Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Enda Kenny lays wreath at WW1 site

  • 19-12-2013 9:29pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭


    Just wondering what the general consensus is with regard to Enda Kenny laying a wreath at the WW1 memorial today. Personally, I think it's long overdue,and I'm happy we as a nation have finally acknowledged the Irish men who fought in the Great War. My maternal Grandfather fought for the British at the Somme, my paternal grandparents met while fighting the British in the war of Independence, I have never honoured one over the other.


«1

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    WW1 was the classic imperialist war which cost many a good life, including 30,000 Irish men who went to their deaths for nothing in the end.

    It was a war between cousins who wanted to carve up the world.

    WW2 on the other hand was a war that had to be fought & I salute every Irishman who took any remote part in it for the Allies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    tdv123 wrote: »
    WW1 was the classic imperialist war which cost many a good life, including 30,000 Irish men who went to their deaths for nothing in the end.

    It was a war between cousins who wanted to carve up the world.

    WW2 on the other hand was a war that had to be fought & I salute every Irishman who took any remote part in it for the Allies.
    the reasons for men going to war would have been largely similar in both conflicts.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    the reasons for men going to war would have been largely similar in both conflicts.

    There's a big difference between WW1 & WW2. WW! was a war between Empires, to see who could expand their Empires more & it didn't need to be fought. WW2 was a war of survival that for a long period of time Britain stood alone & I'm a Republican but I'm very, very glad they did make the stand they did against militaristic Nazism & Fascism


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21 general paulus


    The men who fought in WW1 and WW2 were incredibly brave, i doubt many of us alive nowadays would have what it takes to do what they did. If it wasnt for these men we would all be speaking German or God knows what now. Its just a pity the way they were treated when they returned home.

    For this reason alone they deserve to be recognised and remembered for the heroes that they were. I dont agree with alot of what kenny does but this I do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭stoneill


    tdv123 wrote: »
    There's a big difference between WW1 & WW2. WW! was a war between Empires, to see who could expand their Empires more & it didn't need to be fought. WW2 was a war of survival that for a long period of time Britain stood alone & I'm a Republican but I'm very, very glad they did make the stand they did against militaristic Nazism & Fascism

    This shows your lack of knowledge of both the political and imperial events leading to the outbreak of war in 1914, the social and economic impact to Germany during the interwar years and the outbreak of war in 1939.

    WW1 and WW2 was the same war with an interlude.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    stoneill wrote: »
    This shows your lack of knowledge of both the political and imperial events leading to the outbreak of war in 1914, the social and economic impact to Germany during the interwar years and the outbreak of war in 1939.

    WW1 and WW2 was the same war with an interlude.

    There was the Ottoman Empire, German Empire ,British Empire & French Empire all squabbling over pieces of land in WW1. There was no need for it & wasted many a good life. I have nothing good to stay about WW1.

    WW2 The UK took one of the bravest stances in history against the Nazi Empire which covered most of Europe, they could have easily capitulated to Hitler & his demands for a British surrender. That war had to be fought to stop Nazism spreading.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭stoneill


    The is no need for any war, there is no justification ever.
    I fully support Enda Kenny's gesture in laying a wreath for the fallen Irish.
    I visited that site myself a few years ago.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭gobnaitolunacy


    tdv123 wrote: »
    WW1 was the classic imperialist war which cost many a good life, including 30,000 Irish men who went to their deaths for nothing in the end.

    It was a war between cousins who wanted to carve up the world.

    WW2 on the other hand was a war that had to be fought & I salute every Irishman who took any remote part in it for the Allies.

    Nope, WW2 was WW1 part two.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    Nope, WW2 was WW1 part two.

    The threat from Nazi Germany was much, much more serious than the threat from anyone else during WW1. How many bombs were dropped on the UK mainland in WW1? Britain was on the brink of becoming apart of the Nazi Empire. The Irish Volunteers struck more of a blow to the UK mainland than the Germans did in WW1.

    Belfast, London, target after target was subject to the Nazi's bombing campaign of GB. The only comparison between the wars is that there was alot of people fighting each other.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭gobnaitolunacy


    WW2 wasn't all 'fighting the good fight', there was a fair bit of imperialism and self interest in WW2 as well...Britain calling the colonies to arms as per WW1, protecting its interests in Malaya/Burma etc., (TBF the Burmese quickly found out being under Japanese rule was far worse than being under the British) Vichy France holding fast to its overseas possessions and co-operating with Japan in Indo China, Holland being booted out and then trying to regain control in the East Indies after the war. It wasn't all doughboys handing out chewing gum to grateful liberated countries. The Allies weren't all shining examples of democracy, but they were they 'least worst' alterative.

    The most telling thing imo was the Free Polish being told to stay out of the London victory parade, for fear of offending the Soviets. Plus ca change.

    Back OT, it's good that we remember WW1, we've shied away from it and ignored it for far too long as a nation.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    WW2 wasn't all 'fighting the good fight', there was a fair bit of imperialism and self interest in WW2 as well...Britain calling the colonies to arms as per WW1...

    I'm sorry to say that you are in error - In 1914, at the outbreak of the First World War, Canada was part of the British Empire. Thus, when Britain declared war on Germany, Canada had no choice, and it was automatically at war too. In 1931, however, the British Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which provided that Parliament no longer had any authority to legislate for Canada, and, in effect, made Canada an independent nation. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, and on September 3, 1939, England declared war on Germany. On September 10 1939 Canada declared war on Germany.

    As for the other 'elements' of the British empire -

    DECLARATION OF WAR
    3 September 1939

    THE PRIME MINISTER ROBERT MENZIES

    "Fellow Australians,
    It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.


    No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.

    Great Britain and France with the cooperation of the British Dominions have struggled to avoid this tragedy. They have, as I firmly believe, been patient. They have kept the door of negotiation open. They have given no cause for aggression.

    But in the result their efforts have failed and we are therefore, as a great family of nations, involved in a struggle which we must at all costs win and which we believe in our hearts we will win."



    So, far from Britain calling the colonies to arms', as you put it it, one country, Canada, that COULD have stayed neutral, joined in anyway and Australia felt obliged to join in by the strong ties between the members of the BE.

