First World War Beyond Living Memory So Let It Rest?

[Jason]

Jesus Christ.

[surreptitious57]

The First World War was avoidable as it was a feud between all the related European dynasties which escalated because of the precarious balance of power. But it could so easily have been resolved nonetheless. The Second World War was entirely different and absolutely so too. No intricate balance of power here, as there was only one dominant one. It was, unlike the previous one, completely necessary. And what is sad is that many today are probably blissfully unaware of the sacrifice made to guarantee freedom, freedom which is taken for granted unfortunately. And which came at an astonishing price. The Russians alone lost twenty million so we should never forget lest it happen again. And the best way to guarantee that is to remember those who gave their lives and learn from the mistakes of history

Completely neccessary? For freedom?

Given that WWII allowed the Communists to prosper in Russia and capture half of Europe then I think it a stretch to say that
My honest opinion is that the British and French Empires backed the wrong side

If the West could live with Stalin / the Communists then could certainly have lived with Hitler / the Nazis

A Europe half dominated by Communism was far more preferable to one completely dominated by Fascism, which is what would have happened had Germany won, so freedom was achieved even if not absolutely so. As far as the British and French Empires backing the wrong side, Russia was zero threat to either when war was declared against Germany. Hindsight is a wonderful thing now, but at the time there was no alternative but to defend Poland when it was invaded and subsequently accept Russia as an ally after Barbarossa. All this could have been prevented of course, had Britain and France stopped the occupation of the Rhineland three years earlier, but they did nothing, and the British in particular were not all that bothered as it was not a direct threat to them anyway. Also, even before that and even before Hitler came to power, Germany was quietly re arming herself, in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty, but no one did anything about that either.

The British and French could have lived with Hitler? Absolutly not as he had no intention of allowing any freedom in Europe. Though had he stopped at Russia, he could have consolidated his dominance within the continent but unfortunately - for him - he became too powerful to exercise any objectivity, which ultimately led to Germany losing the war. He should have learned from Napoleon who made the same mistake himself. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Get a room, you two.

Do you feel compelled to comment on this?

Is there a rule to say he can't?

That's all.

[JimC]

WWI was a bloody, muddy, mess. It was, in my opinion, a far more terrifying war from the point of view of your average soldier than WWII. It was, however, very dull in comparison. WWII had much more action and, instead of an inscrutable Kaiser and some other silly hatted monarchs, there was Hitler and Churchill, Patton and Rommel, and it the theatre of war was much larger and global.

I challenge you to name one WWI general without searching. Battles are easy.. Dieppe, Ypres, etc.. WWII did not have many such epic battles except Hurtgen, Berlin, and some few others, but it was rapid action packed.

Hmmmm ...

Foch
Petain
Mangin
Nivelle
Joffre
Ludendorff
von Hindenburg
von Moltke
von Falkenhayn
von Lettow-Vorbeck
Haig
French
Pershing
Smuts
Brusilov
von Rennenkampf
Monash

...etc. Some of those are field-marshals, but that's just a "super-general" in my book. And I'm ignoring the leading naval and air commanders.

And Monash was the best of the lot!

[trdsf]

WWI was a bloody, muddy, mess. It was, in my opinion, a far more terrifying war from the point of view of your average soldier than WWII. It was, however, very dull in comparison. WWII had much more action and, instead of an inscrutable Kaiser and some other silly hatted monarchs, there was Hitler and Churchill, Patton and Rommel, and it the theatre of war was much larger and global.

I challenge you to name one WWI general without searching. Battles are easy.. Dieppe, Ypres, etc.. WWII did not have many such epic battles except Hurtgen, Berlin, and some few others, but it was rapid action packed.

Pershing is all I got. I'd have to wiki to remind myself of any others.

[trdsf]

I don't agree either. I was only musing on why people seem to focus on WWII and not WWI. In Canada, remembrance day covers both world wars. If I remember right from my high school days so long ago.

It does here too, but there are simply no survivors any more I guess, which does make it harder to make it 'live'. However I think although all wars pretty well are horrible, pointless and savage, WW1 has a particular horror all its own as the first industrialized war where attrition in the form of who could stand to lose the most men on any given day has a particular grotesque lesson to teach us.

The last WWI veteran in the world died earlier this year, although she served in a non-combat position. The last combat veteran died last year. There are no doubt still some few alive who can remember the war, but none who actually served in it any more.

[klr]

...
And Monash was the best of the lot!

You would say that.

And I forget the likes of Samsonov, Castelnau and Allenby from the original list. I must be slipping.

[charlou]

Kerfuffle.

[klr]

Oh crap ... it's David Dimbleby time again, and it's not the US elections this time.