28th of July, 1914. Austria declares war on Serbia following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and weeks of political maneuvering from Britain, Germany, France, Russia and Austria-Hungary. This is the catalyst for the First World War, and millions of deaths across Europe and beyond.
Austria issues manifesto and declares war on Serbia at noon: refuses proposals of mediation or Conference: has no quarrel with Russia.
Russia says mobilisation of Southern Corps will be announced tomorrow, but she has no aggressive intentions against Germany.
Russian Ambassador at Vienna wires to M. Sazonov that Austrian general mobilisation order has been signed.
Kaiser wires to Tsar he will use his influence with Austria.
Germany conciliatory, but throws responsibility of possible war on Russia.
I read somewhere that some people think the Nazis took part in WW1.
Anyway, this was meant to be the war that ended all wars. Whoever said that needs their head examined.
Isn't it wonderful to see how much we have come on from this...oh wait
Quote from: Orior on July 28, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
I read somewhere that some people think the Nazis took part in WW1.
Anyway, this was meant to be the war that ended all wars. Whoever said that needs their head examined.
Possibly, the war that started all wars for the last 100 years!
WW1 was triggered by an economic crash . Most of them are. War is a part of the economic system
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/07/10/1078071/the-negative-fear-bubble/
Capital must be destroyed in order for liquidity to be usefully deployed once again — especially if it is to deliver investment returns.Hence, why wars are so hugely useful for dealing with economic depressions. They permanently and effectively destroy capacity. Not just the surplus capacity that plagues the system, but core capacity, which serves a genuine economic need. Indeed, it's the need for the capacity to be reinstalled that in many ways justifies a return on investment again.
Quote from: Orior on July 28, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
I read somewhere that some people think the Nazis took part in WW1.
Anyway, this was meant to be the war that ended all wars. Whoever said that needs their head examined.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to assume that because Germany were the aggressor in WWII, the same applies to WWI when in fact it was another imperial war for the most part.
As FTB says, it was a large part of the reason for WWII starting and the subsequent consequences of that.
I previously read (open to correction on this) that the US were seriously considering which side of the war they would enter.on, who knows what would have happened if they had chosen differently.
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 28, 2014, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on July 28, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
I read somewhere that some people think the Nazis took part in WW1.
Anyway, this was meant to be the war that ended all wars. Whoever said that needs their head examined.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to assume that because Germany were the aggressor in WWII, the same applies to WWI when in fact it was another imperial war for the most part.
As FTB says, it was a large part of the reason for WWII starting and the subsequent consequences of that.
I previously read (open to correction on this) that the US were seriously considering which side of the war they would enter.on, who knows what would have happened if they had chosen differently.
I think the british initially treated the russians as being the german side as well
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 28, 2014, 02:29:21 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 28, 2014, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on July 28, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
I read somewhere that some people think the Nazis took part in WW1.
Anyway, this was meant to be the war that ended all wars. Whoever said that needs their head examined.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to assume that because Germany were the aggressor in WWII, the same applies to WWI when in fact it was another imperial war for the most part.
As FTB says, it was a large part of the reason for WWII starting and the subsequent consequences of that.
I previously read (open to correction on this) that the US were seriously considering which side of the war they would enter.on, who knows what would have happened if they had chosen differently.
I think the british initially treated the russians as being the german side as well
Not so sure about that. I am reading Max Hastings book on it at the moment. The Russians v The Germans was always going to be the main clash of Empires.
Austria/Hungary going after Serbia was a bit of 19th Century posturing, a duel to settle a slight but the Russians did not want A/H getting control of the Bosphorus and locking them into the Black sea so they were backing the Slavs.
The Germans wanted a war sooner rather that later as the Russians were getting stronger and so encouraged the A/H empire into attacking Serbia.
The French were tied in with the Russians, the British less so as they were more concerned about the possibility of civil war at home. It was only the Germans taking a shortcut through Belgium to get at France dragged them in.
WW1 was all about which empire was top dog. The same as all wars. It's sad that people are brainwashed into war via the tyrannical nutbar leader thing.
Quote from: LeoMc on July 28, 2014, 04:44:12 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 28, 2014, 02:29:21 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on July 28, 2014, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on July 28, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
I read somewhere that some people think the Nazis took part in WW1.
Anyway, this was meant to be the war that ended all wars. Whoever said that needs their head examined.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to assume that because Germany were the aggressor in WWII, the same applies to WWI when in fact it was another imperial war for the most part.
As FTB says, it was a large part of the reason for WWII starting and the subsequent consequences of that.
I previously read (open to correction on this) that the US were seriously considering which side of the war they would enter.on, who knows what would have happened if they had chosen differently.
I think the british initially treated the russians as being the german side as well
Not so sure about that. I am reading Max Hastings book on it at the moment. The Russians v The Germans was always going to be the main clash of Empires.
Austria/Hungary going after Serbia was a bit of 19th Century posturing, a duel to settle a slight but the Russians did not want A/H getting control of the Bosphorus and locking them into the Black sea so they were backing the Slavs.
The Germans wanted a war sooner rather that later as the Russians were getting stronger and so encouraged the A/H empire into attacking Serbia.
The French were tied in with the Russians, the British less so as they were more concerned about the possibility of civil war at home. It was only the Germans taking a shortcut through Belgium to get at France dragged them in.
i could be wrong but i thought that russia invaded finland at the start of the war which the british and french viewed as acting on the german side, it was only latter they became allies.
They were together in the triple entente against the triple alliance but it was probably a case of my enemy's enemy!
They would have been on opposing sides in the great game in the previous decades so the alliances would have been shaky at best. Russia's great fear when marching on Austria Hungary would have been that Britain would not join in at the appropriate time.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 28, 2014, 08:21:11 PM
i could be wrong but i thought that russia invaded finland at the start of the war which the british and french viewed as acting on the german side, it was only latter they became allies.
Russia invaded Finland at the start of the Second World War. In the First War Finland was already under Russian rule, albeit with a sort of Home Rule.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 28, 2014, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 28, 2014, 08:21:11 PM
i could be wrong but i thought that russia invaded finland at the start of the war which the british and french viewed as acting on the german side, it was only latter they became allies.
Russia invaded Finland at the start of the Second World War. In the First War Finland was already under Russian rule, albeit with a sort of Home Rule.
Yes , it was WWII i was refering too
in response to this
QuoteYeah, a lot of people seem to assume that because Germany were the aggressor in WWII, the same applies to WWI when in fact it was another imperial war for the most part.
As FTB says, it was a large part of the reason for WWII starting and the subsequent consequences of that.
I previously read (open to correction on this) that the US were seriously considering which side of the war they would enter.on, who knows what would have happened if they had chosen differently.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 29, 2014, 08:32:16 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 28, 2014, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 28, 2014, 08:21:11 PM
i could be wrong but i thought that russia invaded finland at the start of the war which the british and french viewed as acting on the german side, it was only latter they became allies.
Russia invaded Finland at the start of the Second World War. In the First War Finland was already under Russian rule, albeit with a sort of Home Rule.
Yes , it was WWII i was refering too
in response to this
QuoteYeah, a lot of people seem to assume that because Germany were the aggressor in WWII, the same applies to WWI when in fact it was another imperial war for the most part.
As FTB says, it was a large part of the reason for WWII starting and the subsequent consequences of that.
I previously read (open to correction on this) that the US were seriously considering which side of the war they would enter.on, who knows what would have happened if they had chosen differently.
I was referring to WWI where the US were considering entering on the German side
Oh right ok, i picked you up wrong.
The whole subject of the sides certain countries took in the war and their motives for it is an interesting one, as some one else mention, alot of it was a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'
The dynamic of the ruling families was interesting too. I know the German and Russian monarchs were cousins, and very friendly, and indeed I the British King was another cousin. First cousins actually. Queen Victoria spawned the lot of them. So really this was probably the last major conflict where royalty had a big role, and where it was all very 'gentlemanly' up to the beginning of the war.
The second world war was a much more 'modern' conflict in how it came about, but if the first world war hadn't ended with Germany being humiliated at Versailles, it's possible the second war may never have happened.
I read Jeremy Paxmans book ''Great Britain's Great War'' it kind of mixes social history with the political history without ever going into too munch depth on either. All in All a good read and a good introduction to the topic if don't know too much about it.
29th July: the Germans realise to late that the British will fight if Belgian territory is violated and encourage Austria to pull back and open discussions with Russia but the wheels are in motion.
Is anyone getting a bit fed up of RTÉ's and other 26 Co media almost canonising the Irish people who took part in this immoral war?
Unlike the English, Scots or Welsh the Irish participants were all volunteers who took part on their own initiative for whatever reasons.
I have no bother with people just stating the facts and maybe having local lists of those who died etc. but less of the love in.
30th July: Russian mobilisation. When the German army mobilised it meant war, there was no standby mode. For the Russians mobilisation was only a precursor, a way of rattling sabres. Even as the Russians mobilised the Emperor was talking to his cousin the Kaiser looking for a diplomatic solution with Austria/Hungary. However once the Russians mobilised the Germans felt the need to do so to and so it began.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 30, 2014, 10:53:02 AM
Is anyone getting a bit fed up of RTÉ's and other 26 Co media almost canonising the Irish people who took part in this immoral war?
Unlike the English, Scots or Welsh the Irish participants were all volunteers who took part on their own initiative for whatever reasons.
I have no bother with people just stating the facts and maybe having local lists of those who died etc. but less of the love in.
I don't really have a problem with commemorating the men who fought and died int the world wars. I was listening to some music there last night, from the period. Pack up your troubles, a long way to tipperary etc etc. the old scratchy sound is gas, but it struck me (not for the first time) that the propaganda of these songs was so hypocritical. They mentioned the brave lads fighting for 'the rights of small nations' etc. at the same time Britain had an empire that stretched across the globe, and included many small nations, including our own.
31st July: Germany sends ultimatums to St Petersburg & Paris.
2nd August. Laois beat Kilkenny 3-2 to 2-4 in the Leinster Hurling Final. Clare won the All-Ireland that year but Laois, cute as ever waited until the following year when everyone was away fighting in the great war and won the All-Ireland. What makes Bud happy is that it was Cork they beat to win their All-Ireland. They never played Cork again in a championship game until 2011 and that used sicken Cork 'cause we used to ask them, who was the team that beat Cork in an All-Ireland that Cork never, ever bate?
However, even though Laois went on to do more for the development of vulcanite false teeth and could take a mans ear off with the precision of a bacon slicer they never won foook all again and today when someone points out one of the Bergins or some other hero of the '15 team in some old faded photo on a wall in a pub, you will often hear "they could have won another five All-Ireland's only for that Hitler bollax and them all having to go off and fight the war"
01 Aug: French and German armies mobilised.
Austria / Hungary shell Belgrade from boats on the Danube.
Re the rights of small nations AZ, surely this was not hypocritical as the situations of "poor little Catholic Belgium" were linked by the Irish politicians of the day? Was it not sold to Redmond by Asquith, and then by Redmond to the Volunteers, that if they aided in Belgium's struggle for freedom, our own freedom, as in Home Rule, would be guaranteed at the conclusion of the war? The hypocrisy resided in the highest levels at Whitehall, but I'd say the normal Irish and British Tommy could well profess to have acted in the interests of small nations.
Except ones populated by black or brown people. They didn't count.
Quote from: Bud Wiser on July 31, 2014, 08:20:27 PM
2nd August. Laois beat Kilkenny 3-2 to 2-4 in the Leinster Hurling Final. Clare won the All-Ireland that year but Laois, cute as ever waited until the following year when everyone was away fighting in the great war and won the All-Ireland. What makes Bud happy is that it was Cork they beat to win their All-Ireland. They never played Cork again in a championship game until 2011 and that used sicken Cork 'cause we used to ask them, who was the team that beat Cork in an All-Ireland that Cork never, ever bate?
However, even though Laois went on to do more for the development of vulcanite false teeth and could take a mans ear off with the precision of a bacon slicer they never won foook all again and today when someone points out one of the Bergins or some other hero of the '15 team in some old faded photo on a wall in a pub, you will often hear "they could have won another five All-Ireland's only for that Hitler bollax and them all having to go off and fight the war"
Surely it was Queen's County?
Quote from: easytiger95 on August 01, 2014, 01:15:07 PM
Re the rights of small nations AZ, surely this was not hypocritical as the situations of "poor little Catholic Belgium" were linked by the Irish politicians of the day? Was it not sold to Redmond by Asquith, and then by Redmond to the Volunteers, that if they aided in Belgium's struggle for freedom, our own freedom, as in Home Rule, would be guaranteed at the conclusion of the war? The hypocrisy resided in the highest levels at Whitehall, but I'd say the normal Irish and British Tommy could well profess to have acted in the interests of small nations.
Except ones populated by black or brown people. They didn't count.
The Home Rule Bill had already been passed by the British Parliament. Implimentation was delayed due to the war.
Quote from: easytiger95 on August 01, 2014, 01:15:07 PM
Re the rights of small nations AZ, surely this was not hypocritical as the situations of "poor little Catholic Belgium" were linked by the Irish politicians of the day? Was it not sold to Redmond by Asquith, and then by Redmond to the Volunteers, that if they aided in Belgium's struggle for freedom, our own freedom, as in Home Rule, would be guaranteed at the conclusion of the war? The hypocrisy resided in the highest levels at Whitehall, but I'd say the normal Irish and British Tommy could well profess to have acted in the interests of small nations.
Except ones populated by black or brown people. They didn't count.
That's what my history teacher told us
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/one-hundred-years-since-john-redmond-committed-ireland-to-the-first-world-war-1.1885199 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/one-hundred-years-since-john-redmond-committed-ireland-to-the-first-world-war-1.1885199)
02nd August: Germany occupies Luxemburg.
Queens County defeats Kilkenny
Aug 3, 1914:
Germany and France declare war on each other.
On the afternoon of this day in 1914, two days after declaring war on Russia, Germany declares war on France, moving ahead with a long-held strategy, conceived by the former chief of staff of the German army, Alfred von Schlieffen, for a two-front war against France and Russia. Hours later, France makes its own declaration of war against Germany, readying its troops to move into the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, which it had forfeited to Germany in the settlement that ended the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.
With Germany officially at war with France and Russia, a conflict originally centered in the tumultuous Balkans region—with the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, and the subsequent standoff between Austria-Hungary, Serbia and Serbia's powerful Slavic supporter, Russia—had erupted into a full-scale war. Also on August 3, the first wave of German troops assembled on the frontier of neutral Belgium, which in accordance with the Schlieffen Plan would be crossed by German armies on their way to an invasion of France. The day before, Germany had presented Belgium and its sovereign, King Albert, with an ultimatum demanding passage for the German army through its territory.
This threat to Belgium, whose perpetual neutrality had been mandated by a treaty concluded by the European powers—including Britain, France and Germany—in 1839, united a divided British government in opposition to German aggression. Hours before Germany's declaration of war on France on August 3, the British foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, went before Parliament and convinced a divided British government—and nation—to give its support to Britain's entrance into the war if Germany violated Belgian neutrality.
"The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime," Grey famously remarked to a friend on the night of August 3. The next day, Britain sent its own ultimatum to Berlin: halt the invasion of Belgium or face war with Britain as well. A reply was demanded by midnight that night. At noon that day, King Albert finally made a concerted appeal for help to France and Britain, as guarantors of Belgium's neutrality according to the Treaty of 1839. To do so earlier, to call in the French and British too soon, would have risked violating his country's neutrality before Germany had done so. When London received no answer to its ultimatum—the first German troops had in fact crossed the Belgian frontier at Gemmerich, 30 miles from the fortress city of Liege, that morning—Britain declared war on Germany.
In August 1914, as the great powers of Europe readied their armies and navies for a fight, no one was preparing for a long struggle—both sides were counting on a short, decisive conflict that would end in their favor. "You will be home before the leaves have fallen from the trees," Kaiser Wilhelm assured troops leaving for the front in the first week of August 1914. Even though some military leaders, including German Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke and his French counterpart, Joseph Joffre, foresaw a longer conflict, they did not modify their war strategy to prepare for that eventuality. One man, the controversial new war secretary in Britain, Lord Horatio Kitchener, did act on his conviction that the war would be a lasting one, insisting from the beginning of the war—against considerable opposition—on the need to build up Britain's armed forces. "A nation like Germany," Kitchener argued, "after having forced the issue, will only give in after it is beaten to the ground. This will take a very long time. No one living knows how long."
522 years today since Columbus set sail
Some great programmes on the box about WW1 at the moment.
Was reading at the weekend an article about the Scottish referendum pointing that even with a smaller population around 4 times more Scots died in WW1 than Irish.
Have been hearing a lot about Gallipoli in the past few days and how these guys should be remembered as heroes. Now whatever you think about Irishmen joining the British army in 1914 (while history may not have been kind to them, I'm sure most of them joined thinking it was the right thing to do), I fail to see how an attempted invasion of another country can be seen as heroic in any way?? I was always baffled at how the Australians especially remember this battle also.
I suspect the "new" Australians remember it because it was their first major loss of lives?
Mind you they'd been killing loads of the real Australians for over a Century at that stage.
As for Irish people who were killed in Gallipoli - why can it not just be maturely remembered as a historical fact rather than all the Brit "hero" stuff?
Quote from: macdanger2 on April 24, 2015, 09:36:50 AM
Have been hearing a lot about Gallipoli in the past few days and how these guys should be remembered as heroes. Now whatever you think about Irishmen joining the British army in 1914 (while history may not have been kind to them, I'm sure most of them joined thinking it was the right thing to do), I fail to see how an attempted invasion of another country can be seen as heroic in any way?? I was always baffled at how the Australians especially remember this battle also.
I'd say most foot soldiers don't get to pick and chose the battles their generals send them in to!
Like most wars it was just poor people from one country getting sent to kill poor people from another country on behalf of their upper class masters.
'You fought for the wrong country, you died for the wrong by cause
And Yer ma often said it was Ireland's great loss
All those fine young irish men, to foreign shores to fight the wars
When the greatest war of all was at home'
Quote from: Rossfan on April 24, 2015, 09:47:47 AM
I suspect the "new" Australians remember it because it was their first major loss of lives?
Mind you they'd been killing loads of the real Australians for over a Century at that stage.
As for Irish people who were killed in Gallipoli - why can it not just be maturely remembered as a historical fact rather than all the Brit "hero" stuff?
You will enjoy this read Rossfan
https://newmatilda.com/2015/04/22/gallipoli-could-never-define-australia-war-did
Good one Dixie.
A lot of your Unionist neighbours think history began in 1971.
As a caller into Katie Hopkins' recent phone-in show on LBC noted, had the population of Australia in the 18th century had the chance to turn guns on the boats that drifted up on their shore, history would have been very different.
Quote from: johnneycool on April 24, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on April 24, 2015, 09:36:50 AM
Have been hearing a lot about Gallipoli in the past few days and how these guys should be remembered as heroes. Now whatever you think about Irishmen joining the British army in 1914 (while history may not have been kind to them, I'm sure most of them joined thinking it was the right thing to do), I fail to see how an attempted invasion of another country can be seen as heroic in any way?? I was always baffled at how the Australians especially remember this battle also.
I'd say most foot soldiers don't get to pick and chose the battles their generals send them in to!
I know that but this battle seems to get more "exposure" than most WWI battles when to me it seems even more pointless (in the fact that it was an invasion rather than anything a defensive battle) than the many pointless battles in a pointless imperial war.
Interesting article there GHD
Quote from: give her dixie on April 24, 2015, 10:27:25 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 24, 2015, 09:47:47 AM
I suspect the "new" Australians remember it because it was their first major loss of lives?
Mind you they'd been killing loads of the real Australians for over a Century at that stage.
As for Irish people who were killed in Gallipoli - why can it not just be maturely remembered as a historical fact rather than all the Brit "hero" stuff?
You will enjoy this read Rossfan
https://newmatilda.com/2015/04/22/gallipoli-could-never-define-australia-war-did
lest we forget indeed....