Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SMIDSY on August 13, 2005, 05:40:39 AM

Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: SMIDSY on August 13, 2005, 05:40:39 AM
was just thinking to myself about the soldiers in the first world war. and the more i think about it, the more i am amazed at the sence of duty of the average soldier. these men saw the waves of their comrades get cut down like grain, then without hesitation, charged to certain death simply because they were ordered to. even in the conscript army of france (not a crack at france, but at draftees).

how can men summon the courage to do such things?
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: DREDIOCK on August 13, 2005, 09:10:20 AM
Equally astounding I have often asked this about the Civil war.

These guys set up in nice neat formations marching directly into the face of enemy fire.

Imagine being in the front line of that.

heh the one time I'd rather be at the back of the line thankyouverymuch
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: soda72 on August 13, 2005, 09:41:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Equally astounding I have often asked this about the Civil war.

These guys set up in nice neat formations marching directly into the face of enemy fire.

Imagine being in the front line of that.

heh the one time I'd rather be at the back of the line thankyouverymuch


Early in the Civil War men would laugh when they would hand out shovels to dig trenches.  Hiding behind dirt or a tree was not seen as very manly.  As the war progressed that attitude changed.  Soldiers seeing time and time again their friends blown to bits realized that hiding behind a mound of dirt has a lot of appeal....

Cold Harbor, was a turning point for this...  After making a frontal assualt against an entrenched confedrate line the union suffered over 10,000 causalities.   When Grant ordered another assualt one commanding officer said that he would not go even if Jesus Christ order him to do so...  It was the frist time troops on the front line said this is insane, wrong, and we aren't doing this anymore...
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Gunslinger on August 13, 2005, 11:29:58 AM
Yea there's not much to standing in a nice grouped line and exchanging fire with the enemy....except Guts that is.

This form of warfare was based on attrition.  The person with the most men in the end would win the battle.  This is why casualties would be so high and we'd end up losing more than a half million Americans by the wars end.  

they allways taught us in boot camp that you didn't charge that hill or in there case climb the trench and run out into "no man's land" becuase you were brave or had a sense of duty.  You did it because the guy next to you was going.  In a sense you don't want to let him down.  It's one of the most powerfull tools of leadership in warfare.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Zakhal on August 13, 2005, 11:34:39 AM
I just watched the movie "fields of glory". Makes one understand more the german post-ww1 viewpoint with versailles treaty on their neck.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Gunslinger on August 13, 2005, 11:36:53 AM
I still love the story about the two apposing lines that quit fighting over christmas, exchanged gifts, and even had a soccor match.  IIRC those two units had to be transfered to different areas of the front because they refused to fight eachother.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Skydancer on August 13, 2005, 11:40:50 AM
I think it was good old British stubborness that kept our men going over the top! That and the fear of being Shot!!!!

If you understand the terrible loss of life in Britain and France during WW1 you go a good way towards understanding why we were reluctant initialy to start WW2 and why when we did we were damn determined to bomb em to dust and not to let them start the third.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Zakhal on August 13, 2005, 11:58:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Skydancer
If you understand the terrible loss of life in Britain and France during WW1 you go a good way towards understanding why we were reluctant initialy to start WW2 and why when we did we were damn determined to bomb em to dust and not to let them start the third. [/B]


France and britain got their "revenge" with versailles peace treaty.

Germans got nothing, instead they were punished more (like they didnt suffer enough in the war allready). WW1 left them with a lot anger which breeded the WW2.

Allies handled real well post-ww2. They didnt repeat the mistake and today.. europe is united (ok not without som little disputes). But still...all those people in great war didnt die for nothing. Look at as now!
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: DREDIOCK on August 13, 2005, 06:27:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Zakhal
europe is united (ok not without som little disputes). But still...all those people in great war didnt die for nothing. Look at as now!


Give em time. Give em time
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Gunslinger on August 13, 2005, 06:30:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Zakhal
France and britain got their "revenge" with versailles peace treaty.

Germans got nothing, instead they were punished more (like they didnt suffer enough in the war allready). WW1 left them with a lot anger which breeded the WW2.

Allies handled real well post-ww2. They didnt repeat the mistake and today.. europe is united (ok not without som little disputes). But still...all those people in great war didnt die for nothing. Look at as now!


just wait till the EU bans all pointed kitchen knifes and assigns mandatory helmet laws for sidwalk strolling.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Zakhal on August 13, 2005, 07:20:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
just wait till the EU bans all pointed kitchen knifes and assigns mandatory helmet laws for sidwalk strolling.


Oh please my mother ate newspapers for hunger. What we have now is just kindergarten problems.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Gunslinger on August 13, 2005, 07:23:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Zakhal
Oh please my mother ate newspapers for hunger. What we have now is just kindergarten problems.


meaning you need a nanny

nanny = EU

just my thoughts
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Zakhal on August 13, 2005, 07:36:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
meaning you need a nanny

nanny = EU

just my thoughts


No she really did eat newspapers. It wasnt a joke. Poor people...hunger.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: vorticon on August 13, 2005, 08:58:33 PM
whats duty got to do with it? sure if they went over the trenches they could get shot, but if they didnt they would be.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Hangtime on August 14, 2005, 02:03:09 AM
Surprised you guys missed the French take on WWI warfare.

Mutiny. In May 1917, their entire ARMY refused to fight.. and for the remainder of the war, the Commonwealth and the US carried the brunt of offensive operations.

That's right folks.. France, with the invader on her soil, had entire divisons refuse their orders to assault German Positions, leaving the dirty work to British, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian troops. Took the arrival of US troops a month later, in June; to break the stalemate. French troops were never again used in an Alled offensive. Had the Americans not been in France the following spring the Allies would have folded under the weight of the German offensive (they defeated the Russians the previous fall). The result was the Germans, unable to sustain their very successful Spring 1918 offensive operations against the combined strength and reslove[/b] of the Commonwealth and American troops, the Huns would have won the war.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: Lazerus on August 14, 2005, 02:57:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Hangtime
Surprised you guys missed the French take on WWI warfare.

Mutiny. In May 1917, their entire ARMY refused to fight.. and for the remainder of the war, the Commonwealth and the US carried the brunt of offensive operations.

That's right folks.. France, with the invader on her soil, had entire divisons refuse their orders to assault German Positions, leaving the dirty work to British, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian troops. Took the arrival of US troops a month later, in June; to break the stalemate. French troops were never again used in an Alled offensive. Had the Americans not been in France the following spring the Allies would have folded under the weight of the German offensive (they defeated the Russians the previous fall). The result was the Germans, unable to sustain their very successful Spring 1918 offensive operations against the combined strength and reslove
of the Commonwealth and American troops, the Huns would have won the war. [/B]


All just anti-EU propoganda.

You damn Euro-haters can't ever get the revised version of history right.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: cpxxx on August 14, 2005, 08:03:52 AM
Hangtime that is a serious distortion of the facts. The French army took the brunt of the fighting and the casualities up to that point of the war.

They were badly treated by their own officers, had no home leave, bad food, low pay. Above all they had lost  confidence in their high command and felt they were being sacrificed like sheep by incompetant generals.

Some had spent three years at the front.

They also suffered the highest casualty rate of any army on the Western front. Something  like 75% of French soldiers were killed or wounded during the war.

Just how long would Americans or British put up with that sort of treatment? Not long I can assure you.

Here are two sites I googled as back up to my comments.



Mutiny 1 (http://www.webmatters.net/france/ww1_chemin_mutiny.htm)


mutiny 2 (http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/history20/unit1/sec5/sec5_05.html)

The miracle is that they put up with as long as they did.
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: straffo on August 14, 2005, 08:18:51 AM
I know your school system is the worst on this planet
But can't you just document yourself instead of acting like a parrot ?

Quote
Originally posted by Zakhal
France and britain got their "revenge" with versailles peace treaty.


No it was not revenge it was reparation
Do you know the amount paid by the German the was inferior to the reparation paid by France for the 1870 war ?

 
Quote
Germans got nothing, [/B]

They lost what else can you expect ?

 
Quote
 instead they were punished more (like they didnt suffer enough in the war allready).  [/B]

They behaved like attila the hun in north of France and Belgium , robbed destroyed and abused all they can.
Did Germany suffer ?
Certainly but not more than the other in fact they suffered a lot less.


Quote
WW1 left them with a lot anger which breeded the WW2.[/B]

Hitler never made anything else than reproducing the schema made before WWI , he just was more successfull.
Nothing related to anger but more an old imperialist plan ... in fact a 100 year plan ...
Title: WWI, a thought
Post by: cpxxx on August 14, 2005, 08:29:14 AM
Indeed Straffo,

Germany wasn't invaded and no part of the war was fought on German soil except in the east early in the war. The German army marched home with their rifles.
The Versailles treaty was unfair to some degree. But much of France and Belgium was devastated by German actions. They should have been paid for.