Post: #151

(08-07-2014 04:09 PM)DChambers Wrote:  You said, "Economical migrants who moved somewhere under invitation from a sovereign of that place do not consist an ethnic territory. "

Once more, irrelevant. Your original statement simply stated that "Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria."

Please study German census in Russia and figure out they didn't compose neither 1% of population.

Quote:Second, I find it incredibly difficult to see how you could come to the conclusion that Hitler went to war in 1939 for the same reasons as the Germans went to war in 1914. The underlying motives were entirely different. The German's in 1914 cobbled together a list of war aims after the war commenced. These aims were mainly concerned with German dominance in regards to trade, and the creation of new buffer states along the eastern frontier.

Duh, by using historical facts. Hitler openly stated that he wanted to:

1. Avenge defeat in WW I
2. To reclaim territories gained in Brest-Litovsk agreement, also in WW I
3. To destroy Anglo-Saxon colonial world order and replace it with German hegemony

If that's not copy-paste WW I war goals (excluding race theories and other bunch of mythological crap), then i don't know what is.

He did exactly and precisely what Versailles was supposed to prevent.

Quote:In World War 2 Hitler desired to create a new world order based around Fascism and the superiority of the Aryan/Anglo/Teutonic races.

Yes, hence his war goal was drag nacht osten, just as it was in WW I, bundled with dismantling the western colonial powers, also seen in WW I.

Quote:Herein lies the problem. A good study of the War shows that Germany is not responsible for WW1

Of course they were, the only difference is - they were defeated. They had choice, you can't argue that.

Quote:, no more than the other powers, less than some. Thus the draconian terms that were placed upon them were not moral.

Compared to damage Germans inflicted to neutral nations, of course it was moral.

Quote: I have no problem with the terms given in WW2, but the situation at the end of the two wars were radically different. In the 1st, you had a Germany that was beaten, but not broken. In the 2nd you had a Germany who was fully occupied by the Allies and the Soviets, with a decimated armed forces.

Of course Germany was broken in WW I, why else would they surrender. Germans don't exactly surrender when they are not beaten on all fronts. Besides, you forgot to calculate what they did very well - war was not fought on their soil at all.

Quote:What did the hard peace of WW2 bring us though? A Cold War, where the Americans and Soviets watched each other from amongst the ruins of Europe. Where the threat of Nuclear annihilation hung over the world. A foreign policy of interventionism that has made the United States a pariah among the nations of the world.

Peace agreement had nothing to do with cold war. In fact ,original peace agreement was supposed to be even more harsh - complete disassembling of united German state. Which happened only partially by coincidence, since Soviets pressed for Eastern Germany.

Quote:And look at Europe today. Germany is the strongest nation on the continent. In spite of WW2.

Germany is economically strongest. Economy is not the sum.

Quote:No, your way of peace wrong, not on moral grounds, but on practical grounds. The strain of occupation is immense, politically and financially. Neither Britain, France, the U.S., or Russia were willing to expend that kind of blood and treasure in 1918. Even knowing this, they craft a peace in Versailles that is bound to be broken. That will set the stage for a new war. That is the part that I don't think you are getting.

It's easy to talk about practicality from Washington where not a single house was destroyed in either war. It's a bit more difficult topic for someone living in Minsk. You know, the guy who lives in Minsk, doesn't want 3rd in a row complete annihilation of his country, economy, family, nation, everything, because someone in Germany was "partially responsible" for war abroad.

Quote:Even if the Allies were willing to enforce Versailles, they would still need to go to war to do so.

How come when German army and navy was completely reduced, along with arms industry. It was Allies decision to let Germans rearm that made WW II possible, along with allowing Germans to occupy further state, including Austria and Czechoslovakia. Now that's reasonable.

Quote: If however a peace was given that was not so hard for Germany to swallow, then war is unlikely to occur. So which is preferable, a greedy peace that you will likely have to spend the next few decades enforcing after which you will still probably have to go to war, or a peace that leaves the defeated adversary their pride and you can get on with the work of nations.

Peace that you have to enforce of course, why else was WW I fought, for fun and pat on the back, chill brother no big deal ?

Quote:Another factor to consider. A disarmed Germany would likely quickly have been swallowed up by the Soviets as they began their expansion in the 1940's. The 2nd world war might well have been fought on the Fields of France between the Allies and the Red Menace.

Soviets could never even capture Finland and Poland if there was no Hitler, let alone advance to Germany.

Quote:We are in fact seeing a result of the peace of WW2 today. A comparatively disarmed Germany and Europe can do little to effectively halt Russia.

Europe is armed to teeth. New generation fighters, nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, missile shields, much larger troops and reserve force than Russia, young population etc...

Quote:The once mighty Empires of the old world can barley field a proper combat division, let alone field armies.

Pls use Google. Every major power in Europe can field couple of armies without any difficulties. And not any army, but equipped by last miracles of technology.

Quote:With the influence of the United States shrinking, who knows what will happen in Europe. Because they were occupied and guarded, and not allowed to rearm.

Brother, 3 European nations, Germany, France and UK combined have larger military expediture than Russia. Not to take into account other EU nations. 3 of them are in top 10 nations by military expeditures. Italy is on 11th place. As i said, Europe is armed to teeth and very capable. Bundled with USA, they surpass Russia in virtually every field by more than 10 times. Use google instead of reading media propaganda about huge Russian empire threatening tiny paradisiac innocent Europe.

Post: #152

(08-07-2014 01:04 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Has anyone read Adam Hochschild's To End All Wars? Pretty interesting. His main argument is that the war was not inevitable, as is believed among mainstream historians. There was a large anti-war movement, primarily in the UK.

Yeah, I read it a few years ago. Good book, but I believe he focuses more on the UK than anything else. The UK kind of gets dragged into the war kicking and screaming vs. actually wanting to be involved.

Post: #153

(08-07-2014 05:46 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 04:09 PM)DChambers Wrote:  You said, "Economical migrants who moved somewhere under invitation from a sovereign of that place do not consist an ethnic territory. "

Once more, irrelevant. Your original statement simply stated that "Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria."

Please study German census in Russia and figure out they didn't compose neither 1% of population.

Quote:Second, I find it incredibly difficult to see how you could come to the conclusion that Hitler went to war in 1939 for the same reasons as the Germans went to war in 1914. The underlying motives were entirely different. The German's in 1914 cobbled together a list of war aims after the war commenced. These aims were mainly concerned with German dominance in regards to trade, and the creation of new buffer states along the eastern frontier.

Duh, by using historical facts. Hitler openly stated that he wanted to:

1. Avenge defeat in WW I
2. To reclaim territories gained in Brest-Litovsk agreement, also in WW I
3. To destroy Anglo-Saxon colonial world order and replace it with German hegemony

If that's not copy-paste WW I war goals (excluding race theories and other bunch of mythological crap), then i don't know what is.

He did exactly and precisely what Versailles was supposed to prevent.

Quote:In World War 2 Hitler desired to create a new world order based around Fascism and the superiority of the Aryan/Anglo/Teutonic races.

Yes, hence his war goal was drag nacht osten, just as it was in WW I, bundled with dismantling the western colonial powers, also seen in WW I.

Quote:Herein lies the problem. A good study of the War shows that Germany is not responsible for WW1

Of course they were, the only difference is - they were defeated. They had choice, you can't argue that.

Quote:, no more than the other powers, less than some. Thus the draconian terms that were placed upon them were not moral.

Compared to damage Germans inflicted to neutral nations, of course it was moral.

Quote: I have no problem with the terms given in WW2, but the situation at the end of the two wars were radically different. In the 1st, you had a Germany that was beaten, but not broken. In the 2nd you had a Germany who was fully occupied by the Allies and the Soviets, with a decimated armed forces.

Of course Germany was broken in WW I, why else would they surrender. Germans don't exactly surrender when they are not beaten on all fronts. Besides, you forgot to calculate what they did very well - war was not fought on their soil at all.

Quote:What did the hard peace of WW2 bring us though? A Cold War, where the Americans and Soviets watched each other from amongst the ruins of Europe. Where the threat of Nuclear annihilation hung over the world. A foreign policy of interventionism that has made the United States a pariah among the nations of the world.

Peace agreement had nothing to do with cold war. In fact ,original peace agreement was supposed to be even more harsh - complete disassembling of united German state. Which happened only partially by coincidence, since Soviets pressed for Eastern Germany.

Quote:And look at Europe today. Germany is the strongest nation on the continent. In spite of WW2.

Germany is economically strongest. Economy is not the sum.

Quote:No, your way of peace wrong, not on moral grounds, but on practical grounds. The strain of occupation is immense, politically and financially. Neither Britain, France, the U.S., or Russia were willing to expend that kind of blood and treasure in 1918. Even knowing this, they craft a peace in Versailles that is bound to be broken. That will set the stage for a new war. That is the part that I don't think you are getting.

It's easy to talk about practicality from Washington where not a single house was destroyed in either war. It's a bit more difficult topic for someone living in Minsk. You know, the guy who lives in Minsk, doesn't want 3rd in a row complete annihilation of his country, economy, family, nation, everything, because someone in Germany was "partially responsible" for war abroad.

Quote:Even if the Allies were willing to enforce Versailles, they would still need to go to war to do so.

How come when German army and navy was completely reduced, along with arms industry. It was Allies decision to let Germans rearm that made WW II possible, along with allowing Germans to occupy further state, including Austria and Czechoslovakia. Now that's reasonable.

Quote: If however a peace was given that was not so hard for Germany to swallow, then war is unlikely to occur. So which is preferable, a greedy peace that you will likely have to spend the next few decades enforcing after which you will still probably have to go to war, or a peace that leaves the defeated adversary their pride and you can get on with the work of nations.

Peace that you have to enforce of course, why else was WW I fought, for fun and pat on the back, chill brother no big deal ?

Quote:Another factor to consider. A disarmed Germany would likely quickly have been swallowed up by the Soviets as they began their expansion in the 1940's. The 2nd world war might well have been fought on the Fields of France between the Allies and the Red Menace.

Soviets could never even capture Finland and Poland if there was no Hitler, let alone advance to Germany.

Quote:We are in fact seeing a result of the peace of WW2 today. A comparatively disarmed Germany and Europe can do little to effectively halt Russia.

Europe is armed to teeth. New generation fighters, nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, missile shields, much larger troops and reserve force than Russia, young population etc...

Quote:The once mighty Empires of the old world can barley field a proper combat division, let alone field armies.

Pls use Google. Every major power in Europe can field couple of armies without any difficulties. And not any army, but equipped by last miracles of technology.

Quote:With the influence of the United States shrinking, who knows what will happen in Europe. Because they were occupied and guarded, and not allowed to rearm.

Brother, 3 European nations, Germany, France and UK combined have larger military expediture than Russia. Not to take into account other EU nations. 3 of them are in top 10 nations by military expeditures. Italy is on 11th place. As i said, Europe is armed to teeth and very capable. Bundled with USA, they surpass Russia in virtually every field by more than 10 times. Use google instead of reading media propaganda about huge Russian empire threatening tiny paradisiac innocent Europe.

I can't believe I'm getting sucked back into this, but Military matters are one of my intrests.

First, some of your assertions are simply wrong/misleading. Such as "Brother, 3 European nations, Germany, France and UK combined have larger military expediture than Russia. Not to take into account other EU nations. 3 of them are in top 10 nations by military expeditures. Italy is on 11th place. As i said, Europe is armed to teeth and very capable. Bundled with USA, they surpass Russia in virtually every field by more than 10 times. Use google instead of reading media propaganda about huge Russian empire threatening tiny paradisiac innocent Europe."

Military expenditures aside, which mean little in this case, Russia has 760,000 men on active duty, and has another 2.5 million in reserve.

The other nations on your list have the following:

Britain: Active-205,000 men Reserves-182,000 men

France: Active-282,000 men Reserves-195,000 men

Germany: Active-185,000 men Reserves-145,000 men

It is not hard to see who is the big player on the block.

In addition, in terms of military hardware, armor, artillery, and aircraft, Russia outclasses all the other nations.

Here is a source site. http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-m..._id=Russia


Also you said,

"Which is obvious to anyone who realizes that Hitler copied WW I . Same goals, same strategy, same politics."

Then you say int he next post,

"1. Avenge defeat in WW I
2. To reclaim territories gained in Brest-Litovsk agreement, also in WW I
3. To destroy Anglo-Saxon colonial world order and replace it with German hegemony

If that's not copy-paste WW I war goals (excluding race theories and other bunch of mythological crap), then i don't know what is."

Your second statement disqualifies your first. That race/mythological crap [/i]is[i] something that was central to the war. The 2nd World Was not the same as the first, it was at its core something entirely different.

I feel the time has come to make a closing statement.

