99 Years
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2013, 04:19 AM
RE: 99 Years
(28-07-2013 11:37 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Didn't they call WW1 the war to end all wars?

You're both right. I think that's why people went around recording the memories of WW2. So those stories won't be forgotten completely.

World War II was, essentially, a continuation of World War I.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 08:43 AM
RE: 99 Years
(29-07-2013 03:22 AM)WeasleyFromTheShire Wrote:  
(29-07-2013 03:06 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  No it wasn't, they were still used to some degree in WW2.
The Polish army for example.

Cavalry became rather obsolete anyway by the time of mass gunpowder and long pikes.
Once upon a time Cavalry would have been the power behind an army, the French during the 100 year war for example, their cavalry was feared and very powerful (until it got owned by the mud at Crecy). But once someone thought, "hey let's just shove some big sticks in the ground", they became very much a support unit, hitting enemy flanks that were already engaged with infantry, or running down routing enemies.
As seen during the Napoleonic wars for example.

The problem cavalry units faced was that someone came along and invented the engine and so horse quickly became outdated technology.
They certainly still have their uses even today however, in a modern army.
Afterall, they eat, they don't require fuel to fuel. And they don't require maintenance in the same sense as a vehicle. Makes them the perfect transport in desert situations such as Afghanistan when you're a gorilla terrorist for example.

The question is, would any governments be smart enough to use them today ? I could see it in Afghanistan as you mentioned, but you must think of water needed while traveling at a pace for war in such a hot area.

As rev pointed out, it's very situational.
I mean hell, you could use a spear more effectively then a gun, given the right situation.
I mean the days of actual cavalry brigades are long gone, but that is because the battlefield has drastically changed from what it used to be.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 09:59 AM
RE: 99 Years
Ooh! Let's review:

(29-07-2013 12:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Really, if you wanna blame WW1/WW2 on anybody, then you simply need to blame it on King Louis XVI. He is the man that as a result of his actions, all the wars in the Europe that happened from Napoleonic times to WW2, happened because of him.
If he had been a good King, if he cared for his people then France never would have revolted against him and over thrown the Monarchy. As a result, French generals would have remained incompetent as they would have remained as positions for only the aristocracy. As a result, the greatest man to ever live, Napoleon Bonaparte, never would have had the opportunity to kick ass.

I would disagree; Louis XVI was perhaps a mediocrity, but mediocrities don't inspire revolutions. He relied overmuch on his (insular, aristocratic) court to keep him informed, but he had enacted many positive reforms, particularly in his early reign.

Anyway, blame is far more to be laid at the feet of Louis XV; he was the worse ruler, who managed to squander or overreach most of his foreign policy, to the aforementioned consequences.

One might as well blame Tsar Peter III, for bailing on the 7 Year's War just when Prussia was on the ropes; if he hadn't (or if the empress Elizabeth had lived only a year or two longer), then the war would have ended in a stalemate if not a British surrender. Thus steering history in quite a different direction.

(29-07-2013 12:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The French revolution overthrew the monarchy (as you'll know or at least should know). This was a time where everyone was a monarchy (except USA because they had to go and be difficult). UK, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Italian States, German States, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, Ottoman Empire.
Europe was just coming out of the feudal era. The Monarchy still had power. It was absolute like 300 years prior, but it was still very dominate.
So when the French people overthrew the monarchy and literally cut off their heads, all of Europe shit their pants. They literally dropped a log.
What this meant for France is that, while it was the dominate Europe power by some margin, it sure as fuck didn't have any friends...

And the British backed slowly out of the room, whistling inocuously, hoping to God nobody brought up the subject of Charles I.

(29-07-2013 12:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  ... the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars ...

Yup. Indeed German nationalism is often partially traced to Napoleon, for established the first powerful German states besides Austria, and establishing the first functional German confederation.

(29-07-2013 12:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  So... the time WW1 comes around, Germany wants a piece of France, France and the UK just want to stay the fuck out and Austria wants Serbia. Blah blah blah, skip a bit, the Duke get's shot and Austria-Hungary see's this as a good excuse to attack Serbia, WW1.

Rather the other way around; Germany already had the piece of France it wanted (Alsace-Lorraine). The Ottoman Empire had struggled through the 1800s (recall first the Greek Revolt, the Crimean War, the Bulgarian Revolution...) and was finally starting to get back together. The Balkan Wars - round 1 was everybody vs the Ottomans; round 2 was everybody vs everybody to divide the spoils - had been founght in 1911-1913, and left bad feelings all around. Serbia had wanted to unite with their kin to the south, who were largely annexed to Bulgaria instead, and so were looking to their kin to the north in Bosnia, which had been de-facto annexed by Austria as the Ottomans pulled out.

The Archduke was assassinated by Serbian radicals who wanted to join Bosnia with Serbia. It became international because the Austrians claimed the terrorists were backed by the Serbian government. Austria wanted a war because they were suffering from a fair bit of internal division and few things rile up the nationalism like a good short victorious war (which it would have been, if it were only Austria crushing Serbia).

Russia, however, was obligated to protect Serbia, not so much out of treaty obligations (though it had some) but because it considered itself a patron to the (fellow slavic and orthodox) nations of the balkans.

So Austria wanted to invade Serbia. Russia would defend Serbia. Germany was allied to Austria and sent a message to Austria that, in effect, they would back them to the hilt. The Germans wanted a war sooner rather than later, since they could easily defeat France 1-vs-1, but Russia was the rising superstar of the era, and they could read the growth rates as well as anybody: if they waited even three or four years, they would be outmatched by rapidly developing and industrializing Russia. The French had realized this several decades before, which was why they had spent thirty years pouring aid and loans into Russia.

Thus assured of German backing, Austria was emboldened. France was allied to Russia and so had to match Russian and German war preparations. The UK was not as tightly bound to France and Russia, but did have defense treaties with them; about 10 years prior the British had picked the French over the Germans to befriend, when they'd finally realized that isolationism wasn't going to cut it anymore. The UK was also obligated to defend Belgium, which everybody knew would be invaded in case of a war (and it was really a matter of whether the French or Germans did it first, to try to outflank each other).

The Ottomans had wavered between British and Germany alignment, but come late 1914 they were clearly pro-German. Italy had an alliance with Austria and Germany but had secretly repudiated it, cutting agreements with France and the UK instead, since almost all of the land they wanted (the irredenta) was in Austria.

As late as, well, the 27th, there was a good chance things might be resolved peacefully. Only Germany wanted a general war; Austria wanted a propaganda coup. Russia wanted to avoid being humiliated (as they had been in 1905 to the Japanese). Serbia knew they were doomed, even with allies; they were willing to do anything short of annex themselves to Austria in order to save themselves.

Got that? There will be a test Friday.



Anyway, by far the most fascinating thing about it is what contemporary writers and analysts had said in the years immediately prior.

They'd said that, with the vastly improved communication and transportation technologies then coming into wide use - cars were proliferating, railways were faster than ever, telegrams were ubiquitous, and the two new wonders of airplanes and wireless radio were exploding - combined with the increasing economic integration - moderate free trade was the order of the day, with several international currency unions (!) - that it was impossible for a war to break out. The world was too connected; too integrated; there was far more to lose than to gain by destroying prosperity in a wave of violence.

Think on that, if you want something heavy to meditate on. In all likelihood you've heard many similar sentiments in recent years. It's no truer now than it was then.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: 99 Years
Quote:And the British backed slowly out of the room, whistling inocuously, hoping to God nobody brought up the subject of Charles I.

Pfft, I literally spent an entire year learning this period of time in school, though it was focused more on Elizabeth but w/e, we covered Charlies a little.
This was hardly the level of revolution that the French had.
They played around with a few things but there wasn't any great threat to another monarchy being put in power. That was more about the parliament wanting a bit more power, not straight up overthrow the monarchy. I think if another monarch wasn't put in power then the question of legitimacy would have been brought up.
Had this happened around the time of the French revolution, that could have resulted in a different story perhaps. Though maybe not, England love their monarchies no matter how limited their power.

Quote:Rather the other way around; Germany already had the piece of France it wanted (Alsace-Lorraine).

touche, I'm mixing up my land ownership and time periods.

Quote:Got that? There will be a test Friday.

Lol. Yes, I did know all that lol, more or less.
Though my WW1 history is nowhere near as good as my Napoleonic or WW2 history.

Quote:Think on that, if you want something heavy to meditate on. In all likelihood you've heard many similar sentiments in recent years. It's no truer now than it was then.

Yes I've herd/read this too. The same with WW2 actually.

I think the difference between then and now is that there now truly is far more to lose then to to gain by another world war on that scale.
Yes globalization was kicking off back then, BUT countries were still very dependent on their own manufacturing, their own markets, their own industries etc...
I think the issue was that ships were steam powered and small (compared to today) and simply couldn't take enough goods at a time, efficiently enough, that a country could cease creating something for themselves. Where as today we can get a ship load of several thousand cars to a city in a matter of.. days I guess, from Japan.

So, with technology, globalization has skyrocketed. But not only this, the destructive power of countries has skyrocketed. And I'm not just talking about WMD. So on one side the profit exponential grows, and on the other, the damage exponentially grows. Makes it hard when calculating worthwhile-ness of attacking someone. Because if you attack them, your damage potential is so high it destroys your profit, and because your profit prior was so high, the amount of time it'd take to not only reach that profit again, but cover your cost of attacking, is extremely high. So it takes longer to recover your costs and thus it takes longer for it to be worth while attacking. But in the mean time, while you're not attacking, your damage potential and your profit continue to climb, and so the time required to cover your costs climbs. And it's all one big spiral of peace.
At least until something skyrockets it to be worth attacking, such as limited resources. But I suspect we're very far off that yet.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 11:08 AM
RE: 99 Years
(29-07-2013 11:01 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:And the British backed slowly out of the room, whistling inocuously, hoping to God nobody brought up the subject of Charles I.

Pfft, I literally spent an entire year learning this period of time in school, though it was focused more on Elizabeth but w/e, we covered Charlies a little.
This was hardly the level of revolution that the French had.
They played around with a few things but there wasn't any great threat to another monarchy being put in power. That was more about the parliament wanting a bit more power, not straight up overthrow the monarchy. I think if another monarch wasn't put in power then the question of legitimacy would have been brought up.
Had this happened around the time of the French revolution, that could have resulted in a different story perhaps. Though maybe not, England love their monarchies no matter how limited their power.

Quote:Rather the other way around; Germany already had the piece of France it wanted (Alsace-Lorraine).

touche, I'm mixing up my land ownership and time periods.

Quote:Got that? There will be a test Friday.

Lol. Yes, I did know all that lol, more or less.
Though my WW1 history is nowhere near as good as my Napoleonic or WW2 history.

Quote:Think on that, if you want something heavy to meditate on. In all likelihood you've heard many similar sentiments in recent years. It's no truer now than it was then.

Yes I've herd/read this too. The same with WW2 actually.

I think the difference between then and now is that there now truly is far more to lose then to to gain by another world war on that scale.
Yes globalization was kicking off back then, BUT countries were still very dependent on their own manufacturing, their own markets, their own industries etc...
I think the issue was that ships were steam powered and small (compared to today) and simply couldn't take enough goods at a time, efficiently enough, that a country could cease creating something for themselves. Where as today we can get a ship load of several thousand cars to a city in a matter of.. days I guess, from Japan.

So, with technology, globalization has skyrocketed. But not only this, the destructive power of countries has skyrocketed. And I'm not just talking about WMD. So on one side the profit exponential grows, and on the other, the damage exponentially grows. Makes it hard when calculating worthwhile-ness of attacking someone. Because if you attack them, your damage potential is so high it destroys your profit, and because your profit prior was so high, the amount of time it'd take to not only reach that profit again, but cover your cost of attacking, is extremely high. So it takes longer to recover your costs and thus it takes longer for it to be worth while attacking. But in the mean time, while you're not attacking, your damage potential and your profit continue to climb, and so the time required to cover your costs climbs. And it's all one big spiral of peace.
At least until something skyrockets it to be worth attacking, such as limited resources. But I suspect we're very far off that yet.

Water or Oil sometime in this century (if things keep on this way) will hit a peak and then as the access to those resources decline there will be more incentive for the have-nots in africa the sub-continent (Pakistan and Bangladesh for instance) to to into full on invasion mode to secure their access.

[Image: Hitchhikersguide_zps7678fbae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: 99 Years
Nah.
There's plenty of water, even if it's salted. Unsalting it is easier then invading a world power.
Oil maybe, but if it's gonna run out, it's gonna run out and so there's no point going to war over a few extra drops, far more profitable to just adapt.

I think it'd most likely be over rare earth elements if anything at it. They're called rare earth elements because.. well.. they're rare.. And we use them in heaps electronic shit and don't have a replacement for them.
That, if we don't find a replacement, could prove to be a pain considering China holds a massive monopoly on a lot of them.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: 99 Years
(29-07-2013 11:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Nah.
There's plenty of water, even if it's salted. Unsalting it is easier then invading a world power.
Oil maybe, but if it's gonna run out, it's gonna run out and so there's no point going to war over a few extra drops, far more profitable to just adapt.

Debatable; desalinisation is extremely energy-intensive. Water access is therefore a proxy for energy availability.

Of course it's far more profitable to adapt, but it only becomes more profitable long after adaptation becomes necessary. Foresight isn't profitable in the short term, which sums up a great many human problems.

(29-07-2013 11:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I think it'd most likely be over rare earth elements if anything at it. They're called rare earth elements because.. well.. they're rare.. And we use them in heaps electronic shit and don't have a replacement for them.
That, if we don't find a replacement, could prove to be a pain considering China holds a massive monopoly on a lot of them.

Rare earth metals are distributed more or less randomly; China has something like 30-40% of the world's proven reserves, but in all likelihood Canada, Russia, the USA, Brazil, Australia, and Congo have access to at least some equally large deposits. China leads production because they don't have pesky things like environmental regulation and workers' welfare to worry about.

Non-recycling of essentially non-renewable resources is a massive problem, but there are a lot of people working on ways to reprocess the enormous heaps of garbage we generate.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
29-07-2013, 11:42 AM
RE: 99 Years
Anyway, back on topic.

Diplomatic maneuvring continued through the 28th, the 29th, and into the 30th of July, 1914, but by the 30th and 31st amid the mobilizations, cancelled mobilizations, partial mobilizations, and frenzied telegrams, it simply became too much trouble not to have a war.

Austrian shells began falling on Belgrade on the 29th of July.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/august-5-1914,10615/

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: 99 Years
(29-07-2013 03:40 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(29-07-2013 03:22 AM)WeasleyFromTheShire Wrote:  The question is, would any governments be smart enough to use them today ? I could see it in Afghanistan as you mentioned, but you must think of water needed while traveling at a pace for war in such a hot area.

US special forces in Afghanistan use horses in the remote mountains. You have to there is no way to get a vehicle up in those (it is part of the Himalayas after all).

I was speaking in regards of mass warfare. I totally see the SPU using them, just not a company of 50 rangers bombarding a local Taliban controlled village. It may work Consider

" My friends. You bow to no one. " - Aragorn

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. " — Samuel Clemens

Simple....buy low, sell high.

Life in Rivendell is nice .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: 99 Years
(29-07-2013 11:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Anyway, back on topic.

Diplomatic maneuvring continued through the 28th, the 29th, and into the 30th of July, 1914, but by the 30th and 31st amid the mobilizations, cancelled mobilizations, partial mobilizations, and frenzied telegrams, it simply became too much trouble not to have a war.

Austrian shells began falling on Belgrade on the 29th of July.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/august-5-1914,10615/

If communications were any bit better, the majority of the conflict may have been avoided.

" My friends. You bow to no one. " - Aragorn

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. " — Samuel Clemens

Simple....buy low, sell high.

Life in Rivendell is nice .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  20 Years after the Rwanda Genocide The Germans are coming 6 140 20-07-2014 05:12 AM
Last Post: CiderThinker
  100 years later - remembering world war 1 The Germans are coming 38 1,072 02-02-2014 04:26 PM
Last Post: BnW
Forum Jump: