Page 30 of 81

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:54 am
by DuncaninFrance
Niner wrote:Sister ship to the Titanic had been turned into a hospital ship. It hit a mind with a load of wounded and sick. Amazing enough, after staying afloat for something less than a full hour the actual loss of life was actually less than the newspaper story. The loss in drowned was 30.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... d-1/seq-1/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic Cause of sinking is attributed to a mine.

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:55 am
by Niner
Lloyd George isn't having any easy German peace. And everybody needs to get into the war on the home front for their own good and the good of the country he says.
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... d-1/seq-8/

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:09 pm
by Niner
Wilson sent all major warring parties a note. Basically stating that he thinks the fighting should end and that he would like to know what each side wants to stop the fighting. He didn't take sides with the earlier German statement of wanting peace.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... d-1/seq-1/

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:22 pm
by Niner
Kaiser seems willing to give Wilson his view on what a peace treaty should look like. The British and French say...no way. We are going to crush Germany for starting the war and give them the licking they deserve.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... d-1/seq-1/

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:16 pm
by DuncaninFrance
"Kaiser seems willing to give Wilson his view on what a peace treaty should look like. The British and French say...no way. We are going to crush Germany for starting the war and give them the licking they deserve. "
And I believe they were right to do so.......The only problem with the final outcome of WWI ( and no one could see it at the time in 1919 ) was to apply too draconian reparations but the US was a party to that as well.

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:50 pm
by Niner
It seems to me the US had already taken a side.Wilson's seeming interest in peace making was a limp wristed gesture at best. Big US banks had loaned serious money to the allies and not the axis. Big business was making war weapons and material for the Allies, and not the Axis, and making big dollars doing it. All US pretense of neutrality was just that....except for not participating in the fighting. On April 6, 1917...less than four months after Wilson's note to the warring nations... the US joined the allies against the axis. Hardly the move of a man with a one track mind to be the peace maker.

Wilson was an idealist no doubt and played the reluctant warrior...as opposed to Teddy Roosevelt who was the premier warhawk of his day and had urged the US to get actively involved from the get go. After the war, Wilson, true to his high minded self image, was the one who pushed for the League of Nations to settle disputes and prevent future wars. We know how that turned out. It was as useless after WW I as the United Nations has been after WWII.

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:37 pm
by DuncaninFrance
I brows YouTube regularly and I enjoy watching the old wartime documentaries. This one in particular is a little gem and could well explain the conflicts of the 20C!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2vLZqU_kIQ

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:18 am
by Niner
Headline on December 26, 1916. The Kaiser suggests a meeting of the belligerent nations at a neutral site to discuss a peace settlement.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... d-1/seq-1/

Meanwhile in the Tacoma Times there is not rejoicing at the prospect of a peace settlement. A sober analysis states what's wrong with the seemingly hopeful proposal.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... d-1/seq-1/

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:25 pm
by Niner
General Haig gilds the lily. A great victory. Just one problem... the Germans were still in place and their line hadn't been broken. Merely a temporary problem caused by weather it seems.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/ ... d-1/seq-7/

Re: THE FIRST WORLD WAR THREAD.

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:16 pm
by DuncaninFrance
All be it in hindsight BUT the battle was a success. It took pressure away from the battle for Verdun which it was supposed to do AND it bled the Germans of much needed equipment and manpower thus weakening their situation for the future.
I strongly recommend that anyone who has an interest in this period read a book by William Philpott called BLOODY VICTORY. The Sacrifice on the Somme and the making of the 20th Century . ISBN 978-1-4087-0108-9 It is 629 pages long and is well worth then read..............