My views can be summed up as such.


WW1 was not caused exclusively by Germany. Germany was at no more fault than the other powers, less than some. The peace at Versailles was unwise, as it set the stage for WW2 by creating the conditions for the rising of an ultra-nationalist Germany and could not be enforced by the winning powers due to a lack of political will and military strength.

The most practical peace is not necessarily the one that hurts your opponent the most, but the one that can lead to a lasting peace and provides more security in the long run.


I would ask that if you respond to this post, please do not use terms of familiarity such as "brother," nothing particularly against you, but I do not care to be so familiar with people I do not know to any great extent.

Post: #154

(08-07-2014 08:17 PM)DChambers Wrote:  Military expenditures aside

lol ?

Quote:The other nations on your list have the following:

Britain: Active-205,000 men Reserves-182,000 men

France: Active-282,000 men Reserves-195,000 men

Germany: Active-185,000 men Reserves-145,000 men

Yes, and since an army composes roughly around 100.000 men, that's plenty divisions over there.

Quote:It is not hard to see who is the big player on the block.

Yes, if we conveniently forget that they are not the only nations in Europe, and if we conveniently forget they are at least 20 states over there that are part of NATO - a unified military alliance formed to fight against Russia as it's primary goal. That reality taken into account - Russia is surpassed by large margin.

Quote:In addition, in terms of military hardware, armor, artillery, and aircraft, Russia outclasses all the other nations.

Russia outclasses Europe only in terms of Submarines and Strategic bombers. The rest is pretty much even, with Europe having wide range of sophisticated tanks, such as Le Clerk and Leopard, aircraft, such as Eurofighter Typhoon or SAAB Gripen, ships, such as HMS Queen Elizabeth, Astute class submarine, or newest German Type 212, the stealthiest submarine the world.

Quote:Your second statement disqualifies your first. That race/mythological crap [/i]is[i] something that was central to the war. The 2nd World Was not the same as the first, it was at its core something entirely different.

Creating superior race is not war goal. Capturing that territory, that city, that country, that's a war goal. The rest is ideological garbage that fuels those war goals. In terms of Hitler's openly stated war goals, as wel as rhetoric he used to call his citizens to arms, WW I had a pivotal place. He complained as much about Versailles, as much as he complained about territories taken from Germany, including those from Brest-Litovsk treaty.

Quote:WW1 was not caused exclusively by Germany. Germany was at no more fault than the other powers, less than some. The peace at Versailles was unwise, as it set the stage for WW2 by creating the conditions for the rising of an ultra-nationalist Germany and could not be enforced by the winning powers due to a lack of political will and military strength.

I'm not even debating exclusivity. I'm debating whether Germany was obligated as a defeated side in a conflict that it sparked, to pay reparations for countries that it invaded. I repeat, conflict was not fought on Germany's territory, all the devastation was inflicted on French, Russian, Serbian, Romanian and Italian soil. To argue that Germany shouldn't have payed reparations for that is simply outrageous.

Also, i think that "lack of political" will is exactly what I'm arguing here from start. Yes, they lacked "political will" hence we had another world war. Good job, political will of the ever confused west. As for lack of military strength, that's simply ridiculous. France and UK came out of WW I as major global powers. If they couldn't have enforced peace upon disarmed and defeated enemy, then i don't know who could.

Quote:The most practical peace is not necessarily the one that hurts your opponent the most, but the one that can lead to a lasting peace and provides more security in the long run.

They "provided security" by giving Hitler free territories, instead of taking Hitler territories. As it is shown, being good towards Germans simply didn't work in bringing long standing peace.

Allies: Gave Hitler entire two countries: Austria and Czechoslovakia, which were both very rich and most developed European nations, industrialized and populous. They gave Hitler right to create a navy, and they gave him right to create a submarine fleet. They gave Hitler right to rearm, they gave him right to stop paying reparations.

And yet, Hitler went to war. You see how good will worked towards peace ? It didn't.

Quote:I would ask that if you respond to this post, please do not use terms of familiarity such as "brother," nothing particularly against you, but I do not care to be so familiar with people I do not know to any great extent.

Don't be childish.

Post: #155

^^

Post: #156

"Military Expenditures aside" are you kidding me????? Money spent on military and arms is precisely what is deterring war in today's age coupled with nuclear weapons. A united EU could easily take Russia without the U.S. and I think extremely highly of Russia. U.S. vs. Russia might be a different story but the entirety of Europe please. The numbers in the military forces mean shit to ballistic missiles. Infantry won't stop an army of tanks, attack vehicles, and helicopters as Russia would be lacking in those compared to the EU. Military expenditures would play a massive role. The EU is not a pushover they are only mediators between the U.S. and Russia as the U.S. has alienated quite a few countries and Russia has their natural gas.

Post: #157

Europe's biggest handicap is that they lack fuel without being supplied from outside, like US or Arab States, technically speaking, not taking into account political reality. However, Western Block has more oil than anybody nowadays.

Post: #158

(08-08-2014 10:07 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  "Military Expenditures aside" are you kidding me????? Money spent on military and arms is precisely what is deterring war in today's age coupled with nuclear weapons. A united EU could easily take Russia without the U.S. and I think extremely highly of Russia. U.S. vs. Russia might be a different story but the entirety of Europe please. The numbers in the military forces mean shit to ballistic missiles. Infantry won't stop an army of tanks, attack vehicles, and helicopters as Russia would be lacking in those compared to the EU. Military expenditures would play a massive role. The EU is not a pushover they are only mediators between the U.S. and Russia as the U.S. has alienated quite a few countries and Russia has their natural gas.

I never said anything about all of Europe, that was something Orion threw in there. Military expenditures aside was in reference to the fact that he was combining military expenditures of several countries in order to come out ahead of Russia.

Your talking about three different powers whose combined expenditures exceed Russia's but whose combined strength is still inferior by a large margin. Not to mention their divided nature geographically means that not all their strength would immediately come to bear in a conflict.

The three major powers of central and Western Europe, Britain, France, and Germany, have combined have about 1,200 tanks.

Russia has 15,500.....

Russian Armored Fighting Vehicles: 26,700
Russian Self Propelled Guns: 5,900
Russian Towed Artillery: 4,600
Russian Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 3,700
Aircraft of various means: 3,000

Albeit, while some of their systems are aging, they have been modernizing heavily and a great portion of their equipment is of good quality.

The combined Strength of Germany,Britain, and France:

AFVs: 1,700
Self Propelled Guns: about 6,500 (6,200 of which belong to Britain)
Towed Artillery: about 900 (most of which are French, Germany has none)
MLRSs : 380
Aircraft of various means: about 3000



In addition the ability of most NATO nations to project their power outside of their own boarder is severely limited. France had difficulty simply putting 2,000 French Foreign Legionnaires into Mali, they needed help with refueling their aircraft. The NATO bombing of Libya was halted in part because NATO forces had run out of ammunition. Logistically Russia can put far more boots on the ground than any NATO members.

Post: #159

Your calculations only work out if the EU is invading which it will never do as their diplomatic prowess is good enough to get what they want. In a defensive war expect quick European defense to push out any invader and strike back. It will take a feat comparable to Hannibal himself to defeat and maintain Europe.

Side note: you cannot talk Germany, Britain, and France without the whole of Europe as they are united.

Post: #160

^^

Completely wrong. European strategy is always to attack, since it cannot afford territorial depth wars. Primarily because it's industrial core is within reach of Russian bombers, and then, because defense means proracted war.

As for stats DC put up there, 70% of that armor is useless t-64, t-72 and similar crap. On the other hand, France alone has 400 Le Clerks which is last generation state of the art tank. Same for UK.

Russia has some 700 T-90's, which is up to date Russian tank. Everything else is either withdrawn from service, or will bee very soon. So those 3 powers easily surpass Russia in number of usable armor, you know, the one that can actually be operated and not blown away by rudimentary shoulder launched RPG.

Same for aircraft. Russia has only some 700-800 active and up to date fighter jets. Of those, some 100-200 are upgraded older planes, such as mig-31 and older versions of mig-29. Russia does plan to expand inventory, but that is a difficult project since new aircraft are in process of being tested and everything, so it will take some time before they can launch couple of hundred planes just like that. Not to mention pilots.

The only thing Russia has, and Europe does not, is strategic bombers. That role was left to US. However, note that Russian bomber fleet is shrinking and aging, and it's replacement is only a tertiary issue so far. Current bombers are maintained to operate nuclear triad.

Post: #161

This discussion baffles me.
Most of Russia's numbers are inflated by old cold war material that hasn't been serviced since for decades.
Their Typhoon fleet for example is a ghost of its past and can't be committed to active duty.

That Globalfirepower site cites no sources other than CIA and wikipedia (neither which cites numbers for available forces other than manpower). So its veracity is shaky at best.

Post: #162

As i previously told, story about a Russian giant on the frontier of tiny innocent paradise Europe is a media machinery that is there for a reason - to give significance and purpose to globalist military wing called NATO.

Post: #163

Well, I've completed my first post on my site about the war if anyone cares to read it:

World War I: Destroyer of Hope

We need to keep in mind that World War I not only created long political echoes, but cultural ones as well. It destroyed a belief in progress that lasted a century and it hasn't really recovered since.

The optimism of the century from 1815 to 1914 can I think, also be seen as partly responsible for the war. Since the wars of that time period in Europe tended to be short, everyone thought that the next war would be short also, and the belief in a somewhat rosy, optimistic war led many to flock to the colors. It explains in part, the rapid mobilization that was seen in 1914.

Most strikingly, you'll find that globalization was actually pretty far advanced in the period leading up to the war. There are many contemporary voices that believe the integration of the global economy is the primary deterrent to another major war ever happening, but there was an integrated global economy beforehand, and it did not stop World War I from breaking out.

Post: #164

Looks like this thread got derailed from World War I, but if anyone is interested Dan Carlin released "Blueprint for Armageddon IV' on Sunday. I listened to the first hour, this one is about Verdun. It is just as great as the others.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hh

Post: #165

(08-19-2014 05:53 AM)Nolecbo Wrote:  Looks like this thread got derailed from World War I, but if anyone is interested Dan Carlin released "Blueprint for Armageddon IV' on Sunday. I listened to the first hour, this one is about Verdun. It is just as great as the others.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hh

In the beginning of this podcast, Carlin talks about the White Feather Society, which is an interesting subject that is relevant both to WWI and the philosophy of the "manosphere". Absolutely horrible what some women and feminists of that time did to boys and young men.

Background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

Post: #166

Has this already been posted? Pretty brilliant. There's a WW2 version of it, too.

http://angusmcleod.deviantart.com/art/Wo...-128505446

Post: #167

Since it's still 2014, I'd use this thread to post another beautiful Serbian poem written to commemorate those Serbian soldiers died from sickness, starvation and freezing, that were burred at sea while retreating through Albania towards Greek island of Vido, near Corfu. The author himself survived exodus, but died shortly after writtin the poem

For original lyrics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plava_Grobnica

English translation

Hail to you, imperial galleys! Lower mighty rudders!
Walk with silent tread
I'm proudly officiating a sublime Requiem in the chill of the night
Upon these sacred waters.

There at the bottom, where seashells sleep tired from catch
And upon the dead algae peat falls,
Lay graves of the brave, lay brother to brother
Prometheuses of Hope, Apostles of Pain.

Do you not feel how the sea calms,
That it may not trouble their holy repose?
From the deep abyss peaceful slumber ebbs,
And tired flight of the shadow of the moon slowly walks.

This is a mysterious temple and a sad graveyard
With decaying carcasses, unfathomably real.
Silent as the night upon southern islands,
Dark as a conscience, cold and despairing.

Do you not feel from azure depths,
That piety grows atop spilled water
And the air fills with curious gentleness?
That great soul of the fallen roams

Hail to you, imperial galleys! Upon this tomb my brothers
Twist the trumpets in black.
Let your sentry, upright, chant the holy dirge
Here, where waves come to an embrace!

For the centuries will pass, like white foam
that crosses the sea and dies without a trace,
And a new and great age will come,
To create a splendid home upon this grave.

But this graveyard, where it is buried
the terrible mystery of the Epic,
The cradle will be the tale of the times,
Where the soul will seek out its Coryphaeus.

Buried are here once ancient garlands
And the passing joy of more than one generation,
That's why this cemetery lies in the shadow of waves
Between the bosom of the sea and the vault celestial.

Hail to you, imperial galleys! Extinguish the torches,
Let the oars come to a blustering rest,
And when the Requiem prayers are said, steal away into the dark night
inaudibly and with reverential awe.

I wish for the eternal silence to rule
and for the glorious dead to hear the noise of Battles,
And rejoice in our cries of victory, as we cast ourselves beneath
the wings of Glory upon the fields vermillion with blood.

