Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 82
Like Tree34Likes

Thread: Should George Washington be wiped from History?

  1. #46
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Bahnz View Post
    Well, it crippled the British empire, left a generation of men disfigured and traumatised, and caused a permanent shift in political and economic power away from Europe to the far side of the Atlantic. In that sense, those battles that you mentioned are much more relevant events to memorialise than the fact that the allies eventually rolled over the dying Kaiserreich in late 1918. I mean, it really probably would've been better for everyone (except maybe the Belgians) if the German plan in 1914 had worked and things had been wrapped up by Christmas.
    And that was for the victorious. As to the defeated...

    Also the only alternative to allied victory was allied defeat and I do not believe the 1918 victory, at Second Marne and during the Hundred Days, was a foregone conclusions as the Germans could've fallen back (without allied harassment and with greater thoroughness and planning than what actually happened) onto sections of the Hindenburg Line which would have merely led to a resumption of trench warfare lasting until 1919. There was enough fight in the Germans to cause horrendous allied casualties during those 1918 battles, e.g, the Americans at Meuse-Argonne. She was teetering but she had the protection of her reserve fortifications. If Ludendorff, who was half mad at that stage, had not been in command Germany might've retreated further back, back to the more economical Antwerp-Meuse line.
    Future Proof

  2. #47
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,281
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    Yeah, we tend to get a bit tetchy about unnecessary mass slaughter of barely adult men.

    I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. For NZers and Australians there is very little interest in celebrating success - particularly in WWI where what they were fighting for isn't particularly appreciable. As I said - they knew they were good soldiers.
    The same is actually true of all of the allied participants pertaining to that particular war, but surely it overlooks the historic events of 1918, and rather undermines those men who won the war in the end, suffering casualties for it in order to not make sure the war did not enter 1919, or even worse, result in victory for the Central Powers.

    The final string of allied victories is overlooked, which is basically my only point. Happily there are a few great books on the subject.

    One myth about Australians during that war is that of them being rugged bushwacking/farmer types. You see this depicted in that Mel Gibson film. A historian who is cited in the notes of one of the books I have just read on the 1918 battles researched the majority of ANZAC backgrounds and arrived at the conclusion that most of them were actually town dwellers - doctors and teachers and so forth - and a lot were actually recent migrants from the United Kingdom.
    Last edited by S.Kennedy; 26-08-2017 at 10:36 PM.

  3. #48
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    13,735
    Quote Originally Posted by S.Kennedy View Post
    The same is actually true of all of the allied participants pertaining to that particular war, but surely it overlooks the historic events of 1918, and rather undermines those men who won the war in the end, suffering casualties for it in order to not make sure the war did not enter 1919, or even worse, result in victory for the Central Powers.
    How?

    Quote Originally Posted by S.Kennedy View Post
    One myth about Australians during that war is that of them being rugged bushwacking/farmer types. You see this depicted in that Mel Gibson film. A historian who is cited in the notes of one of the books I have just read on the 1918 battles researched the majority of ANZAC backgrounds and arrived at the conclusion that most of them were actually town dwellers - doctors and teachers and so forth - and a lot were actually recent migrants from the United Kingdom.
    An urban background in Australiasia is not the same thing as an urban background in Europe. Even today.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    "You don't look like me in this world without being firm on what you want to do."

    - Hashim Amla.
    Quote Originally Posted by DriveClub View Post
    He bowls with a lot of heart, his heart makes the ball bounce more

  4. #49
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    13,735
    double post


  5. #50
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,281
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    How?
    They are rather forgotten, cast aside in favour of the commemorative 'futility of war' indecisive mud-caked battles, of Gallipoli, Somme, Verdun and Third Ypres. The amount of books on the 1918 offensives pales in comparison to the works on those four battles. The war needed to be won in 1918 so the allies may as well have tried to win the thing, and that is what actually happened but you'd be forgiven that this wasn't the case. Not that I'm degenerating the remembrance of those aforementioned battles but the Second Marne and Hundred Days are surely forgotten?

    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    An urban background in Australiasia is not the same thing as an urban background in Europe. Even today.
    I never implied it was!