    In WW1, eleven men from my family took part, from Ireland [1], England [1] and Canada [total 9 over the four years]. My grandfather died on the Somme in 1917 - all the others survived with varying degrees of permanent injury.

    In WW2, my four uncles served in the RCAF [both died over Germany the same night in 1944] and the Princess Pat's CLI. The two infantry survived D-Day and the subsequent occupation.

    My father, being a convicted 'Irish terrorist', was excused WW2.

    tac


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    The men who fought in WW1 and WW2 were incredibly brave, i doubt many of us alive nowadays would have what it takes to do what they did. If it wasnt for these men we would all be speaking German or God knows what now. Its just a pity the way they were treated when they returned home.

    For this reason alone they deserve to be recognised and remembered for the heroes that they were. I dont agree with alot of what kenny does but this I do.

    I always have a chuckle when I see this in an Irish context.

    I think Enda handled it well, especially in his interview
    Arriving at this evening's EU summit in Brussels following the event, the Taoiseach reflected: "The thought crossed my mind standing at the grave of Willie Redmond that that was why we have a European Union and why I'm attending a European Council.


    "It's very striking when you stand there and look at the names of your own country people who fought in what was supposed to be the war to end all wars, and the senseless slaughter that occurred, and to visit the graveyards and see the names.


    "It is very poignant and very powerful.


    "I think it was the first time that an Irish Taoiseach actually had the opportunity to pay tribute to British soldiers and Irish soldiers who fought in World War I. So for me, personally, this was something very important."

    very balanced and thoughtful I think, unlike Cameron who wrote in the record book of 'people giving their lives for freedom' which is the kind of talk I am not so sure about.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    WW2 wasn't all 'fighting the good fight', there was a fair bit of imperialism and self interest in WW2 as well...Britain calling the colonies to arms as per WW1, protecting its interests in Malaya/Burma etc., (TBF the Burmese quickly found out being under Japanese rule was far worse than being under the British) Vichy France holding fast to its overseas possessions and co-operating with Japan in Indo China, Holland being booted out and then trying to regain control in the East Indies after the war. It wasn't all doughboys handing out chewing gum to grateful liberated countries. The Allies weren't all shining examples of democracy, but they were they 'least worst' alterative.

    The most telling thing imo was the Free Polish being told to stay out of the London victory parade, for fear of offending the Soviets. Plus ca change.

    Back OT, it's good that we remember WW1, we've shied away from it and ignored it for far too long as a nation.

    Well it's not a case if it being "good war" or "bad war". When Hitler was flying the swastika flag over the Eiffel tower on Britain's doorstep there was not much choice left but to fight or surrender. It had to be fought & waged as total war & had to done won & was pretty much impossible to avoid.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,971 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    I would have been okay with it if it wasn't for the poppy wreath laid down beside it. World war one show never be glorified it should be denounced for the imperialist slaughter it was, which current commemorations do not do, rather they attempt to glorify the memory of a pointless war


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    tdv123 wrote: »
    Well it's not a case if it being "good war" or "bad war". When Hitler was flying the swastika flag over the Eiffel tower on Britain's doorstep there was not much choice left but to fight or surrender. It had to be fought & waged as total war & had to done won & was pretty much impossible to avoid.
    Some times I wonder if Europe sort of lucked out in that French and British interests required them to finally stand up to Hitler after he invaded Poland, especially if you look at all the other millions of people around the world killed in places that the major powers didnt/don't care about, the 2nd Congo War for example


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    Some times I wonder if Europe sort of lucked out in that French and British interests required them to finally stand up to Hitler after he invaded Poland, especially if you look at all the other millions of people around the world killed in places that the major powers didnt/don't care about, the 2nd Congo War for example

    That's a good point a blind eye was turned at what Hitler was doing for a long time. It wasn't until the threat became obvious that real action was taken. Equally no action was taken against Japan after the Nangking massacre in 37. It wasn't until American interests were threatened that America joined in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Some times I wonder if Europe sort of lucked out in that French and British interests required them to finally stand up to Hitler after he invaded Poland
    Luck had little to do with it. Imperialist competition forced the Great Powers into war in 1914 and it was imperialist competition that forced them into war in 1939. Hitler's programme of expansion was inherently in conflict with London and Paris' attempts to maintain the geopolitical status quo (which favoured them)

    The major difference between the two wars is that Nazi Germany was several times more abhorrent than Wilhelmine Germany or the contemporary colonial empires


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,768 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Just wondering what the general consensus is with regard to Enda Kenny laying a wreath at the WW1 memorial today. Personally, I think it's long overdue,and I'm happy we as a nation have finally acknowledged the Irish men who fought in the Great War. My maternal Grandfather fought for the British at the Somme, my paternal grandparents met while fighting the British in the war of Independence, I have never honoured one over the other.


    Back to OP, I agree, my family have a similar history, I hold them all in equal esteem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    stoneill wrote: »
    The is no need for any war, there is no justification ever.
    .

    Ridiculous.

    If the Germans had not been stopped in World War I and World War II the whole of Europe including Ireland and no doubt much of the world would have been enslaved.

    In the War of Independence the democratic wishes and freedoms of the Irish people were trampled on by the British and the IRA fought back and many of the men who fought for Irish freedom had already fought in British uniform in the Great War.

    How do you suppose Hitler could have been stopped peacefully?

    If Ireland was invaded tomorrow I would fight and you would too and so would the rest of the posters on this thread.

    There are things more sacred than human life.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    tdv123 wrote: »
    It was a war between cousins who wanted to carve up the world..

    If you're referring to the British and German royal families, then no, that is definitely not the case.

    As far as British and German squabbles went, it was purely naval. Germany wanted to expand, but Britain still ruled the waves, just.

    If Germany conquered France and took possession of their fleet, then they could easily dominate the seas, which was a direct threat to the British empire and Britain itself.

    The causes of WWI from a western front perspective are centred on Alsace and Lorraine (which is why the EEC was created initially as a coal and steel alliance) but there were much wider ramifications.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    I don't think it should be that big a deal for the head of government to and acknowledge the debt we owe to people who fought in WW1 and to those from here who fought in WW2.
    tdv123 wrote: »
    That's a good point a blind eye was turned at what Hitler was doing for a long time. It wasn't until the threat became obvious that real action was taken. Equally no action was taken against Japan after the Nangking massacre in 37. It wasn't until American interests were threatened that America joined in.

    What?

    Can I suggest you go read something with a bit more depth than whatever it was you were reading when you picked these ideas up.

    I think you'll find there was no blind eye being turned if you look at things like British defence planning and spending and the depth of Anglo-French co-operation and planning that went on through the early 1930s. In 1934 the British launched a scheme to expand the RAF to 41, then 52 squadrons , and the parliamentary debates make it clear that this was in response to the threat presented by Germany specifically.

    The British around that time tried to negotiate an Air Pact with the Germans and when that failed and Hitler told them he was aiming for party with the French, the British decided to expand the RAF to over 120 squadrons.

    The staff papers coming out of the RAF Staff College at Andover in this period also make it abundantly clear that the RAF, at least, were focused on Germany as the most likely adversary they'd have to face, and when the first RDF station went operational it was in Suffolk.

    Your notion that the democracies could and should have stopped Hitler by moving against him militarily before 1939 is fundamentally flawed and is based on hindsight (always 20:20).

    It ignores the political, military, economic, and psychological state of Europe at the time, and takes no account of the options faced by the Anglo-French 'alliance' during the 1930s.

    WW1 was still a very recent memory for both countries; everyone failed to grasp the nature of the Nazi regime and the extent of Hitler’s strategic ambitions; France’s military developed an inherent inflexibility; Britain was strategically overstretched; significant guilt existed over the Versailles Treaty; there was a real fear of strategic bombing; the Nazi air threat was overstated; American isolationism; distrust of the Soviet Union etc etc etc

    'Appeasement' wasn't wrong just because Hitler was unappeasable; that fact often gets lost and as a result the word 'appeasement' has now developed a pejorative character.

    He didn't just want to re-balance power in Germany’s favour - he wanted to sweep existing power structures away and replace it with a German-ruled Europe, eliminating France and Britain as European powers.

    He was was also 'undeterrable' - what he wanted could not be gotten without war, but he planned to go to war later than 1939.

    As such there was very little that the democracies could do to deter Hitler from war. There was going to be war as long as Hitler remained in power.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I don't think it should be that big a deal for the head of government to and acknowledge the debt we owe to people who fought in WW1 and to those from here who fought in WW2
    What debt do we owe to those who fought in WWI?
    As such there was very little that the democracies could do to deter Hitler from war. There was going to be war as long as Hitler remained in power.
    A conclusion that is based on two very flawed assumptions:

    1) That Germany was capable of waging war before 1939

    2) That Hitler's will was absolute in Germany before 1939

    Both are incorrect. Hitler himself admitted German weakness in 1936, accepting that "if the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance". The advantage in men and materials that the Allied nations had at this point was so absolute that Germany could not seriously contemplate a European war. Hitler bluffed and no one called it.

    Things were not much better two years later when Hitler had to face down opposition from within the military, including coup conspiracies during the Munich crisis. Would the German establishment have followed him into a two-front war of annihilation over the Sudetenland? No chance - at every step Hitler had to cajole/coerce the military and political elite into war; a task that the Allies made much easier than it should have been.

    Time and again the failure of the Western nations to force a diplomatic confrontation when Germany was weak simply postponed the war until Germany was strong. It was Allied appeasement that allowed Hitler the time and minor triumphs needed to solidify his rule at home and build a military machine that could conquer Europe.
    He didn't just want to re-balance power in Germany’s favour - he wanted to sweep existing power structures away and replace it with a German-ruled Europe, eliminating France and Britain as European powers
    Which is the very charge that the anti-appeasers levelled against the Anglo-French political elite. Chamberlain wasn't playing for time (as his apologists now argue) but believed and asserted that a war could be averted through existing diplomatic structures and arrangements.
    I think you'll find there was no blind eye being turned if you look at things like British defence planning and spending and the depth of Anglo-French co-operation and planning that went on through the early 1930s. In 1934 the British launched a scheme to expand the RAF to 41, then 52 squadrons , and the parliamentary debates make it clear that this was in response to the threat presented by Germany specifically.

    The British around that time tried to negotiate an Air Pact with the Germans and when that failed and Hitler told them he was aiming for party with the French, the British decided to expand the RAF to over 120 squadrons.

    The staff papers coming out of the RAF Staff College at Andover in this period also make it abundantly clear that the RAF, at least, were focused on Germany as the most likely adversary they'd have to face, and when the first RDF station went operational it was in Suffolk.
    Which is all very nice but completely glosses over the fact that British rearmament did not begin in earnest until 1937, with Chamberlain in particular resistant to raising the defence budget. Compare with Germany's progress in preparing for war:
    NaziDefence.jpg
    Those few RAF squadrons look very impressive now, no?

    [Edit: And it's worth noting that the Chancellor from 1931-37, and ardent opponent to a swift rearmament, was of course Chamberlain. Instead of a general expansion of military capability in preparation for war, he simply shuffled funds around: the RAF got its planes because Chamberlain starved the army of funds]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Reekwind wrote: »
    What debt do we owe to those who fought in WWI?

    I'll leave the rest of your post for the moment and just say that in my own case my 'debt' - at a minimum - is owed to the men of the 2nd Battalion, Connaught Rangers. If they hadn't looked after a certain Ranger at First Mons I wouldn't be here to type this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Reekwind wrote: »
    .......
    A conclusion that is based on two very flawed assumptions:

    1) That Germany was capable of waging war before 1939

    2) That Hitler's will was absolute in Germany before 1939

    Both are incorrect. Hitler himself admitted German weakness in 1936, accepting that "if the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance". The advantage in men and materials that the Allied nations had at this point was so absolute that Germany could not seriously contemplate a European war. Hitler bluffed and no one called it.

