Let's discuss the consequences of the bombing of Serbia in 1999.
The unnecessary destruction caused by NATO bombs surely has put the wronged Serbs into Russia's camp, and I don't blame them at all. In response to cracking down on terrorism in their own country, NATO declared war on them and sliced up their territory. Now we have, as an enemy, one of the nations that stood up to Hitler without any help, and who has gained? The Radical Islamic movement, which has taken Kosovo.
In the event of any crisis in Russia, Serbia will certainly not side with us.

Let me break this to you gently..... Serbia was, is, and will always be in 'Russia's Camp.'

Proof: Look up "Causes of World War I" on Wikipedia.

Happy reading

Sullivan013

So in other words, you agree that it is as foolish to attack Serbia (to the benefits of Radical Muslims in Kosovo) as it was for Austria to try and hold onto its old empire by any means necessary? Also who has to go to Wikipedia, of all places, to remember that domination of the seas and colonies was the catalyst of WW1? That has nothing to do with Serbia now, unless we are somehow tying it in to Russia's claiming of the Arctic ocean.

Not 'in other words.' Please don't presume to speak for me. Such questions are rhetorical, and I refuse to answer them because they are seldom phrased in a manner that is fair to answer at all (much like 'do you still beat your wife?' - the very question implies guilt).

From your answer about WWI ("domination of the seas and colonies"), I believe you need review the causes of the war *WITHOUT* a predetermined answer in your head. Russia had no colonies of note in 1914 and neither did they have an effective fleet after Tsushima, making their entry into the war (which was the key to the entire conflict, BTW) absolutely unexplanable by your reasoning.

For the record, I disagreed with our involvement in the Balkans in 1999 (actually 1991-1999) as it served no practical or strategic interest for our nation. The place is a quagmire and has only known peace when it was forcebly imposed by external empires since before Phillip of Macedon.

I always felt Bismark had the right idea; "All of the Balkans aren't worth the blood of a single Pomeranian Grenadier."

Sullivan013

Suggested Reading List:
"The Guns of August" Barbara Tuchman
"1914" Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"The First World War" Sir John Keegan

Wouldn't reading two out of the three books (those which I have read within this past year) from the British perspective be the same as coming into the question with a pre-determined answer in your head? In my estimation, it was Britain who wanted to keep a 19th century balance of power in place, and would not tolerate any competition to the point where the building of a German fleet was seen as belligerence. This was the root of the conflict, and Russia (along with most of the allies) were unfortunate side effects. More than anything, all the powers involved got sucked into the war: None really wanted it, least of all the Germans. These weren't Hitler's men: Hitler obviously wanted war. The Kaiser (who was a figurehead almost as much as the British King) did not. Barbara Tuchman is a great narrator but gives little insight: Damning and praising the irrelevant crowns at the same time.

Also beware of assuming that Russia did not have colonies in the eyes of the world. China still covets Siberia, Madeline Albright said that it is too much for one country, and they colonized it in the same way that we colonized the west. Our enemies across the world see our colonization as a war crime, and see what has happened to the south-west because of our self imposed guilt. Why do I bring this up? Because this is part of the danger we are putting ourselves in: The neocons are doing everything they can to restart the cold war, and if a war ever comes, I see a very clear list of belligerent actions (such as the attack on Serbia) that our leaders are responsible for - mistakes which are much more clear than anything which led to WW1.

Respectfully, I disagree.

First, two words: Belgian Neutrality. That was the reason Great Britain entered the war. While they may have worried about the German naval builds since 1900, Britain was never really threatened (neither were her colonies), only the size of the fleet necessary to defend the home waters was ever a question. Had the Kaiser's armies not crossed the Belgium frontier, Britain would have likely sat the conflict out, naval builds or no.

Second, without Russia's full mobilization, Germany would never have entered the war either. The entire reason for their alliance with Austria Hungary was to prevent the very real problem of a two front war that they were faced with. While the Imperial War Ministry had adopted the Shiefflen Plan of 1905, it was truly inadequate in terms of the Eastern Front. In 1905, Russia was wracked by internal revolution, had recently lost a war in the Far East, and was in no shape to intervene in any European war.

By 1914, the political and military fortunes of Russia had changed. Their standing army totaled nearly 1.4 million men, and their reserve force was over twice that total again (3.5 million). Internally, while there was still unrest, it was subdued and would not be a factor politically until severe losses and wartime shortages turned the public from the war effort. Also, since Russia lacked a plan for partial mobilization and could not help but to conduct a full mobilization, Germany was faced with the possibility of over 4.9 million men on thier Eastern frontier while facing 1 million men of the French Army on their Western Front.

Ultimately, this was the threat the Germans reacted to. First they pleaded (the famous 'Dear Nicky' letters from Der Kaiser), then they demanded, finally they declared war and mobilized. Once that began, due to Germany's need to knock out it's perceived 'weaker' of two neighbors before massing it's army on the Eastern Front, and their declared treaty with Russia, France was forced to mobilize its army as well.

In all of this the theme is constant: Russia was the key to the entire conflict. There were other influences, to be sure, but without the threat of 4+ million men in the Czar's army, there would be no need for the precise mobilization timetables for either Germany or France. There would also be no need to violate Belgium's neutrality (or contemplate crossing the Dutch frontier "auf geftlichen Wege").

Sullivan013

P.S. What is this about? "....what has happened to the south-west because of our self imposed guilt..."

????

Given the hysteria and false propaganda that grew out of the Belgian campaign, I think that Britain would have had its war regardless. After all, who would have guessed that we would have gotten into a war over a few stupid and stubborn super-rich getting sunk on their pleasure cruise in sub-infested waters?

H. Strachan's book is the best one-volume I've read anywhere. I disagree with its final conclusion (allies won because of technology - John Mosier is who I prefer for the actual 'whos' and 'whys' of the decisive WestFront battles), but it is better than Gilbert's, and Gilbert's is better than Keegan's.
Anyway my point is that Mr. Strachan actually points out how the rest of the world has always thought about Serbia: The British didn't like them either. The Austrians thought they were subhuman. It was Germany's biggest mistake of the war to even side with Austria. Prussia/Germany fought three wars during a short period dominated by Bismarck. Bismarck himself warned to never go to war with Russia. As ruthless and cunning as Bismarck was, he was very right when he knew to build up Germany at the expense of Austria.
In contrast.
Austria had, for the past three years, fought three successive wars with its Balkan neighbors. It was wildly belligerent on the seas even before Prussia started its military adventures in 1864. More than any other country in the world except maybe Lincoln's police state, Austria was an absolute monarchy that required less of its Government. Franz Ferdinand was, ironically, the one prominent man who wanted to veer off of this disastrous course, but was killed as the result of Austrian imperialism. Austria was the evil empire of the day (if anyone was), not Germany. The hero of the age, Ludendorf, is normally scoffed or taken for a madman for his idea that Austria should be Germany's enemy. In reality, it would have been the best chance for a peace treaty with Russia and a chance to send the knockout blow to the western allies which it were already on their knees.

"Given the hysteria and false propaganda that grew out of the Belgian campaign, I think that Britain would have had its war regardless."

You live in a time of instant communication. In 1914, it was not nearly as immediate. Yet Britain declared war only a day after the Belgium frontier was crossed. There was no time for any "hysteria and false propaganda" (whatever THAT means). The neutrality of Belgium and the port of Antwerp was a British foreign policy stance since the fall of Napoleon. It was no secret and Germany was fully aware of the issues involved with crossing the frontier.

"After all, who would have guessed that we would have gotten into a war over a few stupid and stubborn super-rich getting sunk on their pleasure cruise in sub-infested waters?"

By this I assume you mean the United States. If that is the case, the US didn't go to war for such a reason. Case in point, the sinking of the Lusitania was in 1915. We didn't declare war until 1917 AFTER Woodrow Wilson campaigned in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of war!"

The reason we went to war was over the Zimmerman Telegram and 'Unrestricted Submarine Warfare' declared by Germany in which our merchant fleet (carrying goods, not people) were declared as belligerents no matter where they were sailing in European waters - in other words, they would be sunk on sight with no prior inquiry by the submarine commander to determine the destination, goods carried or nationality. I suggest you read the text of Wilson's speech to Congress in asking for the declaration of war.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

Incidentally, this is why our declaration of war was *only* against Germany. Wilson specifically excludes Austria Hungary (and doesn't even mention the Ottoman Empire) in his speech.


"... my point is that Mr. Strachan actually points out how the rest of the world has always thought about Serbia: The British didn't like them either. The Austrians thought they were subhuman...."

Not an important point, in my mind. No one liked the Ottomans all that much, but until they entered the war, no one attacked them either. The key to understanding the war is twofold: The interplay of alliances to achieve balance of power and the idea of rapid mobilization and offensive victory "before the leaves fell" and subsequent planning (with very limited munitions stockpiling) that lead to the stalemate after the First Battle of the Marne/Tannenburg. Not a single planner on either front saw that particular outcome before it happened - that Russia would suffer two humiliating defeats (Tannenburg, Masurian Lakes) and that German assault on France would stall. The result was a exhausted stalemate while munitions were rapidly produced to keep up with the demand. By the time they got there, both sides had dug in, and the war had changed, though very few saw the impact of that change.

"It was Germany's biggest mistake of the war to even side with Austria. Prussia/Germany fought three wars during a short period dominated by Bismarck. Bismarck himself warned to never go to war with Russia. As ruthless and cunning as Bismarck was, he was very right when he knew to build up Germany at the expense of Austria."

Yet once Silesia was ceded, Bismark entered into the Drei Konig Pact with Russia and Austria-Hungary with the specific goal of fostering a peaceful balance of power between the three. However, it was that same Kaiser you stated was 'powerless' who removed the old man and guided his country onto the path that ended in 1918.

"... Austria had, for the past three years, fought three successive wars with its Balkan neighbors. It was wildly belligerent on the seas even before Prussia started its military adventures in 1864. More than any other country in the world except maybe [removed for further discussion below] Austria was an absolute monarchy that required less of its Government. Franz Ferdinand was, ironically, the one prominent man who wanted to veer off of this disastrous course, but was killed as the result of Austrian imperialism. Austria was the evil empire of the day (if anyone was), not Germany."

A tough sell for me, I'm not buying it. Austria was not a "police state" so much as a polygot of societies lumped together and loosely governed as a dual kingdom. Remember all the factions that split from the old Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia/Herzogovinia, etc)? They were just as active and virulent in 1914 and before. Same for what is now the Czech Republic and Slovenia, Austria proper, Hungary and the Transylvania highlands. These were all separate societies and kingdoms with almost *no* previous unity prior to 1867. They had eleven separate languages, two parliments and even two prime ministers. The only 'unifying' effort, such as it was, was the monarchy.

The current emperor in 1914, Franz Joseph, was a Napoleanic-era barnacle whose insight into the modern world was about as astute as the shellfish. Franz Ferdinand was little better, a friend of the Kaiser (a significant point), but mostly a vaguely liberal-minded 50-year-old pampered aristocrat not well known for his intellect. His principle acheivement in life until 1914? He shot over 5000 deer. His blood, by his own admission, was 'Schwarz-gelb' (Black and Gold - the colors of the Austria-Hungary emblem). His purpose in Sarejevo? His brand of 'statemanship' - trying to drum up support and troop the colors of the empire by attending a minor function - i.e. lighting the adoring public with his visiage.

Despite the highly publicized 'differences' he had with the government about more liberal policies toward the various ethnic groups, there is little evidence that he planned to do anything about it when he came to power. It's my belief that he just tended to wax philisophical between tennis matches and hunting trips (like to Australia to hunt kangaroos). He just doesn't strike me as a politically motivated (or all that bright a) personality.

Lastly, he had his own influence on his death. Ever wonder why he bled to death? His wounds were treatable, but they couldn't get his uniform off. The ****ons didn't work. One of the quirks in his personality was that he hated ****ons, so that heavily braided 'coat' was actually an elaborate 'pullover' that was nearly impossible to remove to treat his gunshot wounds in time once he passed out in the back of the car. Like I said, not the image of a 'enlightened political figure' of the time.

"Lincoln's police state"

Um, Yeah. Another topic for another day. Let's just say we differ on this one,... in a manner that makes the Arabs and Israelis look like drinking buddies.

"The hero of the age, Ludendorf, is normally scoffed or taken for a madman for his idea that Austria should be Germany's enemy. In reality, it would have been the best chance for a peace treaty with Russia and a chance to send the knockout blow to the western allies which it were already on their knees."

Ah, Ludendorff. What a character. Not my idea of a hero, per se, more of a representation of a class, to wit: the Prussian Officer Corps. Proof positive that despite a terrific work ethic, intellect and ability, you can still make boneheaded decisions without fully understanding their impact. Among his famous military victories, deep in his catalog of decisions and opinions, you will find: The reintroduction of Lenin into Russia and the recognition of the Bolsheviks as rulers of Russia, The advocation of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (which brought in the US and likely lost the war), The belief that an all-out offensive would win the war in the West (which only evaporated Germany's last reserves right about the time the Allies were most likely to negotiate), and the idea of the 'back stab' by the Liberals and the Jews as the reason that Germany lost the war.

Again, not my idea of a hero or a rational thinker. You'll note I skipped his support of Hitler, as he later withdrew it. But then again, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Sullivan013

P.S. It's unlikely that even the fall of Paris would have stopped the war in 1918, meaning that Ludendorff's Offensive, even if it worked to his expectation, would not have had the result he desired. The loss of Paris in 1914 might have worked, but not by 1918. It would have taken the destruction of the French Army in detail, virtually impossible at the time.

quote:

There was no time for any "hysteria and false propaganda" (whatever THAT means).

Not the myth of the rape of Belgium by Britain of all places? The same Britain which had just dealt the Boers the same kind of blow Santa Anna or Lincoln was known for? This Britain, which condemned Germany for adapting to Belgian terrorism, but merely six years before had wiped out the population of Tasmania? This was hypocrisy and an excuse to try and strike down a burgeoning empire.

quote:

The reason we went to war was over the Zimmerman Telegram and 'Unrestricted Submarine Warfare' declared by Germany in which our merchant fleet (carrying goods, not people) were declared as belligerents no matter where they were sailing in European waters - in other words, they would be sunk on sight with no prior inquiry by the submarine commander to determine the destination, goods carried or nationality.

A result of the Hunger Blockade, which Churchill himself declared a war on the German People, to starve them into submission. Again, one side set the gauge of battle, but the responding nation is made into the pariah.

quote:

Remember all the factions that split from the old Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia/Herzogovinia, etc)? They were just as active and virulent in 1914 and before.

With good cause, in my opinion. Austria, like Russia, had become so inflexible and decrepit that it had no excuse outside of royal grandiose and hegemony.....excuses I personally don't accept.

quote:

"Lincoln's police state"

Um, Yeah. Another topic for another day. Let's just say we differ on this one,... in a manner that makes the Arabs and Israelis look like drinking buddies.

So a dictator who jails entire state legislatures for disagreeing with him, executes a thousand of his own citizens in a day (New York massacre), personally blesses a concerted terrorist campaign (Sherman), and suspends the Codified Law of a nation for executive authority is a Populist, law abiding leader as surely as the Jews and Arabs are enemies?

quote:

Among his famous military victories, deep in his catalog of decisions and opinions, you will find: The reintroduction of Lenin into Russia and the recognition of the Bolsheviks as rulers of Russia, The advocation of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (which brought in the US and likely lost the war), The belief that an all-out offensive would win the war in the West (which only evaporated Germany's last reserves right about the time the Allies were most likely to negotiate), and the idea of the 'back stab' by the Liberals and the Jews as the reason that Germany lost the war.

Only the last point would have anything to do with his deepening depression and eccentric behavior. The first move knocked Russia out of the war decisively and quickly, freeing 1 Million soldiers for use on the Western Front (which he had a lot to do with gaining a marginal victory so far). The second was more than justified, as I have already said and explained why. The last reserves of Germany must have been larger than those of the Allies, considering the losses of the Allies (compared to Germany).

quote:

P.S. It's unlikely that even the fall of Paris would have stopped the war in 1918, meaning that Ludendorff's Offensive, even if it worked to his expectation, would not have had the result he desired. The loss of Paris in 1914 might have worked, but not by 1918. It would have taken the destruction of the French Army in detail, virtually impossible at the time.

The French Army had already mutinied, and the British Army was on the verge of mutiny. Both, especially the British, had catastrophic casualties during the pursuit of Germans across after they were dislodged by the AEF. The German general staff made the decision that the war must be ended only after all of this: The Allies would have gone to complete destruction before that and they very nearly had a similar fate as Russia.......without the aid of a Lenin!

"Not the myth of the rape of Belgium by Britain of all places? The same Britain which had just dealt the Boers the same kind of blow Santa Anna or Lincoln was known for? This Britain, which condemned Germany for adapting to Belgian terrorism, but merely six years before had wiped out the population of Tasmania? This was hypocrisy and an excuse to try and strike down a burgeoning empire."


Not sure what you mean by this - I'm saying Great Britain declared war on August 5, 1914 due to Germany crossing the border the previous day. When was there time for this so-called myth to influence the British public? Britain's stated reason for protecting Belgium and specifically Antwerp was established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. I fail to see what this has to do with the Boer War, Lincoln or their colonial policy.

"A result of the Hunger Blockade, which Churchill himself declared a war on the German People, to starve them into submission. Again, one side set the gauge of battle, but the responding nation is made into the pariah."

A blockade is not the same as unrestricted warfare on neutrals. In the first case, the blockading force mearly denies a given vessel passage to a port. It doesn't sink it and kill all on board. You're free to equate them, but by that reasoning, a state trooper closing a highway and turning away cars with a detour sign is the same as him taking his service revolver, killing every person in every car that comes his way, then torching the vehicles.

Unrestricted warfare was just shy of open piracy by the Germans. Refer to our response in 1805 to the Barbary Pirates for the American policy on high seas piracy: "Millions for defense, not a penny in tribute."

"With good cause, in my opinion. Austria, like Russia, had become so inflexible and decrepit that it had no excuse outside of royal grandiose and hegemony.....excuses I personally don't accept."

Please give examples of this inflexibility and decrepit policy (the "nation" of which you speak was less than 50 years old). Compare them to any other 19th Century monarchy. You'll find them rather similiar. I would advise not using 21st Century political goggles when trying to view the past.

"So a dictator who jails entire state legislatures for disagreeing with him, executes a thousand of his own citizens in a day (New York massacre), personally blesses a concerted terrorist campaign (Sherman), and suspends the Codified Law of a nation for executive authority is a Populist, law abiding leader as surely as the Jews and Arabs are enemies?"

A few facts are in order: Lincoln was an elected President (twice, I might add), not a dictator. He did not 'execute' his citizens (in fact he commuted the sentences of nearly all Union Army deserters whose cases reached his desk). The "New York Massacre" was federal troops quelling a riot that lynched dozens of innocents and destroyed thousands of homes and shops (a legal action by a President that has been repeated as recently as Watts in 1968 and Liberty City in 1980). Sherman did not conduct a 'terrorist campaign' (op. cit.). The Confederacy conducted an illegal armed rebellion and WAS DEFEATED AS AN ENTITY.

OK?

Let it rest, or move this portion of the discussion to the Civil War History. You've obviously got a bee in your bonnet over this one, so let it go there. Lincoln was dead and buried nearly fifty years before this topic and has nothing to do with Serbia or the First World War.


"...The first move knocked Russia out of the war decisively and quickly..."

Hardly. Peace negotiations began in December 1917, were repudiated in February 1918 and hostilities continued for another few weeks, taking the Central Powers forces that much deeper into Russia and the Ukraine, making them unretreivable until after the AEF had landed in force. The Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk wasn't settled until mid-March, 1918.

If anything, it can be argued that those four months of delay allowed for the German defeat.


"The last reserves of Germany must have been larger than those of the Allies, considering the losses of the Allies (compared to Germany)."

Absolutely untrue. The US Army's AEF was only the first 32 divisions (500,000 men) of a planned 98 by 1919. There were at least a million more men in the pipeline for expected operations in France. By 1918, Germany had hit rock bottom, losing a quarter of a million men between March and April that they could not replace.

"The French Army had already mutinied..."

And recovered a year earlier (1917). Marshall Foch was in command and the units were in much better morale and fitness.

"...the British Army was on the verge of mutiny."

Not true.

"Both, especially the British, had catastrophic casualties during the pursuit of Germans across after they were dislodged by the AEF."

Actually, that was the fate of the Germans. In addition to the 250,000 that I mentioned above, they lost an additional million men between March and June, 1918. Ludendorff himself stated in August, "We cannot win the war any more" (Statement to his aide, Colonel Mertz). At that point, he offered his resignation, a full three months before the end of the war.

Doesn't seem like he felt he was winning. Rather the opposite if I were to guess.

Sullivan013

quote:

Not sure what you mean by this - I'm saying Great Britain declared war on August 5, 1914 due to Germany crossing the border the previous day. When was there time for this so-called myth to influence the British public? Britain's stated reason for protecting Belgium and specifically Antwerp was established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. I fail to see what this has to do with the Boer War, Lincoln or their colonial policy.

I don't know how to make it any plainer: Britain used Belgium as a Cassus Belli but it had acted in the same manner in both of its recent wars. The agitation propaganda regarding Belgium was completely over the top and false in many cases. It brought disaster to Britain and escalated the war. Maybe it changed the tide of the war, maybe it didn't. Either way it was a great mistake to be so eager for war and to make the British people pay for the folly of its leaders.

quote:

A blockade is not the same as unrestricted warfare on neutrals. In the first case, the blockading force mearly denies a given vessel passage to a port. It doesn't sink it and kill all on board. You're free to equate them, but by that reasoning, a state trooper closing a highway and turning away cars with a detour sign is the same as him taking his service revolver, killing every person in every car that comes his way, then torching the vehicles.

The hunger blockade was carried out with ships and mines: carelessly used to destroy necessary German shipments of necessary goods. In short, it was an illegal act to starve the people of that country into submission, and its effect was to give rise to vengeful thinking.

quote:

A few facts are in order: Lincoln was an elected President (twice, I might add),

Without a single electoral vote from our States. You may as well justify his actions based on Parliament's reaction to the Declaration of Independence.

quote:

Sherman did not conduct a 'terrorist campaign'

Despite the fact that he personally referred to it as a war to bring the terror of war to civilians and thereby break their will? That is terrorism defined. Thousands were killed, robbed, raped, tortured, and deported all for the sake of 'teaching them a lesson.' It was pure terrorism and that is why we have the stories of survivors to hand to posterity.

quote:

The Confederacy conducted an illegal armed rebellion and WAS DEFEATED AS AN ENTITY.

Which is why they held our President in solitary confinement for a year without any charge, and ultimately failed to find him guilty of anything.

quote:

Both, especially the British, had catastrophic casualties during the pursuit of Germans across after they were dislodged by the AEF."

Actually, that was the fate of the Germans. In addition to the 250,000 that I mentioned above, they lost an additional million men between March and June, 1918. Ludendorff himself stated in August, "We cannot win the war any more" (Statement to his aide, Colonel Mertz). At that point, he offered his resignation, a full three months before the end of the war.

Doesn't seem like he felt he was winning. Rather the opposite if I were to guess.

In August the AEF had already advanced past occupied territory which the allies had not been able to take in three years. Of course that is what turned the tables, but Britain's losses were much higher than the Germans (as they had been for the entire war) for limited effect on their own standing in the war.

"Britain used Belgium as a Cassus Belli but it had acted in the same manner in both of its recent wars."

Preposterous. "Casus Belli" is latin for 'cause of conflict.' That, my friend was the violation of the treaty of 1839 that established the neutrality of Belgium in section 7.

Treaty of 1839

Both the King of Prussia (heriditary title of the Kaiser) and Queen of England, along with their prime ministers were signatories. This was the subject of the ultimatum delivered to the German Ambassador on August 2, 1914, and when the deadline of midnight, August 4, 1914 occured without a withdrawal, both nations were at war.

British Ambassador, August 4, 1918

The so-called "propaganda" campaign and newspaper accounts didn't start until well after this deadline and Prime Minister Asquith's address to Parliment on August 6.

Asquith's address to Parliment

These are primary documents. I don't know how else to get across to you how Britain and Germany arrived at a state of war. Any other discussion of SUBSEQUENT events is completely immaterial. They were at war on the morning of August 5, 1914.

The gist of this highlights the importance of the port of Antwerp to the British strategic position. Since before the days of the Armada, control of that port was of primary importance to every government since Henry VIII. Without that most important port, the English channel is no more than a wide ditch. With that port under control, no worthwhile invasion of Britain can be contemplated, due to the prevailing winds and seas. If you want to know *WHY* Belgium was so damned important, that is it. It was the very reason it was included in the treaty of 1839 in the first place.

As to the Boer War, you forget that that war started with an invasion of British territory by both the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. If you decry the actions of the British, you'll have to admit the Boers weren't exactly angels either. Dum-dums (supplied by Germany or made locally), the tactical use of dynamite, shelling of designated hospitals during the sieges of Ladysmith and Mafeking, killing and torture of prisioners, and all the horrors of a guerilla campaign are among their own list of actions.

Like I said elsewhere in our discussions, there are few clean hands in war. The excesses of BOTH sides were one of the reasons for the Geneva and Hague conventions.

"The hunger blockade was carried out with ships and mines: carelessly used to destroy necessary German shipments of necessary goods. In short, it was an illegal act to starve the people of that country into submission, and its effect was to give rise to vengeful thinking."

Again, absolutely preposterous. It was not only an accepted method of warfare, it was even allowed in the Geneva Conventions of the time. Like I also said earlier about looking back in history with the judgement of today's standards, the Laws of Warfare (Geneva and Hague Conventions) at that time did not include specifications for free passage of food and medicines for civilian populations. That wasn't included until the 1949 convention.

"[Lincoln elected] Without a single electoral vote from our States"

Again, wrong. In 1860 he was elected by a majority of both the electoral and popular vote of all the states of the Union. It was in all the papers.....

Now in 1864, I'll admit that few of the Confederacy voted, but chosing to abstain by rebellion can't be held against the government of the United States. Southerners who ceased to be in rebellion (swore to uphold the union and not take arms against the government) had the opportunity to vote if they so chose.

But again, this is not germain to the issue of Serbia or WWI. I suggest you begin a new thread in the appropriate forum before continuing.

"[1918] Britain's losses were much higher than the Germans (as they had been for the entire war) for limited effect on their own standing in the war."

Again, absolutely false. Germany mobilized 11 million, lost 1.77 million dead and 4.2 million wounded throughout the war. Great Britain mobilized 8.9 million, lost 908,000 killed and 2.09 million wounded. If you correllate these numbers, you'll see that Germany lost over 16% of all soldiers killed and another 38% wounded. Britain's numbers were 10% and 23%.

References:

Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920, The War Office March 1922

Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums, Sanitaetsbericht über das deutsche Heer, (deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 1914-1918, Volume 3, Sec 1. Berlin 1934.

Specifically, please refer to the casualty rates in any respected publication for the following operations:

Kaiserslacht
Ameins
Second Battle of the Somme
Arras
Havrincourt
Epehy

I believe in each and every case, you'll find the German casualties are greater than those of the British/Commonwealth forces involved.

These are facts, verified through documentation both primary and secondary. No amount of tertiary revisionist writings or opinion can honestly refute them.

Sullivan013

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sullivan013,

Great discussion, seriously. It's rare to see a good debate on any of these MilCom threads/forums that don't reduce themselves to grade school name calling. You both have done very well replying with facts and links....many of which I've yet to read. This thread is a standard to follow. Keep it up.
As for the thread itself...what little I've read about the Balkan's War, seems that the Serbs were really good at making deception targets that our and NATO's flyers/Intel fell for. We dropped a lot of ordnance but did little actual battle damage.

quote:

Again, absolutely false. Germany mobilized 11 million, lost 1.77 million dead and 4.2 million wounded throughout the war. Great Britain mobilized 8.9 million, lost 908,000 killed and 2.09 million wounded. If you correllate these numbers, you'll see that Germany lost over 16% of all soldiers killed and another 38% wounded. Britain's numbers were 10% and 23%.

Britain was not fighting a two (or actually three or more) front war. Britain did not singlehandedly knock out the world's largest Empire in two years. Of course Germany levied more men with its longstanding concept of a Nation in Arms. It had a real reserve before the war started, not just veterans who would be squandered within six months, like both Britain and France. Russia did have a trained reserve, incidentally.
Compare the casualties suffered on the West Front alone and tell me who was winning the battles. Of course you should consider the battles from before 1918 - Compare how much ground We (American soldiers) advanced across and for our total of 100,000 casualties in that year (far less than Britain or Germany).

quote:

Again, wrong. In 1860 he was elected by a majority of both the electoral and popular vote of all the states of the Union. It was in all the papers.....

Now in 1864, I'll admit that few of the Confederacy voted, but chosing to abstain by rebellion can't be held against the government of the United States. Southerners who ceased to be in rebellion (swore to uphold the union and not take arms against the government) had the opportunity to vote if they so chose.

This is so insane I don't even see how you are making yourself believe it. The 40% President had been promising since 1858 to make war on any State that didn't pay its (unconstitutional) tariffs. It was the only promise he ever kept. His rich supporters brought the overwhelming financial burden of all the States onto our South, and we rejected it. As a result, he started a war and ended up destroying our homeland from Louisiana to Northern Virginia, and justified the killing of innocents and the absolving of all laws of war - established during the enlightenment to avoid another 30 Years War - to promote ideological dressing for his avarice. Also it was a damn near run thing, the war. The only thing kept it going to the end was that the Northern riots did not exceed the tyrant's ability to deal with, and since the cost of war did not affect the rich (the Republicans of the day), they could be as callous towards their own people as ours.
If you think that an oath of allegiance is a prerequesite for basic rights then you are living in an entirely different country from the one I want to see. Those who were taken in by the occupiers were stool pigeons and rats of the worst kind. How would you ever expect anyone who had survived occupation to turn on their neighbors? I'd rather we Southerners cease to exist as a people than turn into such creatures.

For all of the blatant lies the cabal of Lincoln idolators publish, there will always be the truth passed down by the survivors and the letters of the enemy themselves: After all, dead yankees tell no lies.
All the books in the world can't erase history from our memory. Just remember, Faulkner is explicitly banned in Fahrenheit 451.

I sometimes wonder if you even read your previous posts. You previously asserted:

quote:

Both, especially the British, had catastrophic casualties during the pursuit of Germans across after they were dislodged by the AEF.

-and-

Britain's losses were much higher than the Germans

I prove both of these statements false, with references, both in particular battles in 1918 and in losses per capita for the entire war.

You then respond with:

quote:

Britain was not fighting a two (or actually three or more) front war.

????

By the way, if Britain wasn't fighting a two front war, to whom did Bagdhad and Jerusalem fall? And what was Galliopoli?

Then you state:

quote:

Britain did not singlehandedly knock out the world's largest Empire in two years.

Neither did Imperial Germany. Russia conducted military operations against all three members of the Triple Entente (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire). The entire intent of the Brusilov offensive (the most successful Allied effort prior to 1918) in 1916 was to push Austria-Hungary out of the war. It nearly succeeded. Austria-Hungary lost 1.5 million men (400,000 prisoners) and was never able to conduct offensive operations for the remainder of the war. It even forced Germany to halt their offensive at Verdun in order to deal with the crisis.

Also, if you subtract August 1914 to March 1918 (final treaty of Brest-Litovsk), I think you'll find that German operations on the Eastern Front lasted three years and seven months, not including the time it took to move their forces back from Russia (some were still there at the time of the Armistice).

quote:

Of course Germany levied more men with its longstanding concept of a Nation in Arms. It had a real reserve before the war started, not just veterans who would be squandered within six months, like both Britain and France.

False. France had just as extensive a reserve system, they just didn't employ it in the opening battles in the same manner as the Germans. Their problem was in strategic planning (Plan XVII), not organization. They did not anticipate the German use of reserves in the front line to achieve a temporary advantage in numbers, nor the violation of Belgium neutrality. This was corrected as early as the First Battle of the Marne as relatively fresh French reserve formations were used in conjunction to their active units against the exhausted German right wing.

quote:

Russia did have a trained reserve, incidentally.

Reserves? Yes. Trained (and more importantly, properly equipped)? Not nearly to the extent that was required. This is what made the catastrophe of Tannenberg so devastating. Fully one half of the Russian operational frontline units simply evaporated in the debacle. What was left of their effective pre-war forces in theater was later mauled at the Battle of the Masurian Lakes. It wasn't until the Brusilov offensive that they were able to recover any strategic or even operational initiative.

quote:

Compare the casualties suffered on the West Front alone and tell me who was winning the battles. Of course you should consider the battles from before 1918.

Again, I am astounded at your train of thought. Battles prior to 1918 weren't in question. My listing of the 1918 battles was in response to this post on July 10:

quote:

Both, especially the British, had catastrophic casualties during the pursuit of Germans across after they were dislodged by the AEF

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to review what you write and match my responses to your own comments.

quote:

Compare how much ground We (American soldiers) advanced across and for our total of 100,000 casualties in that year (far less than Britain or Germany).

Germany was a defeated force in full retreat in late 1918 (by the time American units of any size were actually in the line). You're making the very basic mistake of assuming a casual relationship between two coincidental events: the arrival of the Americans and the German retreat after their failed Spring/Summer offensive.

As for the rest of your argument on Lincoln and the Civil War, I say again, please take it to the Civil War forum for discussion. That's the proper place for it as it has absolutely nothing to do with Serbia or WWI.

Sullivan013

P.S. I find it somewhat ironic that you would mention the reference-less society of Fahrenheit 451, yet often fail to even do a basic factual check of primary source material for the majority of your arguments.

Just sayin'.

If you are going to dismiss the primary source I listed long ago because he is an English teacher and not a "Historian," which is a euphamism for 'paid liar,' then I can't help if you forget that.


The bottom line is this: I will never accept that I am especially evil because I think it was right to resist crippling taxation to enrich Northern Capitalists, and I will never worship the false gods of Lincoln and Churchill.

I hate the hypocrisy shown towards the gallant Serbs, which is much worse than the promises England made to Poland in 1939 as they were emblematic of the disgusting ingratitude that protected peoples always show towards those that provide that protection with their blood while living on the frontier of Christian civilization. As it was with Serbia, long suffering under Ottoman rule, so it was with us, who finished both of the wars you people started with Britain, the war with Mexico, and the 'wars' certain Indian tribes would launch against us.

Also we will pay if the idiocy of the neocons has damaged relations with Russia to the point where we must fight them. I would not hesitate to fight them, if we must, but that doesn't mean I will forsake reason and risk that war for nothing......and it truly would be a needless war. And all so Christian Serbia can be laid prostrate before a selfish West.

The "gallant Serbs" had just assassinated the heir to the throne of one of the major European powers with the connaivance of top officials in the Serbian government and then lied about it to the world press. They also lied to the Russian imperial court, which I guess would have accepted official Serb participation in the killing of another imperial houselhold after what had happened to Czar Nicholas II's grandfather, Alexander II, with open arms. The Serbs participation in that assassination set in motion the train of events which led to WW1, the Russian Revolution, the continued revolutions and civil wars in Central Europe, WW2 and the Holocaust, all because they lied to the Russians about their involvement in killing the Austrian's heir apparent. Not a bad record for the "gallant Serbs." They keep lying to themselved to this day.

As I recall, when MG William Nash received the intel brief, the briefing officer said something along the lines of, "The first thing you gotta know about the Balkans, sir, is that there are no good guys." I was with IFOR during that first year, and nothing could be more true. Each of the three major factions: Croats, Muslims and Serbs committed their share of atrocities. The Serbs had the advantage of having the political high ground. Other than that, there was very little differences between the sides.

quote:

Originally posted by Toome:
As I recall, when MG William Nash received the intel brief, the briefing officer said something along the lines of, "The first thing you gotta know about the Balkans, sir, is that there are no good guys." I was with IFOR during that first year, and nothing could be more true. Each of the three major factions: Croats, Muslims and Serbs committed their share of atrocities. The Serbs had the advantage of having the political high ground. Other than that, there was very little differences between the sides.

If that is true, then why take sides? And why, if any side, take the side against the people who have stood as the shield of Europe for 700 years in favor of an invading Islamic army that started the entire crisis by killing their police and citizens?

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:

quote:

Originally posted by Toome:
As I recall, when MG William Nash received the intel brief, the briefing officer said something along the lines of, "The first thing you gotta know about the Balkans, sir, is that there are no good guys." I was with IFOR during that first year, and nothing could be more true. Each of the three major factions: Croats, Muslims and Serbs committed their share of atrocities. The Serbs had the advantage of having the political high ground. Other than that, there was very little differences between the sides.

If that is true, then why take sides? And why, if any side, take the side against the people who have stood as the shield of Europe for 700 years in favor of an invading Islamic army that started the entire crisis by killing their police and citizens?

Mission:

1. Separate the warring factions.

2. Establish and maintain a zone of separation between the three main factions.

3. Establish an environment conducive to a tripartite election.

Who took sides? Were you there?

Didn't think so.