A Hundred Years After the Armistice. Did your relatives fight in WWI and were there lessons learnt? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14962819
Both my grandfathers were fighting in France. My paternal grandfather was wounded and married the nurse who looked after him in hospital. That's all I know about him, as dad said he never spoke of it, except to teach dad all the words to " Mademoiselle of Armentieres", which I will come to later.

My maternal grandfather was a field gunner in the Royal Artillery. He was a sergeant major of some kind and that's all I know about him, as he never spoke of it , either. As far as I know, he didn't teach mum any rude songs, but then he wouldn't. He might have taught my uncles.

Both died before I was born.

I watched the film " They shall not grow old" on remembrance day. There's not much I can say about the breathtaking genius of that film, except I tried to search the faces of all the gun crew shown in case any of them looked familiar to the man in the photograph my grandmother used to have on her parlour wall.

The film finished with a motley crew of manly voices singing " Mademoiselle of Armentieres", in which I joined in, tears streaming down my face. My dad had no problem in teaching his only daughter the words.

Every year I wear my poppy with pride. I dont give a shit what a load of backwards reading amateur historians might think.

Never read history backwards. It distorts the truth.
#14962829
Sivad wrote:Neiberg argues that the war wasn't a structural inevitability, that it was a contingent outcome resulting from the decisions of individuals.

Which individuals? Just the British ones that Corbett blames, such as Rhodes, despite him dying in 1902? Does Neiberg talk about the "very secretive place" All Souls College too? :lol:

Kate Epstein makes the case that the war resulted from the 'Anglo-German antagonism' and the competing alliance system.

As I said, provide time stamps if you want a discussion or people to take your claim seriously. In the first section I saw it seemed she was saying British naval policy had been less about competing with Germany than had been claimed in the 'standard' analysis by Marder.

That the rise of Germany brought British imperialism to a crisis in which Britain had to decide whether to fall back from its imperial project or "lean forward" as global hegemon. That is all in keeping with the narrative laid out by Corbett.

That applies in all analyses, surely?
#14963244
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Which individuals? Just the British ones that Corbett blames


Corbett is focusing on a specific group of British elites but that doesn't mean he attributes the war solely to their machinations.

such as Rhodes, despite him dying in 1902?


The video repeatedly states that Rhodes died in 1902. The video does emphasize the role Rhodes played in the formation of that elite cabal because that's key to understanding the history.


Does Neiberg talk about the "very secretive place" All Souls College too? :lol:


Leo Amery, a prominent fellow of All Souls and a friend of Churchill refers to the college as "a worldwide secret society pledged to see to it that its members are ensconced in all the key positions of public life." The fact is All Souls was an extremely exclusive elitist institution that served as an old boy network for many in the upper echelon of the British establishment.


As I said, provide time stamps if you want a discussion or people to take your claim seriously.


Based on the incompetence and dishonesty you've displayed above I don't take you seriously so I don't really see the need to continue.

And just a bit of advice, if you're gonna be dismissive and condescending you better know what you're talking about, otherwise you just come off as a total buffoon.
#14963273
I'm no fan of Churchill or Grey or the rest of the anti German, British foreign policy faction, but there's zero evidence that they had any influence on the Russian de-facto declaration of war in support of Serbian state backed terrorism, or the French blank check to Russia that underlay it.

Lies and hypocrisy have always been a feature of war as they are a feature of all forms of human interaction. But Woodrow Wilson was a particularly, pompous, conceited and hypocritical individual, his fourteen points a prime example. Americans are responsible for the involvement in World War I as they were for the 1812 war. its time to face up to the fact that Wilson was a worst racist than Adolph Hitler, but this truth is completely hidden because he was a Judophile.
#14963280
Rich wrote:I'm no fan of Churchill or Grey or the rest of the anti German, British foreign policy faction, but there's zero evidence that they had any influence on the Russian de-facto declaration of war in support of Serbian state backed terrorism, or the French blank check to Russia that underlay it.


The massive amounts of capital flowing into Russia from British banks to build up the Russian military is pretty good evidence.
#14963289
Sivad wrote:Based on the incompetence and dishonesty you've displayed above I don't take you seriously so I don't really see the need to continue.

And just a bit of advice, if you're gonna be dismissive and condescending you better know what you're talking about, otherwise you just come off as a total buffoon.

What you've given up trying to do is link the serious video to the conspiracy one in any way. You haven't shown any 'incompetence' or 'dishonesty' on my behalf. All you did was take the bits where I laugh at the absurdity of the conspiracy theory and say "but it's serious!" (since your quote was actually put as "half joking", that seems to back up my attitude of laughing at the accusation against All Souls). You show no reason to not dismiss you claim that there are links between your 2 videos. And if you're still not going to bother actually saying what in a 2 hour video you think makes the link, then you're worth condescending to. Laziness doesn't make a conspiracy theory any better.
#14963297
I see the views of those on the topic & I understand them, whether pro-or antagonist to waging war.

I have for a long time advocated that the U.N(being the globally acknowledged Law Maker, in global affairs)bring in a law that is passed on majority voting(no veto), whereby, any dictator, in any country, including 'kingdoms', can be assassinated without anybody being held accountable for that action, whether by an individual, or group, providing no third party is physically injured or killed by that action.

Should such a law be invoked, it would make all dictators sleep more lightly & consider the possible consequences of their actions on others.
It would also curtail their thirst for aggression against their neighbours, thus making the world more peaceful.

If it's a matter of a possible world war or the life of one individual in the balance, that individual(dictator)has two choices, war or relinquish power absolutely, before the former looms, failing that, is when the proposed U.N law, legally making dictators a target to kill, would be a very reasonable proposition.
Last edited by Nonsense on 14 Nov 2018 13:34, edited 2 times in total.
#14963301
Prosthetic Conscience wrote: All you did was take the bits where I laugh at the absurdity of the conspiracy theory and say "but it's serious!"


The only thing that's absurd is your imbecilic derision. You haven't made a substantive criticism yet, you've contributed nothing at all to the discussion. All you've done is blunder in with an obtuse mentality and demand that I time stamp a video. :knife:

(since your quote was actually put as "half joking", that seems to back up my attitude of laughing at the accusation against All Souls).


How do you figure? First of all, half joking is the historian's interpretation, but even if Amery was half joking, he was only half joking. Half joking suggests there's a fair degree of truth in the statement. So it doesn't back up your witless braying, what it does is confirm that the All Souls clique definitely had a behind-the-scenes, inner circle aspect to it which could be reasonably characterized as "secretive".
#14963306
Nonsense wrote:I see the views of those on the topic & I understand them, whether pro-or antagonist to waging war.

I have for a long time advocated that the U.N(being the globally acknowledged Law Maker, in global affairs)bring in a law that is passed on majority voting(no veto), whereby, any dictator, in any country, including 'kingdoms', can be assassinated without being held accountable for that action, whether by an individual, or group, providing no third party is physically injured or killed by that action.

Should such a law be invoked, it would make all dictators sleep more lightly & consider the possible consequences of their actions on others.
It would also curtail their thirst for aggression against their neighbours, thus making the world more peaceful.

If it's a matter of a possible world war or the life of one individual in the balance, that individual(dictator)has two choices, war or relinquish power absolutely, before the former looms, failing that, is when the proposed U.N law, legally making dictators a target to kill, would be a very reasonable proposition.


What does assasinating dictators have to do with preventing war today? I do agree a UN type body should jointly eradicate any country that is aggressive towards it’s neighbors. However, you must first break up the countries too large to be attacked.
#14963308
One Degree wrote:What does assasinating dictators have to do with preventing war today? I do agree a UN type body should jointly eradicate any country that is aggressive towards it’s neighbors. However, you must first break up the countries too large to be attacked.


Nonsense- Well, time is not relevant, so much as the principle, which would prevent possible war today, if such a dictator of a country was overtly preparing to attack his neighbour's.

It is saying, don't threaten without being threatened yourself, there are consequences to your declared intent, therefore, expect a price to be paid for such belligerence.

It doesn't matter what size the country is, the target would be the 'leader'(dictator), not anyone else.

Would N. Korea for instance, attack America with nuclear missiles, if KIM was taken out as a result of his threats to attack America with those weapons?

I doubt it for two reasons, one, the certainty of destruction by America, secondly, it would be a perfect opportunity to change that country's future if he were killed.
Even if he were replaced by a military dictatorship, they would think twice before threatening America or any other country again for that matter.
#14963311
Nonsense wrote:Nonsense- Well, time is not relevant, so much as the principle, which would prevent possible war today, if such a dictator of a country was overtly preparing to attack his neighbour's.

It is saying, don't threaten without being threatened yourself, there are consequences to your declared intent, therefore, expect a price to be paid for such belligerence.

It doesn't matter what size the country is, the target would be the 'leader'(dictator), not anyone else.

Would N. Korea for instance, attack America with nuclear missiles, if KIM was taken out as a result of his threats to attack America with those weapons?

I doubt it for two reasons, one, the certainty of destruction by America, secondly, it would be a perfect opportunity to change that country's future if he were killed.
Even if he were replaced by a military dictatorship, they would think twice before threatening America or any other country again for that matter.


The entire country’s populace is guilty, not just the leader. It is their responsibility to have decent leaders.
#14963320
One Degree wrote:The entire country’s populace is guilty, not just the leader. It is their responsibility to have decent leaders.

According to whose standard? Most leaders don't even live up to their own standards let alone anyone else. One mans genocide is another man's noble, righteous and lawful elimination of terrorists. I have to say I find the whole find idea of absolute sovereignty within national borders absurd. There has been no case where humanity has agreed on all the borders within which sovereignty occurs.

I also find your micro state system implausible. If there were there were tens of thousands of nation states they would inevitably form alliances and quasi supra-national bodies. They would inevitably pool sovereignty. Powerful dominating blocks and coalitions would inevitably appear.
#14963324
Rich wrote:According to whose standard? Most leaders don't even live up to their own standards let alone anyone else. One mans genocide is another man's noble, righteous and lawful elimination of terrorists. I have to say I find the whole find idea of absolute sovereignty within national borders absurd. There has been no case where humanity has agreed on all the borders within which sovereignty occurs.

I also find your micro state system implausible. If there were there were tens of thousands of nation states they would inevitably form alliances and quasi supra-national bodies. They would inevitably pool sovereignty. Powerful dominating blocks and coalitions would inevitably appear.


Certainly, you are just describing the historical cycle we are trapped in. My idea is only plausible when people understand the causes of this cycle and consciously reject it. Once understood, there is no reason to advocate empire again.
#14963414
@Sivad , I'm going to put on my moderator hat and tell you to tone it down. So far you have said
"Somebody here is certainly full of shit and talking out their ass and it ain't the guy in the video."
"Based on the incompetence and dishonesty you've displayed above"
"if you're gonna be dismissive and condescending you better know what you're talking about, otherwise you just come off as a total buffoon."
"your imbecilic derision. You haven't made a substantive criticism yet, you've contributed nothing at all to the discussion. All you've done is blunder in with an obtuse mentality "
" your witless braying"

You have been insulting to more than one member. Keep it respectful, or I'll delete your posts.
#14963421
One Degree wrote:The entire country’s populace is guilty, not just the leader. It is their responsibility to have decent leaders.


Nonsense- Ideally, YES, but most countries with dictatorships or monarchs, have little or no experience of democracy.

Considering the political state of the U.K today, it is arguable that the 'responsibility to have decent leaders' has long fallen on deaf ears & many other countries too.

Democracy is nowhere near perfect, as Winston CHURCHILL said to the effect , 'Democracy is perhaps the worst form of government, bar the rest of them'.
It's bit of a lottery IMHO & there is too much party political ideological interest blocking proper democratic functioning in practice.
#14963500
I believe my great grandfather was in the Austro-Hungarian Army (he came from Silesia), but I don't really know how much fighting he saw.

In Poland WWI as such is not that big of a deal anyway (it's never called The Great War or something similar, for example). It's mostly commemorated due to the 1918 events that lead to restoring independence (the three states that had partitioned the country collapsed at the same time to one degree or another), and the national feast is on November 11 when Józef Piłsudski did something specific I can't even recall off the top of my head.

WWII has definitely a bigger myth here.
#14963648
For Peace and Money: French and British Finance in the Service of Tsars and Commissars (Oxford Studies in International History)

In 1907, the prominent German banker Max Warburg(fitting name) proudly informed a room full of his peers: "In no epoch has financial power played a greater role than in ours." Neither Warburg nor his audience perceived even a trace of hyperbole in such a pronouncement. From their perspective, the ability to exert the power of capital, on both a corporate and a national level, was paramount in any international endeavor.

The decades before the First World War witnessed the strengthening of the links in Great Britain amongst banking, finance, and international diplomacy.

_________________________________


preparations for the First World War gathered pace. After the humbling defeat to Japan in 1905, Russian industry recovered spectacularly thanks to the Rothschilds and other international bankers who continued to pour massive loans into the country. The Russian economy grew at an average rate of 8.8 per cent and by 1914 there were almost a thousand factories in Petrograd alone, many devoted to producing armaments. The expansion of Russia’s war industry, along with her rail network into Poland, deeply worried war planners in Berlin. But it came at a cost. ‘The pre-war Russian boom was thus highly leveraged, [and] dependent on a constant influx of foreign capital, which if it ever dried up, would leave Russia’s entire economy vulnerable.’ [9]

Shipbuilding, railroad construction and armaments and munitions production significantly expanded. The international bankers earned large profits from substantial interest rates on their loans, and at the same time, enabled Russia to conduct a major rearmament programme in readiness for the Secret Elite’s coming war with Germany. Given that Britain had no land army on European soil, Russian manpower was absolutely critical to an attack on Germany. Bullets and artillery shells were produced by the millions. A powerful new fleet of battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines began rising on the stocks in shipyards across the empire. Conditions attached to large railway loans insisted that these had to be used purely for the construction of new railroads which ran towards Germany’s borders. Why was this particular stipulation given priority? Mobilising an army of millions had never been easy. It required efficient planning and careful logistical organisation. A capable railway network was a prerequisite for the mobilisation of the huge Russian armies which would be critical when war with Germany was declared. [10] Look again at the men who laid down the stipulation. International bankers. How odd, unless of course it was they who were planning the war.

In late July 1914, Czar Nicholas II, urged on in his recklessness by the French president, Poincare, and secret understandings with the British government, used the pretext of protecting Serbia against Austrian retribution to force Germany to declare war. He ordered the general mobilisation of Russia’s armies through a massive build-up of troops along Germany’s Eastern border. General mobilisation was recognised by all nations as an act of war. Faced with invasion by millions of Russian troops, and despite repeated requests from Kaiser Wilhelm directly to Czar Nicholas that he should stop the troop movements, Germany was left with no choice but to mobilise her own forces and go to war with Russia.

To repay the Czar for his ‘loyalty’, the Secret Elite dangled before him the golden carrot of Russia’s ultimate dream. A solemn promise was given that Russia would be given Constantinople and the Straits once Germany had been defeated, the holy grail of Russian leaders for centuries. That was why Russia went to war in July 1914, not, as she claimed, to defend Serbia. As the years dragged on and the Russian losses on the Eastern Front approached six million dead or seriously wounded, even the Czar began to suspect that Perfidious Albion had tricked them into war with an empty promise. [12] It had. Their ownership of Constantinople remained as illusionary as it always had.

In a sense it was as though Russia went to war in 1914 despite the revolutionary undercurrent. Victory on the field of battle, the glittering reward of a warm-water port at Constantinople, the spoils from a broken and defeated Germany would surely have renewed popular faith in the Russian monarchy. In fact the deeply wounded Russian people suffered defeat, disgrace and ultimate disintegration. The socialist forces that had been growing steadily between 1904 and 1914 found direct backing from foreign quarters few ever understood. This has to be fully examined.
https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.word ... &search=Go
#14963650
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:[color=#FF0000]@Sivad , I'm going to put on my moderator hat and tell you to tone it down.



So you get to be rude, dismissive, and condescending and then "put your moderator hat on" when anyone gives it back to you? Maybe you should moderate yourself first and then you can lecture people about being respectful.
#15018508
Anarchist23 wrote: Although threatened with execution by firing squad my grandfather refused to fight in WWI.
He was incarcerated in Wormwood Scrubs Prison in London for two and a half years but did not relent.

George Baker was an interesting man and was the first to publish his account of life as a conscientious objector in WWI. I am researching him and would love to know how he got on in later life as many objectors had trouble in finding employment etc.

Please continue your story and that about his writing.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]