  6. #51
    International Coach Bahnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wigton Unzud
    Posts
    12,564
    Quote Originally Posted by S.Kennedy View Post
    They are rather forgotten, cast aside in favour of the commemorative 'futility of war' indecisive mud-caked battles, of Gallipoli, Somme, Verdun and Third Ypres. The amount of books on the 1918 offensives pales in comparison to the works on those four battles. The war needed to be won in 1918 so the allies may as well have tried to win the thing, and that is what actually happened but you'd be forgiven that this wasn't the case. Not that I'm degenerating the remembrance of those aforementioned battles but the Second Marne and Hundred Days are surely forgotten?
    Again, I don't see why you're at all surprised or upset about this. World War 1 destroyed old Europe. Yes, the victories of the allies in the 100 days campaign were impressive. They probably saved many lives by ending the war sooner than expected (though I tend to think that there probably would've been either a revolution in Germany or a mutiny in the army in very short order if the generals hadn't seen sense when they did).

    But it was a classic pyrrhic victory for the allies. The impact that the final exhausted march to victory had on the future course of European history pales in comparison to the slaughter that took place on both western and eastern fronts in 1914-17. So yes, people remember those battles more, and historians study them more, because they had a bigger impact on society at the time, and were fundamentally more important to the way 20th century history played out.
    Last edited by Bahnz; 28-08-2017 at 07:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I can think of a list of Sydney Grade posters who would contribute a better average post than Bahnz.
    Maow like no one can hear you maowing.

  7. #52
    Not Terrible Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    #BlamePhlegm
    Posts
    37,996
    Didn't WW1 end when Ares was defeated by Wonder Woman?
    Direbirds FTW!
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    420 BLAZE IT

  8. #53
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Bahnz View Post
    Again, I don't see why you're at all surprised or upset about this. World War 1 destroyed old Europe. Yes, the victories of the allies in the 100 days campaign were impressive. They probably saved many lives by ending the war sooner than expected (though I tend to think that there probably would've been either a revolution in Germany or a mutiny in the army in very short order if the generals hadn't seen sense when they did).

    But it was a classic pyrrhic victory for the allies. The impact that the final exhausted march to victory had on the future course of European history pales in comparison to the slaughter that took place on both western and eastern fronts in 1914-17. So yes, people remember those battles more, and historians study them more, because they had a bigger impact on society at the time, and were fundamentally more important to the way 20th century history played out.
    I cannot agree seeing as it was not a foregone conclusion that the war would have been won by the allies in 1918 and that the allied successes inherently precipitated Compiègne. I'd go further and say, if we are discussing 1918 in toto and not just the allied resurgence, that before the Michael offensive petered out the situation of the German army was better than at any point of the war since 1914, since before the Marne, before the Schlieffen plan collapsed. Brest-Litovsk had released fifty German divisions for redeployment on the western front.

    There was a revolution in German, between the Spartakusbund and an (uneasy) alliance of the SPD and the Germany army, throwing in multiple freikorps units which proliferated after the armistice. The Germany navy mutinied beginning at Kiel and numerous army councils and 'soviets' were established. In fact one of the reasons as to the Germans requiring an armistice so urgently was the need to redeploy the army domestically to quell the revolution.

    Ultimately the far left would be defeated but the Hohenzollern/junker autocracy would be replaced by a moderate-left constitution, which still left the army present albeit chastened.
    Last edited by S.Kennedy; 29-08-2017 at 05:05 AM.

  9. #54
    International Coach Bahnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wigton Unzud
    Posts
    12,564
    Quote Originally Posted by S.Kennedy View Post
    I cannot agree seeing as it was not a foregone conclusion that the war would have been won by the allies in 1918 and that the allied successes inherently precipitated Compiègne. I'd go further and say, if we are discussing 1918 in toto and not just the allied resurgence, that before the Michael offensive petered out the situation of the German army was better than at any point of the war since 1914, since before the Marne, before the Schlieffen plan collapsed. Brest-Litovsk had released fifty German divisions for redeployment on the western front.
    Again, I'm not taking anything away from how dangerous the German army was, and that things looked pretty hairy for a while during Operation Michael. But I still don't understand exactly what you disagree with. That the victory for the allies was fundamentally pyrrhic in nature (with the obvious exceptions of the US and Japan)? That the millions of men who died during the trench stalemate was far more destabilising and had significantly farther reaching consequences for European society than the ultimate breaking of that stale-mate? I mean, it seems that your position can be summed up with the question, "Why don't we celebrate winning this war that devastated our society and ended our status as a global power?" - and I would've thought the answer to that question would've been fairly obvious...
    Last edited by Bahnz; 29-08-2017 at 06:56 AM.

  10. #55
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Bahnz View Post
    Again, I'm not taking anything away from how dangerous the German army was, and that things looked pretty hairy for a while during Operation Michael. But I still don't understand exactly what you disagree with. That the victory for the allies was fundamentally pyrrhic in nature (with the obvious exceptions of the US and Japan)? That the millions of men who died during the trench stalemate was far more destabilising and had significantly farther reaching consequences for European society than the ultimate breaking of that stale-mate? I mean, it seems that your position can be summed up with the question, "Why don't we celebrate winning this war that devastated our society and ended our status as a global power?" - and I would've thought the answer to that question would've been fairly obvious...
    My position is the exact same as the view postulated in a book I've just finished reading, that we dwell too much on the Somme (etc) and that there is not enough attention given to how the war actually ended. I never mentioned the word 'celebrate' although if you were a Frenchmen there would be a lot to celebrate seeing as 3.7% of your homeland under occupation would now be returned to the mother country - Belgium, whose entire country except western Flanders, lay under a brutal occupation, even more so.

    If you regard the victory as not worth celebrating least of all remembering then you have to countenance a German victory as the only alternative, something allied victory prevented. If not an allied victory, what else? As I've said multiple times now, allied victory was not a foregone conclusion like it was in 1944-45. Irrespective, allied victory meant that there would be no more casualties in 1919 (or onward) - allied victory saving future loss of life in fact.

  11. #56
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,281
    Didn't this have something to do with George Washington? How on earth did we go from that to the Great War? Although speaking of the Yanks they were torn up during the Meuse-Argonne offensive during the Hundred Days, proof of the stubbornness of the German army at this late stage.

  12. #57
    International Coach Bahnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wigton Unzud
    Posts
    12,564
    Quote Originally Posted by S.Kennedy View Post
    My position is the exact same as the view postulated in a book I've just finished reading, that we dwell too much on the Somme (etc) and that there is not enough attention given to how the war actually ended. I never mentioned the word 'celebrate' although if you were a Frenchmen there would be a lot to celebrate seeing as 3.7% of your homeland under occupation would now be returned to the mother country - Belgium, whose entire country except western Flanders, lay under a brutal occupation, even more so.

    If you regard the victory as not worth celebrating least of all remembering then you have to countenance a German victory as the only alternative, something allied victory prevented. If not an allied victory, what else? As I've said multiple times now, allied victory was not a foregone conclusion like it was in 1944-45. Irrespective, allied victory meant that there would be no more casualties in 1919 (or onward) - allied victory saving future loss of life in fact.
    Yeah well, there really isn't much more to say than we're not going to agree on this (especially on the bolded).

  13. #58
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Bahnz View Post
    Yeah well, there really isn't much more to say than we're not going to agree on this (especially on the bolded).
    Everybody vehemently disagrees with me on here, whether that be first innings declarations and general English/Straussey upper order stodge, the merits of twenty20 franchise cricket or world war one historiography. I wouldn't worry about it. At least I have not been called a plank or muppet (yet) in this thread.

  14. #59
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    53,787
    Quote Originally Posted by S.Kennedy View Post
    Didn't this have something to do with George Washington? How on earth did we go from that to the Great War? Although speaking of the Yanks they were torn up during the Meuse-Argonne offensive during the Hundred Days, proof of the stubbornness of the German army at this late stage.
    Yanks are a strange lot. They don't mind a stoush of their own making but they're always late to the big dances.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  15. #60
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,281
    The American army in those days was tiny, sixteenth in the world, and had to borrow all of its equipment from the allies: it wore British Tommy helmets and operated French chauchats.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 78
    Last Post: 27-09-2007, 02:29 PM
  2. Dwight Washington
    By iamdavid in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24-07-2007, 03:47 PM
  3. George Best
    By a massive zebra in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-12-2005, 09:28 AM
  4. Dwight Washington Suspect Action.
    By SpaceMonkey in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2004, 11:01 PM
  5. Dwight Washington in, Dillon out
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-03-2004, 02:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •