers in 1914 - 1918.
I do not think it is this simple. Tactics shown to be futile in the American Civil War and the Boer war, were still used in WWI. Perfected? Hardly.
LB
That is why I qualified my phrase ''perfected''. The American Civil War, the Boer War (to a much lesser degree) and World War 1 in particular, ''perfected'' the art of mass, mechanised, industrialised warfare.
Remember that for Britain, apart from some colonial wars, these were medium to small conflicts, the Pax Brittania ruled (from 1815 to 1914), certainly across much of the British Empire. The last major land battle, prior to WW1, was fought by Britain, in 1815 at the battle of Waterloo.
Tactics had changed in the Boer war, for example the widespread use of Khaki by British troops, but many tactics remained stuck in the 19th Century. WW1 was a shock and a wake up call to many.
I feel that the casus belli for WW1 was a conflict by imperial powers for imperial power.
There have been many conflicting views on WW1 as we approach the 100th anniversary of it's outbreak. There will continue to be so.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
By 1917 they were perfected. The British Army converted to platoon tactics after the slaughter at the Somme, which was the last great infantry charge in the Napoleonic style.
Just a pity the mud defeated Haig at Paschendale . I wonder if it isn't a 60s 'Oh what a lovely war' myth that Field Marshall Haig wanted to go for glory in 17 before the Americans showed up .
It was imperative to try and get to the Dutch and Belgian ports from which the crippling submarine attacks were being launched.
It failed, so sadly another year of bitter attrition was required.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The whole timeline of 1917-1918 has received a gloss in popular history and the incredibly odd turns of events that led the Germans to seek an armistice are overlooked. By the Last Hundred Days, the Allies had developed a workable system to launch and sustain offensives that the Germans couldn't counter. The German Army also couldn't deal with the casualties anymore. The German government's resolve broke in the wake of casualties and widespread shortages.
It's probably telling that Lloyd George stated he would have replaced Haig with Gen. Currie of the Canadian Corps later in 1918 if the war had gone on.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's probably telling that Lloyd George stated he would have replaced Haig with Gen. Currie of the Canadian Corps later in 1918 if the war had gone on.
Although what it would probably be telling was that Lloyd George hated Haig and had been trying to get rid of him for years.
I completely agree that the fact that the hundred days has been forgotten in the general historical illiteracy with which many (most?) people view the first world war. But so too have been the personal relationships behind them. Lloyd George seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time flinging mud around to try and cover up his own failings as Minister of Munitions in 1915, which arguably contributed to more deaths than any general.
Haig, fwiw, is due a serious reappraisal, which I'm hopeful will come soon. In the UK there are already several new books out dealing with the British army in 1918, and the tide seems to be turning in Haig and his mens' favour at long last.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
WWI was 'special' (perhaps 'mind-numbingly awful' would be a better description) in my eyes, for reasons I outline in my current article for Ship of Fools which begins thus:
'Like most servicemen in World War I, my grandfather kept tobacco in his breast pocket. Just as well, or I wouldn't be here to tell the tale.
'I've been told a New Testament was in the same pocket, as well as a love letter from my grandmother. Together, they took the impact of a German bullet, diverting the lead just enough to miss his heart by a quarter of an inch. The bullet made a hole right through the letter. Disappointingly, I've never seen it...'
More here.
--------------------
Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
A moving story. But I'm afraid I can't help being reminded of the bad taste joke by I think Stephen Fry about the cigarette case that 'I have here. My great grandfather always carried it over his heart in his left breast pocket when he went to war in 1914. On 1 July 1916 he led his men over the top at the Battle of the Somme. In no-man's land, a German sniper fired at him and the bullet went....right through his head, blowing his brains out. Which is just as well, or there'd have been a nasty dent in the cigarette case....'
[ 19. May 2014, 12:39: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
A moving story. But I'm afraid I can't help being reminded of the bad taste joke about the cigarette case ...
..... continuing the bad taste theme, I wonder if the course of history would have been changed if the British attack force had been issued with very large cigarette cases on July 1st 1916.
Back to reality, mobile steel-plated beak shaped things were tried for infantry to shelter behind during an advance, but were proved to be useless . Even thickly plated tanks were not impervious to bullets at close range.
Interestingly the romantic stories of cigarette cases, or pocket watches, stopping the passage of a bullet do actually provide a good example as to why WW1 does hold a special , even surreal place in the imaginations of many of us.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