For, there far away, battles sway
With the same blood that emanates from this resting-place:
Here above the eye of the resting lords,
There before the son's history is made.

That's why I seek peace, to officiate a Requiem
without words, without tears and quiet sighs,
Mingle with the odor of powder, the perfume of incense
As we hear resound the far noise of the cannon.

Hail to you, imperial galleys! In the name of a conscientious fast
Glide lightly upon these sacred waters.
A Requiem I'm officiating, one that heavens
have yet to see upon these sacred waters!

Post: #168

A UEFA tribute to the World War One truce featuring Sir Bobby Charlton, Philipp Lahm, Gareth Bale, Wayne Rooney and UEFA President Michel Platini among others.

Post: #169

(12-19-2014 06:53 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  A UEFA tribute to the World War One truce featuring Sir Bobby Charlton, Philipp Lahm, Gareth Bale, Wayne Rooney and UEFA President Michel Platini among others.

That gave me chills man.

Post: #170

I did a search for this but did not find anything so I hope this is not a repost.

There is a fantastic youtube series on The Great War where each week it follows along what is happening 100 years ago during WW I. I watched all of them and am totally impressed. Everyone should give it a watch.

There are about 40 videos so far with lots more to come.

Youtube channel...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUcyEsE...69RRVhRh4A

Post: #171

This commercial for a supermarket in the UK went viral recently. It has already been featured on the forum in various places.





It is the most powerful commercial there has been on UK TV. And it commemorates the xmas football match truce in WW1.

I was discussing this at work and came up with an interesting question.

You know the expression "All is fair in love and war"? Well - how about this.

Imagine a junior officer asked you whether or not you should switch the football for one with a ball with a bomb (and a timer) inside it.

The plan being that you would let the Germans keep the ball - and then 12 hours later, it would blow them up inside their trenches.

It would be a barbarous betrayal of the humanity and generosity that was shared a few hours earlier.

But - hey this is war - and not just a game.

Would you guys be in favour of that? How about - if you were sure that that doing so would ultimately save your life?

As evil an act as that would be. You could semi-justify by the fact that both sides decided to go back to killing each other. As opposed to leaving the battlefield and protesting against the war.

Post: #172

Somebody in that marketing department should get a raise.


Here is a video to give a bit more context to that advertisement.

Post: #173

^^The Christmas Truce is really interesting, not only for its touching human side, but how the soldiers did not walk off the field in protest of the war. It could have been done, I think.

That's part of another long echo of World War I that lingers to the present - the undermining of traditional Marxism and the origins of Cultural Marxism in Germany in the years after. Throughout the 19th century Marxists and associated movements had boldly predicted that there eventually would be a revolt of the workers against Capitalism.

If there were any time that revolt should have happened, it should have been then. The fact that it did not happen (with the exception of Russia, and that was in a far different form and place than Marx had predicted) ultimately undermined Marx's interpretations of capitalism. The Frankfurt School theorists began to ponder this and came to the conclusions that led cultural critiques, Critical Theory, etc. that we see is so nakedly influential today among the left.

Anyway, I found this video of World War I combat footage that I wanted to share:





The choice of music I think is very excellent. It not only shows the tragedy but the song at the beginning (and the footage) retains some of that 19th century optimism. You can hear it and see it on the smiling soldiers' faces.

And then it gets blown apart so quickly. It's a perfect little microcosm of what happened.

Post: #174

Apologies, I couldn't really find a great spot for my question. But I figure if you had interest in WW1 then you would have interest in WW2.

Anyone know of entertaining WW2 documentaries?

I watch shit on History channel, etc. But it is old clips with dull sleep commentary.

Anything that tells the story accurately but entertains at the same time?

There was some stuff on WW2 that entertained only because they had a lot of animated sequences.

Just looking for examples of entertaining documentary telling styles related to war topics.

Thanks!

Post: #175

(01-11-2015 11:33 AM)DirectDanger Wrote:  I did a search for this but did not find anything so I hope this is not a repost.

There is a fantastic youtube series on The Great War where each week it follows along what is happening 100 years ago during WW I. I watched all of them and am totally impressed. Everyone should give it a watch.

There are about 40 videos so far with lots more to come.

Youtube channel...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUcyEsE...69RRVhRh4A

Great Series!

WIA