In Honor of Remembrance Day: The Questions That Sparked World War I

[Colrom]

Following up on the aside - I don't see right or even benefit from invading other peoples countries and killing their people to prevent them from having the government they prefer just because that government is Communist/Socialist.

 

Should Europeans watch what they're about with socialism and such lest we get worried and decide to become more "over there" than we already are?

 

Regarding WW I - Americas involvement also brought the seeds of the influenza epidemic. Perhaps that had a greater impact than many history books acknowledge.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Colrom

[Colrom]

FYI, here is some info on the influenza pandemic and WW I:

 

"In the spring of 1918 large numbers of soldiers in the trenches in France became ill. The soldiers complained of a sore throat, headaches and a loss of appetite. Although it appeared to be highly infectious, recovery was rapid and doctors gave it the name of 'three-day fever'. At first doctors were unable to identify the illness but eventually they decided it was a new strain of influenza. The soldiers gave it the name Spanish Flu but there is no evidence that it really did originate from that country. In fact, in Spain they called it French Flu. Others claimed that the disease started in the Middle Eastern battlefields, whereas others blamed it on China and India. A recent study argued that the disease was brought to the Western Front by a group of USA soldiers from Kansas.

 

For the next few months soldiers continued to be infected with the virus but there were very few fatalities. However, in the summer of 1918, symptoms became much more severe. About a fifth of the victims developed bronchial pneumonia or septicemic blood poisoning. A large percentage of these men died. Others developed heliotrope cyanosis. Doctors were able to identify this by the bluish condition of the sufferer. Over 95% of those with heliotrope cyanosis died within a few days. This second-wave of the epidemic spread quickly. In one sector of the Western Front over 70,000 American troops were hospitalised and nearly one third of these men died failed to recover.

 

By the end of the summer the virus had reached the German Army. The virus created serious problems for the German military leadership as they found it impossible to replace their sick and dying soldiers. The infection had already reached Germany and over 400,000 civilians died of the disease in 1918.

 

The first cases of the influenza epidemic in Britain appeared in Glasgow in May, 1918. It soon spread to other towns and cities and during the next few months the virus killed 228,000 people in Britain. This was the highest mortality rate for any epidemic since the outbreak of cholera in 1849."

[Guard Dog]

Regarding WW I - Americas involvement also brought the seeds of the influenza epidemic. Perhaps that had a greater impact than many history books acknowledge.

You know, I have read posts blaming America for a lot of things but that is a first.

[Colrom]

Regarding WW I - Americas involvement also brought the seeds of the influenza epidemic. Perhaps that had a greater impact than many history books acknowledge.

You know, I have read posts blaming America for a lot of things but that is a first.

 

 

Hmmm.

 

Interesting that you see it that way.

 

I don't.

 

In the end, a simple virus may have had a more significant impact than many of the puffed up self important people and groups who sought to control the events of the day.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Colrom

[Xard]

Actually, that's true. That epidemic (what was it called...oh yes, spanish flu) killed more people than WWI. Anti-USA fanatics could point out that U.S intervenion in war caused more deaths than whole war before that

[Colrom]

It is strange to me that comments about the history of the first world war are being viewed by some through a nationalistic lense as either pro American or anti American.

[Xard]

Nah, not in general, at least here in Finland.

[Guard Dog]

Colrom you are a smart guy, no doubt. But you have no sense of humor.

[Walsingham]

I guess it could have been America, but I think the doctors are light on their history. Soldiers in the trenches had no need of Americans to give them bugs. They were ankle deep in water most of the time, in all weathers, and literally walled in with corpses; al the time surviving on no fresh vegetables or meat. You couldn't invent a more plague-friendly environment. I'm amazed it took as long as it did for an epidemic. I'm not saying it wasn't you fiendish yankees. I'm just saying I rate living in a disease factory higher.

 

As for the Vietnam question, I can see I need to go back to school and look at Ho Chi Minh again. However, ignoring any temptation to get bogged down in a Vitenam discussion here (we can always do it somewhere else), I don't see how the anti-domino theory concordes with the fall of Laos and Cambodia.

[Xard]

Yeah, spanish flu DID come with yankees but it wouldn't have been such a killer without war. People's immunity was horrible after the war

Edited November 29, 2007 by Xard

[Gorgon]

The anti domino effect theory, nice one

 

The communist won remember, and likely they won where the conditions existed for success and failed where they would have failed regardless. Communism is nowhere near as exportable as doctrine would have you think, it's an easy way to get weapons and aid if you want to fight an insurrection however. Just ask Robert Mugabe.

 

Moreover communist countries can hardly be said to be a united front, a healthy dose of suspicion is a better characterisation than a united front on a mission to liberate the world. In a time of sattelite wars you had to pick a team, whether you had that much in common or not.

 

The US has a better track record stamping out democratic socialism on their own continent.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Gorgon

[Hurlshort]

I think it's important to put the NVA's "victory" into perspective. The US didn't really lose the war, they pulled out. Where they really lost was in the public's perception of the war. The Tet Offensive was seen as a defeat by the American public, but in actuality it was a huge gamble by a desperate NVA and it failed to capture and hold any real ground. But defensive wars are difficult to end, and who knows when North Vietnam would have backed off? When you go into a defensive war and say "I will only defend for this many years" it gives the attacker a pretty nice advantage.

 

Heck, after the US pulled out of Vietnam, it still took the NVA two years to roll into the South and depose the government. That's a good indicator of how weakened they were.

[Brdavs]

Question of the Balkans: Should there be a pan-Slavic state, known as Yugoslavia? There were lots of nationalist setinment to unite the Slavs, which were in the indepedent nation of Serbia and in Bosna-Hergizationa, controlled by Austria-Hungray. In fact, a terrorist wanting this pan-Slavic state killed the Archduke of Austria, which sparked World War I. (Yugoslavia attacked Serbia in response to this terror attack, and Russia was allied to Serbia. The entangling alliances led up to Britian, France, and Russia to battle against Austria, Germany, and the Ottaman Empire)

There is no easy answer to this one. The problems of the Balkans are way older than WWI (the Turkish invasion of Asia Minor and the Balkans should be reasonably far enough back in time). As for recent history (WWI&II), maybe somebody forgot to ask the people who lived there what they wanted, united or not?

 

Austria. I believe that it is generally considered that the Balkans were but the Arsenal that blew up because of that spark and that the broader geo-political situation was on course for a conflict nomatter what (the tensions of colonial powers (GB, FRA) and colonial would-be powers that just got there a bit late (GER) heh)... the killing of the Archduke F.F. was used to spark a war as Austria made outrageus demands on Serbia including to allow Austrian law enforcment full jurisdiction to investigate (wich no selfrespecting sovereign country would ever do, despite what Bush would have you believe).

 

The pan-Slavic tendencies however have (had) deep roots and are prolly slightly different for each induvidual nation... Speaking from the far West Balkans point of view it was a logical/natural response to fierce germanisation that took place in the lands thruought history. (Tis a grave historical injustice that the jews hog all the spotlight hehe...)

The first concrete political suggestions came in the form of uniting all the Slavs living in Austria-Hungray into an equal political entity, switching from dualism to trialism of state... Sadly (?) that never materialised but the ideas remained.

After the conclusion of WWI and subsequently WWII it was to an extent the "smartest" thing to do, to (re)create SHS/YUG, simply cos it was the only way not to get too far shafted by the powers as they drew the new European borders in the "who gets there first stays there/lets draw a line here" wacky race lol... By forming a pan-Slavic state after WWI the Slavs in the western part for the second time in history (since Sams state and Carantania) freed themselves from the germanic/italic dominance and curtular assimilation, thoe for a heavy heavy price... By upholding it after WWII they got to trade and arm for a leg in London.

"Allies are good guys" my arse lol...

Edited November 29, 2007 by Brdavs

[Gorgon]

I think it's important to put the NVA's "victory" into perspective. The US didn't really lose the war, they pulled out. Where they really lost was in the public's perception of the war. The Tet Offensive was seen as a defeat by the American public, but in actuality it was a huge gamble by a desperate NVA and it failed to capture and hold any real ground. But defensive wars are difficult to end, and who knows when North Vietnam would have backed off? When you go into a defensive war and say "I will only defend for this many years" it gives the attacker a pretty nice advantage.

 

Heck, after the US pulled out of Vietnam, it still took the NVA two years to roll into the South and depose the government. That's a good indicator of how weakened they were.

I don't think any of that is in dispute, to put it simply, the Viet Cong wanted to win more than the US wanted to stay.

 

The US public may or may not have bought into the commie scare, but they weren't willing to accept the casualties and the lack of any end in sight, so Nixon bombed the crap out of North Vietnam and hurridly declared a victory.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

[

"Allies are good guys" my arse lol...

 

We were the Empire in those days. Imperial rules. You play to keep or you get to be the ruled.