[martin14]

Strutz Strutz:

btw martin... when I saw the title of the thread I knew it had to be you who started it . However, neither of your links seem to work now (the news link and the on in your first post)

No more MSNBC


This ( I think ) is a photo of Bodrog, a river monitor of the Austro-Hungarian Navy,
and fired the first shots of World War I.




She was captured by the Serbs at the end of war, served in Serbia, scuttled and refloated a few times.

She looks like this today. The Serbs want to turn her into a museum.
I hope they do.

[Hyack]

Warship that fired first shots of WWI now a gravel barge in Serbia

$1:

Belgrade, Apr 14 (EFE). — The river monitor Bodrog, the AustroHungarian navy ship that fired the first shots of World War I and a witness to the European conflicts of the 20th century under four different flags, now serves as a gravel barge in Serbia.

The Bodrog, a heavily armored vessel launched in 1904 and equipped with the most advanced naval technology of the time, shelled the Serbian capital just before midnight on July 28, 1914.

The ship's 120 mm guns fired the first shots of a conflict that would last four years, leave millions of people dead and devastate Europe.

The AustroHungarian Empire's powerful navy played a vital role in the campaign against Serbia, the country Vienna blamed for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the imperial crown, a month earlier in Sarajevo.

The Bodrog, which was built at a shipyard in Budapest, spent the first two years of the Great War patrolling Serbia's rivers and later operated in Romania.

The ship was sent to the Danube River's mouth at the end of the war to protect withdrawing troops.

"The Bodrog was the last monitor to withdraw toward Budapest and the only one that didn't reach its destination. On Oct. 31 (of 1918), it hit a sand bank in the fog near the town of Vinca," historian Milan Gulic told Efe.

The navy was unable to recover the ship and it was seized by Serbia as war loot.

The Bodrog was renamed the Sava in 1921 and joined the navy of the recently created Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

The ship was scuttled twice during World War II and later raised and refurbished, serving in the Yugoslav navy from 1952 to 1962.

The aging Bodrog was transferred to a stateowned company that was eventually privatized and currently uses the vessel as a gravel barge.

Calls for the ship's preservation as a floating museum led to the government granting the vessel limited heritage protection in 2005, a move that has kept the Bodrog from ending up on the scrap heap.

Little else, however, has been done to save the historic warship.

"This monitor is part of a broader heritage, Serbian and Austrian history, and a unique item that still exists. It should be preserved, reconstructed," Danilo Sarenac, a member of the Institute of Contemporary History in Belgrade, told Efe.

"This is living history and has the potential for tourism," Sarenac said.

link

[Batsy2]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

martin14 martin14:

July 28


On this day, 100 years ago, Austria - Hungary declared war on Serbia, and started bombarding Belgrade.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/century-sinc ... gain-today

I am right now getting started on a book about the start of the war:

Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes To War - Max Hastings

I'll be sure to put up a review when I'm done.

The historian Max Hastings - who, in 1982, was the first Briton to enter Argentine-occupied Stanley - is of the correct opinion that Germany was to blame for WWI.

The British Left don't like Hastings as they believe the myth that Serbia was to blame, as this Daily Mail article by Hastings shows:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... sions.html

[QBC]

Samuel Greenway, from Cedar (Nanaimo) British Colulmbia was born in May, 1889 and enlisted in Vancouver in January, 1918. He served overseas with the 7th Battalion, Canadian Infantry (British Columbia Regiment) until his death in September, 1918. The collection currently consists of fourteen letters, several photographs, telegram, and some official correspondence.

http://www.canadianletters.ca/collectionsSoldier.php?warid=3&collectionid=523

$1:

France 22/8/18

Dear B Sister,

I am writing you these few lines from somewhere in France at last I have reached the front. I tell you it is no joke but it is not so bad as I expected if half the shots were direct hits the war would have been over long ago although fritz did not straff us much but our artillery certainly did put it over to him they bombarded a village and all we could see from where we were was nothing but dust just imagine the leveling off of the island and keep that up for some time some noise eh it is surprising how far they shell behind the lines Well I am going our for a rest. I made one trip into no mans land but imagine my surprise when I came out the parcel was waiting for me it was certainly fine everything correct and the two letters of the 21 and 13 both there. Gee but that cake was fine my pal says who made it knew what they were about next to the cake came the raisons how the dickens did you think of them don’t forget the raisons at any time they are the best out The chocolate makes you so dry but is was good just the same Pte S Greenway 2020829 of the Battalion. No 1 Canadians B. E. Fr. Yes once who do you think I met when I joined the Batt. Angus Marting also Spaniard Tom who used to knock around with Russells. I am kind of anxious to know how Elisha came out at the Med. Exam.

He will never see France any way, Louis might either wife. Louis it took me seven months he Louis will get here about next spring after the big drive of course it might last till then but no longer the boys think it is great fun to go down the trenches with a wound that will take them to England I am glad that you got your teeth fixed I guess it would make quite a difference concerning the crops I never saw finer grain crops the certainly raked in quite a lot of Fritz’s binders also a few threshers on this drive quite a record drive with so few casualties. Well I hope this finds you all well as it leaves me so tell Elisha I will write him next with love to all.

Sam

[Strutz]

Thanks for the further info martin and Hyack for the article.

They should save it, absolutely.

[Strutz]

I thought these maps were rather interesting so thought I'd share.


Maps that show major developments in the Great War

$1:

One hundred years ago, war erupted in Europe. In the four years that followed, countries had their economies ravaged, their food supplies exhausted and their young soldiers die by the hundreds of thousands.

The series of maps below detail the course of the conflict from the first declaration of war on July 28, 1914, to the final armistice and Allied victory on November 11, 1918. Also highlighted on separate maps are comparisons of casualties between nations and the high cost the First World War had on their economies.

The European geopolitical landscape has changed over the past century. The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires were still in existence in 1914, and the reach of the Russian Empire extended east into what is now Finland, Belarus and Ukraine. The maps also cover the dissolution of these empires and the host of new countries that formed in the aftermath of World War One.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/first-world-war-the-story-of-the-great-war-in-maps

[martin14]

On this day, Aug 2.

German Government sends an ultimatum to Belgium demanding passage through Belgian territory.

German troops occupy Luxembourg, sending tens of thousands of troops over the border.
The Luxembourg army of 400 does not resist.


Hostilities commence on French frontier, the Skirmish at Joncherey.
There is no official declaration of war yet.


Cables are sent from Canada, beginning the discussion of what help Canada would provide in the event of war.

[Jabberwalker]

On this day, Aug 2.

Sam Hughes spent most of the day in front of a mirror in full uniform striking poses, anticipating the derring-do that he would soon be personally leading.

Thank you for the story about the Bodrog, by the way. I was unaware of it and it led me to learn some new things.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

Cables are sent from Canada, beginning the discussion of what help Canada would provide in the event of war.

Hate to say, but the UK more or less dictated what help Canada and the other holdings of the Empire would contribute to the war.

[martin14]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Thank you for the story about the Bodrog, by the way. I was unaware of it and it led me to learn some new things.

Thank you Jabby, that's kind of the intent I had in this thread, to show things
the usual narrative just doesn't give, with of course a particular influence on
the Canadian contributions.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hate to say, but the UK more or less dictated what help Canada and the other holdings of the Empire would contribute to the war.

Ummm, not exactly.

$1:

When a quarter of a century later the Second World War broke out, the Canadian Government was firmly committed to a policy of not involving the country in hostilities without first consulting Parliament. As a result, in 1939 Canada formally remained "neutral for one week after the declaration of war by Britain".

In 1914, however, seventeen years before the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, Canada's constitutional position within the Empire gave her little share in formulating foreign policy and none in declaring war or making peace. She found herself at war through the action of the British Government. "She had not
been consulted; she had herself made no declaration of war; and she had in no way taken
part in the diplomatic exchanges which had led to the final catastrophe."

Like her sister Dominions, however, Canada reserved the right of deciding what form her participation should take. That her contribution would be whole-hearted and generous there was never any doubt.

Taken straight from
Official History of the Canadian Army
in the First World War
CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
1914-1919

[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

martin14 martin14:

Cables are sent from Canada, beginning the discussion of what help Canada would provide in the event of war.

Hate to say, but the UK more or less dictated what help Canada and the other holdings of the Empire would contribute to the war.

That was fairly true in 1914, although Canada did not agree with the way that the Imperial forces wanted to use Canadian troops. The British wanted Canada to provide reinforcements that would be fed into the British army, here and there. That is indeed what happened to the Newfoundlanders (not yet part of Canada) and the oddball Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry who fought mixed in to British units for m0ost of the war. The Canadians insisted all along (led, at first, by the otherwise kooky Sam Hughes) that they fight together and stay together as a discreet Canadian unit. This is the way that it unfolded and the 1st Canadian Division was eventually joined by three others, making it into a separate little Canadian led army unto itself (under overall Imperial command) and Canadian Expeditionary force that stayed together, fought together right up to the end. This was never the British plan and even towards the end of the war, when Canadians were beginning to win battles where no one else had managed to General Haig just didn't understand why he couldn't split up Canadian divisions and use them to fill in depleted British ranks. He didn't "get it" apparently until the very end when the CEF and Australians were chosen (because of the danger and disposability of colonial troops, maybe) to lead the "Final Push" in 1918. Haig saw this independent Canadian army as vaguely insubordinate.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

martin14 martin14:

Cables are sent from Canada, beginning the discussion of what help Canada would provide in the event of war.

Hate to say, but the UK more or less dictated what help Canada and the other holdings of the Empire would contribute to the war.

That was fairly true in 1914, although Canada did not agree with the way that the Imperial forces wanted to use Canadian troops. The British wanted Canada to provide reinforcements that would be fed into the British army, here and there. That is indeed what happened to the Newfoundlanders (not yet part of Canada) and the oddball Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry who fought mixed in to British units for m0ost of the war. The Canadians insisted all along (led, at first, by the otherwise kooky Sam Hughes) that they fight together and stay together as a discreet Canadian unit. This is the way that it unfolded and the 1st Canadian Division was eventually joined by three others, making it into a separate little Canadian led army unto itself (under overall Imperial command) and Canadian Expeditionary force that stayed together, fought together right up to the end. This was never the British plan and even towards the end of the war, when Canadians were beginning to win battles where no one else had managed to General Haig just didn't understand why he couldn't split up Canadian divisions and use them to fill in depleted British ranks. He didn't "get it" apparently until the very end when the CEF and Australians were chosen (because of the danger and disposability of colonial troops, maybe) to lead the "Final Push" in 1918. Haig saw this independent Canadian army as vaguely insubordinate.

Thank you. It was quite true in 1914. I'm currently reading Max Hastings' book about the start of WW1 and he makes it clear that the UK didn't brook any dissent from their Dominions or etc. in the call to arms: they were straight up told what they were going to do and there was no thought of entertaining a discussion about the topic. He also adheres to intellectual honesty in admitting that the British exercise of power over their Empire had everything to do with that same Empire dismantling itself over the remainder of the 20th century.

[Jabberwalker]

As capable a writer as Max Hastings is, I doubt that he will waste much ink at all documenting anything beyond the British military experience. We are not on Britain's radar now, we sure weren't in 1914 and we have our own story to tell. If you want to learn about Canadian military history, I suggest that you read one of the legions of Canadian authors who has written on our wars. I wouldn't read Max Hastings to find out about Pershing's army, either.

He is a good author, though.

the UK didn't brook any dissent from their Dominions or etc. in the call to arms: they were straight up told what they were going to do and there was no thought of entertaining a discussion about the topic.

p.s. Canada didn't do exactly what it was told. See previous post. Going back to a point that Martin made about the next war, our entry was debated in Parliament and also among the public. In 1914, there was great enthusiasm for war here as well as elsewhere in the British Empire. In 1939, there was far less enthusiasm and WWI veterans were actively trying to stop young men from signing up, etc. Irony of ironies, when were finally at war, we were totally at war. After the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941, because Canada was already at war, we declared war on Japan through a simple Order in Council ... essentially the Prime Minister's Office was able to declare war without any other process so Canada was at war with the Empire of Japan while Congress was still debating their War Bill in Washington.

[Jabberwalker]

Here is an interesting soldier that we shouldn't forget

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/legen ... -1.2725241

[Thanos]

$1:

“It was not worth even one life,”said Harry Patch shortly before he died in 2009 at the age of 111. He was the last survivor of the 65 million soldiers who fought in the First World War, and by the time he died it was a normal, quite unremarkable thing to say. But he would never have said it in 1914.

The First World War was a human tragedy, of course, but this was when the human race began to question the whole institution of war: how useful it is, but also how inevitable it really is. And the answer to both questions is: not very.

There are still a few countries that owe everything to their ability to win wars: Israel comes to mind at once. But most countries, and most people, now see war as a very undesirable last resort. We have the First World War to thank for this great change.

The thing most people miss about the First World War is that it was a perfectly normal political event. Ever since the rise of modern centralized states in 16th-century Europe, they had all gone to war with each other in two big alliances at around half-century intervals. The wars were effectively about everything: borders in Europe, trade routes, colonies in Asia, Africa and the Americas.

The great powers fought other, littler wars as well, but these big events — the 30 Years’ War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years’ War and so on — were like a general audit of their status. Who’s up, and who’s down? Who can expand, and who must yield?

It was a perfectly viable system, because the wars mostly involved small professional armies and did not disturb civilian populations much. The casualties were low, and hardly any major player ever crashed out of the system entirely. Naturally enough, most people did not see this system as a problem that had to be solved. It was just another fact of life.

The only diplomatic difference in 1914 was that the great powers coordinated their moves better than before. Almost all of them were at war in a few days, where it would have taken months or even a few years in the old days. The armies could move quickly to the frontiers by rail, so now you created your alliances BEFORE the war — and everybody had the telegraph, so the final decisions were made fast.

But once the war started, everything was different. The armies were 10 times as big as they used to be, because these were now rich industrialized countries that could afford to put most of the adult male population into uniform. That meant that the soldiers getting killed were fathers, brothers, husbands and sons: part of the community, not the wastrels, drunks and men on the run who made up such a large part of the old professional armies.

And they were getting killed in unprecedented numbers. The new weapons — machine guns, modern artillery and so on — were very efficient killing machines, and within a month the soldiers had to take shelter in trenches from the “storm of steel”. They spent the rest of the war trying to break through the trenches, and by the end of it nine million of them had been killed. THAT is what changed everything.

The senior politicians and diplomats of 1918, living amid the wreckage of the old world, could see that the old international system was now delivering catastrophe, and had to be changed. So they set out to change it, by creating the League of Nations. They outlawed aggressive war, and invented the concept of “collective security” to enforce the new international rules.

They failed, at first, because the legacy of bitterness among the losers in the First World War was so great that a second one came only 20 years later. That one was bigger and worse — but at the end, everybody tried again. They had to.

The United Nations was founded in 1945, with slightly more realistic rules than the League of Nations but the same basic goal: to stop wars among the great powers, for those are the wars that kill in the millions. Stopping other wars too would be nice, but first things first — especially now that there are nuclear weapons around.

All you can say is that it hasn’t failed yet in its main task: no great power has fought any other one directly for the past 69 years. Ignore the headlines that constantly tell you the world is falling apart. The glass is more than half-full.

Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose work is published in 45 countries.