WW1 100 years ago

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

Does Derek believe that treaties signed between sovereign, democratic nations are not worth the paper they are written on?

Ahem! The Stability and Growth pact?

[Eric Mc]

fblm said:

Eric Mc said:

Does Derek believe that treaties signed between sovereign, democratic nations are not worth the paper they are written on?

Ahem! The Stability and Growth pact?

As I said - some are, some aren't.

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

Does Derek believe that treaties signed between sovereign, democratic nations are not worth the paper they are written on?

Read your history books, especially those from the 1832 First Reform Act et seq. Then talk about democracy. We were not, by any stretch of the imagination, a democratic nation. The suggestion is ludicrous. We had lords running the country, having the major influence. I'm surprised, given the amount to write about Ireland, that you don't realise that this was the major part of the Irish problem. The plebs in Ireland were treated the same as the plebs in the rast of the UK.

So I'll tell you what I believe: the UK was ruled by an unelected, self-appointed ologarchy. It had nothing to do with the rest of us. So if some bloke, say perhaps prime ministers such as the Earl of Liverpool, or the Duke of Wellington, both unelected of course, want to sign a bit of paper binding everyone in the UK to everlasting commitment, then they should ask first.

If, on the other had, they give no thought to our needs, then, quid pro quo and all that, we can tell them where they can stuff their bits of paper.

So democratic: we have obligations. Oligarchy: tough.

[Eric Mc]

At what point in UK history do these international treaties start to become valid?

Is there a cut off point?

And if so, when was it?

Maybe Ireland was right to stay neutral in WW2.

[PlankWithANailIn]

What exactly could Ireland have contribute to the war? they were unbelievably poor with a tiny population. Their citizens could fight if they wanted to but under the Union flag and many of them did.

WW2 is interesting in that the UK actually lost the war in June 1940...as in a war that could be fought and won with a balanced budget. The choice was make peace or Winston C who took us to total war and total bankruptcy and totally not sure we could win.. all of which the US saved us from...and Winston C was the correct choice.

[Fittster]

PlankWithANailIn said:

What exactly could Ireland have contribute to the war? they were unbelievably poor with a tiny population. Their citizens could fight if they wanted to but under the Union flag and many of them did.

WW2 is interesting in that the UK actually lost the war in June 1940...as in a war that could be fought and won with a balanced budget. The choice was make peace or Winston C who took us to total war and total bankruptcy and totally not sure we could win.. all of which the US saved us from...and Winston C was the correct choice.

So no credit for the Russians then.

[cardigankid]

Halmyre said:

Time to end the disastrous democratic experiment.

Yeah sure.

The syphilis crazed Kaiser started it because he had far too much power. The syphilis crazed aristos in Britain opposed him because they had too much to lose. Everyone in Britain and the Colonies took part because they trusted authority.

Today nobody in their right mind trusts authority, and if they want to have another war now, against Russia for example, DC, Nick, David (Bill & Ben) Miliband, Boris and the rest can draw their rifles and get on with it. No-one in my family is EVER going to fight it out for the benefit of a bunch of chinless pricks.

[cardigankid]

Super Slo Mo said:

After the event last night we went to a bar in Mons that was lit purely by candlelight. They're making quite a big deal of it over the whole town, it looks like there's something planned for the 23rd, which offhand I think was the original date of the big battle of Mons. Certainly lots of the graves in the cemetery have that date inscribed on them.

I'm thinking I might do a tour of the WW1 sites later in the year, it's sparked a bit of curiosity in me.

23rd August, Mons. 24th August Audregnies. 26th August, Le Cateau. 29th August Moncel. Get a hold of a book called 'The Mons Star' and go up to the Mons-Conde canal which was the original line on which the Brits faced the Germans.

Curiously the first and the last casualties of the First World War died within a couple of miles of each other, in this area.

Edited by cardigankid on Tuesday 5th August 21:14

[anonymous-user]

cardigankid said:

Today nobody in their right mind trusts authority, and if they want to have another war now, against Russia for example, DC, Nick, David (Bill & Ben) Miliband, Boris and the rest can draw their rifles and get on with it. No-one in my family is EVER going to fight it out for the benefit of a bunch of chinless pricks.

My Dad was in the Army for over 25 years and he said exactly* the same to me when I was at school. He would have said 'chinless pricks' for sure too! *substitute John Major and Neil Kinnock!

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

At what point in UK history do these international treaties start to become valid?

Is there a cut off point?

And if so, when was it?

Maybe Ireland was right to stay neutral in WW2.

A treaty, such as one which says if you are invaded we will declare war on the invader, is only of use if it is useful. NATO is useful.

Look at the various treaties we had over the years and you will note that many were there not as an act of friendship but more of shared interest at that time. Japan was on the allies side during WWI and on t'other in WWII.

Further, someone went back to 1829 I believe. And what was our relationship with France like then? Then ask yourself why we had a treaty with Belgium. If the threat goes do we need to keep to the treaty?

Whether Eire (rather than Ireland of course) was right to stay neutral illustrates the point. I assume you mean whether it benefited them in any way.

Should we perhaps compare the post war performances of the countries that did fight with those which did not? Ireland became something of a backwater, then moved on to be the Celtic Tiger and then had to go, pussycat style, with big eyes, to the IMF. Yet at the end of WWII the UK was bankrupt. Not like now where we are poor, but totally bankrupt. A friend of mine's father was a civil servant whose job it was to create a plan to put children into the fields in 1947/1948 to cut the costs of food imports.

I'm not sure why you should think that treaties should be set in stone. They are all open to interpretation, are all written in flowery language, and in the main promise nothing. Just like all good treaties. They are, after all, political. When the government that signed it is kicked out, then the next should either re-ratify them or else tell the other country that we want to renegotiate. Isn't that, after all, what Cameron wants to do with the EU treaty? Many people on here seem happy with that.

Our government must do what's best for the UK. If a treaty says we must sacrifice a few hundred thousand of the flower of our youth because of a chat between two politicians some years ago, then I say stuff the treaty. We must look after the UK.

Treaties come and treaties go. They should be viewed as a short term loan. Support with a period limitations.

You ask if Eire should have stayed neutral. I'd suggest their government should have decided on what was best for Eire. Whether they were right or wrong is a moot point but from a 'benefit' point of view, it is for them to decide. The stance seemed to affect its international relationships for some time.

I know some were a bit resentful that they received Marshall Aid. I remember a family chat where the money going (gone by then) to Germany and Italy was felt to be an inspired act by the USA, and bewilderment as to why Eire got its snout in the trough.

A strange point of view, although not fully supported by the hail mary side of the family, but the blokes felt that neutral meant you get neither the problems of fighting nor the benefits of victory.

Whilst the reparations of WWI may or may not have been the cause of the financial collapse of Germany, there must be little doubt that the USA saved the peace.

[shoestring7]

Fittster said:

PlankWithANailIn said:

What exactly could Ireland have contribute to the war? they were unbelievably poor with a tiny population. Their citizens could fight if they wanted to but under the Union flag and many of them did.

WW2 is interesting in that the UK actually lost the war in June 1940...as in a war that could be fought and won with a balanced budget. The choice was make peace or Winston C who took us to total war and total bankruptcy and totally not sure we could win.. all of which the US saved us from...and Winston C was the correct choice.

So no credit for the Russians then.

Is this the same Russia that was allied to Nazi Germany in June 1940?

SS7

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

Japan was on the allies side during WWI and on t'other in WWII.

One thing I have never understood is what the hell were they thinking with Pearl Harbor? Now obviously they wern't expecting to be nuked but how exactly did they imagine it was going to end? I appreciate it may be a vast question but a) you like long answers and b) feel free to recommend a book!

[Halmyre]

fblm said:

Derek Smith said:

Japan was on the allies side during WWI and on t'other in WWII.

One thing I have never understood is what the hell were they thinking with Pearl Harbor? Now obviously they wern't expecting to be nuked but how exactly did they imagine it was going to end? I appreciate it may be a vast question but a) you like long answers and b) feel free to recommend a book!

They were unlucky in that the carriers were somewhere else at the time, against expectations.

[Trophybloo]

fblm said:

One thing I have never understood is what the hell were they thinking with Pearl Harbor? Now obviously they wern't expecting to be nuked but how exactly did they imagine it was going to end? I appreciate it may be a vast question but a) you like long answers and b) feel free to recommend a book!

From a general history article:
Toward the end of 1941. With the Soviets seemingly on the verge of defeat by the Axis powers, Japan seized the opportunity to try to take the oil resources of Southeast Asia. The U.S. wanted to stop Japanese expansion but the American people were not willing to go to war to stop it. The U.S. demanded that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, but would have settled for a token withdrawal and a promise not to take more territory.

Prior to December 1941, Japan pursued two simultaneous courses: try to get the oil embargo lifted on terms that would still let them take the territory they wanted, and ... to prepare for war.

After becoming Japan's premier in mid-October, General Tojo Hideki secretly set November 29 as the last day on which Japan would accept a settlement without war.

The Japanese military was asked to devise a war plan. They proposed to sweep into Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, and the Philippines, in addition to establishing a defensive perimeter in the central and southwest Pacific. They expected the U.S. to declare war but not to be willing to fight long or hard enough to win. Their greatest concern was that the U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor could foil their plans. As insurance, the Japanese navy undertook to cripple the Pacific Fleet by a surprise air attack.

..... So basically they mis-calculated owing to their Bushido belief in American lack of stomach for a fight

[aeropilot]

fblm said:

Derek Smith said:

Japan was on the allies side during WWI and on t'other in WWII.

One thing I have never understood is what the hell were they thinking with Pearl Harbor?

They saw what the RN did to the Italian fleet at Taranto, and thought they could do the same. Their attack plan for PH was modelled on what we did at Taranto.

Their intelligence was poor though, as said above, not getting the US carriers was their downfall.

But, otherwise, yes, drawing the USA into a war that they had largely already won in the Far East was arrogant stupidity.

[Negative Creep]

Halmyre said:

fblm said:

Derek Smith said:

Japan was on the allies side during WWI and on t'other in WWII.

One thing I have never understood is what the hell were they thinking with Pearl Harbor? Now obviously they wern't expecting to be nuked but how exactly did they imagine it was going to end? I appreciate it may be a vast question but a) you like long answers and b) feel free to recommend a book!

They were unlucky in that the carriers were somewhere else at the time, against expectations.

And unwise in not launching a third wave to hit the fuel stores

[Halmyre]

aeropilot said:

fblm said:

Derek Smith said:

Japan was on the allies side during WWI and on t'other in WWII.

One thing I have never understood is what the hell were they thinking with Pearl Harbor?

They saw what the RN did to the Italian fleet at Taranto, and thought they could do the same. Their attack plan for PH was modelled on what we did at Taranto.

Their intelligence was poor though, as said above, not getting the US carriers was their downfall.

But, otherwise, yes, drawing the USA into a war that they had largely already won in the Far East was arrogant stupidity.

Looking at the list of ships lost at Pearl Harbor, at least half were back in service within six months, and all but three by mid-1944.

[anonymous-user]

Trophybloo said:

..... So basically they mis-calculated owing to their Bushido belief in American lack of stomach for a fight

With hindsight and having only lived in an era of, lets call it, robust US foreign policy, that's just astonishing. Thanks

[Eric Mc]

America was very isolationist in the 1930s. President Roosevelt was re-elected for his second term of office in 1936 partly because he had promised to keep America out of foreign wars.

[onyx39]

Eric Mc said:

America was very isolationist in the 1930s. President Roosevelt was re-elected for his second term of office in 1936 partly because he had promised to keep America out of foreign wars.

That went well.