So it goes . . .

[Mr Badger]

10 interpretations of who started WW1:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324


Schlieffen Plan:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

 

[platypus]

Be honest with yourself OP what is the true motivation for this thread? Unless you were alive at the time or had family or friends directly affected I don't understand how anyone could be so passionate about this topic.

I do not agree it was Britain's finest hour, but then there are hundreds if not thousands of state sponsored acts in our past that I do not agree with. However they are gone, I cannot influence them and neither can anyone else alive today.

To me it looks like you want a bit of bother and I am worried for you. The thread neither informs or educates in any worthwhile way. So what do you actually want?

My suggestion is to channel your energy into making the current world a better place and in 70 years nobody will have to look back in the same way.

Good post.

 

[Castiel]

Firstly I feel the use of only "Industrialised" nations and the attacking of that industrial infrastructure as the defining example of "Total War" is now quite old fashioned and a legacy of our Imperial past (and somewhat arrogant). Many modern historians view the process as something entirely different and as another strategic tool that has always been used to "win" (or in many cases not lose!) a War, and at it's base is the concept that you attack the other belligerent's ability to make war, whether that is removing it's ability to make weapons, supply fighters, or just feed it's population. None of those targets can directly harm you but they have always been targets whether conventional histories acknowledge it or not. A very good example that is always overlooked in the years leading up to the Spanish Armada and particularly when Drake attacked Cadiz the English were particularly keen to ensure they destroyed or capture seasoned wood stockpiles that would be used for the production of barrels used for food preservation and storage, as a result by the time of the Armada, Spain was struggling to find enough units to victual the fleet and much of the food on board Spanish ships was found to be rotting in poorly made barrels and as such was one of the many contributing factors to it's failure.

The difference being that Cadiz was a fortified, militarily defended city, which was my point...Sherman proposed attributing similar tactics to largely undefended and primarily civilian infrastructures and the civilians themselves being seen predominantly as hostile. This was not the norm in Europe at the time, although obviously there are examples of atrocities, rarely were they legitimised or even admitted to and were even less commonly were they advocated publicly as policy. The point I was making that Sherman was the first to legitimise this kind of warfare in the modern Industrial Age as being public policy.

We can attempt to rewrite history, by saying I'm being arrogant or whatever, but there is a significant difference in how the 'Hard War' of Sherman compared (at least in definition) to those examples we can point to prior.

As to examples of fairly nasty wars that fought against populations as well as Armies during the 19th century, The Carlist Wars in Spain, The Opium Wars in China, The Crimean War away from the main Sevastapol siege, and the Indian Rebellions (as in India not Native Americans). Prior to that in the earlier part of the century and at the beginning of the Industrialisation process for many European countries, everything was fair game with the Napoleonic Coalitions.

Again, in most cases the actions are not specifically legitimised officially by the protagonists, that is the difference.

 

[TheMightyTen]

You are ignoring the fact that the examples you are choosing there was a very blurred distinction between who was a civilian, in most cases everyone was an actual combatant, either conscripted to militias or part of the defence of the city in question. There were few standing armies and I have explained the difference in how these are defined.

But there always has been a blurred distinction between them, the destruction of your opponents ability to make war is end so the means employed really hasn't changed much through history. The romantic concept of chivalrous and gentlemanly conduct in war is an idealised late Georgian/early Victorian invention that most Western governments tipped their hat to but steadfastly ignored under arms.

It's only now as time distances us further and further from the early modern historical works written by those who were directly influenced by the fallacy of gentlemanly warfare that more objective research has been undertaken that paints very different pictures.

 

[Castiel]

Yes, there were few standing armies in the ancient era, but that has little relevance to the issue. Do you think that attacking soldiers could not make a distinction between say a small child and a grown man? The slaughter of non-combatants was par of course and had nothing to do with blurred distinctions. It has often been the policy to slaughter, rape, terrorise and enslave your enemies populace. If anything, Western Europe got off lightly during WWII compared to the experiences of their ancestors.

Also, I did not exclusively reference the ancient period. As I said, even as recently as the early 19th century civilians would be targeted. In Spain whole towns were put to the sword by the French in order to stem the guerillas. In fact, look a the War in the Vendée.

You are essentially supporting what I have stated. Your last example especially.

 

[TheMightyTen]

The difference being that Cadiz was a fortified, militarily defended city......

But the civilian merchantmen and fisherman that were targeted intentionally by Drake and other Privateers were not.

Again, in most cases the actions are not specifically legitimised officially by the protagonists, that is the difference.

The British government very much legitimised the actions of the Opium Wars.

 

[bitslice]

precipitated by Serbian refusal to comply with all of Austro-Hungarian demands and the historical animosity in the Balkans.

As I understood it, the demands made were deliberately unreasonable because they wanted a war with Serbia?

The was a programme on the BBC called one evening or something that detailed the diplomatic run up to war. Wish I had it recorded.

 

[Castiel]

But there always has been a blurred distinction between them, the destruction of your opponents ability to make war is end so the means employed really hasn't changed much through history. The romantic concept of chivalrous and gentlemanly conduct in war is an idealised late Georgian/early Victorian invention that most Western governments tipped their hat to but steadfastly ignored under arms.

It's only now as time distances us further and further from the early modern historical works written by those who were directly influenced by the fallacy of gentlemanly warfare that more objective research has been undertaken that paints very different pictures.

The difference is exactly that however....Sherman and his Special Orders effectively made such warfare official and legitimised it...whereas prior to this it would have been seen as something to ignore, deny or officially condemn...even if unofficially that was exactly what was happening. We see this in the 18th/19th century European conflicts, with atrocities largely ignored or unofficially ordered and then denied or examples made of whoever they deemed expendable.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

You are essentially supporting what I have stated. Your last example especially.

I fail to see how. Your original point seemed to be that the deliberate targeting of civilians was a phenomena that began in the American Civil War. My argument is that there never was a shift. Historically civilians were targeted as often as not.

My example of the Spanish civilians being targeted does not support the 'blurred lines' point unless you're suggesting that the French believed these civilians were explicitly involved in guerilla activity. But there is ample proof many of these actions were intended purely as punitive measures and had nothing to do with those civilians being suspected of being guerillas.

It also ignores my example of Vendée where there was a clear policy of destroying civilian infrastructure and civilians, with no reason to believe this related to blurred lines. It was actual policy to destroy civilian infrastructure.

 

[Tunney]

But there always has been a blurred distinction between them, the destruction of your opponents ability to make war is end so the means employed really hasn't changed much through history. The romantic concept of chivalrous and gentlemanly conduct in war is an idealised late Georgian/early Victorian invention that most Western governments tipped their hat to but steadfastly ignored under arms.

And yet, the Western Front was a relatively civilised war. The casualty figures were surprisingly low. We never saw anything like the horrors of the Eastern and Pacific fronts. That's what makes what happened at Dresden (and Hamburg) so remarkable.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

And yet, the Western Front was a relatively civilised war. The casualty figures were surprisingly low. We never saw anything like the horrors of the Eastern and Pacific fronts. That's what makes what happened at Dresden (and Hamburg) so remarkable.

Dresden wasn't technically part of the Western Front. Also, the actual loss of life in Dresden was quite low and tonnage of bombs dropped equally low.

 

[stopper]

Wasn't this a tit for tat response to the bombing of Coventry?

No, coventry was a metal works industry, bombing it would have a big effect on our arms production.
bombing Dresden had no effect on the war, allthough the yanks did try and justify it years later.

 

[KingOfTheDaves]

I don't think I did any ww2 at all in school. In my experience people my age without a natural interest have next to no knowledge of the war which is a shame.

Documentaries were great for sparking my interest as a kid.

When I was at school (91 - 96 seems such a long time ago) History was basically set out as:

First 3 years - 1066 to 1914
Final 2 years (which GCSEs were based on) - 20th century history, basically WW1 + WW2

Unfortunately as I went to a bog standard comp at the end of the 3rd we had to choose between History or Geography for GCSE and I chose Geography as it involve writing less essays

So I learnt nothing of the world wars at school.




If my 2 pence is worth anything, I have always understood that WW1 kicked off because after the assasination of Ferdinand Austria wanted to invade Serbia to punish them but Austria knew that this would involve Russia so basically asked Germany's permission beforehand. As such Germany bears some responsibility for not reining in Austria to accept a more measured response.

 

[Rroff]

Humility is completely the wrong word to use, showing some respect for the innocents that died yes, prostrating ourselves for the "sins of our fathers" no.

 

[Kelt]

So what else is new.

People have been killing each other since Og bashed Ug over the head so he could have ziggy time with Ug's missus.

And we will continue to kill each other until we either die out, or the Sun explodes, whichever one comes first.

It's who we are.

 

[LockyOK]

In no way would I suggest that Britain invented terrorism or the deliberate targeting of civilians, any more than I believe that the Syrians invented the"Barrel Bomb". Man has been contaminating water and food for millennia.

My point is that we recently recalled the death fifty years ago of Winston "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas" Churchill who must have been happy (in advance) of the firebombing of Dresden and was an enthusiastic advocate of fairly extreme warfare. Last year we had a fair amount of jingoistic posturing about the "Great" War, there was a tendency to gloss over the fact that the Germans, French, Belgians and many others also suffered at the whim of a bunch of inbred lunatics. This is likely to continue for another three or four years. Every year we get reminded of the Holocaust - but consistently fail to learn anything from any of these "Remembrances".

As someone has pointed over, Dresden was a very long time ago and anyhow the Germans started it and they (and the Japanese) were much worse than we were so we have every right to feel superior and justified in prosecuting wars around the world - because we are the "Good Guys" . . . although it is perhaps good to note that we no longer believe that we have some Celestial Fairy on our side?

Incidentally, in response to an early poster, if you want to get a quick insight into Dresden, Wikipedia is a handy start point. I would also recommend "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut which is a damned good read. "Bomber" by Len Deighton is also worth reading although it doesn't necessarily refer to Dresden.

As I say, yet another great learning opportunity which will doubtless be ignored on the basis that we (and our allies of the particular moment) are the "Good Guys".

 

[Tunney]

Dresden wasn't technically part of the Western Front. Also, the actual loss of life in Dresden was quite low and tonnage of bombs dropped equally low.

22,700-25,000 killed over three days compared with 40,000-43,000 killed during the eight months of The Blitz.

 

[Housey]

So what is the learning you take away?

 

[Will Gill]

My knee jerk reaction to the OP's post and run tactic is, lolstockhausen

 

[Castiel]

But the civilian merchantmen and fisherman that were targeted intentionally by Drake and other Privateers were not.

The armed merchant fleet and treasure ships? Many of whom were privateers themselves and who were routinely captured rather than sunk.

The fishing vessels again were routinely boarded, fishermen captured and questioned as to the lie of the land, charting waters and so on.

The British government very much legitimised the actions of the Opium Wars.

Which were largely never officially declared, the opposite in fact, with a series of short campaigns in response to seizure of goods, ships, and personnel. The Chinese also, as far I can remember, attacked the Royal Navy as the RN we're engaged in stopping British Merchants vessels from entering Canton. And more importantly given all the opposition and criticism of Lord Palmerston and the war itself here in Britain, it can hardly be said it was entirely legitimised by parliament, at least The First Opium War.

Also, were not many of the engagements against actual fortified emplacements, with the battles being between British (and French) forces and vastly more numerous Chinese Forces who were outmatched by technology rather than brutality? Did the Chinese not capture and torture British, French and American diplomatic envoys, civilians and journalists which led to the destruction of the Summer palaces to try and stop the Chinese from using kidnapping and torture?


The disgrace of the Opium Wars wasn't in how the wars were persecuted, but in the actual drug trade and its defence thereof itself. So it's not really a valid example.