    Things were not much better two years later when Hitler had to face down opposition from within the military, including coup conspiracies during the Munich crisis. Would the German establishment have followed him into a two-front war of annihilation over the Sudetenland? No chance - at every step Hitler had to cajole/coerce the military and political elite into war; a task that the Allies made much easier than it should have been.

    Time and again the failure of the Western nations to force a diplomatic confrontation when Germany was weak simply postponed the war until Germany was strong. It was Allied appeasement that allowed Hitler the time and minor triumphs needed to solidify his rule at home and build a military machine that could conquer Europe.

    Which is the very charge that the anti-appeasers levelled against the Anglo-French political elite. Chamberlain wasn't playing for time (as his apologists now argue) but believed and asserted that a war could be averted through existing diplomatic structures and arrangements.

    Which is all very nice but completely glosses over the fact that British rearmament did not begin in earnest until 1937, with Chamberlain in particular resistant to raising the defence budget. Compare with Germany's progress in preparing for war:
    NaziDefence.jpg
    Those few RAF squadrons look very impressive now, no?

    [Edit: And it's worth noting that the Chancellor from 1931-37, and ardent opponent to a swift rearmament, was of course Chamberlain. Instead of a general expansion of military capability in preparation for war, he simply shuffled funds around: the RAF got its planes because Chamberlain starved the army of funds]

    The French weren't going to march anywhere, they were quite happy behind their Maginot Line and the essence of Anglo-French planning was a static defence - the point, however, seems to have been lost that the fact that Anglo-French planning was active and ongoing from about 1932 suggests that the suggested blind eye was not so extensive as was suggested.

    The fruits of the British re-armament were not seen until 1937, that is true - but the really interesting thing is the way both countries re-armed.

    The Air Ministry was very clear when it was given a mandate to expand the RAF in 1935 that there would be no rush - essentially they didn't want the service flooded with airframes that would be obsolete in 5 years and overwhelmed with inexperienced air and ground crews. They set up the Volunteer Reserve and a whole host of other programmes to boost the manpower pool without it swamping the service.

    They also ploughed a lot of their spending into an aggressive R&D programme which produced RDF, the cantilever monoplane, etc. In 1935/36 the Air Ministry was the largest spender on R&D in the UK - spending twice the amount ICI did for instance in the same year. In contrast to Germany, the R&D effort was much more coherent, organised and focused. Yes, it produced plenty of 'dogs' but it also led to the introduction of some some superlative aircraft.

    There was also significant spending on aerodromes and infra-structure, especially to put in concrete runways, proper crew quarters, hangars and maintenance facilities and dispersal pens. Money was spent on improving communications and making them more robust.........not as glamorous as a 5,000 plane air force, but ultimately more important.

    Also in 1935 "The Reorientation Scheme" was put into effect which saw a band of air defences begin to be established down the east coast of the country - I'm assuming that given the radii of action on the documents mentions Germany specifically (and the Low Countries) - this is who the Air Ministry were most concerned about.

    Finally, they thought - a lot - about how to fight an air war as an independent air force, not just - to use VonRichtofen's great phrase - as 'the army's whore.'

    German defence spending as a proportion of GDP is interesting, especially as their economy was reckoned to be about 30% larger than the UK's but if GDP is a robust arbiter of warfighting ability how come in 1941, when the combined GDP of the Axis (Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan) along with France and the other occupied countries dwarfed the UK (by about a factor of 3), the Axis did not defeat the Allies?

    Likewise, in 1943, when Allied GDP exceeded Axis GDP by a factor of 2.3, there was still 2 years of the War to run.

    GDP is interesting, but it's crude. No use in having a huge defence budget if you spend it on the wrong things at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

    The 'few' RAF squadrons were judged at the time to be sufficient - the idea being to match the Luftwaffe. The pre-requisites put in place, however, proved more important in the long run.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    The main thing that screwed the Luftwaffe was the understimation of the actual numbers of RAF aircraft.

    That and the overestimation of the Luftwaffe numbers by the RAF.

    The RAF thought that the equivalent Luftwaffe unit was as big as theirs - 12-14 aircraft.

    The Luftwaffe thought that the equivalent RAF unit was as small as theirs - 8-10 aircraft.

    Thankfully, it was THAT way around...

    tac


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Jawgap wrote: »
    The French weren't going to march anywhere, they were quite happy behind their Maginot Line and the essence of Anglo-French planning was a static defence - the point, however, seems to have been lost that the fact that Anglo-French planning was active and ongoing from about 1932 suggests that the suggested blind eye was not so extensive as was suggested
    The French weren't going to march anywhere without British support. And, far from girding themselves for a later war, it was quite clear throughout the 1930s that Britain had absolutely no appetite for any sort of confrontation with Germany. Which is not to absolve the appeasers in Paris of any blame but British diplomats were continually undermining those in the French government who wanted a firm line taken.

    In the case of the Rhineland, the German army could have been scattered and Hitler deposed years before Poland, at relatively little cost. Yet the appeasers failed to see the opportunity, failed to see the danger that Hitler posed and ultimately failed to save the world another world war
    The fruits of the British re-armament were not seen until 1937, that is true - but the really interesting thing is the way both countries re-armed
    Correction: British rearmament proper did not begin until 1937. The RAF, which had benefited from earlier funding commitments, was expanding in 1937 but the other branches had barely started to modernise. The result is that when war arrived in 1939 Britain was still playing catch-up; the UK could commit a piddling ten divisions to the Continent in 1940
    The Air Ministry was very clear when it was given a mandate to expand the RAF in 1935 that there would be no rush - essentially they didn't want the service flooded with airframes that would be obsolete in 5 years and overwhelmed with inexperienced air and ground crews. They set up the Volunteer Reserve and a whole host of other programmes to boost the manpower pool without it swamping the service.

    They also ploughed a lot of their spending into an aggressive R&D programme which produced RDF, the cantilever monoplane, etc. In 1935/36 the Air Ministry was the largest spender on R&D in the UK - spending twice the amount ICI did for instance in the same year. In contrast to Germany, the R&D effort was much more coherent, organised and focused. Yes, it produced plenty of 'dogs' but it also led to the introduction of some some superlative aircraft.

    There was also significant spending on aerodromes and infra-structure, especially to put in concrete runways, proper crew quarters, hangars and maintenance facilities and dispersal pens. Money was spent on improving communications and making them more robust.........not as glamorous as a 5,000 plane air force, but ultimately more important
    Unlike Germany? I don't think that anyone's ever suggested that the Luftwaffe was full of sub-standard planes, poorly trained pilots and insufficient infrastructure :confused:
    German defence spending as a proportion of GDP is interesting, especially as their economy was reckoned to be about 30% larger than the UK's but if GDP is a robust arbiter of warfighting ability how come in 1941, when the combined GDP of the Axis (Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan) along with France and the other occupied countries dwarfed the UK (by about a factor of 3), the Axis did not defeat the Allies?
    Because the UK fought alone for just over a year and was effectively the focus of Germany's ire for less than six months. Over a longer period there is no doubt that, yes, the superior Axis production would have crushed the UK. Luckily for London it was soon joined by the two largest industrial powers in the world and it was the immense resources of the USA and USSR that ultimately won the war

    But that's not really the purpose of that graph. It illustrates the degree to which Britain was unprepared for war in 1939. That is, it gives lie to the notion that the appeasers were playing for time; it demonstrates intent. You cannot ready a nation for war without increasing the defence budget; you cannot modernise your armed forces without spending money. The reality is that Britain was doing neither until 1937, when it suddenly woke up to the reality of a looming war and started to invest in its military capacity

    This was not a matter of hindsight: a certain Winston Churchill had been calling for such an increase for years
    The 'few' RAF squadrons were judged at the time to be sufficient - the idea being to match the Luftwaffe. The pre-requisites put in place, however, proved more important in the long run.
    "Sufficient" is a good word. The bare minimum that Chamberlain gave to the military to modernise was to be spent on the arm most concerned with protecting England. Even then the Chancellor was uninterested in 'Continental adventures'. The Battle of France might have been very different if Britain had actually contributed more than a petty ten divisions (compared to 114 French and 135 German)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 847 ✭✭✭Gambas


    tdv123 wrote: »
    WW1 was the classic imperialist war which cost many a good life, including 30,000 Irish men who went to their deaths for nothing in the end.

    It was a war between cousins who wanted to carve up the world.

    WW2 on the other hand was a war that had to be fought & I salute every Irishman who took any remote part in it for the Allies.

    The governments were the drivers of the wars, not the Kaiser, King or Czar.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Reekwind wrote: »
    The French weren't going to march anywhere without British support. And, far from girding themselves for a later war, it was quite clear throughout the 1930s that Britain had absolutely no appetite for any sort of confrontation with Germany. Which is not to absolve the appeasers in Paris of any blame but British diplomats were continually undermining those in the French government who wanted a firm line taken.

    The French weren't going to march anywhere, full stop
    >.

    And Britain had no interest in War as AP1300 makes it plain. Even as late as 1940 the edition issued in that year stated categorically
    "War is the last resort of national policy undertaken as a result of a threat to the Empire's security or in fulfillment of a covenant to which it is a party."

    But just because they (the British) didn't want it, didn't mean they weren't going to prepare for it in a way that met the policy objectives of the government and at least some of the objectives dictated by military prudence.

    As early as 1931, Sir George Milne, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, reported to the Committee of Imperial Defence that "nothing was clearer' in the contemporary scene than the 'gradual emergence of a revisionist bloc of powers consisting of the ex-enemy states and Italy."

    Likewise, the planning and reports of the Chiefs of Staff Subcommittee of the CID are pretty clear in 1936 that they anticipate war with Germany in 1939 and perhaps as early as 1938.

    Even before that the Hankey Committee also known as the Defence Requirements Committee (members included the three Chiefs of Staff), concluded in 1933 that the 'ultimate potential enemy' was Germany.

    They acknowledged there was no evidence that Germany contemplated an attack on Britain or the Empire, but thought that she intended to pursue her aims without recourse to her neighbours.

    So to say a blind eye was being turned is quite incorrect - but it fits nicely with Churchill's version of events.

    Reekwind wrote: »


    Correction: British rearmament proper did not begin until 1937. The RAF, which had benefited from earlier funding commitments, was expanding in 1937 but the other branches had barely started to modernise. The result is that when war arrived in 1939 Britain was still playing catch-up; the UK could commit a piddling ten divisions to the Continent in 1940

    Yes, that was completely in accordance with their defence thinking - first build up Fighter Command to parry the initial air attacks and 'protect the base' (the UK); then the Royal Navy and Bomber Command to blockade the Continent and weaken the enemy; then the Army to be ready to go back on the offensive.

    The UK as the foremost naval power for over 100 years never had a strong army and traditionally when it fought on the Continent it did so with the aid of one of the major countries (France or Germany) usually to neutralise the one it wasn't fighting with - that was always their approach as far back as Marlborough.

    Germany, as a continental power squeezed between Russia and France naturally prioritised its army and air force (as an adjunct to the land forces) - in the same way it prioritised east-west railways.

    Both countries re-armed according to their strategic views.
    Reekwind wrote: »
    Unlike Germany? I don't think that anyone's ever suggested that the Luftwaffe was full of sub-standard planes, poorly trained pilots and insufficient infrastructure :confused:

    Not full of substandard planes, but they had a large number of aircraft types that were effectively obsolescent by 1941 - the Stuka for example - and a lot of others that were nearing the end of their potential - the Bf109, the He111 etc.

    Charles Portal discusses it at length in his memoirs (The Central Blue).
    Reekwind wrote: »
    Because the UK fought alone for just over a year and was effectively the focus of Germany's ire for less than six months. Over a longer period there is no doubt that, yes, the superior Axis production would have crushed the UK. Luckily for London it was soon joined by the two largest industrial powers in the world and it was the immense resources of the USA and USSR that ultimately won the war

    But that's not really the purpose of that graph. It illustrates the degree to which Britain was unprepared for war in 1939. That is, it gives lie to the notion that the appeasers were playing for time; it demonstrates intent. You cannot ready a nation for war without increasing the defence budget; you cannot modernise your armed forces without spending money. The reality is that Britain was doing neither until 1937, when it suddenly woke up to the reality of a looming war and started to invest in its military capacity

    This was not a matter of hindsight: a certain Winston Churchill had been calling for such an increase for years

    Chamberlain, for all his flaws, was not playing for time - he, like a lot of people, didn't want war for the reasons I've already stated. Unfortunately he didn't know what we know now - that Hitler was unappeasable.

    And if you read the Mass Observation reports from the time you'll see that Churchill when he took over was not universally popular.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,711 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    Jawgap wrote: »

    Not full of substandard planes, but they had a large number of aircraft types that were effectively obsolescent by 1941 - the Stuka for example - and a lot of others that were nearing the end of their potential - the Bf109, the He111 etc.


    Normally i find myself in complete agreement with you JG, but there were variants of the BF109 being designed, tested and put into production all the way up to August 1944. That doesn't sound to me like an airframe design that was nearing the end of it's potential in 1941.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 65 ✭✭Francisco Durden


    If it wasnt for these men we would all be speaking German or God knows what now.

    Anything but a different language, right? Almost as bad as those teachers who try to force Irish down children's throats. Disgusting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Normally i find myself in complete agreement with you JG, but there were variants of the BF109 being designed, tested and put into production all the way up to August 1944. That doesn't sound to me like an airframe design that was nearing the end of it's potential in 1941.

    Thanks.

    The point I suppose that I was trying to make was that at the outset of the the War the Bf109 was the pre-eminent fighter, but it was further along its lifecycle than the Spitfire.

    During the Battle of Britain the E variants were more than a handful for MkII Spitfires (and a different class to the Hurricane), and from then on later E variants were still probably marginally ahead of the later Spitfire marques - until you get to the G variants when really they had wrung all they could out of the airframe.

    At the point though, the Spitfire MkV and Vb arrived, and the IX and XIV still had to arrive - which I know struggled to cope with FW190 - but we're comparing the Spitfire's development with the Bf109.

    They loaded more and more (rocket pods, underwing wing cannons, bigger engines) onto the Bf109 airframe making the once nimble aircraft heavier, slower and less maneuverable. The result was an aircraft (the later Gs) that had a wingloading 50% greater than the Spitfire.

    Late variant G Bf109s had wingloadings comparable to P-47Ds despite weighing in at about half their unladen weight and at about 60% of their weight when combat loaded.

    I think the reason it stayed in production for so long was out of necessity. Germany, despite its research prowess, didn't have the time to re-tool factories to produce something else in the numbers required.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23 TJ Lazer


    Just wondering what the general consensus is with regard to Enda Kenny laying a wreath at the WW1 memorial today. Personally, I think it's long overdue,and I'm happy we as a nation have finally acknowledged the Irish men who fought in the Great War. My maternal Grandfather fought for the British at the Somme, my paternal grandparents met while fighting the British in the war of Independence, I have never honoured one over the other.

    Sure typical Kenny eh? As Ireland moves closer to a United Ireland, Kenny moves closer to Britain.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Jawgap wrote: »
    The French weren't going to march anywhere, full stop
    Because of a political calculation in London and Paris. There were of course French plans to reoccupy the Rhineland (which had only been vacated by French soldiers in 1930) and both powers were nominally committed to keeping the territory demilitarised. This could have easily been achieved without a full blown European war.

    There was nothing stopping the Britain and France giving Hitler a bloody nose but political cowardice. The French were of course not immune to this but it can hardly be argued that the French would 'never have marched' when Flandin flew to London in 1936 to get British agreement on exactly that
    But just because they (the British) didn't want it, didn't mean they weren't going to prepare for it in a way that met the policy objectives of the government and at least some of the objectives dictated by military prudence
    The key phrase here being: "the policy objectives of the government". To translate: the British government did not believe that German rearmament threatened British interests, the British government did not believe that it would be involved in a pan-European war in the coming years and the British government was unwilling to fund any rearmament programme (beyond reallocating Army funds to the RAF).

    The British government was wrong. Simple as.

    Had the British government taken the Chiefs of Staff seriously (and they had been explicitly warning of the threat of war from a future re-militarised Germany since at least 1933) then it would have taken the appropriate measures to ensure that Britain entered the war in a state of readiness. (Such as being actually capable of meeting their commitments in France.) But that's not what happened.

    What did happen is that the British Army was starved for cash until 1937 as the Treasury consistently rejected requests for increased funding. Far from being an oracle intent on a measured military build-up, Chamberlain was at odds with the Chiefs of Staff over this issue. In 1934, to take an example, the Treasury reduced their budget requests from £76m to £50m.

    Why? Because Chamberlain was obsessed with balancing budgets and was unwilling, until 1937, to borrow to fund an expansion of the defence budget.
    Yes, that was completely in accordance with their defence thinking - first build up Fighter Command to parry the initial air attacks and 'protect the base' (the UK); then the Royal Navy and Bomber Command to blockade the Continent and weaken the enemy; then the Army to be ready to go back on the offensive.
    Which was completely unlike, say, Germany, France and the USSR: all of which somehow managed to invest in all three branches simultaneously. The only thing stopping the UK from following suit was the Treasury and the government's Little England approach to its Continental commitments
    The UK as the foremost naval power for over 100 years never had a strong army and traditionally when it fought on the Continent it did so with the aid of one of the major countries (France or Germany) usually to neutralise the one it wasn't fighting with - that was always their approach as far back as Marlborough.

    Germany, as a continental power squeezed between Russia and France naturally prioritised its army and air force (as an adjunct to the land forces) - in the same way it prioritised east-west railways.

    Both countries re-armed according to their strategic views.
    Would it surprise you learn, even given those priorities, that German naval expenditure in 1937 was on par with that of Britain (1,479 v 1,595 million Reichmarks, respectively)? In fact, in 1939, with the adoption of Plan Z, Germany spent more on its navy than Britain?

    In this area that Chamberlain supposedly prioritised, Britain's rate of increase in naval spending in the 1930s was vastly outstripped by that of Germany. (What with Germany starting from a much lower base.) How lucky for Britain that it takes many years to build a navy
    Chamberlain, for all his flaws, was not playing for time - he, like a lot of people, didn't want war for the reasons I've already stated. Unfortunately he didn't know what we know now - that Hitler was unappeasable
    You didn't need hindsight to see that - Churchill did. You didn't need to be a military genius to understand the dangers in neglecting rearmament - the Chiefs of Staff did. You didn't need to be a diplomatic whizz to propose a strategy of containment - the Czechs and Soviets could.

    Now hours could be spent delving into the sinister reasoning that lay behind Chamberlain's inaction but for now it is merely important to note that he was wrong and that people called him on it at the time. Far from being "very little that the democracies could do to deter Hitler from war", it was the political blunders of the Anglo-French leadership that gave Hitler the time he needed to unleash war


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    ^^^^^^^^^ in contrast to my own posts I notice a complete lack of sources for anything you suggest. As well as a significant misappreciation of politics, policy and grand strategy.

    Could you post up a few sources for anything you suggest, or else just acknowledge its your own interpretation of high level political acts.

    The Germans chose a rearmament path that prioritised "guns over butter" while the British decided to produce "guns AND butter" as discussed by Denis Richards in his history of the RAF in WWII.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Reekwind wrote: »
    ......


    Would it surprise you learn, even given those priorities, that German naval expenditure in 1937 was on par with that of Britain (1,479 v 1,595 million Reichmarks, respectively)? In fact, in 1939, with the adoption of Plan Z, Germany spent more on its navy than Britain?

    Not really, because Germany were trying to catch up with the UK project naval power into the Atlantic - the really interesting question is what did the Germans spend it on? I don't remember too many German aircraft carriers becoming operational before or during the war?

    Like I said earlier, absolute spending is not a good guide to war fighting if the money is spent on the wrong things, in the wrong way at the wrong time.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Jawgap wrote: »
    ^^^^^^^^^ in contrast to my own posts I notice a complete lack of sources for anything you suggest. As well as a significant misappreciation of politics, policy and grand strategy
    Anything in particular? There should be nothing there that's particularly novel. A few particulars:

    For the budget conflicts between the Treasury and Chiefs of Staff, see McDonagh's Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War. (He also touches on Chamberlain's insistence on budget stringency but that, like the 'fourth arm of defence' nonsense, is common knowledge.) Ditto with Adams' Age of Appeasement, which also goes into detail on the diplomatic manoeuvring behind the Rhineland crisis. (For a more general overview of French attitudes towards appeasement, see Julian Jackson's great trilogy.) Tooze's Wages of Destruction is the source for naval spending. And, while I don't share the authors' more extreme conclusions, The Hitler-Chamberlain Collusion has some interesting insights on the entire topic of appeasement and rearmament

    Anything else?
    Could you post up a few sources for anything you suggest, or else just acknowledge its your own interpretation of high level political act
    Well that would be the difference between history and aircraft specifications
    Not really, because Germany were trying to catch up with the UK project naval power into the Atlantic - the really interesting question is what did the Germans spend it on? I don't remember too many German aircraft carriers becoming operational before or during the war?
    Had Hitler's original timeline for war in the 1940s materialised, and Plan Z met expectations, then Germany would have fielded a navy comparable to that of the Royal Navy, including four aircraft carriers and over 230 submarines (Ovary, The Dictators). The key problem with this ambition was time: as I said, "how lucky for Britain that it takes many years to build a navy"

    But that's not really relevant to that particular point, is it? The suggestion that Britain had to complete its rearmament in stages is contradicted by other nations (particularly Germany, the USSR and the USA) who managed to fund multiple branches of the armed forces simultaneously. As indeed, the UK did post-1937


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Reekwind wrote: »

    ......
    Had Hitler's original timeline for war in the 1940s materialised, and Plan Z met expectations, then Germany would have fielded a navy comparable to that of the Royal Navy, including four aircraft carriers and over 230 submarines (Ovary, The Dictators). The key problem with this ambition was time: as I said, "how lucky for Britain that it takes many years to build a navy"

    ........

    Well, to paraphrase Cunningham I'd say that while it takes three years to build a battleship, it takes centuries to build a navy..........something the Germans found out the hard way, despite their spending.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Well, to paraphrase Cunningham I'd say that while it takes three years to build a battleship, it takes centuries to build a navy..........something the Germans found out the hard way, despite their spending.
    Ehh... the Germans found out that they couldn't build a navy in three years (which they'd never planned to do so), not that there was a great gulf in tradition. Particularly not in the new field of aircraft carriers


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Reekwind wrote: »
    Ehh... the Germans found out that they couldn't build a navy in three years (which they'd never planned to do so), not that there was a great gulf in tradition. Particularly not in the new field of aircraft carriers

    Well, I think they built ships, whether they managed to fashion those ships into a fleet and a navy to project power is wide open to debate. They were never really blue-water capable in a sustainable way.

    They had some success operating it as a fleet-in-being, and the u-boats were undeniably successful in the sea denial role, and for a while were close to imposing an effective blockade.

    The German naval budget is probably an excellent example of money spent in the wrong way on the wrong things at the wrong time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53 ✭✭Ozymandiaz


    If Britain didn't have a German royal family, a navy and an Empire the Germans wouldn't have felt the need to engage in an arms race to catch up. It's all Britian's fault. They set the bar and the rules and challenged all-comers. The Germans, like the French, just gave it a go. Who could blame them? Any country with even a half decent sense of pride and self-worth would do the same.

    God help the world if Ireland finds fabulous quantities of natural resources of unimaginable wealth. We'll still continue to export our people to the four corners of the world but this time we'll be able to build a navy and air force to dominate it and dictate what's what! I'll be the first in the queue to put on the green jersey, wave the tricolor and sing Amhrán na bhFiann. It'll be the Irish way or no way. Verstehen Sie? ... eh, sorry, a' dtuigeann tú?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53 ✭✭Ozymandiaz


    Just wondering what the general consensus is with regard to Enda Kenny laying a wreath at the WW1 memorial today. Personally, I think it's long overdue,and I'm happy we as a nation have finally acknowledged the Irish men who fought in the Great War. My maternal Grandfather fought for the British at the Somme, my paternal grandparents met while fighting the British in the war of Independence, I have never honoured one over the other.
    I'd be similar to you in terms of my own family but it is not overdue. There were historical reasons why it has not happened before. Time passes, circumstances change, people reassess. I have a granduncle who fought in the Munster Fusiliers and was never right psychologically after the war. But most of those who died for freedom and democracy in WWI never qualified to vote in their own country and were most likely to have lived a relatively poor life had they survived the war.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Well, I think they built ships, whether they managed to fashion those ships into a fleet and a navy to project power is wide open to debate. They were never really blue-water capable in a sustainable way
    That would be because the German surface fleet was a fraction of the size of the 1939 Royal Navy or even the 1914 Imperial German Navy. The sheer amount of time needed to construct a navy meant that, unlike the Luftwaffe or Wehrmacht, the Kreigsmarine could not have recovered from the restrictions of Versailles before the mid-1940s

    So, no. They didn't build the ships. That was the purpose of the rearmament programme, which was curtailed once the early outbreak of war made clear that there would not be the time to complete it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    I would have been okay with it if it wasn't for the poppy wreath laid down beside it. World war one show never be glorified it should be denounced for the imperialist slaughter it was, which current commemorations do not do, rather they attempt to glorify the memory of a pointless war

    Solemn remembrance (not glorification) of WWI in this country has always involved poppies, and those of us who do remember WWI & WWII Irish war dead have always worn the poppy. I might also add that after WWI it was always the poppy that symbolised those who died on the poppy fields of flanders, and not laurel leaves. Admittedly this 'new fangled' laurel wreath is a step in the right direction, but for it not to contain poppies is not really hitting the mark as far as I and my family are concerned. Well done Enda, but a proper poppy wreath would be preferable next year.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,971 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Solemn remembrance (not glorification) of WWI in this country has always involved poppies, and those of us who do remember WWI & WWII Irish war dead have always worn the poppy. I might also add that after WWI it was always the poppy that symbolised those who died on the poppy fields of flanders, and not laurel leaves. Admittedly this 'new fangled' laurel wreath is a step in the right direction, but for it not to contain poppies is not really hitting the mark as far as I and my family are concerned. Well done Enda, but a proper poppy wreath would be preferable next year.

    the poppy is a british thing I prefer the white poppy as it does not commemorate one side it commemorates all the victims of that pointless imperialist war


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    my grandfather fought in the first world war he was well looked after by the british legion for the rest of his life


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Just wondering what the general consensus is with regard to Enda Kenny laying a wreath at the WW1 memorial today. .


    There isn't one. Nor should there be.

    The idea that there is one right and one, or perhaps several, wrong way or ways of regarding the First World War is wrong headed on so many levels.

    There were so many facets to the First World War, so many different agendas and sub plots that is is impossible to deploy a "single unifying theory" as to who was right and who was wrong. Therefore a "consensus" is not possible.

    Were the Serbians right to bankroll and support morally a bunch of deranged terrorists to destabilize a neighboring state?

    Were the Austrians right to engage in a "war on terror" and demand that all right thinking people in Europe were duty bound to support them?

    Were the Russians right to use the Austrian punitive attack on Serbia as a pretext to further their own expansionist ambitions?

    Were the British right to provoke Turkey into a war between their two countries (for the first time since the Crusades!!!) so they could get their hands on the oil wells of Arabia, or at least share them with the French?

    Were the Germans right to attempt to provoke a civil war in Ireland just to weaken Britain by happily providing arms to BOTH sides in the Home Rule controversy?

    And from a purely Irish point of view just look at how divided the country was in 1914; not just between Orange and Green but between the different shades of green on the Nationalist side. To join up or not? The Irish volunteers split very firmly on that issue. Whom do we regard with approval and whom with disdain? Is it possible to do neither or both?

    Forget consensus. We're facing into a year of bitter arguments. Can't wait:P:P:P

    And lest we think that this is a purely Irish thing ("When a group of Irishmen meet for a discussion the first item on the agenda is the split") I am warmed to learn that the British have started to beat themselves up about what is the right way to regard the First World War.


    You go, Baldrick!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Hownowcow


    My family too has a mixed history with regard to the sides they took in wars in this country and abroad.

    One family member lies in a grave in Belgium and I will go there next year on the one hundredth anniversary of his death. I will go there out of respect for him as a relative. I have no idea why he joined the British army although I suspect that it had more to do with financial necessity rather than any highfalutin political ideas.

    I don't like the idea of Enda Kenny having anything to do with my relative. I also don't like other political figures having anything to do with other dead relatives of mine. This is a personal opinion; other members of my family may disagree with me.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    There isn't one. Nor should there be.

    The idea that there is one right and one, or perhaps several, wrong way or ways of regarding the First World War is wrong headed on so many levels.

    There were so many facets to the First World War, so many different agendas and sub plots that is is impossible to deploy a "single unifying theory" as to who was right and who was wrong. Therefore a "consensus" is not possible.
    I think there's one cardinal error that people make on WWI but that's not it. The problem is not consensus, it's phrasing the question to determine "who was right and who was wrong"

    Obviously, examining the conflict in that way is bound to be divisive. When you start with an 'A or B' question then you'll generally get an 'A or B' answer. The causes of WWI should not be approached in the spirit of casting blame because, aside from being useless, that is exactly what generates pointless "bitter arguments"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    It should also be remembered that in the British part of the UK, we had conscription, as did the other belligerents.

    Whatever the reasons for the war, the vast majority of those battering each other to death in the trenches had no choice.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    no conscription in Australia or South Africa during WW1. Australians were asked to vote on the issue twice and voted No both times. In England, Scotland and Wales, conscription was brought in early in 1916 (and used to enlist a couple of Easter Rising rebels from Frongoch); Canada brought in conscription in late 1917 with lots of political fallout. With exemptions and riots only about 25000 Canadian conscripts went to a theatre of war.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement